The Justice Department was recently reported to be preparing to re-allocate resources from its civil rights division to sue universities for discriminating against white applicants.
The Department has since clarified that it is preparing to investigate claims of discrimination against Asian Americans in college admissions. At the heart of this effort is a lawsuit, led by applicants who were rejected by Harvard. The organization that is suing Harvard, Students for Fair Admissions, is led by Edward Blum, a man who has consistently opposed policies to advance civil rights for minorities—actions he has likened to Jim Crow and Nuremburg.
The Administration’s efforts to chip away at affirmative action are troubling, particularly in light of the origins of affirmative action. The term originated in a 1963 order from President John F. Kennedy. Citing data that indicated that whites were twice as likely to graduate high school and three times as likely to graduate college as African Americans, President Kennedy sought to prevent race discrimination in higher education. President Lyndon Johnson then extended the order to cover all organizations that received federal funds. Both presidents recognized that the systematic and legal barriers faced by African Americans for centuries could not be rectified solely by legislation, and thus only through measures designed to ensure diversity in places such as colleges could blacks begin to have access to the same opportunities as whites.
Even after decades of progress, race-conscious mechanisms designed to ensure diversity in schools and workplaces remain critical to overcoming entrenched inequities. According to a 2015 study by Demos and the Institute on Assets and Social Policy, the typical black household now has just 6 percent of the wealth of the typical white household, while the typical Hispanic household has just 8 percent.
In 2011, the median white household had $111,146 in wealth holdings, compared to $7,113 for the median black household and $8,348 for the median Latino household. A somewhat smaller, but still noticeable, disparity exists for that year when looking at four-year college graduation rates. In 2011, 34 percent of whites completed a four-year college degree, whereas just 20 percent of blacks and 13 percent of Hispanics did. The median return on investment for whites who have obtained a bachelor’s degree is $55,869, compared to $4,846 for blacks and $4,191 for Hispanics. Factor in disparate outcomes in the labor market and widely divergent rates of homeownership, and the need for race-conscious admission policies as a means to help people of color overcome historic obstacles becomes abundantly clear.
The debate over affirmative action and the assumption that race-conscious admissions policies enable undeserving minority applicants to take the place of more deserving whites is wrong on three levels.
First, this assumption contradicts empirical data that show otherwise. In fact, there is little evidence that race-conscious admissions policies have caused a decrease in white admissions to universities. About three-quarters of all private scholarship recipients in four-year bachelor’s programs are white. Almost two-thirds of all grants and scholarship recipients are white, while over three-quarters of all merit-based grants and scholarships go to whites, even though whites make up just 62 percent of the college student population nationwide. Even with affirmative action, blacks and Hispanics are more underrepresented at top colleges and universities than they were 35 years ago. In 1980, blacks consisted of roughly 6 percent of freshmen on average at elite schools, which is what the figure is today. However, the black college age population in the U.S. has increased from 12 percent to 15 percent. Meanwhile, the gap between Hispanic students at elite colleges and the Hispanic college age population in the U.S. has increased, as the increase in Hispanics at elite schools has not kept up with the huge growth of young Hispanics in the U.S.
Second, complaints that affirmative action hurts white and Asian students fail to account for the original purpose of the policy: to ensure diversity in colleges and workplaces. By this measure, affirmative action is necessary. According to a 2015 FiveThirtyEight study, schools in states that prohibit affirmative action in college admissions, on average, have student bodies that are less representative of the state’s demographics. Meanwhile, a 2013 University of Washington study found that public universities in states that banned affirmative action were significantly less diverse than those in states that allowed the practice. A common alternative to looking for racial diversity is seeking socioeconomic diversity; however, studies examining such race neutral admissions policies have shown that they have mixed results.
And third, the Justice Department seems to have little concern about admissions policies that favor wealthy applicants. At 38 top U.S. colleges, more students come from the top 1 percent of income earners than the bottom 60 percent. On average, Ivy League schools admit more legacy students than black students. And a recent Harvard study found that 93 percent of legacy admissions for the class of 2015 were white. More white legacies gain admission to Ivies than do blacks (legacy and non-legacy) and legacy admits are disproportionately white.
Some understandably oppose the idea that some applicants may have a leg up, because of what they look like. These opponents argue that admission to a college or a job should depend on merit, or that any preferences should be based on socioeconomic status, rather than race. Those are both valid points. But centuries of racial subjugation and massive wealth disparities demonstrate the need for certain race-conscious admissions policies that provide opportunities for those who have been historically discriminated against, and foster vital diversity on college campuses. Of course, it is important that white and Asian applicants—especially those that are low income—not get squeezed by race-conscious admissions policies that seek to benefit underrepresented groups. Yet, as the data shows, the notion that undeserved minorities take spots in a college class or a job program from more qualified applicants is largely false.
Instead of fanning racial resentment, the Justice Department should work to ensure adequate diversity on university campuses and workplaces. And if it wants to challenge university admissions policies, it should target those that aid the most privileged, not those that provide a hand to the less fortunate.
Max Labaton is a Trinity sophomore. His column runs on alternate Tuesdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
Max Labaton is a Trinity sophomore. His column runs on alternate Tuesdays.