Affirmatives of Affirmative Action

A study featured in the current issue of the UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies found that affirmative action disadvantages Asian American applicants more dramatically than any other racial group. While this may renew debates about the fairness of affirmative action policies, it should not convince us to abandon them. Colleges still have a vested interest in promoting diversity and should be able to use whatever criteria they deem necessary in order to do so.

The UCLA study examined the enrollment of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and whites at public institutions of higher education in Texas, Florida, and California. All three of these states all have laws against using race as a factor to determine admissions. The study looked at the years since these states ended affirmative action and found that black, Hispanic and white enrollments have declined, while Asian American enrollment has increased . This shift suggests that Asian Americans compete better when affirmative action does not enter into admission decisions.

Admissions in the post-affirmative action era show adverse effects on diversity. The study finds that although these three states have made efforts to increase minority recruitment—like guaranteeing the top 10 or 20 percent of the high school graduates admission to the state college of their choice—they could not match the diversity of the student body found in states that still use affirmative action, like Illinois, New York, and Maryland .

The study’s authors commented that the “elimination [of affirmative action] also affected the education and experience of the majority…by limiting the expression of viewpoints in and out of the classroom.” Diversity is vital to the primary goal of a university: not only to train the brightest minds of academia, but also to prepare them to lead in a world where different races play major roles. To accomplish that, universities have the right to use whatever criteria they think fair to assemble a well-rounded and diverse class.

One shortcoming of the UCLA study, however, is that it offers no definitive proof that Asian Americans are discriminated against in states that still follow an affirmative action policy. Colleges advocate the importance of applicants’ community involvement, leadership capabiliities, distinction in extracurricular activities, and work experience in their admissions process. To examine the serious charge of racial discrimination, researchers should evaluate the contributions of applicants of different races to these other factors of admission as well.

As disheartening as evidence of admissions discrimination against Asian Americans would be, the pursuit of diversity necessarily requires colleges to make some harsh decisions about whom to accept. The competitive nature of college admissions has intensified in the past decade, with elite colleges accepting less than 10 percent of their applicants. When there are more applicants than there are spots in each incoming class, colleges must discriminate in some fashion to have a talented and diverse student body. Since race remains a factor of diversity, it should be a factor in admission decisions. Harvard’s efforts to reach out to minority communities and extend educational opportunities through financial assistance are laudable and serve to attract the most competitive applicants from demographics that benefit from such a policy.