All eyes are on the Supreme Court today as it considers Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, its first case on the use of race in college admissions since 2003. Back then a different group of justices ruled that diversity is such an important national interest that universities could continue to consider race as one of many factors when deciding who to admit. Now the lawsuit brought against UT by a rejected white applicant named Abigail Fisher challenges the right of all colleges to use race in a holistic process that fosters diverse student bodies.
It's expected to be a close decision. If the Court sides with Fisher, our nation's colleges could soon become much less diverse -- with major repercussions in every sector of our society.
My organization, Teach For America, was one of over 100 that filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs on behalf of the University of Texas, joining retired generals, Fortune 500 companies, civil rights organizations, social scientists, universities and the United States government. We wanted to share our perspective on why diversity on college campuses is essential to developing the leadership force our country needs to ensure that all children have the opportunity to attain an excellent education.
Race-conscious admissions are too often portrayed as a battle between diversity and merit. After 23 years working with some of the most disadvantaged students in the country, we know that's a false dichotomy. Every day in our classrooms we see the pervasive racial and socioeconomic inequities that plague our education system. Despite plenty of evidence that all children can excel when met with high expectations and enough support, fewer than 20% of African American and Latino fourth graders can read at grade level, compared to 42% of white students. African Americans are nearly twice as likely and Latinos three times as likely as white students to drop out of school.
Yet we know the young people who overcome the extra challenges of race and poverty to become competitive for college admissions have the unique potential to be powerful leaders in their communities and for our country precisely because they have overcome obstacles their peers have not.
Our country needs the leadership of these young men and women if the United States is ever going to close the opportunity gap, which has such a devastating impact on our country at large. Persistent inequality costs the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars a year, undermining our global competitiveness, our democracy, and our ideals as a nation. It's crucial that the leadership force fighting for educational equity at every level -- from teachers, principals, and superintendents to policymakers and community advocates -- be diverse in order to have the perspective and inspire the trust necessary to be effective in urban and rural communities.
For starters, we need more college graduates of color becoming teachers. Only 7 percent of public school teachers are African American and 7 percent are Latino, whereas 15 percent of public school students are African American and 23 percent are Latino. We've seen that teachers who share the backgrounds and have overcome the same challenges as their students can serve as role models of what is possible and can have a powerful impact on a student's overall achievement.
For over two decades Teach For America has worked hard to recruit a diverse corps of teachers. 38% of our 2012 corps members identify as people of color, including 13% African American and 9% Latino. Of our 28,000 alumni -- 2/3 of whom still work in education -- 30% are people of color. As Teach For America has become more representative of the families we serve, we've performed at a higher and higher level.
But in trying to fuel a diverse leadership force, we've come face to face with the painful lack of diversity in our higher education system. At the 340 most selective public and private universities, only 5% of graduates are African American and 6% are Latino.
Teach For America would not be able to continue recruiting and developing an ever-more diverse and impactful group of corps members and alumni if the nation's leading colleges become even less diverse. The decision to end the consideration of race as one admissions factor would reverse what progress has been made toward building a diverse leadership pipeline.
The lack of diversity in higher education is a problem we as a country must tackle if we're going to live up to our promise. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her 2003 decision for the Court, "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity." Today more than ever before, the path to leadership in every field goes through college. Cultivating more leaders who reflect our heterogeneous society depends on universities' transparent use of race as one of many factors in an admissions process that is accessible to all.
By upholding policies that enable more qualified applicants of color to attend college, the Supreme Court would help ensure all students -- and our country -- reach their full potential.
Follow Wendy Kopp on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@WendyKopp
If an income based policy changes the dynamic, so be it. However, on a national basis, the experience has been that shifting to a socio-economic type of AA has either increased the number of Hispanic or African American students or allowed it to remain consistent. Data also suggest that among students of equal academic accomplishment, students with college educated and/or wealthy parents are far more likely to complete degrees. The real culprit is poverty.
Yep, it is most certainly a problem.
"In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."
The operative word there being "qualified". Even though most universities have dramatically reduced their entry requirements, and most do give preference to certain minorities (though, notably, not to Asians) in order to boost the diversity of their student population, particular minorities remain underrepresented among those universities' graduates. The problem is that there just are not enough of those particular minorities who possess even the minimum reduced qualifications necessary to succeed in any real post-secondary academic program. Even among those who do manage to meet the minimum qualifications, many require months of remediation in basic communication, math, and study skills before they can begin legitimate college-level work.
Racial quotas and affirmative action actually decreases the number of minority teachers because it takes students who would succeed and graduate with educaiton degrees from second tier universities and pushes them into top tier universities where they major in subjects such as women's studies or African-American studies in order to academically survive.
As long as the various cultures of India, China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, the Middle East, and a host of other areas are represented well in elite universities (and they will be without AA), we'll have plenty of diversity.
The UT admissions process has two separate steps to ensure racial diversity. The first, not at issue here, is the 10% program which the plaintiff argues is sufficient here, and which allows anyone who graduates in the top 10% of his or her class automatic admission. If you come from an inner city school or a yuppie prep school, you get judged on the basis of how well you compare to other students in your school. This ensures diverse backgrounds in the student body.
But UT goes much further than this. They also try hard to recruit minority students for seats not filled in the above program, and it tries to allocate racial diversity on a per class basis, thus making race a factor in choosing majors and getting into the classes you want. I don't think it outlandish to say they go too far, further than the Constitution allows. But that doesn't mean that diversity as a goal of the admissions process has to go.
Now the left is content to support diluted AA policies, hence the 10% rule. Even that is unfair. There iis absolutely no moral justification as to why less than qualified white, black or other minority should be granted preference into upper tier universities. There are 3,000 colleges in the US. Why are they good enough for some, but not for others?
Those admitted to upper tier universities based on race are supposed to be and are assuredly college material, but maybe not just upper tier college material. There are many successful professional people (doctors, lawyers and engineers) who went to mid-level colleges. Didn't Warrren Buffet graduate from University of Nebraska-Lincoln, not even the top Nebraska school, as if Nebraska is home to elite colleges.
UT is not the only college. There are about 3,000 in the US. Everyone can find a place in a college. Plus, what's wrong with Howard, Morehouse, or Norfolk State?