Words: 1959
Through numerous studies and findings, it has been shown that affirmative action does not increase enrollment Of minority students on a large scale or benefit them while in essence it actually hurts members of well represented ethnicities and races. Affirmative action in the college admissions process can be looked at in two ways. Supporters of affirmative action claim that affirmative action is the perfect policy to make up for the racism and discrimination of the past. Dissenters of affirmative action believe that affirmative action actually counteracts what it’s trying to do.
Affirmative action gives minorities priority ever well represented races and ethnicities, despite similar standing. So, it could be understood how this controversial policy could be disliked. Affirmative action bans can and have been enacted by certain states in the US. Affirmative action bans can be perceived in two different ways by minority affiliated prospects. These minority students may decide not to apply to colleges with affirmative action bans because they feel as though they aren’t wanted or that the school is racist and discriminating.
The situation can also be looked at in the fact that their admission to the school ad nothing to do with their race or ethnicity. This viewpoint allows for a rational understanding as to why one did or did not get into a certain college. The effects of affirmative action are incredibly long withstanding. Affirmative action calls upon race in an admissions decision to be a tie- breaker, but racial preferences are far more than tie-breakers. As referred to in “Mismatch” by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, colleges use a sort of “academic index” when it comes to determining which students to admit or not.
It is a points system based on act/sat scores as well as GAP These universities that value affirmative action instruct their admissions officers to roughly mirror the racial makeup of the applicants, which is typically 9% black. (Mismatch) So it is in adherence with this policy that the admissions officer will take a minority student with a significantly lower academic index score and add a certain amount Of points so that he or she qualifies over a significant white candidate.
Almost all colleges that implement racial preferences have either an explicit or an implicit weight assigned to race. These schools believe that they have to have a certain percentage of the tuned body be represented by each minority. Thus in theory throwing out any competitive white students who weren’t top tier but were academically more successful than their minority peers. These racial preferences lead too “cascade effect”. The top institutions get their pick of the most academically qualified minority students, most of whom would have been better matched at a lower-tier school.
The second tier of schools then loses out on students that would have been good matches there thus making them reach for worse matches to compose their student body and so forth. The racial preferences hen enacted create a domino effect, causing each school on the chain to have worse and worse student matches. The cascade effect is multiplied by the number of schools using racial preferences. It just gets worse and worse for every institution as long as affirmative action is enacted.
In simplest terms, students chosen by top-tier institutions that weren’t exactly qualified begin to fail and suffer. They have been stripped of their opportunities to prosper in that they have been accepted into top-tier institutions which actually aren’t best for them. In the vicious cycle of affirmative action, the call preferences create the mismatch effect. The mismatch effect being that minority students with lower qualifications who get into top-tier schools because of racial preference struggling at the top-tier schools thus creating a mismatch between the student and the institution.
All the while that student could have prospered at a lower-tier school where their skills would blossom better. The mismatch effect has many components. A significant study was conducted by Dartmouth College psychologists Rogers Elliot and A. C. Streets. These two psychologists noticed something was wrong with one facet of call integration. Dartmouth was not producing very many black or Indian scientists. F-or the study the psychologists gathered the admissions and transcripts data on some five thousand students form four of the nation’s most elite schools.
The researchers found out that in high school blacks were actually more likely to major in science, math, engineering, or technology (known as STEM) than whites. The thing that was peculiar about this though, was the students’ academic preparation. Students who entered the top higher education institutions with a math SAT score under 550 were only bout one-fifth as likely to graduate with a STEM degree as students with a math SAT score over 700. (Mismatch) These minority students who were admitted into the top academic institutions came in with generally less knowledge.
This caused these students to become weeded out of the STEM majors group because they simply couldn’t handle the course material that they were given that the whites admitted were handling well. These minority students simply weren’t a match for the top academic institutions, not because they weren’t as gifted but they weren’t given a structurally sound revises education in high school like most well represented races were. The mismatch effect has entirely led students who have all the potential to prosper and succeed to end up failing or falling behind just because they weren’t previously given the best opportunities.
It is by no flaw of their own that minority students seemed to fail in higher academic institutions. Affirmative action and its racial preferences actually diminished their chances of success through its counterproductive methods of implementation. Many began to realize that affirmative action was actually hurting higher education. Once this began getting realized, affirmative action bans began coming into play. Call to play the University of California. In 1 995 there was a vote by the board of regents of the university to end racial and gender preferences across the nine-campus system.
In 1996 there was a vote by California voters to adopt an initiative called Proposition 209, which affirmed and extended the preference ban to all state programs. (Mismatch) There were many differentiating viewpoints on prop 209. Those who were against affirmative action took it quite well and were quite content with the proposition. Those who were for affirmative action went to great lengths to deter the proposition. Prop 209 was incredibly hated by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (UCLA), The National Organization for Women (NOW), the NAACP, and the feminist majority.
Minorities and women alike took Proposition 209 as an assault to them. Proposition 209 withstood the test though, and it came with many common fears. Many believed the race- blind admissions process would dramatically reduce minority enrollment. (Mismatch) It could obviously be inferred that less minority students would e admitted to the top-tier institutions, but there was also the idea of the “chilling effect”. Many feared that black and Hispanic students would find institutions with Prop. 09 in effect would be hostile environments for them. They believed the minority students wouldn’t choose these schools because they felt unwanted there. This proposition created what would become the “warming effect”. The announced ending of racial preferences at University of California schools coincided with a jump in the rate in which blacks and Hispanics accepted offers of admissions from US schools. This warming effect was particularly large at the most elite US schools, which had previously used the largest racial preferences.
Minority enrollment seemed largely unaffected at the three elite campuses. The implementation of Prop. 209 actually made the top-tier blacks and Hispanics want to try and attend the elite ICC schools. This proposition led to an increase in the most elite schools, not just the lower tier schools. It can easily be inferred that the aura of race neutral admission policies attracted many more minority students than it repelled. Studies ended up showing that Prop. 09 had the effect of gassing five-year minority graduation rates from 3 to 7 percent points. (Mismatch) The results on effects Of affirmative action bans are quite consistent across the board. A study conducted by Peter Henries, done on the effects of affirmative action bans on college enrollment, educational attainment, and the demographic composition of universities has provided immense proof against affirmative action’s claimed benefits. Henries’ study found that affirmative action bans had no effect on the common college or the common student.
Although the study did find that affirmative action anus decreased underrepresented minorities enrollment and increased Caucasian enrollment slightly over time. A finding of Winch’s study even found that “Alternatively, an affirmative action ban may increase minority graduation rates if it reduces a mismatch between minorities and the type of college they attend. ” (Henries) The study goes on to show that though affirmative action bans decrease minority enrollment in selective schools it may actually help them.
As a result of Henries’ study one can infer quite a few things. First, affirmative action bans do have an impact. Not so much of n impact at major public universities, but impacts on minority enrollment at selective universities. These bans have been shown to help, and also to hurt. Affirmative action bans are truly a case by case scenario. The grand outlook though, is one that presents bans as promoting fairness. A study by Ben Backed titled, “Do Affirmative Action Bans Lower Minority College Enrollment and Attainment?
Evidence from Statewide Bans” finds quite similar results as the study done by Henries. Backed’ study takes a look at the effects of statewide affirmative action bans, similar to Henries. The most important tenement from Backed’ study comes in his conclusion/summary of findings. Backed’ ends his study with the line, “However, the effects of affirmative action??both at top-tier schools and the university system generally??are small relative to the total population of minority students. ” (Backed) These studies leave the subject of affirmative action at a moral standpoint.
Both studies show that yes, affirmative actions do effect minority enrollment at selective colleges but the effect is quite small relative to the total population Of minority students. It imposes the moral question Of whether race should eater when the effects are so relatively small. The evidence shows that statewide affirmative action bans do little to harm minority enrollment or graduation, so in essence race shouldn’t be an issue. Affirmative action time and time again has harmed society.
Even when numerous studies have been done and been proven to show that affirmative action is indeed unnecessary many argue that it is essential for societal progress. It is essential that countryside affirmative action bans have to take place. Bans on affirmative action do no harm to minority enrollment and they actually help minority radiation rates. For example, Michigan just recently banned affirmative action, and this is something which could tremendously help create equality’ in admissions decisions in the state.
More and more states continue to adopt affirmative action bans, as it becomes more and more prevalent that affirmative action policies are actually against what they are for. These policies create racial segregation and create a divide that is unnecessary. A person’s ethnicity or race should have no role in whether or not they get into a college. In today’s 21st century society all members are valued equally. There is no reason to segregate and divide. The position society has reached on affirmative action policies in college admissions decisions is finally where it should have been since the 1 sass.