OCR Text |
Show AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: PATH TO EQUALITY OR REVERSE DISCRIMINATION? Natalie A. Noel remedies. However, "The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has guidelines to help protect employers or unions from charges of 'reverse discrimination' when they voluntarily take action to correct the effects of past discrimination" (Dale 2001, 3). Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits racial and ethnic discrimination in all federally assisted programs and activities; this includes public or private educational institutions. "The Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education interpreted Title VI to require schools and colleges to take affirmative action to overcome the effects of past discrimination and to encourage Voluntary affirmative action to attain a diverse student body'" (Dale 2001, 3). In addition, "another Title VI regulation permits a college or university to take racial or national origin into account when awarding financial aid, if the aid is necessary to overcome effects of past institutional discrimination" (Dale 2001, 3). Thus, beginning in 1965, the awarding of occupational and educational opportunities proportionally emerged as an element in preferential affirmative action programs (Ball 2000, xi). Since that time the debate over quota based affirmative action programs has been the focus of much controversy. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: THE DEBATE At its core, the debate over affirmative action is one of issue definition. According to many national polls, the public is more in favor of the concept of "affirmative action" than "preferential treatment." The finding that the former term is more accepted than the latter illustrates the public's concern for fairness and equity, but likewise a reaction against policies that are identified as racially preferential. Given this central dispute about issue definition, both terms will be used throughout this essay. A primary stance taken by many affirmative action supporters, centers on the issue of redressing past wrongs. Remedial affirmative action addresses the concern that minorities are underrepresented in higher education and have been the victims of past discrimination. Proponents of preferential treatment on this basis argue, "because of America's past racial discrimination, affirmative action programs had to move beyond simple race neutral non-discrimination" (Ball 2000, 12). Similarly, in regard to higher education, some minorities are underrepresented and proponents advocate the need to diversify campuses by "providing preferential treatment to members of certain identified racial groups" (Ball 2000, 9). Ensuring diversity of students on college campuses is seen as a worthy goal in and of itself, even if it means rejecting in a sense the concept of a color-blind United States Constitution, at least for the purposes of determining admission to institutions of higher learning. This claim "concentrates on the future; its claim is that preferential treatment....go [es] far beyond the benefits received by those who are favored under the policy" (Cahn 1995, 193). Rather, the argument insists that diversity enhances the learning environment in the academic setting. Furthermore, some link diversity to the free expression of ideas. They tie diversity to free speech rights or First Amendment rights. In addition, they counter that we allow for geographic diversity, so why not account for racial diversity, too? Thus, proponents of preferential treatment, on the basis of both remedial and diversity justifications, see the need for positive racial classifications. On the other hand, opponents of preferential-based affirmative action contend that race and ethnicity are "neutral factors" and should not be relevant in a university admissions process (Ball 2000, 14). They argue that a society committed to the "concept of a color-blind constitution" cannot embrace preferential treatment based on race. Furthermore, they argue that affirmative action admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause contained in the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the statutory language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Ball 2000, 15). Similarly, opponents contend that admissions policies that use preferential treatment unfairly discriminate against the individual, are unconstitutional, and constitute reverse discrimination. They argue that racial classifications therefore have a negative impact, and as such are rarely positive. However, some opponents see racial diversity as irrelevant; they assert that "Western learning survived centuries before anyone even thought of carefully balancing the racial composition of classrooms" (Lowry 2001). Others question our traditional focus on race and classification. "Why should ethnic categories that never made sense in the first place (neither Latinos or Asians constitute a race anywhere outside America), and which are becoming less relevant by the day, be accorded more importance than individuals?" (Economist 2001). Furthermore, while some opponents of preferential treatment do agree that racial diversity on college campuses is a worthy goal, they reject quota-based or numerical goal oriented admissions policies as the means for achieving that diversity. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS There are three kinds of affirmative action programs used by colleges and universities in admissions. One type of policy focuses on seeking out qualified minority applicants who will provide diversity to the incoming class. Under this model, the race of an individual is weighed as a positive factor in the decision of the college's admissions committee. A second type of program focuses admissions decisions mainly on traditional numerical scores, but university administrators set a minority recruitment "goal" (i.e. five percent minority admissions). Thus, under this model, the ethnicity of applicants is a factor, but the focus remains upon consideration of those who are the most qualified minority applicants. Hence, implicit in this model is the idea that the university may not meet the "goal" if the selection committee cannot identify enough qualified minority applicants. A third type of affir- |