The Chronicle of Higher Education
November 21, 2011, 5:53 pm
By Richard Kahlenberg
President Obama, facing high unemployment and a sluggish economy, may soon encounter a new obstacle in his quest for re-election: the re-emergence of affirmative action in higher education as a political issue. The odds seem increasingly likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a suit against the University of Texas at Austin, re-introducing the issue of racial preferences that has been largely dormant since the 2003 Supreme Court Grutter decision affirming the use of race in admissions.
The tricky politics of affirmative action for Obama is an important feature of two new books, Still a House Divided: Race and Politics in Obama’s America by Desmond S. King of Oxford and Rogers M. Smith of the University of Pennsylvania (a volume I reviewed this week in The New Republic); and The Persistence of the Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency, a trenchant analysis by Harvard Law School professor Randall Kennedy.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/what-should-obama-do-on-affirmative-action/30905
Showing posts with label Class-Based Affirmative Action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Class-Based Affirmative Action. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Saturday, April 3, 2010
The Affirmative Action Trap
The American Prospect
Obama is weighing in on the University of Texas's affirmative action policy, but it may be politically dangerous for him to do so.
Richard D. Kahlenberg April 2, 2010
a Democratic administration to support racial affirmative action -- as the Obama administration is doing in a contentious lawsuit challenging the University of Texas at Austin's racial-preference admissions policy -- may seem natural and predictable. The administration filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, siding with the university in a lawsuit filed by two white students. But given President Barack Obama's past rhetoric on the issue, the decision to enter the fray is somewhat surprising -- and fraught with political danger.
As a candidate, Obama sent mixed signals on affirmative action, sometimes suggesting support for the policy and other times suggesting that he was willing to place a greater emphasis on helping economically disadvantaged students of all races. When asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos whether Obama's own daughters deserved affirmative action in college admissions, Obama replied that no, his daughters should "be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged," and said furthermore that "we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."
Likewise, in his legendary speech on race in Philadelphia, Obama acknowledged the history of discrimination in this country that undergirds the moral argument for affirmative-action plans but added that working- and middle-class whites might resent them. Obama declared that the resentments are not "misguided or even racist" but rather are "grounded in legitimate concerns." More recently, as president, when he was pressed to take action to address high rates of black unemployment, Obama responded, "I can't pass laws that say I'm just helping black folks. I'm the president of the United States. What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need. That in turn is going to help lift up the African American community."
What's striking is that Obama's stated goal -- we should help disadvantaged people of all races -- is precisely for what the plaintiffs in the University of Texas case are arguing and what the Obama administration has now sided against.
Full Commentary: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_affirmative_action_trap
Obama is weighing in on the University of Texas's affirmative action policy, but it may be politically dangerous for him to do so.
Richard D. Kahlenberg April 2, 2010
a Democratic administration to support racial affirmative action -- as the Obama administration is doing in a contentious lawsuit challenging the University of Texas at Austin's racial-preference admissions policy -- may seem natural and predictable. The administration filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, siding with the university in a lawsuit filed by two white students. But given President Barack Obama's past rhetoric on the issue, the decision to enter the fray is somewhat surprising -- and fraught with political danger.
As a candidate, Obama sent mixed signals on affirmative action, sometimes suggesting support for the policy and other times suggesting that he was willing to place a greater emphasis on helping economically disadvantaged students of all races. When asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos whether Obama's own daughters deserved affirmative action in college admissions, Obama replied that no, his daughters should "be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged," and said furthermore that "we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."
Likewise, in his legendary speech on race in Philadelphia, Obama acknowledged the history of discrimination in this country that undergirds the moral argument for affirmative-action plans but added that working- and middle-class whites might resent them. Obama declared that the resentments are not "misguided or even racist" but rather are "grounded in legitimate concerns." More recently, as president, when he was pressed to take action to address high rates of black unemployment, Obama responded, "I can't pass laws that say I'm just helping black folks. I'm the president of the United States. What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need. That in turn is going to help lift up the African American community."
What's striking is that Obama's stated goal -- we should help disadvantaged people of all races -- is precisely for what the plaintiffs in the University of Texas case are arguing and what the Obama administration has now sided against.
Full Commentary: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_affirmative_action_trap
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Reactions: Is It Time for Class-Based Affirmative Action?
The Chronicle of Higher Education Review
December 16, 2009
A new study from Public Agenda has found that the main reason students drop out of college is that they have to work. That raises the question: Has the time come for an affirmative-action policy based on socioeconomic status?
And that raises a further question: Are the selective institutions that could provide enough financial aid to needy students, so they could work less, doing enough to recruit them? In other words, should the discussion of retention include a discussion of class and admissions? The Chronicle asked a group of scholars and experts what they thought.
Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation:
Three trends are likely to push the idea of affirmative action for low-income students to the forefront in the next couple of years.
First, the enormous underrepresentation of low-socioeconomic students at selective institutions, always an embarrassment to higher education, is getting worse. A 2004 Century Foundation study found that at the most selective 146 institutions, 74 percent of students come from the richest socioeconomic quarter of the population, and just 3 percent from the bottom quarter, a roughly 25:1 ratio. Research by The Chronicle and others suggests that in recent years, the stratification has grown even greater, putting pressure on universities to take action.
Second, increasing attacks on race-based affirmative action will very likely push universities to put in place class-based programs as an indirect and legally sound way of promoting racial diversity. A new challenge to racial preferences at the University of Texas at Austin, currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, could prevail in the Supreme Court, where the new swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, dissented in the 2003 University of Michigan case supporting racial preferences. Meanwhile, Ward Connerly has plans to bring anti-affirmative-action initiatives to Arizona and Missouri in 2010.
Third, we have a liberal African-American president who is uniquely positioned to ease the transition from race-based to class-based affirmative action, having said that his own daughters don't deserve preferences in college admissions, and that low-income students of all races do. But if economically disadvantaged students are admitted to selective colleges through affirmative action, will they be able to graduate? With the right support programs, yes. As the new report from Public Agenda finds, students drop out not because they're unprepared, but rather because they are stretched financially and have to work to make ends meet. A forthcoming Century Foundation report by Edward Fiske finds that a new program, the Carolina Covenant, has increased graduation rates by ensuring that financial aid and support programs are in place for low-income students. Likewise, research by William Bowen and colleagues finds that students are more likely to graduate at selective universities than less-selective ones—even though the standards are more demanding—perhaps because selective institutions have greater resources to support students.
All of which is to suggest that class-based affirmative action won't lead unprepared low-income students to drop out. To the contrary, it should increase graduation rates—a central goal of the Obama administration.
Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP and a professor of history at the University of Virginia:
I think the time has long passed for adding socioeconomic status to the categories of affirmative action, but it must not and cannot be viewed as a replacement for race. Poverty is not a proxy for race, and to pretend that it is would eradicate the initial rationale for affirmative action—to correct for society's demonstrable biases against people of color regardless of their socioeconomic status.
The murder some years ago of Bill Cosby's son by a white racist who later bragged about the shooting to his friends shows how feeble the Cosbys's great wealth was in protecting their son against this ugly virus. The recent news that black graduates of prestigious colleges and universities feel they must "whiten" their résumés to hide their blackness demonstrates how little effect affirmative action in its original iteration has today, and how our current substitution of "diversity" for actual race-based affirmative action has rendered the latter almost useless. How many of our colleges count students from Africa and elsewhere toward their "affirmative action" goals?
So bring on socioeconomic status. And while you're at it, bring back race-based policies—you cannot get beyond race without going to race.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Reactions-Is-It-Time-for/62615/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
December 16, 2009
A new study from Public Agenda has found that the main reason students drop out of college is that they have to work. That raises the question: Has the time come for an affirmative-action policy based on socioeconomic status?
And that raises a further question: Are the selective institutions that could provide enough financial aid to needy students, so they could work less, doing enough to recruit them? In other words, should the discussion of retention include a discussion of class and admissions? The Chronicle asked a group of scholars and experts what they thought.
Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation:
Three trends are likely to push the idea of affirmative action for low-income students to the forefront in the next couple of years.
First, the enormous underrepresentation of low-socioeconomic students at selective institutions, always an embarrassment to higher education, is getting worse. A 2004 Century Foundation study found that at the most selective 146 institutions, 74 percent of students come from the richest socioeconomic quarter of the population, and just 3 percent from the bottom quarter, a roughly 25:1 ratio. Research by The Chronicle and others suggests that in recent years, the stratification has grown even greater, putting pressure on universities to take action.
Second, increasing attacks on race-based affirmative action will very likely push universities to put in place class-based programs as an indirect and legally sound way of promoting racial diversity. A new challenge to racial preferences at the University of Texas at Austin, currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, could prevail in the Supreme Court, where the new swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, dissented in the 2003 University of Michigan case supporting racial preferences. Meanwhile, Ward Connerly has plans to bring anti-affirmative-action initiatives to Arizona and Missouri in 2010.
Third, we have a liberal African-American president who is uniquely positioned to ease the transition from race-based to class-based affirmative action, having said that his own daughters don't deserve preferences in college admissions, and that low-income students of all races do. But if economically disadvantaged students are admitted to selective colleges through affirmative action, will they be able to graduate? With the right support programs, yes. As the new report from Public Agenda finds, students drop out not because they're unprepared, but rather because they are stretched financially and have to work to make ends meet. A forthcoming Century Foundation report by Edward Fiske finds that a new program, the Carolina Covenant, has increased graduation rates by ensuring that financial aid and support programs are in place for low-income students. Likewise, research by William Bowen and colleagues finds that students are more likely to graduate at selective universities than less-selective ones—even though the standards are more demanding—perhaps because selective institutions have greater resources to support students.
All of which is to suggest that class-based affirmative action won't lead unprepared low-income students to drop out. To the contrary, it should increase graduation rates—a central goal of the Obama administration.
Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP and a professor of history at the University of Virginia:
I think the time has long passed for adding socioeconomic status to the categories of affirmative action, but it must not and cannot be viewed as a replacement for race. Poverty is not a proxy for race, and to pretend that it is would eradicate the initial rationale for affirmative action—to correct for society's demonstrable biases against people of color regardless of their socioeconomic status.
The murder some years ago of Bill Cosby's son by a white racist who later bragged about the shooting to his friends shows how feeble the Cosbys's great wealth was in protecting their son against this ugly virus. The recent news that black graduates of prestigious colleges and universities feel they must "whiten" their résumés to hide their blackness demonstrates how little effect affirmative action in its original iteration has today, and how our current substitution of "diversity" for actual race-based affirmative action has rendered the latter almost useless. How many of our colleges count students from Africa and elsewhere toward their "affirmative action" goals?
So bring on socioeconomic status. And while you're at it, bring back race-based policies—you cannot get beyond race without going to race.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Reactions-Is-It-Time-for/62615/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)