U of M SOC 3251W - Affirmative Action Policies In Higher Education

Unformatted text preview:

1Frequently Asked Questions about the Use of Race-ConsciousAffirmative Action Policies In Higher EducationOffice for Multicultural and Academic AffairsUniversity of MinnesotaJune 2003Legal Challenges to the Use of Race-Conscious Affirmative Action in HigherEducation: What are the Michigan Cases?Two separate cases were brought against the University of Michigan challengingrace-conscious admissions policies designed to promote diversity both inundergraduate admissions (Gratz) and in the law school (Grutter). The UnitedStates Supreme Court heard both cases on April 1, 2003 and the decisions areexpected by the end of June.What is the U.S. Government’s position on this issue?In a brief to the Supreme Court supportive of the plaintiffs, the Department ofJustice essentially argued that diversity in selective institutions of highereducation can be achieved without race-conscious policies.1 In particular, theyargued that college admission programs like those used in Florida, Texas, andCalifornia that admit students finishing in the top 10 or 20 percent of their highschool class are successful in maintaining student diversity.How similar are the percentage plans of California, Florida, and Texas?In actuality, those programs are very different one from another. InTexas, students who graduate in the top 10 percent are allowed to 1 “Public universities have substantial latitude to tackle such problems(of diversity) and ensure … that student bodies are experientially diverseand broadly representative of the public. … They may also adoptadmissions policies that seek to promote experiential, geographical,political or economic diversity in the student body, which are entirelyappropriate race-neutral governmental objectives. The adoption of suchpolicies, moreover, has led to racially diverse student bodies in otherStates. And public universities can address the desire for broadrepresentation directly by opening educational institutions to the beststudents from throughout the State or Nation and easing requirements forall students.” (http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/gra_amicus-ussc/us-gratz.pdf)select the institution they want to attend. In California, they are onlypromised admission into the UC system, and are not guaranteedadmission to one of the most selective schools (UC Berkeley, UCLA,UC San Diego). In Florida, the “Talented 20” program assures onlythat students in the top 20 percent of their class (plus taking certaincourses and the ACT) will be accepted into one of the eleven systemcampuses. The University of Florida system has a 5 percentsupplemental plan, admitting students who finish in the top 5 percentof their class to the campus of their choice. No Florida campus iscomparable in selectivity and reputation to the flagship schools ofCalifornia and Texas.What conditions are best for percentage plans?Percentage plans work best in areas where housing tends to besegregated, namely, where there are large neighborhoods with highconcentrations of families from like backgrounds. These neighborhoodschools tend to be segregated and characterized by racial isolation,resulting in proportionate numbers of students of different backgroundsin the top percentage of their high school classes. Many areas ofTexas, Florida, and California follow this pattern and have beencharacterized by high degrees of racial isolation in their public schools.In contrast, Minnesota has been a leader in magnet and other schoolchoice programs that produce integration and few segregated schools.Even the schools with high proportions of children of color typicallyhave children drawn from several groups, so there is not racialisolation. The few schools where a single racial group predominatesare on reservations or are small charter schools.Is there evidence that percentage plans work?Success of percentage plans is a prominent part of the JusticeDepartment brief supporting the plaintiffs. However, recent reportsfrom the Harvard Civil Rights Project argue that in California, Florida,and Texas, percentage plans, in general, have not worked to maintainracial and ethnic diversity. At the University of Texas, where thepercentage plan has been most successful, recruiters have augmentedthe percentage approach with race-targeted recruiting. That is, theyhave identified high schools with large proportions of students fromunder-represented groups and recruited heavily from those schools.The questionable effects of these percentage programs require2consideration of the extent to which they can replace race-consciouspolicies.What are the implications of percentage plans for Minnesota?Because Minnesota schools tend not to be stratified by race/ethnicity, use ofpercentage approaches as a strategy to produce diverse student bodies will notwork well for Minnesota or for the upper Midwest. The students who would beadmitted under a 10 percent or 20 percent plan have been admitted under ourcurrent race-conscious admissions policy. To illustrate, consider the fall 2000entering freshman class, our graduating class of 2004. Within that class of about5,000 students are 3,000 who attended public high schools in Minnesota.Information on the ethnic/racial composition of those schools is available as partof the K-12 Minnesota Automated Recording Student System. After linking thatinformation to the schools attended by our entering students, we found that noMinnesota public high school graduate came to the University of Minnesota froma high school with more than 50 percent Asian American students, more than 50percent Chicano/Latino students, or more than 65 percent African Americanstudents. A substantial majority of students from each background came frompredominantly white schools. Of our American Indian students (13), only onecame from a school where the majority was students of color (a school on anAmerican Indian reservation). The others came from schools where white studentswere in the majority. Of our Asian American students (424), only 110 came fromschools where students of color were the majority. Of our African Americanstudents (128), only 46 came from schools where students of color were in themajority. Of our Chicano/Latino students (54), all but six attended majority whitehigh schools. In summary, most of our Minnesota students of color do not comefrom schools where they are in the majority and likely would not benefit from apercentage plan.A second illustration projects student yield if a


View Full Document

U of M SOC 3251W - Affirmative Action Policies In Higher Education

Download Affirmative Action Policies In Higher Education
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Affirmative Action Policies In Higher Education and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Affirmative Action Policies In Higher Education 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?