Affirmative action is no longer a reality in the United States. For many, this is a very sad moment and a shattering loss of a dream. For others, it gives hope. What will our country do with the new reality?
One big concern for those most disappointed is how to find ways to help our colleges achieve diversity. Also, how do we encourage minority young people who are now worried about their chances of getting into college? These are valid concerns.
Knowing how fervently many were hoping for a different outcome, I know people are not going to give up on working toward helping deserving minorities reach their dream. We are a very adaptable and creative nation with many brilliant minds. We can find workable solutions that not only build diversity in our colleges, but also bring people from all walks of life together.
Although I am very sympathetic toward those who are devastated by this news, I see some genuine silver linings. What is one of our goals as a nation of many different cultures, races and ethnic backgrounds? I believe that most of us want us to be a nation that values all cultures and dwells in harmony with those who are different. As a Christian, that is my prayer. I know that most of us want less racism, less division and less anger. Is it possible that this ruling could help lessen anger and resentment from many poor whites who have felt left out because of affirmative action? While I have always appreciated the benefits of equity coming from affirmative action, I can see why there are those who felt that it was unfair. Many people believe everyone should be treated equally and affirmative action appeared to violate equality. On one level, I get where they are coming from.
However, here is where we need to look at the difference between equal treatment and equity. I did not fully understand equity until I saw a visual representation of it. This article’s opening illustration is one that pictures the difference: You see three people at a fence, all of them on boxes, with one tall man who doesn’t really need the box, a child who needs the box and the shortest one who can’t see even while standing a box. That’s equality. With equity the man who doesn’t need it gives it to the child who needs two. Equity is providing what people need to achieve success. Affirmative action was the box needed to give children of color equal access to higher education, but the drawback is it seems to be built on the assumption that white children don’t need a box.
In fact, this might be where many people are missing an important reality. Sometimes poor whites need a “box” or a boost up also. While the white child has the advantage of being white, he or she might have circumstances which make it just as hard as an inner-city child of color to make it to college or to do well in life. The rural, poor Appalachian child or any poor child who has never had a person in their family go to college and they don’t value it has a great disadvantage, possibly greater than a Black child who has a parent actively supporting that child’s efforts at school and who inspires the child to make college a goal.
Above is my drawing which might help others understand why many white people resent affirmative action. You can see in my drawing that just as the child of color can’t see over the fence, neither can the white girl. She starts at a little higher place to begin with because she is white, but she doesn’t get a box at all. The shorter child, who is of color, possibly has a single parent who has to work two jobs. Without a lot of support, he has a lower grade point average than the white girl, but he’s bright. He needs the box. The girl is not a genius, but has good enough grades indicating she could do well at college. She is possibly from a poor rural family that never went to college and whose parents don’t have a clue about getting into college, but she would love to go. She doesn’t get a box, although she needs one too. Naturally the girl’s parents might be highly upset if she applies for a scholarship and doesn’t get it, but they learn the minority child did. What they see is that their child had the higher grade point average, but the minority child got accepted and she did not.
This example is taken from an actual court case that was in the news a few years back. I don’t remember the dates or details, but the reality is that this situation has probably happened many times over. The child of color gets equity. The white child does not. It’s quite understandable that the girl and her parents are going to be resentful. It is not necessarily racism, but it is resentment which can lead to racism or can increase racism already there. With affirmative action gone, this resentment might be lessened. However, we most certainly need to look for ways to recruit many more children in poverty, both to inclusively reach out to all poor and deserving children, and to increase diversity of culture and races.
So how do we get more diversity of race and culture? As starters, our schools of higher education need to recognize the need and value of having more children of color and children from different cultures, which should also include white children from rural areas of our country. I propose that schools award need based scholarships based mostly on income, but also on the educational status of the child, which can include recommendations of teachers and other school and community leaders. President Biden has recently suggested that schools use adversity as a “new standard” in college admissions, rewarding those who overcome challenges related to income, race or other factors. In the recent Supreme Court decision, the conservative majority wrote “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life,” as long as it’s tied to a particular quality that would aid the applicant’s ability to succeed in college, and as long as it is not abused.
Another approach that I’m familiar with involves state funding. Tennessee has a program, called Tennessee Promise, in which the state provides free education for two years of community or technical college for every high school graduate with a 2.0 GPA. This is a great opportunity for all children of low incomes to get a good education. Inner city students of color should be strongly encouraged to participate. At the community college, a student can attend for two years, and then with good grades, apply for a scholarship at a university or other four year college and transfer for two more years of college, thus earning a four year bachelor’s degree. It’s one way to increase diversity in upper level college courses.
With other thoughts on increasing diversity of color and culture, I propose that colleges, universities or independent community groups organize professionals of color and other cultures to volunteer time to reach out to high schools during various school career days, especially to inner city schools. Possibly a national group or state groups could be organized to recruit these professionals. If a wide number of them were recruited it would spread out the sacrifice of time.
Other approaches involve building strong community groups which actively reach out to children starting in elementary and continuing through high school. In Knoxville, Tennessee, inner city churches and secular organizations have been reaching out to children and youth in the city, especially in areas with urban poor, working to motivate them to strive for excellence in life including academically. They are reaching hundreds of kids of all races, especially Black youth. These efforts are sure to pay off with a definite increase in urban poor, whether black, white or other ethnicity wanting to go to college. Programs such as these are worth developing in every city. A final thought is to work on is to limit legacy admissions in which children of graduates from large prestigious universities get high priority in admission acceptances.
For years, affirmative action was a mostly successful, well-intentioned approach meant to increase diversity and give minority youth the possibility to attend college, something which, without it they might never have had the chance. It has done a world of good, but has always had its detractors and those who felt left out. Now the country is forced to find other ways to give disadvantaged minority youth a hand up, which can develop into better ways to provide equity to all young people who need that help.
Marjorie, I'm glad you added an apology to your post on affirmative action and the Supreme Court's decision to ban it. I'm in the camp of those who are deeply saddened by that decision. A tremendous argument FOR affirmative action can be seen in the carve-out described in a footnote to the decision. John Roberts, the author of the decision, noted that military academies are not to be affected by the ban, because it would affect national security. ! Wow!! A military that is less diverse would be less effective in protecting us.
But the carve-out was only for military academies. What of ROTC, the source of even more of our military's leadership? If our universities and colleges become less diverse, so will military leadership.
But are military leaders the only important kind of leadership in our country? How about teachers, principals, professors, ministers, political leaders, and leaders in industry and other areas across the board?
When we stop to think about it, we can see that while affirmative action may be (and is) disappointing for an individual poor white child who desires an education, and is passed over, a goal that should take precedence is the health and strength of our nation as a whole.
But why does that last sentence sound so unfeeling? Because It IS unfeeling and is, in my opinion, flat wrong.
Marjorie, you outlined in your post some of the ways we're trying to help all students. But this still is too patch-match--with too many students still falling through the cracks.
Under the leadership of President George W. Bush, the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted, continued later under President Barack Obama.
What we need now is determination to provide quality post-high school education for every student who qualifies.
I am concerned that my last article, "After Affirmative Action" might have been insensitive to the depth of hurt caused by the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding affirmative action. I am saddened that I have hurt people I love. I apologize for insensitivity and I want to recognize the legitimacy of feelings of deep hurt and anguish that this ruling has produced. I too grieve the loss of a wonderful opportunity that provided much hope and promise for so many young people of color. I pray for healing!