Equality for All? For many years, affirmative action was necessary for correcting injustices against minorities.

Affirmative action policies have served a very important role in ensuring minority students receive an equal opportunity to obtain a higher education and have helped reverse the discrimination minorities faced in the past. However, in recent years with cases against universities being brought before the courts involving more qualified non-minority students being denied admission to colleges while lesser-qualified minority students are admitted, the constitutionality of the use of affirmative action in determining admission of applicants to college is being questioned. With the improved rates of minority admissions to college that have occurred over the last 20 or more years, it appears now that the time has come to end the use of race preferences and to use only the ability and merit of students in determining college admissions of applicants. In order to understand why affirmative action is no longer need, one needs to know when affirmative action was instituted and why it was needed in the past. Affirmative action first came about in the 1960s as a means to try to counteract years of injustices and discrimination that minorities faced in hiring, pay, and admittance to schools. Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial discrimination in schools, public places, and employment, discriminatory practices by some individuals and institutions were still common in the 1960s (Eastland 6-7). In an attempt to ensure discriminatory practices against minorities did not continue to occur and as a remedy to past injustices, affirmative action initially was used to assure that racial minorities were not being unfairly omitted when hiring employees, giving awards, or deciding who to admit.

Affirmative action continues to be used today, and its use and meaning have changed and been expanded in some regards over the years. In attempts to achieve diversity at institutions of higher education, affirmative recruitment, affirmative fairness, and affirmative preference are often used. Affirmative recruitment means that a college encourages minorities to apply at the college. Affirmative fairness is defined as going out of the way to make sure a minority student has been treated fairly. In college, this may mean looking extensively at the candidates background, like where the applicant grew up and if the student has had to overcome major obstacles. Affirmative preference means giving minority applicants preference in the way of weighting test scores or other criteria over a non-minority when both candidates have equal credentials (McWhirter 4-6). Universities often use quotas for a certain percentage of minorities in the admittance of applicants to ensure that the schools of higher education remain diverse. At some institutions of higher education, certain factors such as race, gender, socioeconomic background, and sexual orientation are weighted as positive factors when deciding admissions of applicants (SoYouWanna Know About). From a historical perspective of the decades of past unjust practices and the unwillingness of many individuals and institutions to change the subtle and not so subtle discrimination against minorities, most people would not deny that affirmative action was needed in the early years of the Civil Rights Movement. Much has been gained for the rights of minorities as a result of affirmative action especially in the admittance of minorities to institutions of higher education. Since the 1960s and especially in the past twenty years, the admission of minority students to post-secondary schools has substantially grown in part due to affirmative action. Statistics show that today, 4.3 million minorities attend post-secondary schools, a big jump from 2 million minorities in the 1980s. In addition, recent statistics show

that 40% of African Americans and 34% of Hispanics now attend college (Number of Minorities) as compared to only 9% of African-Americans and 4% of Hispanics in 1980 (Redd 9). With the vast improvement in the numbers of minorities being admitted to college that has been achieved, it would seem that the use of race preference to ensure admissions of minority students to college is now no longer necessary. Despite the vast gains in the admission and attendance of minorities at post-secondary schools, some argue that there still exists a disparity in the percentage of minorities attending compared to the 46% percent of whites that attend college. Some use this difference in the percentage of minorities versus whites attending college as evidence that there is still more room for improvement, and there is still need for affirmative action to combat these differences. On the other hand, factors unrelated to discrimination influence the attendance of college by some minorities. Some of these factors include cultural differences, the inequality of preparation of students for college, and socioeconomic differences. A focus on these factors rather than continuing preferential admission policies would provide greater benefit in closing the gap between the percentages of different racial groups attending college. With now several decades of increasing minority admissions to college that have been brought about in part because of affirmative action, affirmative action is considered by many to no longer be necessary. In recent years the question has been raised concerning how long and to what extent is it appropriate to give any segment of the population preference over another in determining admittance to college. In fact, some believe the continued use of affirmative action beyond its initial purpose of ensuring equal opportunity to all to be admitted to institutions of higher education can be deemed reverse discrimination against those of non-minority status. Christopher Edley, Jr., author of Not All Black and White, states, the power of law would

both reinforce the moral commitment to abjure racial distinctions and, with effective enforcement, eliminate the argument that race-conscious affirmative action is needed as a prophylaxis against future or subtle discrimination (87). In other words, laws are in place, and as long as the laws against racial discrimination are enforced, affirmative action is no longer needed as a preventive measure against discrimination. With rising controversy over the continued use of affirmative action in both student admission decisions as well as in hiring practices, several states, including Florida, California, Michigan and Washington, have recently passed propositions banning the use of affirmative action (Affirmative Action Ban). These states have used Amendment 14 of the US Constitution that requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons as the basis of the ban. Californias Proposition 209 was a 1996 ballot proposition that passed and lead to an amendment of the state constitution to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity for deciding hiring or admission to schools. While Proposition 209 was supported and funded by the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign, led by University of California Regent Ward Connerly, it was opposed by affirmative action advocates and supporters. Proposition 209 was voted into law on November 5 1996, with 54 percent of the vote. In addition, the state of Washington passed Initiative 200, another ban on affirmative action, in 1998. In the November 2006 election in Michigan, a similar amendment was also passed, entitled the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (Timeline of Affirmative...). The increasing number of states banning affirmative action has served as a signal that it is time for colleges to also ban its use for determining college admissions. In fact the use of affirmative action for determining the admission of applicants to institutions of higher education has come under fire in recent years. As a result, several lawsuits have been filed against

universities admitting minorities with lower test scores or lower qualifications over non-minority students. One of the earliest challenges to the use of affirmative action in deciding college admission came in 1978 when the Medical School of the University of California at Davis was sued and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit revolved around the school having two admissions programs for the admission of 100 students each year. The regular admissions program had a set of standards, while another special admissions program for minorities set aside 16 slots and the standards were substantially lowered to allow for 16 admissions from this group. A non-minority student who for two years in a row did not meet the standard admissions criteria but had test scores and qualification well above many of those being admitted from the special admissions program sued the medical school. In the Supreme Court landmark decision on affirmative action, quota systems in college admissions were banned, but other affirmative action policies to give equal access to minorities were allowed to continue (Barkan 2-3). One of the most publicized challenges of the use of affirmative action in college admissions has been the case of Grutter v. Bollinger. In this case first filed in 1997, a white female student alleging that the university had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United sued the University of Michigan Law School. Later, the undergraduate admissions process was also challenged in the case of Gratz v. Bollinger. One of the main objections to the University of Michigans admission policies was that on a 150 point total scale, students could be awarded 20 points for being from an economically disadvantaged background, being an underrepresented minority, attending a high school serving a predominately minority population (Q&A re University). To put the added 20 points to the admissions decision into perspective, it was

reported that Blacks, Hispanics or American Indians get 20 points for their race -- equal to raising their grade-point average a full point on a 4-point scale. [A perfect SAT score of 1600, on the other hand, is only awarded 12 points.] (Old UM Racial). These many recent lawsuits indicate the growing sentiment that using race preferences in deciding admissions is considered by many to be reverse discrimination. In response to these cries of reverse discrimination and the lawsuits that have resulted, some insist that affirmative action is still needed because many minority students are educationally disadvantaged and the standardized tests used to measure student capabilities are thought by some to be culturally biased (Rammohan). Some believe that the standardized tests, especially the reading and writing tests are geared more towards white culture (Rammohan) and as shown in the book, The Shape of the River, blacks score consistently below whites on the SAT (Bowen and Bok 20). These tests can result in lower scores for minorities, and those favoring the continuation of affirmative action in deciding college admissions believe that affirmative action helps level the field when it comes to college admission that heavily weight these test scores. Affirmative action is thought by some to compensate for these educational disadvantages and cultural biases of the standardized tests. In response to the argument for the continued use of affirmative action due to culturally biased standardized tests, it is pointed out that a better plan might be to ensure that tests such as the ACT and SAT are not culturally biased. Much research in recent years has occurred to help remove cultural biases in these tests (Bommarito 2-3). More questions based on multicultural facts and less cultural-based questions would result in more balanced test scores among the races.

As a counter argument for the necessity of the continuation of affirmative action because of the disparity in the education of many minorities prior to reaching college, it is proposed that the causes of the inequity in K-12 education need to be addressed rather than waiting until college admissions to make up for the difference. It is suggested that affirmative action would not be necessary if all elementary and high schools had curriculums that focus on educating the students to the same level. Then the standardized tests could reflect more on the students abilities rather than the possible inadequacies of their early schooling. In the ideal world, all students would have the same level and quality of education and the only difference in the educations of students would be due to their innate ability, motivation, and work ethic. The focus needs to be placed on leveling the equality of the K-12 educational system to eliminate making up for the failings of earlier education by using racial preferences in determining college admissions. Another reason that racial preferences for determining college admissions needs to be ended is apparent when it is considered that the use of affirmative may unintentionally be causing harm to minorities. The use of racial preferences as a part of affirmative action policies may lead to self-doubt and the questioning of self-worth among blacks because of the blind preferential treatment that is used, according to Diane Nagel of McKendree University (The End of). As long as affirmative action and the growing controversy of giving racial preference to some applicants exist, other students, teachers, and future employers, may question whether minority students had to work as hard or whether they are as qualified to get into the college. Because of doubts of minority qualifications created by affirmative action, minority students who may have been even more qualified than the vast majority of those admitted may find their qualifications questioned by many. Terry Eastland, author of Ending Affirmative

Action: the Case for Colorblind Justice gives an example of this, when describing a situation of a minority graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley. A second-year graduate student greeted her and said she had been looking forward to meeting the twofer who had been admitted that year. Because Cruz was a Filipino woman in a male-dominated field, and because affirmative action for Filipinos and women governed the admissions process, the second-year student had drawn the conclusion that Cruz was an affirmative action admittee, qualifying on two grounds. In fact, Cruz had been admitted on the basis of a sparkling academic record (86). While affirmative action is effective in increasing the admissions rates of minorities that are under-represented in colleges, lowering admissions standards for certain minority groups to obtain these higher admissions rates inadvertently continues the stereotypes that some minority groups are less intelligent and would not qualify to be admitted without preferential treatment. Giving racial preference or lowering admission standards for particular groups insinuates that nobody from these groups would qualify to get into college based on merits alone. This sort of stereotyping perpetuates the inequalities that affirmative action seeks to eliminate (Affirmative Action In). If affirmative action for college admissions was to be discontinued, minorities would be admitted into college based solely on their merits, and there would be no doubts or questioning of the qualifications of any minority students. Finally, numerous polls such as the Gallup Organization, NBC, Newsweek, the Detroit Free Press, and the Chronicle of Higher Education indicate that the overwhelming majority of Americans of all races, both men and women, and both major political parties oppose the use of race-based admissions (Ending Racial Double). For example, the opposition to racial preferences for college admissions is clearly shown in a Washington Post poll that found that 94 percent of white people and 86 percent of black people are against using race as a factor in

college admissions (Ending Racial Double). These poll results confirm that the vast majority of people are in agreement that the time has come to end racial preferences in deciding admission to college. Affirmative action has served a very important role in ensuring that institutions of higher education provide all students, including minority students, the opportunity to further their education. Very few would disagree that in the early decades following the start of the Civil Rights Movement, affirmative action was very much needed to force those reluctant or unwilling to give opportunities to minorities to do so. In recent years, however, with more students desiring to attend college and college admissions becoming even more competitive, some have started to question the constitutionality of the use of affirmative action policies that allow for racial preferences in determining admission of applicants to college. The concerns about inequality of early education and cultural biases of standardized tests should be addressed to help alleviate the concerns of minority students being at an educational and standardized test disadvantage. In the meantime, however, true equality cannot be reached as long as affirmative action policies continue to give preference to one group over another in determining admission to college. Allowing racial preferences to be used in the determination of college admissions needs to be discontinued, and admission of applicants to college needs to be determined solely on the basis of merit and ability, rather than race.

Additional Works Cited Affirmative Action in College Admissions. CampusCompare.com. 5 Aug. 2008. 23 Nov. 2008 <http://www.campuscompare.com/college-resources/admissions/affirmative-actionin-college-admissions/>. Bommarito, Nicolas. Cultural Bias in Standardized Intelligence Testing. Nicbommarito.com. 2002. 23 Nov. 2008 <http://www.nicbommarito.com/writing/nonfiction/anthroiq.pdf>. Brunner, Borgna. Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones. Infoplease. 2007. 23 Nov. 2008 <http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html>. Ending Racial Double Standards. The Center for Individual Rights. 10 Jun. 2008. 24 Nov. 2008 <http://www.cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html>. Old UM Racial Quotas Unconstitutional, Judge Rules. But New Racial Quotas are Legal! Adversity.net. 26 June 2003. 22 Nov. 2008 <http://www.adversity.net/education_2_michu_3.htm#xxbottom>. Q&A re University of Michigan Admissions Policies. Information on Admissions Lawsuits. 3 Jan. 2001. 21 Nov. 2008 <http://www.umich.edu/~bhlumrec/a/admissions/faqs/q&a.html>. Rammohan, Yasmin Tara. Advocates Say Standardized Tests Often Flunk Cultural Bias Scrutiny. Medill Reports. 9 May 2007. 22 Nov. 2008 <http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=35935>. Redd, Kenneth. Trends in Minority College Graduates and College Educational Attainment in Pennsylvania, 1980 to 1989. Educational Resources Information Center. Oct. 1992. 24 Nov. 2008

<http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/12/fd/ 40.pdf>. Royce, Lindy. Affirmative Action Ban Heads for Ballot in 5 States. CNNPolitics.com. 7 Mar. 2008. 23 Nov. 2008 <http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/affirmative.action/>.