Affirmative Action In Higher Education Research Articles

Diversity's Missing Minority: Asian Pacific American Undergraduates' Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action

This study examines the impact of personal belief systems and the college experience on Asian Pacific American undergraduates' views of affirmative action in higher education. Results indicate that APA students' social interactions and perceptions, as well as their dominant ideology beliefs and racial/ethnic identification, influence their affirmative action views.

Has "The Wall Street Journal"'s Robert Bartley Backed off His Opposition to Affirmative Action in Higher Education?

Has "The Wall Street Journal"'s Robert Bartley Backed off His Opposition to Affirmative Action in Higher Education?

The Affirmative Action Debate and the Implications for Social Work Education

ABSTRACT Affirmative action is one of the most heated and widely debated social policies over the past three decades in the United States and Canada. However, social work professionals have not contributed much to the debate. This paper aims to (1) understand the history and the development of affirmative action in higher education, (2) examine the debate, and (3) discuss the implications of this debate for social work education.

Affirmative Action in Higher Education: Why Grutter Was Correctly Decided

Affirmative Action in Higher Education: Why Grutter Was Correctly Decided

A Newly Discovered Speech of Martin Luther King Jr. Provides Sustenance to Defenders of Affirmative Action in Higher Education

A Newly Discovered Speech of Martin Luther King Jr. Provides Sustenance to Defenders of Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Affirmative Action in Higher Education

This study analyzed the variations of policies and practices of university personnel in their use of affirmative action programs for African American students. In this study, the policy topic is affirmative action and the practices used in admissions, financial aid, and special support services for African-American students. Surveys were mailed to 231 subjects representing thirty-two Missouri colleges and universities. Most of the survey respondents were male, white, and nearly two-thirds were above the age of forty. Ethnic minorities were underepresented among the professionals. Seventy-two percent of respondents were white, 23% were African American, and 5% were Hispanic. The results of this study suggest a positive picture of student affirmative action practices and policies used by Missouri personnel. Differences among professionals were at a minimum. The overall mean score for support in diversifying Missouri institutions was fairly high, and this may reflect diversity initiatives taken by the Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education in the late 1980s, and early 1990s. Data suggested that Missouri personnel are aware of the judicial scrutiny by the courts in administering student affirmative action. Most Missouri institutions use a single process for assessing all applicants for admission, without reliance on a quota system. The recent Hopwood decision showed little impact on the decisions regarding professionals' use of student affirmative action at Missouri institutions. Although public attitudes toward student affirmative action may play a role in establishing policies and practices, Missouri personnel are very similar in their perceptions regardless of race/ethnicity, gender, and institutional office or position.

The New Perennial Great Debate: Affirmative Action in Higher Education

The New Perennial Great Debate: Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Black Voters May Control the Fate of Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Black Voters May Control the Fate of Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Faculty of Color Reconsidered: Reassessing Contributions to Scholarship

The status of faculty of color (1) has been of concern to many in American higher education since the 1960s. The consciousness provided by the Civil Rights movement of that decade led to efforts to diversify higher education at all levels, from the student body to the faculty ranks. In the proceeding decades, we have witnessed steady growth in the racial and ethnic diversity of the college student population, and recent trends illustrate unprecedented rates of growth. At the University of California, for example, just 70% of all undergraduates were white in 1984, and six years later this proportion had dropped further to less than 60% (University of California, 1991). Nationwide, college enrollments are currently 11.0% African American, 8.7% Latino, 6.1% Asian American, 1.0% American Indian, and 73.1% white (2) (Snyder & Hoffman, 2000). Similar trends of diversification among college faculty, unfortunately, have not materialized. For example, in 1983 whites still composed approximately 91% of all full-time fa culty. Ten years later the representation of white faculty had decreased by just 3 percentage points, to 88% (Carter & Wilson, 1997). The slow progress being made by higher education to diversify its faculty has been widely recognized, and much research and debate have been focused on the factors that may be stifling efforts for increasing minority representation. These factors include: a small and decreasing pool of minority PhDs (Jackson, 1991; Mickelson & Oliver, 1991; Solmon & Wingard, 1991; Turner, Myers, Jr., & Creswell, 1999; Washington & Harvey, 1989); disproportionate tenure rates and rates of pretenure departure (Finkelstein, 1984; Menges & Exum, 1983); the persistence of racist perceptions on institutional and individual levels that restrict access and impede the professional progress of faculty of color (de la Luz Reyes & Halcon, 1991; Harvey & Scott-Jones, 1985; Jackson, 1991; Turner & Myers, Jr., 2000); the devaluation of the qualifications of minority PhDs not trained in the most elite, prestigious colleges (Mickelson & Oliver, 1991); and the difficulties of surviving in a predominantly white academy due to poor mentoring, di sproportionate advising and service loads stemming from frequently being the only faculty of color in a department, an isolating work environment, and the lack of scholarly recognition given to research focusing on ethnic minority populations (de la Luz Reyes & Halcon, 1991; Frierson, 1990; Garza, 1988; Tack & Patitu, 1992; Turner & Myers, Jr., 2000; Turner, Myers, Jr., & Creswell, 1999; Washington & Harvey, 1989). Unlike these issues of recruitment and retention, which primarily focus on barriers and obstacles to faculty diversity, the value of faculty of color to higher education has not been subject to the same volume of research and debate. How do faculty of color uniquely contribute to the enterprise of American higher education? Some scholars contend that faculty of color are essential for higher education, because they provide students with diverse role models, assist in providing more effective mentoring to minority students, are supportive of minority-related and other areas of nontraditional areas of scholarship, and give minorities a greater voice in the governance of the nation's colleges and universities (de la Luz Reyes & Halcon, 1991; Green, 1989; Mickelson & Oliver, 1991; Washington & Harvey, 1989). Others view the full representation and participation of faculty of color in the academy as essential to creating diverse and pluralistic colleges and universities (Green, 1989; Turner & Myers, Jr., 2000). Wh ile contributions to mentoring, role modeling, and governance are important to note and document, continued slow growth in the proportional representation of faculty of color in an era witnessing the dismantling of race-based affirmative action in higher education suggests that their contributions need to be reconsidered from a new perspective. …

On the 30th Anniversary of the Chicano-Latino Law Review

This article is a slightly revised speech of the keynote speaker at the UCLA Chicano-Latino Law Review's 30th anniversary conference on Affirmative Action in Higher Education in the New Millennium in February 2002. Through the pages of the Chicano-Latino Law Review, the first law review that focused exclusively on issues of relevance to the Latina/o community, the article traces the struggles for affirmative action at UCLA School of Law. The long history of debate over affirmative action at UCLA includes a speech at a protest at the law school by Cesar Chavez, the famous President of the United Farm Workers, who proclaimed that [w]e are here with you because your cause is just. The article also considers how the Chicana/o Latino Law Review focused attention on particularly Latina/o civil rights issues, including immigration, language regulation, and bilingual education, long before these issues were the subject of analysis in mainstream law reviews.

The Lead Attorney in the Legal Defence of Affirmative Action in Higher Education

The Lead Attorney in the Legal Defence of Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Affirmative Action in Higher Education: Recent Developments in Litigation, Admissions and Diversity Research

Affirmative Action in Higher Education: Recent Developments in Litigation, Admissions and Diversity Research

Easing the Spring: Strict Scrutiny and Affirmative Action After the Redistricting Cases

In Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), the Supreme Court held that all racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. Since then, the Court has been essentially absent from the battle over affirmative action, but it has decided a series of cases involving race-conscious redistricting that may potentially change the way strict scrutiny actually operates. Faced with the prospect of applying a standard of review that would resegregate state legislatures and congressional delegations, the Supreme Court was unwilling to apply strict scrutiny strictly. First, it constricted the domain in which strict scrutiny comes into play at all, permitting race to be taken into account when it is one factor among many and its inclusion produces districts that do not deviate too greatly from those created for other groups. Second, it broadened the interests that can justify race-conscious redistricting, by holding that compliance with the Voting Rights Act's results and effects tests can serve as a compelling state interest. The understanding of political equality embodied in the Act goes beyond what the Constitution itself demands. It requires states to arrange their electoral institutions to minimize the lingering effects of prior unconstitutional discrimination not otherwise chargeable to them, as well as to mitigate the impact of racially polarized voting that involves otherwise constitutionally protected private choice. In short, the theory of strict scrutiny yielded to the need for an electoral system that is equally open to members of minority groups. Having explored the redistricting cases, this article then turns to the question whether, and how, the Court might translate its doctrinal innovations here into its consideration of affirmative action in higher education. It identifies ways in which the admissions process more closely resembles redistricting, and therefore calls for a softer form of scrutiny, than it resembles the competitive bidding process at issue in cases like Adarand. And it suggests that Title VI-based disparate impact standards may perform a role similar to the Voting Rights Act in defining what counts as a compelling state interest.

Other Research -- A Pessimistic Finding Regarding Faculty Affirmative Action in Higher Education

A sample of university students were given resumes of hypothetical prospective faculty members which were systematically manipulated to include differences in gender, race, age, and whether the person had a disability. The students were asked to rate the hypothetical prospective faculty members on the basis of teaching and professional characteristics and whether they would recommend hiring them. In spite of growing numbers of women, African American, and a few disabled faculty members presently teaching in higher education, the old prejudices remain: older, white, male, nondisabled faculty received the higher ratings.

Court Backs Michigan Policy on Diversity

AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONA federal district court last week upheld the University of Michigan's race-sensitive admissions policies for undergraduates, pleasing advocates of affirmative action in higher education. The ruling was based in part on research showing that diversity enhances education, an argument that opponents of affirmative action reject as bad science. However, the ruling clashes with a 4-year-old decision by another federal court, opening the door to a possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Has the Supreme Court's "Boy Scouts Ruling" Provided a Safe Harbour for Affirmative Action in Higher Education?

Has the Supreme Court's "Boy Scouts Ruling" Provided a Safe Harbour for Affirmative Action in Higher Education?

The Nifty Nine Arguments against Affirmative Action in Higher Education

The Nifty Nine Arguments against Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Neil L. Rudenstine: African Americans Lose a Dedicated Advocate of Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Neil L. Rudenstine: African Americans Lose a Dedicated Advocate of Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Affirmative action and minority enrollments in medical and law schools

Affirmative Action and Minority Enrollments in Medical and Law Schools, by Susan Welch and John Gruhl. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. 221 pp. $39.50, paper. Despite the controversy generated by affirmative action in higher education, the actual effects of the programs have been thoroughly analyzed. Instead, the arguments over race-based remedies have been symbolic. With respect to professional training, such as that provided by medical and law schools, the role of affirmative action has been based on anecdotes and assumptions about a few outstanding individuals. These include Bernard Chavis, the African American doctor who graduated from University of California-Davis medical school through the special admissions program Allan Bakke challenged. Initially held up as a success story, Chavis, with later malpractice allegations raised against him, was turned into a cautionary example. Among other examples are Benjamin Carson, the African American who chairs the pediatric neurosurgery department at prestigious Johns Hopkins University, and who separated twins conjoined at the head; Johnny Cochran, who led the dream team defense counsel in the 0. J. Simpson murder trial; and Vernon Jordan, one of the powerful lawyers in the nation's capital, regardless of race. Affirmative Action and Minority Enrollments in Medical and Law Schools presents a longawaited and much-needed empirical basis for the public discourse. Welch and Gruhl's book is a supplement to the massive Bowen and Bok (1998) study, The Shape of the River. It differs from that work in its emphasis on institutional decision making in response to legal doctrines. Although this type of evidence is vital to the affirmative action debate, it is not, as the authors themselves implicitly conclude, sufficient to resolve the matter. As Christopher Edley, Jr. (1996), the Harvard professor who led the Clinton Administration's mend-it-don't-end-it review of affirmative action policies, has argued, facts matter but values matter most (p. 73). At stake are competing visions of what the institutions of this nation, elite as well as public, should look like and how best to realize those ideals. Both the ends and the means are contested. Using a questionnaire sent in March 1989 to the 118 medical schools and 154 law schools that were operating when the Supreme Court decided Bakke v. Regents of the University of California (1978), Welch and Gruhl describe how these institutions practiced affirmative action, whether they changed in response to legal restrictions, and, importantly, whether these efforts to remedy racial/ ethnic discrimination worked. Their study deserves consideration by policymakers and administrators who care about racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. As Welch and Gruhl explain, the Supreme Court was highly divided in Bakke, with four justices voting in favor of affirmative action in theory and four justices voting against affirmative action as it was being practiced. Justice Louis Powell, the Richmond, Virginia, corporate lawyer who had led the American Bar Association, reached a famous compromise. He reasoned that affirmative action could satisfy constitutional standards if it resembled the Harvard College plan, which took race into account as a factor, but it violated constitutional norms if it relied on strict quotas. The Powell opinion has been heavily criticized from quarters as being impossible to follow. Nonetheless, until the Supreme Court ruled in its 1995 case of Adarand v. Pena (1995) that affirmative action is the legal equivalent of invidious discrimination, the Powell approach effectively governed affirmative action. Welch and Gruhl present many basic findings about the role of legal doctrine in shaping institutional behavior related to affirmative action. Not surprisingly, they note, virtually those responding to their survey had heard of the Bakke decision. Surprisingly, however, 77% of medical school officials and 63% of law school officials reported that it changed their policies not at all (p. …

The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions

In recent years, affirmative action in higher education has been challenged in courts, legislatures, and public referendums. California has eliminated race as a consideration in admission decisions for public colleges and universities. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) wrote in Hopwood vs. Texas that "the use of race to achieve a diverse student body ... simply cannot be a state interest compelling enough to meet the steep standard of strict scrutiny."1 Recently, a series of advertisements appeared in college newspapers around the country accusing colleges and universities of using racial preferences illegally in admission decisions. The newspaper ads, by the Center for Individual Rights, are headlined "Guilty by Admission" and charge that nearly every elite college in the United States violates the law.