College Admissions Study

In the controversial realms of affirmative action, the largest issue staunchly fought over is whether minorities should be given preferential treatment in the workplace and in the schools. One side declares that those in the minority group need and deserve governmental aid so that they will be on equal footing with the majority group. Opponents of affirmative action point out that setting apart groups based on their race or ethnicity is purely racism and can lead to reverse discrimination. I am against affirmative action for the aforementioned reasons, and would not consider such racism as necessary for creating a healthy society, as proponents would insist. It is my belief that affirmative action today is out of date and is

Companies and educational institutions greatly benefit from the guidelines of affirmative action because they profit from the different ideas, work styles, and contributions unique to each diverse individual. As quoted in Paul Connors’s compilation, Affirmative Action, President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, addresses the importance of a diverse educational system by stating, “The experience of arriving on a campus to live and study with classmates from a diverse range of backgrounds is essential to students' training for this new world, nurturing in them an instinct to reach out instead of clinging to the comforts of what seems natural or familiar” (12-13). A statement by Southeastern Oklahoma State University further supports the idea that success in modern day society stems from diversity saying, “Our country is strong because of the rich diversity of our culture, not in spite of it” (Affirmative Action).

Racial preference has indisputably favored Caucasian males in society. Recently this dynamic has been debated in all aspects of life, including college admission. Racial bias has intruded on the students’ rights to being treated fairly. Admitting students on merit puts the best individuals into the professional environment. A university’s unprejudiced attitude towards race in applicants eliminates biases, empowers universities to harness the full potential of students’ intellect, and gives students an equal chance at admission.

There is an examination of the admission rates that demonstrates the mechanism by which the freshman pool of African American and Latino students has shrunk so dramatically” (Patricia Gandara). In California, these supposed benefits of affirmative action are not being seen. A study run by Liliana Garces “documented a 5% decline (from 2,010 to 1,906 students) from 1995 to 1996” of the minority group that was attending “five selective public law schools in California, Texas, and Washington” (Garces). These statistics help notify the public that affirmative action in these few states is actually having a reverse effect on these people, and in this situation affirmative action is creating no benefits for minorities. A similar study performed at UC Berkeley stated that “even as Chicano/Latinos increased their representation in the applicant pool at UC Berkeley from approximately 13 percent in 1995 to 19 percent in 2010, they experienced… nearly [a] 75 percent decline in the rate of admissions compared to just over 40 percent decline for whites” (Gandara). The facts prove that affirmative action at prestigious colleges is not helping minorities become accepted. It is a useless effort that the government is wasting their time on. Therefore concluding that affirmative action within this area is useless and leads many to wonder if we should even waste time on the

As tensions surrounding race-sensitive admissions continue to grow, proponents of eliminating race-based policies are gaining momentum. A conservative political climate, as seen in the mandates for race neutrality in California and Washington and a recent court decision (Hopwood v. State of Texas), which significantly limits the use of race as criteria for admissions in three states, fuel this charge. Although race sensitive admissions policies are still widely used, a vocal opposition has destabilized the foundation on which these practices are based (Tierney, 1997).

Every year, millions of students apply to colleges and universities in the United States. The status of their application, whether they get accepted to or rejected by the school of their dreams, may ultimately be determined by two words: affirmative action. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines affirmative action as an effort to correct past injustices, means to right the wrongs of the past, positive steps to correct past discrimination (Affirmative 1). However, for those exceedingly qualified members of a majority group who do not get accepted while less qualified minority members do, affirmative action begins to insinuate reverse discrimination, the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities (Reverse 1). Affirmative action is a topic of contention that has been disputed in the court systems for roughly four decades. It is now time that affirmative action in college admissions be abolished because it erroneously implies that diversity is more imperative than merit and unjustifiably discriminates

California's decision in 1996 to outlaw the use of race in public college admissions was widely viewed as the beginning of the end for affirmative action at public universities all over the United States. But in the four years since Californians passed Proposition 209, most states have agreed that killing affirmative action outright would deepen social inequality by denying minority citizens access to higher education. The half-dozen states that are actually thinking about abandoning race-sensitive

Bollinger [2003] , a 43-year-old white female applicant was rejected from the University of Michigan despite being in the 86th percentile nationally on the Law School Admissions Test. During the litigation, university officials admitted that Grutter would have been accepted into the school if she was African American, Hispanic, or Native American. The Supreme Court ultimately declared the law school’s policy to be legal in a five-to-four judgement because the justices believed it was “narrowly tailored” to create a diverse student body. The narrow tailoring system has been legalized but it has been put under heavy scrutiny. An admissions process can’t establish quotas for members of certain racial groups or have separate admissions tracks for different races. This loophole for affirmative action is inefficient

The take away for me is, for example, for many years and up until today, Ivy League colleges have conveniently broadened the playing field to minimize the number of targeted minorities from being accepted in their schools. In other words Ivy League colleges would rather recruit immigrant students from China in an effort to comply with Affirmative Action, rather than accept native African Americans or other undesired non-minority groups in an effort to decrease the odds of being accepted. As a result, qualified American born students are routinely rejected.6

Affirmative action has been viewed as an effective tool for rectifying the inequalities of racism in our country’s past. It is a set of procedures intended to eliminate the discrimination of an applicant based on their ethnic origin. President John F. Kennedy first introduced the concept “broadly across the United States with his Executive Order number 10925” and “in 1978 the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as an admission standard” (Wilcher). The utilization of race is a “plus factor” for minority races but it has developed into a disadvantage for Asian-American students who demonstrate academic excellence. They often find their achievements overlooked because of their racial background (Bronner). Although affirmative action

As well as affirmative action being a prevalent part of the workplace, it is also present in many of today’s colleges and universities. Colleges and universities will give more opportunities for scholarships and financial aid, as well as admission to said colleges and universities. When going through applications, colleges and universities will seek out applicants who are

On a personal level, society needs a shift in its approach to race. Instead of creating divisions, Americans should try to understand their biases. Recently, initiatives with this goal have sprung up in universities. Soon after the Civil Rights Act, many universities in America implemented affirmative action initiatives, which sought to level the playing field between white and minority applicants, the latter traditionally having a disproportionately low acceptance rate. Doing so increased the minority population on campuses and brought the issue of discrimination to the forefront of national attention. By acknowledging historical patterns of discrimination and taking explicit action to reverse that trend, a peaceful method to decrease racial inequality emerged. However, white applicants have protested affirmative action, labeling it “reverse discrimination.” Yet this only emphasizes the faults in racial understanding – members of traditionally privileged groups recoil at the notion of elevating minorities, not realizing that their lower starting place necessitates a boost later. For unity, both groups must reach a mutual understanding about race’s role in modern society.

University of Texas, colleges will continue to justify their race-conscious policies. “Institutions must show the reviewing court that the design and implementation of its chosen means, to attain sufficient racial diversity as part of its broader diversity aims are necessary to achieve those goals (College Board, p. 7, 2013).” It is important for courts to review their procedures carefully and provide analysis of how the admission process is narrowly tailored. This will document how colleges attain their diversity goals. Colleges will continue to review and evaluate under strict scrutiny principles to prove the impact that race conscious policies have for institutions. In addition, the ruling from this case impacts the student body by insuring that diversity

It is the 21st century and there is still racial prejudice in America. Many may not realize this, but there is a growing problem between Asian-Americans and the American society. A growing issue is that minorities, especially Asian-Americans are being judged based on their race rather than the accolades and achievements they have accomplished. In the article “The model minority is losing patience,” the article discusses about a high school senior by the name of Michael Wang, who was denied six out of seven Ivy League colleges, even after coming in second place in his class of 1,002 students for academics, scoring a 36 (perfect) score on the ACT, scoring in the top 150 of a national math competition, and much more. Many would assume based on all of these accolades and achievements, any student would be accepted to many elite colleges, including Ivy League schools. The article goes on to say that racial prejudice is a major problem even within the high school level. Racial prejudice is a major problem as discussed within the article, and the authors do an effective job in presenting that there is a major racial prejudice issue among high school students and college administration’s.

March 6th, 1961 Affirmative Action policies in higher education were implemented (Infoplease). Affirmative Action was designed to provide equal access to universities for historically underrepresented minorities. The argument of whether Affirmative Action should be decimated is a simple one. Students who have the academic credentials and earn their way into college deserve to be accepted. For no reason should previously excluded minorities gain unfair leverage in an attempt to “right past wrongs”. But with Affirmative Action banned in only eight states, we are left with two questions; how exactly Affirmative Action affects the culture within universities to have it seen as an unjust policy, and can diversity continue to survive without this program.