It was nearly 40 years ago when a fractured U.S. Supreme Court was searching for an acceptable and lawful way to take race and ethnicity into account in college admissions. The court majority viewed as unconstitutional a system that would set aside a specific number of seats for one racial group or another. But justices also wanted to enable colleges to take steps they might deem necessary to attain a racially diverse student body.
How to do that? Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. turned to the nation’s oldest college for answers.
Powell, writing the principal opinion in the 1978 landmark case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, cited the “Harvard College program” as an exemplar of race-conscious admissions because it did not use explicit numerical quotas to achieve diversity.
Read the full Washington Post story here.
Showing posts with label Bakke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bakke. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
One French School's Secret for Making Affirmative Action Work
The Atlantic
Apr 9 2012, 10:01 AM ET
Before Richard Descoings died suddenly and scandalously last week, he made controversial -- and surprisingly successful -- changes to how one of France's most elite universities builds its student body.
France's Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris, known colloquially as Sciences Po, has trained two out of the past three French presidents, four out of the past six prime ministers, countless other assorted politicians and diplomats, and a significant chunk of Europe's top CEOs and financiers. Until 2001, the students who came in were just as socially élite as the graduates who came out.
In 2001, that began to change. The man at the heart of the change was Richard Descoings, who was found dead in a Manhattan hotel last week. And though questions remain about the circumstances of his death, it's his work leading Sciences Po that will surely determine his legacy. He has left promoters of social mobility in education -- both French and American -- plenty to think about.
Full Story: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/one-french-schools-secret-for-making-affirmative-action-work/255612/
Apr 9 2012, 10:01 AM ET
Before Richard Descoings died suddenly and scandalously last week, he made controversial -- and surprisingly successful -- changes to how one of France's most elite universities builds its student body.
France's Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris, known colloquially as Sciences Po, has trained two out of the past three French presidents, four out of the past six prime ministers, countless other assorted politicians and diplomats, and a significant chunk of Europe's top CEOs and financiers. Until 2001, the students who came in were just as socially élite as the graduates who came out.
In 2001, that began to change. The man at the heart of the change was Richard Descoings, who was found dead in a Manhattan hotel last week. And though questions remain about the circumstances of his death, it's his work leading Sciences Po that will surely determine his legacy. He has left promoters of social mobility in education -- both French and American -- plenty to think about.
Full Story: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/one-french-schools-secret-for-making-affirmative-action-work/255612/
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The Amicus Briefs on Affirmative Action
The Chronicle of Higher Education
November 2, 2011, 5:59 pm
By Richard Kahlenberg
Earlier this week, The Chronicle published an important article by Peter Schmidt on Fisher v. Texas, the latest legal challenge to affirmative action that may wind up on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket. Opponents of affirmative action have filed briefs urging the High Court to take the case, while supporters have just been invited by the Court to respond.
The early maneuvering is important because Fisher could well turn out to be far more significant in determining the shape of affirmative action in higher education than the 1978 decision in Bakke v. Regents of the University of California or the 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-amicus-briefs-on-affirmative-action/30735
November 2, 2011, 5:59 pm
By Richard Kahlenberg
Earlier this week, The Chronicle published an important article by Peter Schmidt on Fisher v. Texas, the latest legal challenge to affirmative action that may wind up on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket. Opponents of affirmative action have filed briefs urging the High Court to take the case, while supporters have just been invited by the Court to respond.
The early maneuvering is important because Fisher could well turn out to be far more significant in determining the shape of affirmative action in higher education than the 1978 decision in Bakke v. Regents of the University of California or the 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-amicus-briefs-on-affirmative-action/30735
Monday, September 26, 2011
Men far more likely to benefit from affirmative action in college admissions
cbsnews.com
September 26, 2011 12:06 PM
In the 1970s, after twice being denied admission to medical school at U.C. Davis, Allan Bakke sued the University of California over its admissions policies. A white male, Bakke charged the university with reverse racial discrimination. His suit went to the Supreme Court, where it became a landmark split decision that, while upholding affirmative action as legal, ordered that Bakke be admitted to Davis. The case helped galvanize the movement against affirmative action.
But if Bakke were an applicant today his story might be very different. A survey of admissions directors released last week found that male applicants of all races are far more likely to benefit from affirmative action-like policies than female applicants.
"Men are being admitted with lower grades and test scores," said Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Ed, which conducted the survey. "While a lot of people don't like to talk about it, a lot of colleges are basically doing affirmative action for men."
Full Story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20111646-503544.html
September 26, 2011 12:06 PM
In the 1970s, after twice being denied admission to medical school at U.C. Davis, Allan Bakke sued the University of California over its admissions policies. A white male, Bakke charged the university with reverse racial discrimination. His suit went to the Supreme Court, where it became a landmark split decision that, while upholding affirmative action as legal, ordered that Bakke be admitted to Davis. The case helped galvanize the movement against affirmative action.
But if Bakke were an applicant today his story might be very different. A survey of admissions directors released last week found that male applicants of all races are far more likely to benefit from affirmative action-like policies than female applicants.
"Men are being admitted with lower grades and test scores," said Scott Jaschik, editor of Inside Higher Ed, which conducted the survey. "While a lot of people don't like to talk about it, a lot of colleges are basically doing affirmative action for men."
Full Story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20111646-503544.html
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Evidence for Educational Value of Diversity
Inside Higher Ed
Sept. 10
Evidence for Educational Value of Diversity
A relationship exists between the diversity of medical schools and the perceived preparation of white medical students to care for diverse groups of patients, according to a study being published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The study found that white students who attend medical schools with greater racial and ethnic diversity in the student body are more likely to rate themselves as highly prepared to care for minority populations. Those white students within the highest quintile for student body diversity, measured by the proportion of underrepresented minority students, were 33 percent more likely to rate themselves as highly prepared to care for minority patients than were those in the lowest diversity quintile. The correlation between diversity and preparedness to care for minority patients was highest at medical schools where students perceived a high degree of interracial interaction.
The findings were based on a survey by the Association of American Medical Colleges to 20,112 graduating medical students (64 percent of graduating students in 2003 and 2004) from 118 medical schools in the United States. Historically black and Puerto Rican medical schools were excluded. For non-white students, the study did not find correlations between student body diversity and preparedness to serve diverse populations.
Generally, the study found that underrepresented minority students were much more likely than other students to plan to practice in areas not well served by medical services. Nearly half of underrepresented minority students plan to do so, while less than 20 percent of other medical students have such plans.
The findings about medical school — and particularly about the impact of diversity on white students — are being praised by supporters of affirmative action as strengthening a crucial legal argument in favor of allowing colleges and universities to consider race and ethnicity in admissions decisions. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, upholding the right to consider race, specifically noted the argument that diversity has educational value and said that affirmative action is not intended simply to help individuals who gain admission under such policies. Similarly, the 1978 Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action (while barring quotas) in admissions, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, cited educational values — and was decided with regard to medical school admissions, in that case at the University of California at Davis.
The new study’s authors write that their work “lends empirical support for the Supreme Court’s rationale” for upholding affirmative action in admissions. The study “indicates that a diverse student body is likely to be necessary but not sufficient.... Additionally, our analysis supports the concept of ‘critical mass,’ whereby a certain proportion of minority students is considered necessary to realize the benefits of diversity.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/10/jama ]
Sept. 10
Evidence for Educational Value of Diversity
A relationship exists between the diversity of medical schools and the perceived preparation of white medical students to care for diverse groups of patients, according to a study being published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The study found that white students who attend medical schools with greater racial and ethnic diversity in the student body are more likely to rate themselves as highly prepared to care for minority populations. Those white students within the highest quintile for student body diversity, measured by the proportion of underrepresented minority students, were 33 percent more likely to rate themselves as highly prepared to care for minority patients than were those in the lowest diversity quintile. The correlation between diversity and preparedness to care for minority patients was highest at medical schools where students perceived a high degree of interracial interaction.
The findings were based on a survey by the Association of American Medical Colleges to 20,112 graduating medical students (64 percent of graduating students in 2003 and 2004) from 118 medical schools in the United States. Historically black and Puerto Rican medical schools were excluded. For non-white students, the study did not find correlations between student body diversity and preparedness to serve diverse populations.
Generally, the study found that underrepresented minority students were much more likely than other students to plan to practice in areas not well served by medical services. Nearly half of underrepresented minority students plan to do so, while less than 20 percent of other medical students have such plans.
The findings about medical school — and particularly about the impact of diversity on white students — are being praised by supporters of affirmative action as strengthening a crucial legal argument in favor of allowing colleges and universities to consider race and ethnicity in admissions decisions. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, upholding the right to consider race, specifically noted the argument that diversity has educational value and said that affirmative action is not intended simply to help individuals who gain admission under such policies. Similarly, the 1978 Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action (while barring quotas) in admissions, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, cited educational values — and was decided with regard to medical school admissions, in that case at the University of California at Davis.
The new study’s authors write that their work “lends empirical support for the Supreme Court’s rationale” for upholding affirmative action in admissions. The study “indicates that a diverse student body is likely to be necessary but not sufficient.... Additionally, our analysis supports the concept of ‘critical mass,’ whereby a certain proportion of minority students is considered necessary to realize the benefits of diversity.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/10/jama ]
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Observing the 30th Anniversary of the Bakke Decision, MALDEF Continues To Fight For Equal Access and Diversity in Higher Education
Observing the 30th Anniversary of the Bakke Decision, MALDEF Continues To Fight For Equal Access and Diversity in Higher Education
JUNE 10, 2008 - Thirty years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). The ruling struck down a UC Davis Medical School admissions program that set aside a specified number of seats for racial minorities, while at the same time overturning the lower court's complete prohibition on the consideration of race under any circumstance. MALDEF filed an amicus brief in the Bakke case arguing for the preservation and promotion of affirmative action to ensure access and equality to higher education for the nation's Latinos.
The Bakke Court, like the current Supreme Court, was badly fragmented. Six separate opinions were issued, and no more than four justices agreed in their reasoning. Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke established the law on affirmative action, and in the intervening 30 years, the legal landscape regarding access and equity in higher education has not changed much. Justice Powell's opinion provided that in the context of student admission to higher education, race can be considered as one factor among many; that specific numerical quotas are constitutionally impermissible, although goals are acceptable; and that while affirmative action programs cannot be used to remedy past societal discrimination, a diverse student body is a compelling reason for considering race in admissions decisions.
By the mid-90's, several states had banned race-based affirmative action at public colleges and universities. California passed Proposition 209 and Washington passed I-200. Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana banned affirmative action at both public and private institutions after the Fifth Circuit's decision in Hopwood v. Texas. Because California and Texas are home to the largest Latino populations in the nation, these anti-affirmative action movements resulted in significant setbacks. Georgia banned affirmative action after a similar legal challenge. Florida followed suit pursuant to an executive order issued by Jeb Bush.
In 2003, the Supreme Court once again considered the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions in Grutter v. Bollinger. That decision affirmed that race can be used as one of many factors in admissions decisions to further the compelling interest of student body diversity. Following the Grutter decision, only 3 states continued to ban affirmative action: California, Washington, and Florida.
In his opinion in the Bakke case, Justice Blackmun expressed the view that the need for affirmative action would elapse within a decade. Unfortunately, Justice Blackmun's prediction failed to transform itself into reality. Indeed, according to a recent report issued by the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, "[t]he elimination of affirmative action has sharply decreased the number of underrepresented students enrolling in medical schools." The report states that Latino applicants to the top 10 public and private medical schools has decreased 38.6%, from 2,769 in 1995 to 1,700 in 2001. Similarly, the report found that the number of Latino and African-American law students enrolled in the University of California's three law schools declined by 28% after California passed Proposition 209.
"Two of the states that continue to ban any consideration of racial diversity in their public universities -- California and Florida -- are among the states with the highest Latino population," noted Cynthia Valenzuela, MALDEF Director of Litigation. "This creates long-lasting negative effects on the entire Latino community, and because we are one of the fastest growing communities in the country today, the effects are especially pernicious."
For these reasons, MALDEF continues to fight for diversity in higher education. In April, the MALDEF Board of Directors voted unanimously to oppose "Amendment 46," a Colorado ballot initiative that would import California's harmful ban on affirmative action to that state. We are also closely monitoring changes in higher education admissions policies in Arizona, California, and Texas and their potential impact on Latino educational access. At the same time, MALDEF is working to improve educational equality among Latinos at the K-12 level. MALDEF is committed to ensuring a quality education, a connection to opportunity, and a path to success for the next generation of Latino leaders.
Founded in 1968, MALDEF, the nation’s leading Latino legal organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships.
MALDEF NATIONAL HEADQUARTERSLOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE634 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90014Tel: 213.629.2512
ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE34 Peachtree Street NWSuite 2500Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: 678.559.1071
CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE11 East AdamsSuite 700Chicago, Il 60601Tel: 312.427.0701
HOUSTON PSP PROGRAM OFFICERipley House4410 Navigation, Suite 118Houston, TX 77011Tel: 713.315.6494
SACRAMENTO POLICY OFFICE1107 9th StreetSuite 240 Sacramento, CA 95814Tel: 916.443.7531
SAN ANTONIO REGIONAL OFFICE110 BroadwaySuite 300San Antonio, TX 78205Tel: 210.224.5476
WASHINGTON, DC REGIONAL OFFICE1016 16th Street N.W.Suite 100Washington, DC 20036Tel. 202.293.2828
www.maldef.org
JUNE 10, 2008 - Thirty years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). The ruling struck down a UC Davis Medical School admissions program that set aside a specified number of seats for racial minorities, while at the same time overturning the lower court's complete prohibition on the consideration of race under any circumstance. MALDEF filed an amicus brief in the Bakke case arguing for the preservation and promotion of affirmative action to ensure access and equality to higher education for the nation's Latinos.
The Bakke Court, like the current Supreme Court, was badly fragmented. Six separate opinions were issued, and no more than four justices agreed in their reasoning. Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke established the law on affirmative action, and in the intervening 30 years, the legal landscape regarding access and equity in higher education has not changed much. Justice Powell's opinion provided that in the context of student admission to higher education, race can be considered as one factor among many; that specific numerical quotas are constitutionally impermissible, although goals are acceptable; and that while affirmative action programs cannot be used to remedy past societal discrimination, a diverse student body is a compelling reason for considering race in admissions decisions.
By the mid-90's, several states had banned race-based affirmative action at public colleges and universities. California passed Proposition 209 and Washington passed I-200. Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana banned affirmative action at both public and private institutions after the Fifth Circuit's decision in Hopwood v. Texas. Because California and Texas are home to the largest Latino populations in the nation, these anti-affirmative action movements resulted in significant setbacks. Georgia banned affirmative action after a similar legal challenge. Florida followed suit pursuant to an executive order issued by Jeb Bush.
In 2003, the Supreme Court once again considered the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions in Grutter v. Bollinger. That decision affirmed that race can be used as one of many factors in admissions decisions to further the compelling interest of student body diversity. Following the Grutter decision, only 3 states continued to ban affirmative action: California, Washington, and Florida.
In his opinion in the Bakke case, Justice Blackmun expressed the view that the need for affirmative action would elapse within a decade. Unfortunately, Justice Blackmun's prediction failed to transform itself into reality. Indeed, according to a recent report issued by the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, "[t]he elimination of affirmative action has sharply decreased the number of underrepresented students enrolling in medical schools." The report states that Latino applicants to the top 10 public and private medical schools has decreased 38.6%, from 2,769 in 1995 to 1,700 in 2001. Similarly, the report found that the number of Latino and African-American law students enrolled in the University of California's three law schools declined by 28% after California passed Proposition 209.
"Two of the states that continue to ban any consideration of racial diversity in their public universities -- California and Florida -- are among the states with the highest Latino population," noted Cynthia Valenzuela, MALDEF Director of Litigation. "This creates long-lasting negative effects on the entire Latino community, and because we are one of the fastest growing communities in the country today, the effects are especially pernicious."
For these reasons, MALDEF continues to fight for diversity in higher education. In April, the MALDEF Board of Directors voted unanimously to oppose "Amendment 46," a Colorado ballot initiative that would import California's harmful ban on affirmative action to that state. We are also closely monitoring changes in higher education admissions policies in Arizona, California, and Texas and their potential impact on Latino educational access. At the same time, MALDEF is working to improve educational equality among Latinos at the K-12 level. MALDEF is committed to ensuring a quality education, a connection to opportunity, and a path to success for the next generation of Latino leaders.
Founded in 1968, MALDEF, the nation’s leading Latino legal organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships.
MALDEF NATIONAL HEADQUARTERSLOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE634 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90014Tel: 213.629.2512
ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE34 Peachtree Street NWSuite 2500Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: 678.559.1071
CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE11 East AdamsSuite 700Chicago, Il 60601Tel: 312.427.0701
HOUSTON PSP PROGRAM OFFICERipley House4410 Navigation, Suite 118Houston, TX 77011Tel: 713.315.6494
SACRAMENTO POLICY OFFICE1107 9th StreetSuite 240 Sacramento, CA 95814Tel: 916.443.7531
SAN ANTONIO REGIONAL OFFICE110 BroadwaySuite 300San Antonio, TX 78205Tel: 210.224.5476
WASHINGTON, DC REGIONAL OFFICE1016 16th Street N.W.Suite 100Washington, DC 20036Tel. 202.293.2828
www.maldef.org
Monday, July 7, 2008
Affirmative Distraction
The New York Times
July 6, 2008
By STEPHEN L. CARTER
Op-Ed Contributor
Aspen, Colo.
THIRTY years ago last week, the Supreme Court handed down its Bakke decision, hoping to end the argument over the constitutionality of affirmative action in college admission. But with hindsight, it’s clear that the justices mainly helped hasten the end of serious discussion about racial justice in America. As they set the stage for a lasting argument over who should get into college, the wound of race continued to fester, unhealed, and our politics moved on.
The ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was the court’s disorderly attempt in 1978 to bring some order to racially conscious admissions programs. The medical school of the University of California at Davis had set aside 16 spots for members of groups described as having been subjected to past discrimination.
The program was not unusual. Worried about lagging minority enrollments and prodded by the federal government, colleges across the country, having once taken race into account to keep certain groups out, had begun considering it as a factor in order to help members of those groups get in. A rejected applicant, Allan P. Bakke, argued that the program at Davis discriminated against him because he was white.
The Supreme Court was unable to make up its collective mind. Four of the justices would have upheld nearly all college affirmative action programs, and four others would have struck nearly all of them down. Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.’s lone opinion therefore controlled the result.
Justice Powell proposed that university administrators could consider an applicant’s race — sometimes, anyway — as long as they did not establish any racial quota, a term he inexactly defined. Baffled colleges consulted baffled lawyers. Justice Powell’s laudable effort at compromise had sown confusion. Eventually, college administrators worked out their response: They would pay attention to the Bakke decision when it suited them — the rest of the time they would ignore it.
In the ensuing years, America has come to treat racial injustice the same way. Having failed miserably in our efforts to undo the damage wrought by two centuries of slavery and another of Jim Crow, we threw up our hands and moved on. We still fight over affirmative action and pretend it means we’re fighting over racial justice. We debate its pros and cons in order to avoid coming to grips with more fundamental challenges.
Those who suffer most from the legacy of racial oppression are not competing for spaces in the entering classes of the nation’s most selective colleges. Millions of them are not finishing high school. We countenance vast disparities in education in America, in where children start and where they come out. And we do not even want to talk about it.
It was not always this way. From the early years of the nation’s founding through somewhere in the mid-1970s, racial injustice was the fundamental moral question of American politics. Through wars and depressions, through scandals and disasters, the attention of the American people was repeatedly yanked back — at times forcefully — to the divide between black and white.
America fought over slavery. America fretted about Jim Crow and finally put a stop to it. During the 1960s, the nation tried out various remedies for its horrific history, including school integration and, especially during the Nixon administration, minority hiring programs. But by 1978, the nation’s attention was slipping to other pressing moral questions — abortion and the environment, for instance — and has never quite slipped back.
It’s true that, nowadays, some of the data on racial progress are rosy, and deserving of celebration. In the past decade alone, according to the Census Bureau, the number of black adults with advanced degrees has nearly doubled. More than half a million more black students are in college today than in the early 1990s. Since 1989, the median income of black families has increased more than 16 percent in constant dollars. In the years since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, the black-white gap in test scores has narrowed, and is now smaller than it has ever been. The black middle class has never been larger.
For the first time, a major party is going to nominate an African-American candidate for president.
But it’s also true that income stratification among African-Americans has increased, and the gap between the well-off and the poor is growing. One in three black students fails to finish high school, and nearly all of those who don’t graduate are poor. Rates of violent crime are falling nationally, but the murder rate among young black men has risen sharply. America has two black communities, really, and one of them is falling further and further behind. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/opinion/06carter.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin ]
July 6, 2008
By STEPHEN L. CARTER
Op-Ed Contributor
Aspen, Colo.
THIRTY years ago last week, the Supreme Court handed down its Bakke decision, hoping to end the argument over the constitutionality of affirmative action in college admission. But with hindsight, it’s clear that the justices mainly helped hasten the end of serious discussion about racial justice in America. As they set the stage for a lasting argument over who should get into college, the wound of race continued to fester, unhealed, and our politics moved on.
The ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was the court’s disorderly attempt in 1978 to bring some order to racially conscious admissions programs. The medical school of the University of California at Davis had set aside 16 spots for members of groups described as having been subjected to past discrimination.
The program was not unusual. Worried about lagging minority enrollments and prodded by the federal government, colleges across the country, having once taken race into account to keep certain groups out, had begun considering it as a factor in order to help members of those groups get in. A rejected applicant, Allan P. Bakke, argued that the program at Davis discriminated against him because he was white.
The Supreme Court was unable to make up its collective mind. Four of the justices would have upheld nearly all college affirmative action programs, and four others would have struck nearly all of them down. Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.’s lone opinion therefore controlled the result.
Justice Powell proposed that university administrators could consider an applicant’s race — sometimes, anyway — as long as they did not establish any racial quota, a term he inexactly defined. Baffled colleges consulted baffled lawyers. Justice Powell’s laudable effort at compromise had sown confusion. Eventually, college administrators worked out their response: They would pay attention to the Bakke decision when it suited them — the rest of the time they would ignore it.
In the ensuing years, America has come to treat racial injustice the same way. Having failed miserably in our efforts to undo the damage wrought by two centuries of slavery and another of Jim Crow, we threw up our hands and moved on. We still fight over affirmative action and pretend it means we’re fighting over racial justice. We debate its pros and cons in order to avoid coming to grips with more fundamental challenges.
Those who suffer most from the legacy of racial oppression are not competing for spaces in the entering classes of the nation’s most selective colleges. Millions of them are not finishing high school. We countenance vast disparities in education in America, in where children start and where they come out. And we do not even want to talk about it.
It was not always this way. From the early years of the nation’s founding through somewhere in the mid-1970s, racial injustice was the fundamental moral question of American politics. Through wars and depressions, through scandals and disasters, the attention of the American people was repeatedly yanked back — at times forcefully — to the divide between black and white.
America fought over slavery. America fretted about Jim Crow and finally put a stop to it. During the 1960s, the nation tried out various remedies for its horrific history, including school integration and, especially during the Nixon administration, minority hiring programs. But by 1978, the nation’s attention was slipping to other pressing moral questions — abortion and the environment, for instance — and has never quite slipped back.
It’s true that, nowadays, some of the data on racial progress are rosy, and deserving of celebration. In the past decade alone, according to the Census Bureau, the number of black adults with advanced degrees has nearly doubled. More than half a million more black students are in college today than in the early 1990s. Since 1989, the median income of black families has increased more than 16 percent in constant dollars. In the years since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, the black-white gap in test scores has narrowed, and is now smaller than it has ever been. The black middle class has never been larger.
For the first time, a major party is going to nominate an African-American candidate for president.
But it’s also true that income stratification among African-Americans has increased, and the gap between the well-off and the poor is growing. One in three black students fails to finish high school, and nearly all of those who don’t graduate are poor. Rates of violent crime are falling nationally, but the murder rate among young black men has risen sharply. America has two black communities, really, and one of them is falling further and further behind. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/opinion/06carter.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin ]
Monday, June 16, 2008
'Bakke' Set a New Path to Diversity for Colleges
The Chronicle of Higher Education
From the issue dated June 20, 2008
By PETER SCHMIDT
Thirty years ago, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. sent the nation's selective colleges down a path where few had ventured before.
In the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, he wrote that colleges were legally justified in giving some modest consideration to their applicants' race, so long as they were motivated by a desire to attain the educational benefits of diversity.
Before Bakke, selective colleges regarded race-conscious admissions policies mainly as a way to remedy past societal discrimination against black, Hispanic, and Native American applicants. The Bakke ruling declared that justification off limits, replacing a rationale grounded in history with one grounded in educational theory.
The approaching 30th anniversary of that Supreme Court decision, announced on June 23, 1978, finds many in higher education wondering where Justice Powell's guidance has gotten them — and what, exactly, lies ahead.
His rationale for race-conscious policies may have ensured their long-term survival in the courts, by linking them to a common educational concern that is unlikely to go away anytime soon. But the decision also limited the reach of such policies, forcing colleges to consider race only as a "plus factor." They had to abandon quests for enrollments that reflected society's racial composition in favor of having enough minority students to ensure a variety of perspectives.
The Supreme Court upheld Justice Powell's reasoning in 2003, in a case involving a challenge to the race-conscious admissions policies of the University of Michigan's law school. But the argument that such policies have educational benefits has not protected them from political challenges. Michigan's residents subsequently voted to ban the use of affirmative action by public colleges and other state and local agencies. Similar measures were adopted by California and Washington State in the 1990s and are seen as likely to pass in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska if critics of affirmative action succeed in getting them on the ballot this fall.
Some advocates for minority students express frustration that the educational-diversity rationale has led colleges to seek out all different types of students rather than focusing on trying to increase their black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollments. At the end of the day, the advocates argue, pursuing diversity for educational purposes is not the same thing as pursuing racial equality and social justice — and is not nearly enough.
"There are some of us who still believe there is a strong remedial justification for affirmative action," says William L. Taylor, chairman of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, a Washington-based group that monitors the federal government's compliance with civil-rights laws. Mr. Taylor, a leading civil-rights lawyer since 1954, says he holds the view that Justice Harry A. Blackmun expressed in a dissenting opinion in Bakke, that "in order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race." [To read the entire article, go to: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i41/41a00103.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ] (Subscription required)
From the issue dated June 20, 2008
By PETER SCHMIDT
Thirty years ago, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. sent the nation's selective colleges down a path where few had ventured before.
In the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, he wrote that colleges were legally justified in giving some modest consideration to their applicants' race, so long as they were motivated by a desire to attain the educational benefits of diversity.
Before Bakke, selective colleges regarded race-conscious admissions policies mainly as a way to remedy past societal discrimination against black, Hispanic, and Native American applicants. The Bakke ruling declared that justification off limits, replacing a rationale grounded in history with one grounded in educational theory.
The approaching 30th anniversary of that Supreme Court decision, announced on June 23, 1978, finds many in higher education wondering where Justice Powell's guidance has gotten them — and what, exactly, lies ahead.
His rationale for race-conscious policies may have ensured their long-term survival in the courts, by linking them to a common educational concern that is unlikely to go away anytime soon. But the decision also limited the reach of such policies, forcing colleges to consider race only as a "plus factor." They had to abandon quests for enrollments that reflected society's racial composition in favor of having enough minority students to ensure a variety of perspectives.
The Supreme Court upheld Justice Powell's reasoning in 2003, in a case involving a challenge to the race-conscious admissions policies of the University of Michigan's law school. But the argument that such policies have educational benefits has not protected them from political challenges. Michigan's residents subsequently voted to ban the use of affirmative action by public colleges and other state and local agencies. Similar measures were adopted by California and Washington State in the 1990s and are seen as likely to pass in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska if critics of affirmative action succeed in getting them on the ballot this fall.
Some advocates for minority students express frustration that the educational-diversity rationale has led colleges to seek out all different types of students rather than focusing on trying to increase their black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollments. At the end of the day, the advocates argue, pursuing diversity for educational purposes is not the same thing as pursuing racial equality and social justice — and is not nearly enough.
"There are some of us who still believe there is a strong remedial justification for affirmative action," says William L. Taylor, chairman of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, a Washington-based group that monitors the federal government's compliance with civil-rights laws. Mr. Taylor, a leading civil-rights lawyer since 1954, says he holds the view that Justice Harry A. Blackmun expressed in a dissenting opinion in Bakke, that "in order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race." [To read the entire article, go to: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i41/41a00103.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en ] (Subscription required)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)