Class-based affirmative action
 on Civil Liberties |
This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.
Affirmative action policies are adopted by governments and institutions in an effort to "improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society."[1] Affirmative action policies were first implemented in the United States beginning in the 1960s both to remedy past discrimination and to foster diversity in workplaces and classrooms. These policies have typically targeted racial minority groups and women. Given the controversy that sometimes surrounds race-based affirmative action, as well as court rulings limiting the application of race-based policies, some reformers have advocated for class-based affirmative action policies, which would be geared to assist the economically disadvantaged rather than specific racial groups.[2][3]
Background
The first reference to affirmative action was made by President John F. Kennedy (D) in 1961 in an executive order directing government contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." The order also established the agency that became the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that investigates claims of workplace discrimination. This move was significant: while the federal government had made previous efforts to end racial discrimination, they had been largely preventative; this order marked the first instance of an active approach to equal opportunity.[1][4][5][6]
As the civil rights movement of the 1960s expanded, the federal government took on an increasing role in preventing discrimination and bolstering minority numbers in workplaces and universities. President Lyndon Johnson (D) signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, a landmark piece of legislation that prohibited discrimination against any individual based on his or her race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Central to the legislation were Title VI, which prohibits discrimination by agencies that receive federal funding, and Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in employment and contains the disparate impact clause. However, some still felt that discrimination prevention was not enough:[1][7][8]
| “ |
Affirmative action policies initially focused on improving opportunities for African Americans in employment and education. The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 outlawing school segregation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 improved life prospects for African Americans. In 1965, however, only five percent of undergraduate students, one percent of law students, and two percent of medical students in the country were African American. President Lyndon Johnson, an advocate for affirmative action, signed an Executive Order in 1965 that required government contractors to use affirmative action policies in their hiring to increase the number of minority employees.[9] |
” |
| —National Conference of State Legislatures | ||
Johnson's order created the means for enforcing affirmative action policies for the first time, with the threat of sanctions for noncompliance; the order was later expanded to include discrimination against women. Of their own initiative, many colleges and universities nationwide also adopted affirmative action policies to increase minority enrollment. These policies usually took the form of preferences in admissions for applicants of a minority race, although some colleges generated strict quotas or reserved a specific number of spots for minorities.[5][6]
The use of affirmative action in all of these areas was initially intended to be temporary. However, the goals of affirmative action policies shifted from equality of opportunity to the achievement of equal representation and outcomes for minorities at all levels of society. Furthermore, lawsuits have been brought against institutions utilizing affirmative action policies, citing violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that promoting diversity, rather than compensating for historical injustices, was the constitutional goal of affirmative action. The court also placed the burden on universities to prove that no viable race-neutral alternatives existed when they used racial preferences in admissions to increase diversity.[1][4][10]
Arguments
Support
Proponents of class-based affirmative action policies have made some of the following arguments:
- In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter of the Century Foundation wrote the following:[11]
| “ | In states where affirmative action has been banned, universities have introduced new admissions and financial aid strategies based on socioeconomic status. ... These socioeconomic-based admissions and support strategies not only promoted greater economic diversity on campus but in most cases continued to deliver a racially diverse student body as well. Seven out of 10 leading public universities we examined in a 2012 Century Foundation report were able to maintain, or even increase the proportion of African-American and Latino students among their ranks, by replacing race-based preferences with strategies that target socioeconomic inequality.[9] | ” |
| —Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter | ||
- Haibo Huang, a member of the board of the directors of the 80-20 National Asian American Political Action Committee, wrote the following in an opinion piece for The New York Times:[12]
| “ | Admission to college should be based on merit with preference given to low-income students. Racial preference is divisive and helps the wrong kids. ... Judging people by their skin color is morally repugnant. It is not fair to pass over better qualified students based on innate characteristics. It violates the 14th Amendment. It stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of others. It fosters victim mindset, removing any incentive for excellence. It mismatches students and institutions, causing high failure and dropout rates among the 'beneficiaries.' It papers over deep-rooted social problems, condemning under-privileged kids to a permanent cycle of dysfunctional schools. It compromises academic mission and hurts U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. We are short-changing ourselves with racial preferences.[9] | ” |
| —Haibo Huang | ||
Opposition
Opponents of replacing race-based affirmative action policies with class-based policies have made some of the following arguments:
- Lee C. Bollinger, former president of the University of Michigan and a named defendant in Gratz v. Bollinger, wrote the following in an opinion piece for Slate:[13]
| “ | For many years now, the value of diverse backgrounds and viewpoints has been embraced as essential to the fabric of our major institutions, from the military services to private corporations. Yet there is evidence that, particularly in the private sector, the commitment to racial diversity is eroding. A change in the law at this moment making it harder for colleges and universities to supply racially diverse professional talent could be devastating. ... Yet, today, we are hearing the argument that higher education’s historic commitment to racial diversity must be replaced by efforts to enroll more children of low-income families at top universities—as though these are mutually exclusive goals. The obvious reply is that the right course is to pursue both.[9] | ” |
| —Lee C. Bollinger | ||
- Julie J. Park, a higher education scholar, wrote the following for the New Labor Forum, a journal published by the Murphy Institute of the City University of New York School of Professional Studies:[14]
| “ | Policies that only consider race and not class neglect low-income students of color, which is a disservice to everyone. However, policies that consider only class and not race also have the potential to limit or hinder the campus environment for diversity. Nurturing a successful campus racial climate is not simply a matter of gathering a certain number of students of color so universities can rest easier knowing they have 'enough' diversity. It involves attending to the nuances that shape inter-group relations and influence student learning, key outcomes that are vital to preparing students for citizenship in a diverse democracy.[9] | ” |
| —Julie J. Park | ||
Studies
In 2014, Georgetown University researchers Anthony Carnevale, Stephen Rose and Jeff Strohl, writing a chapter for the book The Future of Affirmative Action: New Paths to Higher Education Diversity after Fisher v. University of Texas, "looked at how socioeconomic affirmative action programs, percentage plans, or a combination of the two, could work at the nation’s most selective" colleges and universities. The authors employed five simulations in their research:[15][16]
- Race-blind pure test-based merit: "A pure-merit benchmark based on test scores alone in which all legacy and all affirmative action considerations are absent."
- Race-blind merit with socioeconomic status-based admissions (SES) boost: "Test-based merit with a race-blind preference for socioeconomic status."
- Race-blind relative merit–top 10 percent of the high school class: "Test-based merit with guaranteed admission for the top 10 percent of the high school class based on standardized test scores (rather than high school grades)."
- Race-blind relative merit–top 10 percent of high school class with SES-based admissions boost: "Test-based merit with guaranteed admission for the top 10 percent of the high school class with an added 'SES-based plus factor.'"
- Race-conscious admissions with relative merit and race and SES-based admissions boost: "A top 10 percent–based admissions approach with SES and race 'plus factors' in the admissions model."
The researchers applied the simulations to determine the effect each would have on enrollments at the 193 most selective colleges and universities in the United States. In the table below, the percentages indicate the share of the student body that would belong to each racial or ethnic group if the simulation policy were implemented. For example, simulation #1 utilizes a "race-blind pure test-based merit" admissions model. Under simulation #1, the researchers found that 83 percent of the students at the nation's most selective postsecondary institutions would be white. The column labeled "Current admissions model" indicates the demographic breakdown of these institutions as of 2014. Similarly, the column labeled "High school population" indicates the demographic breakdown of the high school population as of 2014.[15]
| Effect of simulations on student race/ethnicity | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race/ethnicity | Current admissions model | Simulation #1 | Simulation #2 | Simulation #3 | Simulation #4 | Simulation #5 | High school population |
| White | 74% | 83% | 77% | 74% | 69% | 59% | 62% |
| African American | 4% | 1% | 3% | 6% | 9% | 14% | 14% |
| Hispanic | 7% | 4% | 10% | 11% | 14% | 18% | 15% |
| Asian | 15% | 12% | 10% | 10% | 9% | 9% | 9% |
| Source: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, "Achieving Racial and Economic Diversity with Race-Blind Admissions Policy," June 17, 2014 | |||||||
In the table below, the percentages indicate the share of the student body that would belong to certain socioeconomic classes if the simulation policy were implemented. Students belonging to the top quartile come from families with incomes in the top 25 percent. For example, simulation #1 utilizes a "race-blind pure test-based merit" admissions model. Under simulation #1, the researchers found that 65 percent of the students at the nation's most selective postsecondary institutions would belong to the top socioeconomic quartile. The column labeled "Current admissions model" indicates the socioeconomic breakdown of these institutions as of 2014.[15]
| Effect of simulations on socioeconomic diversity | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socioeconomic status | Current admissions model | Simulation #1 | Simulation #2 | Simulation #3 | Simulation #4 | Simulation #5 |
| Top quartile | 65% | 65% | 32% | 45% | 26% | 24% |
| Second quartile | 20% | 21% | 21% | 24% | 21% | 21% |
| Third quartile | 9% | 10% | 30% | 18% | 33% | 32% |
| Bottom quartile | 5% | 5% | 16% | 13% | 20% | 22% |
| Source: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, "Achieving Racial and Economic Diversity with Race-Blind Admissions Policy," June 17, 2014 | ||||||
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Class based affirmative action. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Affirmative action
- State affirmative action information
- Affirmative action ballot measures
- Higher education in the United States
- Higher education by state
- Education policy in the United States
- Amendment XIV, United States Constitution
External links
- National Conference of State Legislatures, Affirmative Action Overview
- The Century Foundation
- U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
- Project on Fair Representation
- American Civil Liberties Union
Additional reading
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action | Overview," February 7, 2015
- ↑ NBC News, "Affirmative Action's Next Phase May Target Class, Not Race," April 29, 2014
- ↑ The Atlantic, "What If Colleges Embraced Affirmative Action for Class Instead of Race?" October 21, 2013
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Infoplease, "Affirmative Action History," accessed February 10, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Infoplease, "Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones," accessed February 10, 2015
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Miller Center of Public Affairs, "Affirmative Action: Race or Class?" accessed February 10, 2015
- ↑ The United States Department of Justice, "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed February 24, 2015
- ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed February 24, 2015
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Regents of the Uni v. of Cal. v. Bakke," accessed May 28, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Class-based Affirmative Action Works," April 27, 2014
- ↑ The New York Times, "College Admission Should Be Based on Merit and Income," April 27, 2014
- ↑ Slate, "The Real Mismatch," May 30, 2013
- ↑ New Labor Forum, "Class-Based Affirmative Action," January 17, 2015
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, "Achieving Racial and Economic Diversity with Race-Blind Admissions Policy," June 17, 2014
- ↑ The Century Foundation, "The Future of Affirmative Action: New Paths to Higher Education Diversity after Fisher v. University of Texas," accessed December 22, 2015
