<p>Firstly, I frequently read (and have heard) the claim that students are dissuaded from attending Berkeley because of its ~50% Asian enrollment. But such contentions are embroiled in a glib hypocrisy. Sadly, it’s largely come to the point where we don’t flinch at such avowals, while we are conditioned to lament the bigotry of not wanting to attend a university because it may, for example, be 50% black, Hispanic, or some other underrepresented demographic. </p>
<p>Race and ethnicity for selective colleges boosts minority representation, on average, from 3.3% to 9.0% among African Americans and from 3.8% to 7.9% among Hispanic applicants, per the [Espenshade</a> and Chung](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Opportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20June%202005.pdf]Espenshade”>http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Opportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20June%202005.pdf) determinations. By contrast, according to a 2004 study (also cited in below paragraphs), being economically disadvantaged reduces, rather than improves, ones chances of admission at the most selective institutions. The study revealed that 74% of students at the top 146 universities (most of which utilize race-based affirmative action) come from the most affluent economic quartile while 3% stem from the lowest. (Source: Second slide of the study summary cited below) Utilizing socioeconomic affirmative action boosts representation from the 3%-4% representation of blacks and Hispanics derived from the Espenshade and Chung race-blind simulations to a 10% representation, slightly below the current figure of 12%. (Source: Sixth slide of the study summary cited below)</p>
<p><a href=“http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/pb640/rdk_411.pdf[/url]”>http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/pb640/rdk_411.pdf</a></p>
<p>The Supreme Court, recognizing that past injustices cannot justify present injustices, has ruled that affirmative action policies may only be in effect so long as the aim is to advance the interests of racial diversity, not to rectify prior social ills. Despite the precedents of Brown v. Board of Education and Grutter v. Bollinger, affirmative action policies continue to reduce students to membership in either “victimized” or “privileged” races based on a checkbox response. Moreover, it assumes that membership in a given racial category endows distinct viewpoints and that skin color affects individual social experiences to an extent that is relatively constant across all members of that race such that it automatically entails a desirable intangible feature. In reality, a greater number of socioeconomic factors contribute to unique perspectives and experiences. Though systematic classification on the basis of race is regrettable, the central issue is that the trait used to evaluate them shouldn’t be indiscriminately assumed as a directly associable and causally explanatory variable in evaluating their educational opportunities. For instance, students identifying from family incomes below $20,000 score, on average, 381 points lower than those identifying from income brackets of $200,000 or more (1321 v. 1702). The average for white students was 1581, while scores for Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics, and blacks were 1623, 1448, 1364, and 1276, respectively. ([Source](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-08-25-SAT-scores_N.htm]Source[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-08-25-SAT-scores_N.htm)</a>) Palpable differences, but it’s poor analysis to immediately decry race itself as the entire story. [A</a> 2004 study](<a href=“http://cew.georgetown.edu/uploadedfiles/Rewarding_Strivers.pdf]A”>http://cew.georgetown.edu/uploadedfiles/Rewarding_Strivers.pdf) found that the most highly disadvantaged applicant is estimated to score 784 points lower (544 v. 1328) on the SAT than the most highly advantaged student on the 1600-point scale. Controlling for all other factors, only 56 points of that were found as directly attributable to race-associated components. Three hundred and ninety-nine points were imputed purely to socioeconomic factors, 228 were contingent on “factors within students’ constrained choice set,” while 101 were classified as “other.” The standard charge that non-support of racially-grounded imperatives represents an illiberal, ahistorical allegiance to an ideal is not so much of a reality as liberal defenders like to play it out to be. </p>
<p>A combination of disquietude on the part of whites and Asians, in conjunction with continuing immigration, will be the most complicating sociodemographic trends facing the current policy. Large-scale immigration complicates the policy’s ideological framework and foils the inceptive rationale which made the program politically viable nearly five decades ago, when it was enacted in certain sectors to provisionally benefit a small portion of the U.S. population. Even while the scope and grounds of the program have naturally progressed, those from overrepresented underprivileged backgrounds continue to be excluded. (This should be superfluous, but for the record not all whites and Asians are uniformly well-to-do.)</p>
<p>The combination of evolving demographics and symbolic political triumphs on the part of the historically underrepresented are largely perceived as shifts in the country’s racial balance, which, in turn, have inspired a greater racial awareness, particularly among those from other nonracial categories of disadvantage who are not included in the policy. Moreover, reverse discrimination cases on the part of white plaintiffs has been increasing. Lamentations of white victimhood stemming from the policy are often frequently dramatized; though minority students are, on average, admitted to top universities with lower objective qualifications, the white acceptance rate would only marginally increase in race-blind admissions, while Asians suffer the most <a href=“Espenshade%20and%20Chung%20(2005),%20p.%20299%20Table%202”>url=http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Opportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20June%202005.pdf</a>. Nevertheless, it’s a rather inevitable sign that present “remedies” for institutionalized racism merely perpetuate more unfortunate racial hostility. In my opinion, such programs can either be phased out sooner rather suffering the end-results of a much more politically schismatic conflict later on. The real issue shouldn’t be the perpetual use of a racial preference category in college admissions, but programs that ideally and directly work to enhance parity in minority employment and income. That race-based affirmative action has been productive in addressing that is seriously lacking in any causally supportive data. Improved measures can be enacted, and genuinely requires more progressive taxonomic considerations of the admissions decision-making process, where factors of enhancement, entitlement, fiducial incentives, meritocracy, mobilization, open access, and unique institutional needs must be weighed against other prerogatives. As the policy currently stands, it’s a (non-effectual) bandaid fix and the longer it persists, the longer it will actually hamper an improved understanding of the true dynamics driving the academic, educational, and economic inequality among races.</p>