 Affirmative action was implemented in the 1960's by President John F. Kennedy and was originally intended to provide equal opportunities to minorities across the country. This policy ensured that minorities were treated equally in education and the workplace regardless of race, gender, or religion. An NCSL article describes affirmative action policies as, " ... those in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society" (NCSL 1). The policy was originally instituted in order to offer a much needed advantage to minorities who were discriminated against due to America's racially biased history. After 1965 many colleges began to adopt this policy offering a significant advantage to minority applicants in the admissions process, therefore steadily increasing the enrollment rates for minority applicants over time. However, overtime the need for these affirmative action policies in college admissions has decreased and they are no longer necessary to promote diversity. 

Some argue that affirmative action is necessary in order to diversify college campuses and prevent the enrollment rates of minority students from declining. As an avid supporter of affirmative action and its policies Taghreed Alhaddab argues that, "Affirmative Action plays a crucial role in creating racially diverse campuses, and it is very challenging for universities to admit minority applicants without keeping race-based preferences in their admission policies" (1).  However, results found in studies done by Mark Long and Richard Kahlenberg suggest the opposite. These two studies find that when alternatives to affirmative action such as the top x% policy or class/economic based affirmative action policies are implemented, minorities are not significantly affected, in fact in many cases minority enrollment actually increased at institutions in which affirmative action was banned.  

Although some may agree that minorities are still slightly disadvantaged in today's society, the truth is that the number of minorities in the middle and upper class are growing and minorities now have access to the same K-12 education as the rest of the middle and upper class population. On the other hand, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, regardless of race are going into the admissions process with a significant disadvantage. Racially based affirmative action takes the focus away from student's academic achievements, offering an unfair advantage to minority students who don't need it. In order to make the college admissions process more inclusive and diverse, alternative policies such as the top x% program and class based affirmative action should be instituted across the United States.

Why All Colleges Should Ban Race Based Affirmative Action in the Admissions Process

Recent events show us that affirmative action has become quite unpopular amongst the American people and is being constantly challenged in courts of law across the nation. The University of Texas, the University of California, and Michigan University are just a few of the institutions that have been sued for their affirmative action policies (Card and Krueger 417). Lawsuits have forced many of these universities to adopt alternative policies to race based affirmative action. In his article Race and College Admissions: An Alternative to Affirmative Action, Mark Long states that "California's Proposition 209, which passed in 1996, reinforced the UC Regents' resolution by banning race-based preferences in public education, employment, and contracting" (1020). After this proposition was passed all UC schools halted the use of race in the admissions process and adopted new policies. Not only is affirmative action legally unpopular, but it is unpopular amongst American voters as well. In his book A Better Affirmative Action, Richard Kahlenberg offers data showing that, "Racial preferences in higher education remain highly unpopular among voters, who consistently register opposition by a two-to-one margin" (4).  Race based affirmative action is also unfavorable in both republican and democratic states when put up to voters in multiple states (Kahlenberg 4). Affirmative action policies seem to cost more than they're worth for public universities across the nation. Banning race based affirmative action in the college admissions process could minimize the amount of lawsuits brought against universities in court as well as help them become more popular in the public eye.

Affirmative action policies also increase the amount of race consciousness in America by placing a stigma on those admitted under the policy. There is no doubt that racism has caused an extensive amount of damage and is disturbingly profound in American history. However, since the 1960s America has been moving forward by working to decrease race consciousness in order to see everyone as equal, regardless of the color of their skin. Maimon Schwarzschild, a professor at University of San Diego's School of Law, argues that, "Racial preferences enhance race consciousness in a country -- and world -- in which racism has already done incalculable mischief" (445). By using race as a factor in admissions America is essentially moving backwards in its fight to eliminate racial equality. Schwarzschild also argues that these policies " ... stigmatize minority students and graduates as recipients of unearned favor" (445). Minority students, whether they receive an advantage under affirmative action or not already deal with countless stereotypes; adding the stigma of undeserved admission to these stereotypes increases the amount of racial consciousness on college campuses. 

By giving an advantage to minority students in the admissions process universities aren't truly exhibiting equality. Equality is not offering a student who has the same qualifications as another applicant an advantage because of their race. The current policy only helps to increase the amount of race consciousness on college campuses. Affirmative action is clearly not the answer to America's racially biased past. By eliminating this policy America could once again start moving forward in its fight against racism. 

The Effect of Affirmative Action on Minority Applicants 

Currently, minorities receive a great benefit from the affirmative action policies at most universities. Selective universities especially offer great favor to minority applicants, continuously admitting minority students with significantly lower SAT scores than other students in the applicant pool. In their study, David Card and Alan Krueger found that before affirmative action was banned in California and Texas, these schools were admitting minority students with SAT scores that were about 150 points lower than their fellow applicants at the three most selective UC campuses and Texas schools (419). This evidence clearly shows that minority students who do not necessarily need an advantage in the application process are receiving a significant boost, putting other students in the application pool at a disadvantage.

One of the biggest setbacks to banning affirmative action nationwide is the belief that doing so might lower minority enrollment rates or might even deter minorities from applying to selective universities in the first place. However, Card and Krueger's study suggests the opposite. In this study they tracked the application and SAT score sending patterns of minority students before and after the ban of affirmative action in Texas and California. They found that, "Highly qualified minorities did not seem to be adding lower-quality 'safety schools' to the list of institutions receiving their test scores in the post-affirmative action era" (Card and Krueger 432). Minority students clearly believe in their own abilities and don't believe that affirmative action policies are necessary in order for them to be admitted into selective universities. The fact that applications to safety schools did not increase after the ban of affirmative action reveals that minority students believe that they will still be admitted to the universities of their choosing without the affirmative action policy. Card and Krueger conclude their study by arguing that, " ... the elimination of affirmative action had little or no effect on the application behavior of highly qualified minority students in California or Texas" (432). This study dismisses the argument that banning affirmative action policies will deter minority students from applying to selective universities. If affirmative action is banned, minority students will continue to apply to the universities of their choosing and campus diversity will not suffer.

Is Affirmative Action Justified?

Affirmative action was justified in the 1960s when racism was still rampant in the United States. It was believed that minority students needed the advantage in the admissions process more than anyone else because the majority of them were living in poor, under-educated communities. However this has changed, America is evolving and every citizen is offered an equal chance and given the same opportunities as the next person. Minorities continue to flourish in the United States and while this may be a direct result of the affirmative action policies of the past, it is no longer justified nor needed in order for minorities to continue to prosper in this country.

In an article discussing Stanford University's affirmative action policies, David Sacks and Peter Thiel argue that affirmative action is an outdated policy that does not accurately reflect the academic abilities of the students who are admitted to the University. Sacks and Theil argue that, "The real problem with affirmative action is that we are pretending to solve a problem that no longer exists" (9). Although there will always be racism in America, as well as every other country in this world, it is becoming less and less prevalent. We are nowhere near where we were in the 1960s. Our country has grown and prospered and there is no need to offer aid for a problem that has been eliminated more than two decades ago. 

Another issue brought up by Sacks and Thiel is the SAT gap between minority and majority applicants. It is common knowledge that SAT scores are evaluated differently depending on the applicant. However, the SAT gap between minority and majority applicants is shocking. Sacks and Theil report that, "The average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points in 1992" (4). A 171 point gap is enormous, especially in the application process where admission is extremely competitive. There is no appropriate way to justify admitting a student with an SAT score 171 points lower than a student who was not admitted based on race alone. 

In a news debate featured on Arise America, Hughey Newsome and George B. Washington discuss the policies of affirmative action, specifically at the University of Michigan. Washington argues that minority students bring a different perspective to university life and a ban on affirmative action will deter them from applying to that school. In addition, he states that the ban of affirmative action on is "erroneous" and "the opposite of equality".  Newsome rebuts his argument by stating that the university had, " ... an admissions policy that basically gave favoritism to minority applicants. A policy that did not offer equality but rather favorability to minority applicants". Newsome concludes the debate by arguing that a race neutral admissions policy should be put into effect in order to make the admissions process equal and inclusive. I believe that a race neutral admissions policy is a viable alternative to affirmative action. More universities should start to move away from race based affirmative action and start looking into alternatives to make the admissions process fairer. 

Alternative Methods to Affirmative Action

Since race based affirmative action has been banned in many states across the country, there are many examples of universities who adopted alternative methods and were successful in maintaining diversity as well as equality on campus. Two policies that have been changing the admissions process are top x% programs which were instituted in Texas and California and class based affirmative action which has been instituted in Israel as well as many other states in America. These policies are practical alternatives to affirmative action and should be considered by all universities as possible options.

Top x% percent policies are policies in which admission is guaranteed to in-state students who graduate in the top x% of their high school class. This policy applies to all in-state students and offers a fair chance of admission across all races. If instituted this program would not only increase the equality of the admissions process but also maintain diversity on college campuses. However, many believe that this policy does not help to promote diversity on college campuses. Opponents such as Taghreed Alhaddab argue that, Texas top 10% programs have "negligible changes" in minorities' admission probabilities compared to Affirmative Action especially at the most selective universities (4).  Alhaddab's argument does not hold up to the facts of this topic however. In his book A Better Affirmative Action Richard Kahlenberg reports, (in the graph seen below) that minority enrollment at the University of Texas actually increased after the top x% program was put into place (29). Texas is a great example of an equal and race-blind admission policy that can promote racial diversity on campus. A top x% program should be considered by all universities in an effort to promote diversity on all fronts, without the dismissal of equality. 

Another separate, but closely related alternative to race based affirmative action is class based affirmative action. Class based affirmative action policies " ... provide a boost to those applicants who have demonstrated achievement while having had to overcome social and economic disadvantages" (Roach 1). It is important to take into account the socioeconomic backgrounds of students and the obstacles they may have faced which could have hindered their academic abilities. Israel was one of the first countries to implement class based affirmative action and their secondary education continues to prosper. Class based affirmative action policies in Israel, " ... put forward a distinctive --  and theoretically attractive -- design. It is completely race-neutral and also need-blind" (Alon 124). By instituting these policies Israel's universities have created an environment of students from different economic backgrounds, races, and social classes. Diversity was achieved on every level, making class based affirmative action a practical alternative to race based affirmative action.

Opponents of class based affirmative action suggest that many students who receive admission under this program are not as academically qualified as their fellow applicants (Schwarzschild 451). While this is absolutely true, it is still important to recognize that students admitted under this program achieved academic success under difficult circumstances and crippling lower-class education. These students are extremely hard working. Class based affirmative action instituted in Colorado proved that, " ... students admitted through class-based affirmative action do not fall further behind their peers over the course of their post-secondary careers" (Gaertner 436). So although these students may enter their freshman year a little behind, they work hard and do not fall further behind their classmates throughout their college careers. 

Top x% policies and class based affirmative action are clearly more effective and equal ways to foster diversity on college campuses. All students deserve a fair chance at admission to universities across the country, and students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged deserve to have a boost in the admissions system based on the quality of education received in their communities.  

Class Based Affirmative Action is the Right Choice

Class based affirmative action is an extremely viable alternative to affirmative action. This policy not only helps to foster racial diversity but socioeconomic diversity as well. Many minorities now consider themselves middle or upper class citizens and are no longer at an educational disadvantage. However, Americans in the lower class, regardless of race, are at a significant disadvantage educationally. The American Psychological Association reports that, "Students from low-SES schools entered high school 3.3 grade levels behind students from higher SES schools. In addition, students from the low-SES groups learned less over 4 years than children from higher SES groups, graduating 4.3 grade levels behind those of higher SES groups" (13). This clearly puts students from low socioeconomic status (SES) at a huge disadvantage when applying to college. Students cannot help the educational system that they are placed into and it is a shame that such an unpreventable problem can stop them from getting into the school of their choosing. This problem is applicable to every race and policies must be changed to benefit students.

Another issue in which colleges use race as a factor when in reality class should be considered is SAT scores. Colleges continuously admit minority students with SAT scores lower than their fellow applicants based upon their race. However, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds score 399 points lower than average, while African American students score an average of only 56 points lower (Kahlenberg 5). It is evident that times have changed and although minorities may have needed the advantage in the 1960s, the students who really need it now are the ones that come from disadvantaged backgrounds. If universities adopt class based affirmative action they will be giving the gift of a college education to students who have faced countless obstacles but have still managed to prove a significant amount of achievement despite their hardships. Without class based affirmative action these students will not have a chance at an education they undoubtedly deserve.

The current affirmative action policies are outdated and not necessary in order to diversify college campuses across America. It is a financial burden to many universities, due to the amount of lawsuits they face because of the race based policies. Banning affirmative action nationwide would not be detrimental to diverse campuses, and it has been proven that many programs that were implemented to replace affirmative action actually increased diversity on campus. The real injustice of race based affirmative action is not that it is unfair to other applicants, but rather that it takes away opportunities from those who need them. Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds receive an extremely low quality of education and therefore are immensely unprepared when the time comes to apply to college. The American government should implement class based affirmative action nationwide in order to phase out race based policies as well as increase to the equality of the admissions process and the diversity of their campuses. 

