Rob Byron via Shutterstock.
Most people recognize that to be economically competitive and socially just, America needs to draw upon the talents of students from all backgrounds. Moreover, the education of all students is enriched when they can learn from classmates who have different sets of life experiences.
At the same time, however, many Americans—including several members of the U. Supreme Court—are uneasy with explicitly using race as a factor in college Reasons to support affirmative action. No one likes to be told what to do, and in the case of college admissions, university officials are right to guard their academic freedoms strenuously.
Sign up for updates. Many legal experts suggest that now is the time for universities to begin seriously thinking about how to promote racial, ethnic, and economic diversity in new ways.
This volume is an outgrowth of that gathering. In their chapters, the authors tackle the critical questions: What is the future of affirmative action given the requirements of the Fisher court?
What can be learned from the experiences of states that created race-neutral strategies in response to voter initiatives and other actions banning consideration of race at public universities? What does research by higher education scholars suggest are the most promising new strategies to promoting diversity in a manner that the courts will support?
How do public policies need to change in order to tap into the talents of all students in a new legal and political environment? To date, many universities have achieved racial and ethnic diversity by recruiting fairly well off students of color. According to William G.
In that sense, might Fisher represent not only a new challenge to the use of racial criteria but also a new opportunity to tackle, at long last, burgeoning economic divisions in society?
Can new approaches be created that honor racial, ethnic, and economic diversity in one fell swoop? This volume proceeds in five parts. The Stakes Part I addresses the stakes involved in diversity discussions. Why do racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity matter in higher education?
Why are universities right not to simply select the students with the highest grades and test scores irrespective of diversity? Why, indeed, should we care at all about who attends selective colleges in the first place? In Chapter 2, Nancy Cantor, the president of Rutgers Newark and the former chancellor of Syracuse University, explains with her colleague Peter Englot that racial, ethnic, and economic diversity on campus is vital.
The twin trends of increasing economic inequality and the racial and ethnic shift in the population mean that America can no longer afford to bypass its growing number of low-income and minority students.
The toddler population is already majority minority in fourteen states, including California, New York, Texas, and Florida, they write. Not only does having students from a variety of economic backgrounds enhance the learning and discussions on campus, it also might make college more affordable for everyone, she argues.
Selective colleges are economically segregated in part because they are so expensive. Download But the converse may also be true: Rich students expect certain amenities fitness centers, well-manicured lawns, elaborate sports facilities that drive up costs.
Having economic diversity on campus would temper these pressures, she says, and balance university priorities to serve all students.
In concrete and practical terms, what do universities need to begin to do to produce diversity in a way that will avoid litigation? The threshold legal question is: To what degree if any did Fisher alter the law from where it stood in the decision in Grutter v.
There is some evidence that many universities greeted Fisher with a yawn. It is a blueprint for destabilizing race-conscious admissions plans.
This is our warning, and we must react accordingly. As Coleman and Taylor note, of the five justices who participated in both Grutter, upholding affirmative action, and Fisher, vacating a lower court decision that supported affirmative action and remanding the case for further review, four switched sides.
Only one justice, Stephen Breyer, joined the majority in both cases. Many observers believe that in Fisher, Justice Kennedy was essentially able to make his dissent in the Grutter case the law of the land.
The chapters by Coleman and Taylor and by Greytak both home in on the meaning of the key passage: First, what is sufficient diversity? The University of Michigan Law School, for example, defined percent minority as having achieved critical mass. As Coleman and Taylor note, to be justified, racial preferences need to do more than provide a marginal boost in minority admissions.
One aspect of this goes to academic selectivity. In Grutter, the majority said universities theoretically might achieve considerable racial diversity by using a lottery for admissions, but that would so fundamentally alter the academic nature of the institution as to render the alternative unworkable.Since affirmative action is an ethical issue, the real question is whether or not affirmative action increases fairness in the admissions process.
Additionally, the question is raised on what role diversity plays in both the academic mission of a university and in the quality of life on campus. The Century Foundation takes your data security and privacy seriously. That's why we want you to know that, when you visit our website, we use technologies like cookies to collect anonymized data so that we can better understand and serve our audience.
The Justice Department apparently wants to revisit the perennial issue of affirmative action in university and college admissions — remarkable news for many reasons, not the least of which is.
Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Equal Employment Principles. The firm is committed to providing equal employment opportunity (EEO) to all qualified persons. Affirmative Action Regulations Abstract: Affirmative Action Regulations Sections 46a through 74 inclusive ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS Regulations provided below are for informational purposes ONLY.
For official citations please refer to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY STATE . Affirmative action in the United States is a set of laws, policies, guidelines and administrative practices "intended to end and correct the effects of a specific form of discrimination" that include government-mandated, government-sanctioned and voluntary private programs.
The programs tend to focus on access to education and employment, granting special consideration to historically excluded.