How long will society ride the coattails of their parents?

At many prestigious universities, admission offices regard the “legacy” of a potential student highly. In other words, if an applicant is the child of alumni, this will increase the chances of admittance. Legacy students have been added to the topic of affirmative action due to its preference for white students. Historically, many Universities have had white alumni; therefore spawning generations will have white legacy students. Many argue that affirmative action allows universities to have the ability to permit legacy students to have increased credentials for gaining admittance. Meaning, affirmative action allows for point systems based on criteria that are out of the control of applicants. This in turn discriminates against minorities. So in essence, not only does affirmative action discriminate against whites, but it also discriminates against minorities, countering its whole goal.  Legacy students provide a system where universities can potentially gain more donations from alumni by admitting their children. This act, though may provide monetary gain, inhibits students who have high potential but lack parents who were fortunate enough to go to college.  At many universities, legacy students constitute 10 to 25% of students. That is possibly 10 to 25% of students who did not actually have the academic qualifications to attend the school where academics are key. This system creates a society where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. It goes against the American ideal of moving up in economic class. Allowing students to gain a degree at a prestigious university just because their parents did is not going to increase the overall intelligence of society and promote the common good. It will simply be a waste of an education that could have been given to someone who deserved the opportunity and had potential. 

Obama, cut to the chase.

President Obama discusses affirmative action and how it should not be considered such an issue. Well, it is. So make up your mind and take a stance.

Analysis Post

Affirmative action is defined as policies that promote the inclusion of minority groups to promote equal opportunity, while not discriminating against any group. Affirmative action began in 1961 by John F. Kennedy, in accordance with the civil rights movement to ensure that minorities were given equal opportunity.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 began a movement of equality among non-white races.  Under affirmative action the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling would have effects on higher education as well.  Affirmative action, at its arrival, was thought to be a solution for discrimination and ensuring that white dominance did not continue. In the 1978 case of Bakke vs. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court ruled that quota systems were not permissible, meaning a University could not require that a certain number of admitted students were of a minority, but that affirmative action policies were allowed, as long as they “harmed few as possible.” In the last decade a 2003 University of Michigan case ruling reinforced the Bakke ruling saying that affirmative action admission processes are in fact still legal and still necessary.  In recent years, affirmative action has been cause for discourse. Today, many feel that though affirmative action was once needed, but is outdated and no longer required to prevent discrimination. Others feel that without affirmative action, society will regress back into days where minorities were not given the opportunities that whites were.  Various groups have reasons for concern and have contributed to discourse in the debate. Universities, minorities, whites, politicians, the Supreme Court, and feminists, have taken stances on the issue. Affirmative action policies allow for women, minorities, and legacy students to reap benefits, potentially over other students. 

Both stances on affirmative action use the U.S. Constitution as basis for argument. This school of thought creates arguments for both diversity and reverse discrimination. The U.S. Constitution, under the 14^th amendment provides equal protection for all under the law. This amendment provides arguments both for and against affirmative action.  The argument in favor of affirmative action claims that under the amendment, minorities should be required to have equal opportunities and therefore need affirmative action to ensure that. Those against affirmative action claim that under the 14^th amendment majority groups are being discriminated against and do not have equal protection due to affirmative action. The indecisive and unclear claims from the constitution leave room for interpretation and debate. 

Minority groups and others in support of affirmative action base arguments on grounds of past and current discrimination. The NAACP claims that due to past inequalities of race, minorities are still at a disadvantage economically, therefore need affirmative action to ensure opportunities for higher education. This argument is flawed in that it is directed toward the past rather than the present situation of minorities in America. Though others before us have been discriminated against does not mean that we should be forced to fix the injustice of decades before. Others claim that minorities need affirmative action because discriminatory attitudes still exist, deeming government intervention necessary. Though it is plausible to suggest that discrimination does still exists, I would also make the claim that minority discrimination does not exist in higher education admittance. If anything, diversity is highly valued. 

Those that lie in the stance against affirmative action argue admittance of minorities without higher qualifications leads to reverse discrimination. Whites and other majority groups are discriminated against as spots and opportunities are left open for those who are minority. The reverend  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., begs “for his children to be judged not by the color of their skin, but by their character.” Those who oppose affirmative action use this as argument that even Martin Luther King Jr. was against affirmative action, asking for race to not be considered. The quote implies that affirmative action upholds the idea that race is a dominant factor in college admissions and discriminates against those within the majority. Another source claims that sometimes minorities are admitted to schools where the academic level is too advanced for those were admitted due to affirmative action. This source suggests that this would inevitably cause minorities to be less successful if they could not keep up academically.  

Bias is a major influence in the debate for and against affirmative action. For instance, the leader of the Michigan initiative to ban affirmative action welcomes the Ku Klux Klan and other white separatists groups who want to “ban the mixing of races.” This is bias based on an emotional attachment to the subject, a bias that many would agree is based on ignorance. Bias exists on the other side of the spectrum as well. One argument claims that affirmative action is necessary because racial bias exists in standardized test. This claim was presented without evidence or support. 

The topic of legacy students being admitted to Universities has become an issue of affirmative action; one that was not a part of the policy decades ago. Under affirmative action, many claim that legacy students, students who have had parents attend certain colleges, are gaining admittance not on qualifications but on the fact that their parents are alumni. Some are calling it “affirmative action for the rich”. Basically, the argument is that legacy students are taking spots of those more qualified simply because their parents were wealthy enough to gain admittance. One biased blogger claims that allowing “stupid rich people” into Ivy League schools cannot help society, as in the case of George W. Bush. Those who aren’t  fortunate enough to have parents who attended such colleges are left alone for no apparent reason. However others claim that admittance of legacy students affects few and encourages alumni to donate money. It is not in any way appropriate to leave deserving students outside of school for merely a generation below an alumni. One article also claims that typically only private schools take legacies. However, I personally filled out public school applications where a significant portion asked if family members had attended and graduated from the school. This is one more aspect of affirmative action that allows for those with certain qualifications to take spots from those who have no choice in the matter of parent qualifications. 

Politicians throughout the ages have been involved with affirmative action. Barack Obama , unlike many left of center politicians has different views of what affirmative action should be today. He believes that affirmative action should be driven more towards economic class rather than race and gender. Many believe that his election should be the end to affirmative action because if an African American can be elected President, surely affirmative action is no longer needed. George W. Bush differed slightly from typical Republican constituents by supporting affirmative action in the sense that race does need to be treated sensitively and regarded.  Politicians have often taken stances on affirmative action as it has been an issue of debate for the last 50 years. However, like many political issues ease is cautioned as this issue can easily deter a mass amount of voters if they feel differently on the subject. The political discourse of affirmative action often occurs when Supreme Court cases arise or more on state levels. For instance President Bush delivered his opinion further after the University of Michigan Supreme Court rulings. 

Affirmative action is in the sphere of debate for the upcoming primaries. In Arizona, Proposition 107 plans to end affirmative action for minorities and females, in both education and employment. This proposition has brought affirmative action into the debate of primaries and what effect this will have on society. The debate has caused feminist groups to stand up against the bill. Typically, feminists groups such as the National Organization for Women, have been pro affirmative action, claiming women are still oppressed and need representation for higher education. I have to wonder however if this bill may very well be the start to end reverse discrimination.  If this proposition is passed, the end to affirmative action will be near. It takes only one ruling to stop this action in its tracks, creating a domino effect. Affirmative action has run its course, serving it purpose and then some. If Proposition 107 can be passed in this primary, majority groups will seek once again equal opportunity, at least in Arizona, allowing for race and gender no longer to be an aspect for admission.

Too smart? Too bad.

Too long have Asian Americans been neglected by the affirmative action process. While the benefits reap for African Americans and Hispanic Americans while applying to universities, the exact opposite occurs to a different kind of minority. Similar to that of Caucasians in the process, Asian Americans are denied the opportunity to higher education to less qualified applicants. Empirical evidence is difficult to find, since the admissions process is subjective- based entirely on a group of peoples decision. One can study individuals’ criteria compared to other students and then look to their race. The case of Garret, an Asian American is one of these cases, where the admissions process simply appears to be unjust. Garret had a 3.5 GPA in his undergraduate studies and an above average MCAT score, yet in his applications to 20 different medical schools he got denied to all of them. These credentials are typical of a student who would be admitted to medical school. This implies that Asian Americans while applying to certain schools- if not all public schools- lose credentials merely due to their race. At earlier points in history, when Asians were under represented in universities, affirmative action gave way for an abundance of qualified Asians to receive a higher education. However, affirmative action has run its course, producing opposite effects of its original motive. Asians now represent one fifth of the students in medical school and medical schools are turning their heads to different minorities. This prioritizes African Americans over Asians similar to how it would put females over males when applying to engineering school.

Dear universities, we're on to your game.

Using the quota system, which requires a certain number of minorities to be admitted, was outlawed for Universities in the 1978 Bakke vs. Regents of the University of California case. Before this case, Universities could require that a certain percentage of students be of a minority race. After a white male, Bakke, was not admitted to the school based on the fact that he was white, the Supreme Court outlawed this discriminatory practice. So at this point, it seems quotas should not be allowed, right? Wrong. Though a University may not be “allowed” to have a specific number requirement, quotas are still, in a sense, used. In the Grutter vs. Bollinger case, a white woman sued the University of Michigan on the grounds that she was not admitted into their law school because she was white. The ruling was in favor of Michigan, claiming the University did not hold explicit numbers, simply race was just a plus. In other words, this means that though a college cannot come out and say that a certain number of minorities is required, it can regard race as a “bonus” on an application. Michigan used a point system, giving minority races extra points, specifically more points than a perfect SAT score. In contemplating this school’s regard of minorities, isn’t the point system having similar affects as quotas? The Supreme Court ruled that this was in fact not discriminatory, yet quotas are. How are point systems not discriminatory if they are giving minorities advantages over whites? To clarify, I’m sure that many Universities do not use the point system in reviewing applications. However, minorities are regarded more highly than whites, certainly if other qualifications are the same. Therefore, how can the Supreme Court rule that outward and explicit practices of discrimination are unconstitutional yet seemingly indecisive methods are not? Is the basis of this ruling that Universities must be secretive in their admission requirements? Is the point of these admission requirements to have the public somewhat unaware of the practices? The Supreme Court must make up their minds. Is race priority discrimination or not?

Minority, In, White, Out.

One argument against affirmative action is that those with less qualified grades get into competitive colleges simply because of a minority status, over those who are more qualified. This argument is reasonable in its basis that, naturally, if spots are encouraged to be left for minorities, some of those spots will be given to those who are less qualified, solely because of race. Affirmative action takes opportunities away from the majority race because minorities in education are looked upon as favorable over whites, who were once the only race admitted. Currently, however, the number of minorities in education has risen substantially. According to Minorities in Higher Education, from 1994 to 2004, the number of minorities has increased by 49% in higher education, with whites only increasing by 6%. Unarguably these statistics show that the number of minorities has risen, but the ramification of this increase is questionable. Though minorities in education are needed, it must be investigated whether this increase is taking away from majorities. The mere 6 % increase may be due to the fact that a white student has a much harder time gaining admittance because they do not provide diversity to the school.

In my own findings, I have discovered that one large competitive university, clearly places minority in high regards.  I have talked to two students at this university about their qualifications to get into the school. One male discussed that he attended a large public high school, where he barely made the cutoff for the top 150 in his senior class. He personally proclaims that his admittance was due to the fact that he is half Colombian and half Swiss. On the other hand, one white female valedictorian, who attended and average sized public high school, was admitted simply by the wait list status. Thinking these two situations over, it seems unclear why a valedictorian who clearly has a stellar G.P.A. must be admitted through the wait list, while another gains acceptance for is race/ethnicity qualifications.

This evidence raises a few questions. Isn’t it possible that oppression of the majority occurs during the attempt to allow for equality in race? Is this oppression necessary when it is also arguable that affirmative action is no longer needed? In my opinion, oppression is occurring, justified through the claims discussed above and logical reasoning that an application with minority status will outweigh a majority application to ensure the schools need for diversity. It seems that the simple act of checking a box on an application is crushing dreams and opportunities for those who possess no deciding factor in their race.

Check out these links:

Affirmative Action: Promoting Diversity or Racial Discrimination?

Affirmative action is reverse discrimination