Search

Affirmative action in postsecondary admissions may be the most visible area where the battles over the consideration of race in educational policy and practice have played out in the law. After decades of sustained legal attacks on the efforts of universities to implement policies that disrupt racial inequalities, many in the higher education community consider recent legal decisions like "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003) and "Fisher v. University of Texas, at Austin" (2013, 2016) as important victories that have allowed administrators and faculty to continue to consider race admissions policies and and practices. However, in this article, Liliana Garces argues that rather than helping to promote racial equity, these legal decisions have undermined it by endorsing and encouraging a color-evasive approach in educational policy and practice. Garces explains how these decisions have changed the practice of affirmative action in ways that side-step attention to race through a required focus on diversity and a rationale that can encourage universities not to address more systemic changes that would promote racial equity. She contends that to build the practice of racial equity, these law-imposed limitations must be navigated with strategic, intentional university-led efforts that bring "race-consciousness" back into educational policy and practice.

College presidents are important administrators who are frequently expected to address the public when racism occurs on college campuses. However, journalists and administrators often react to events and implement initiatives without understanding the broader context surrounding racial incidents. On historically White campuses, college presidents' frequent failure to acknowledge the past has become a standard operating procedure. This is unfortunate because, as history demonstrates, college presidents have the influence to shape policies and practices. Therefore, they are role models, knowingly or unknowingly, for how to move forward a real equity and social justice agenda. The views of the president--whose voice is arguably seen as a proxy for the stance of the university--are critical to showing that institutions' leaders will not tolerate racism. The college presidency is a particularly important administrative role to study historically because it offers new perspective on, and understanding of how many policies with racial implications have come to be.

England and the United States provide a very interesting pairing as countries with many similarities, but also instructive dissimilarities, with respect to their policies for higher education access and success. We focus on five key policy strands: student information provision; outreach from higher education institutions; student financial aid; affirmative action or contextualisation in higher education admissions; and programmes to improve higher education retention and completion. At the end, we draw conclusions on what England and the US can learn from each other. The US would benefit from following England in using Access and Participation Plans to govern university outreach efforts, making more use of income-contingent loans, and expanding the range of information provided to prospective higher education students. Meanwhile, England would benefit from following the US in making greater use of grant aid to students, devoting more policy attention to educational decisions students are making in early secondary school, and expanding its use of contextualised admissions. While we focus on England and the US, we think that the policy recommendations we make carry wider applicability. Many other countries with somewhat similar educational structures, experiences, and challenges could learn useful lessons from the policy experiences of these two countries.

The purpose of this historical examination is to first understand the context of United States affirmative action legislation and its importance. It provides a spotlight on Indiana University Bloomington (IUB) during the civil rights movement and what led to the creation of policies that would forever impact the institutional makeup of IUB. Affirmative action plans derived from civil rights legislation eventually led to the initiation of programs that focused on recruiting and retaining students of color at IUB. Programs like Groups Special Services Program, which began in 1968, and the Minority Achievers Program (MAP), which started in 1987, are said to be products of such affirmative action policies (Affirmative Action Office 1987-1988) and still have a place on campus today, now referred to as the Groups Scholars Program and the Hudson and Holland Scholars Program, respectively. This article explores how exactly these programs came to be, what national and local events influenced them, and who had a say in their formation. Was the creation of these programs merely an accommodation to civil rights legislation and events taking place nationally, or were the actors really concerned about changing the campus makeup to incorporate more minority students? Additionally, have these programs improved the recruitment and retention of underrepresented students of color at IUB, thus creating a situation where there is no longer a need to question the purpose of affirmative action? In addition to answering these questions, the article demonstrates how IUB's affirmative action strategies can serve as an example of undermining affirmative action policies for institutions of higher education today. Rather than developing new strategies, IUB retrofitted existing programs to affirmative action policies. Because IUB still struggles to increase enrollment of students of color, institutions of higher education can reflect on the IUB's affirmative action strategies and consider what not to do when assessing their own.

This article aims to offer a theoretical critique of the propaganda against the affirmative action programmes, as well as to unpack the veil of merit and provide justifications for affirmative action for the underprivileged in Kerala. For this purpose, Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital and its origin would be introduced as the central focus of analysis. Next, hate campaigns through social media against affirmative action and misconceptions about merit will be introduced briefly. Second, this article will present the implications of Bourdieu's concepts for affirmative action in India. Third, it will critically explore how caste system creates different fields for the reproduction of cultural capital with family habitus and the circulation of capital in different forms on behalf of the dominant communities. Fourth, the relative aspect of merit regarding the caste bound traditional occupational culture will be discussed. Fifth, this article will critically analyse the extent to which dominant communities reproduce embodied cultural capital historically and claim privileges in political engagements. To conclude, some recommendations to deal with anti-affirmative action mind-sets in relation to merit will be presented.

This study was carried out to determine the impact of affirmative action policy on the quality service delivery in the public service sector of Kenya. The study was carried out on the premise that there is a relationship between affirmative Action implementation and the quality of service delivery in the public service sector of Kenya. A lot of resources are spent on affirmative action programs. Not much is known about the impact of Affirmative action on quality of service delivery in the Public Service Sector. Primary and Secondary data were obtained from the ministries of Gender, Social Development and Children, Higher Education, Science and Technology and Ministry of state in the office of the president using a questionnaire. The study adopted a comparative case survey design and involved a combination of both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative analysis was done by calculating percentage counts and frequency counts and tests of hypotheses carried out. The study revealed that implementation of an affirmative action policy in the public service sector impacts positively on the quality of service delivery and again that the quality of service delivery as indicated by cost effectiveness, accountability, employee participation, productivity and transparency was higher in the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and technology than in the Ministry of State in the Office of the President. Chi-square data analysis revealed that there is a significant relationship between affirmative action implementation in employment, promotion, training and career progression and the quality of service delivery in the public service sector of Kenya. The study recommends that in the future researchers should investigate the impact of affirmative action with respect to racial and ethnic differences and disability.

Direct comparisons of American and Canadian faculty and students' views concerning issues of race, gender, and affirmative action in higher education are rare. The 1999 North American Academic Study Survey provides a unique opportunity to analyze the role of national and positional factors in faculty and student attitudes towards race, gender, and affirmative action in the US and Canada. The findings indicate that national factors are more important than positional factors on many racial and affirmative-action issues. Differences between students and faculty are more pronounced than are cross-national variations on many gender-related issues.

Eight states currently have bans on affirmative action, yet little research has focused on the characteristics of states that predict ban adoption. To begin filling this gap in the literature, I conduct discrete-time survival analysis on an aggregated data set of 47 states from 1995 to 2012 to investigate the extent to which various characteristics of a state predict its likelihood of adopting a statewide affirmative action ban. Results show that scarcity of access to state public flagship institutions and policy diffusion are associated with ban adoption. Aligning with the racial threat literature, the findings suggest that these bans are associated with concerns about the scarcity of access to selective higher education institutions (operationalized as state public flagships) for White students.

In this article, the authors interpret affirmative actions with reference to structural violence, which is accompanied by legitimizing discourses that tend to make discrimination appear natural and unquestionable. They illustrate the extension of structural violence in Brazilian society with particular reference to access to higher education. It has been common to talk about some groups of students as having special needs. However, the authors see groups of students suffering structural violence as being groups with special rights, and explore affirmative actions through the notion of special rights. The authors find that special-rights terminology establishes the discussion of affirmative actions in higher education in a broader and, at the same time, more profound conceptual framework related to interpretations of social justice. Simultaneously, special-rights terminology brings an educational specificity to the discussion of affirmative actions. Thus, the authors see affirmative actions as being both a general sociopolitical and specific educational challenge.

The University of Georgia has operated under a voluntary "race-neutral" admission policy for the past 2 decades. Using frame analysis theory, we examine university documents and interview data from 11 campus administrators responsible for diversity efforts to understand how diversity is framed at the institutional and individual levels post-affirmative action. We compare our findings to the broader sociolegal discourses around diversity to present points of convergence and divergence among frames. We find official university framing of diversity has broadened over time to include numerous characteristics, while administrators hold divergent frames depending on their functional area, philosophy, and personal experience. We conclude that divergent frames may reflect and contribute to the challenge of advancing a coherent set of diversity efforts in a post-affirmative action context, where the place of race in institutional policy is muted. As more institutions consider admissions policy devoid of race to avoid protracted legal struggles, it may be especially important for institutions and administrators responsible for diversity efforts to be explicit with one another and with those whom they hire about how they will continue seeking racial equity.

Do state government policies and institutions promote access to postsecondary education by economically disadvantaged students? I analyze the number of state residents receiving federal Pell grants relative to the college-age population raised in low-income households. Using data for 1993-2008, I estimate separate models for total Pell recipients and for those enrolled in public, private nonprofit, and proprietary institutions. I find consistent evidence that state spending on both need- and merit-based financial aid enhances access by economically disadvantaged students, with the effects of need-based aid being larger and more robust than those of aid based at least in part on merit. I also find that students in states with consolidated governing boards have slightly greater access to public and nonprofit institutions than those with statewide coordinating boards. Enrollment by economically disadvantaged students in the public and proprietary sectors also responds to the opportunity costs of attending college, as measured by the state unemployment rate. I do not find evidence of direct effects from state policies limiting affirmative action, or political elites' ideology.

Education's political landscape has shifted dramatically over the past year. To the consternation of most school-district officials, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos used the bully pulpit to promote charter schools, vouchers, and tax credits for private-school scholarships. To the distress of teachers unions, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Illinois law requiring government workers who elect not to become union members to pay representation fees. To the chagrin of civil-rights groups, the U.S. Department of Education said that it was reviewing a letter sent to school districts by the Obama administration informing them that they were at risk of incurring a civil-rights violation if students of color were suspended or expelled more often than their peers. To the relief of Common Core enthusiasts, the politically charged debate over the standards moved to the back burner. And to the dismay of parents, teachers, and policymakers across the political spectrum, students demonstrated almost no gains in reading and math on the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) over the 2015 test. All these events were consequential, but none penetrated into the thinking of the American public as sharply as did teacher strikes in six southern and western states. Those walkouts seem to have lent new urgency to teacher demands for salary raises and increased financial support for schools. The status of public opinion on these and other topics comprises the 12th annual "Education Next (EdNext)" survey of public opinion, administered in May 2018. The poll's nationally representative sample of 4,601 adults includes an oversampling of parents, teachers, African Americans, and those who identify themselves as Hispanic. This article reports findings on the topics of teacher salaries, school spending and the right to strike; teachers and teachers unions; school choice; school quality; racial and ethnic disparities in school discipline; and affirmative action.

This article uses philosophical analysis to clarify the arguments and claims about racial discrimination brought forward in the recent legal challenges to affirmative action in higher education admissions. Affirmative action opponents have argued that elite institutions of higher education are using negative action against Asian American applicants, so they can admit other students of color instead by using race-conscious affirmative action. We examined the surrounding controversy, while positing that the portrayal of Asian Americans as a model minority in this debate foments a politics of resentment that divides racial groups. Our analysis centered on how key concepts such as racial discrimination and diversity may be central to this politics of resentment. Given persistent threats to access and equity in higher education, it is important to gain conceptual clarity about the racial politics of anti-affirmative action efforts.

Several misconceptions shape the discourse on affirmative action and Asian Americans, and institutions of higher education should do more to challenge these myths and educate the public about the realities of this debate.

This critical literature review investigates how "diversity" and "equity" are employed in top-cited higher education scholarship published between 2000 and 2015. No analysis to date has offered such a comparative exploration relative to well-recognized racial disparities in higher education. Findings reveal a divergence with "diversity" largely attending to affirmative action concerns and "equity" to analyses of the pursuit of equity in higher education. The article concludes with advocacy for the equity frame because of its presumption of a normative justice-oriented standard and embedded orientation toward inquiry and action, both of which offer greater promise for policy, practice, and research that aim to enhance racial justice in higher education.

In the shadow of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold raceconscious policies in "Fisher v. University of Texas" (2016), and midway to Justice O'Connor's 25-year sunset clause in "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003), affirmative action remains contentious. This qualitative theoretical study posits that we need not speculate about O'Connor's aspirational deadline, suggesting that by 2028 race would presumably no longer be a necessary consideration in university admissions. California has been living O'Connor's post-affirmative action ideal for two decades and by all accounts the elimination of race-conscious affirmative action has left an indelible and as of yet irreparable mark on the Golden State.

Policy initiatives that seek to account for ethno-cultural differences in education and schooling have become increasingly popular over the past few decades. These include affirmative action measures and bilingual education models. The rationale for the implementation of these policies focuses on their potential to rectify historical discrimination by both levelling horizontal inequalities and granting equal value to different cultures and languages in the schooling process. In this framework, however, ethnic communities are often treated as discrete and static social aggregates, and social heterogeneity and spillover effects between groups are disregarded. This paper draws on empirical case studies from Colombia and Peru to show how identity policies of education can increase inter-ethnic competition, leading to protracted social conflicts. These outcomes, beyond negatively impacting local communities, raise important dilemmas surrounding the theoretical and operational foundations of these popular policy measures.

In order to reach gender equity in the gifted population, an affirmative action policy was instituted in Israel to increase the number of girls identified as gifted. The purpose of this study was to compare the self-efficacy beliefs of girls in the top 1.5% (gifted girls (GG)) with those of girls in the top 3% (GG in affirmative action). It was found that girls in the top 3% have higher social and mathematical self-efficacy beliefs than girls in the top 1.5% do. The findings support the literature regarding the level of giftedness as a risk factor for the social adjustment of GG. The surprising finding in the mathematical field is explained by a stronger conflict that exists among GG concerning excellence in a traditional male field. The current study contributes new insights into the emotional aspects accompanying giftedness.

As the federal entity in charge of enforcing civil rights law, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) plays a critical role in addressing the vast inequities that exist in U.S. education. Through an analysis of the policy guidance OCR issued for a number of areas during the Obama administration, we illustrate the agency's comprehensive and practical approach to helping ensure that young people from different backgrounds have equitable access to education and equitable experiences once enrolled. This review provides the foundation for understanding civil rights enforcement in the current context of inequality; it is particularly timely, as the Trump administration has begun a rollback of existing guidance, which has concerning implications for students' civil rights.

Since women struggled to access higher education during the colonial era, tackling gender imbalances post-independence became a major focus for Kenya and South Africa. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that affirmative action has not guaranteed gender equity in South African and Kenyan higher education systems. the author argues that, although higher education is generally available to all in both countries, women still struggle with access and "success". This is besides the existence of post-independence higher education policies and parallel gender frameworks meant to bolster women's access. The article uses a critical and thematic exploration of secondary literature, theory and data. The article contends that the unresolved gap between policies and the reality of the lived experiences of women exacerbates inequalities. It is suggested that both countries refocus and recalibrate existing policies and remedial action measures in order to ensure that academically deserving women are able to access and participate meaningfully in higher education.

Diversity is a ubiquitous concept in Education. Our contemporary racial discourse has been taken over by diversity talk. That is, to talk about race in the colorblind era in the contexts of school admissions or educational policy is to do so through the language of diversity. However, the hegemonic ascendancy of diversity has been dependent on the demise of affirmative action policies. This inverse relationship is not coincidental. Utilizing Critical Race Theory's methodology of constructing counter stories, this paper traces the history of diversity from the Supreme Court. By locating the ontological being of diversity from the perspective of the Supreme Court, the author establishes a historical narrative that shows the backward and bifurcated approach of how affirmative action equals racial discrimination in the colorblind era. As a result of this backward approach, diversity talk is widely accepted while affirmative action policies in education have been effectively defeated.

Utilizing a critical raceclass theory of education, OiYan A. Poon and colleagues analyze interviews with Asian Americans who have publicly advocated for or against affirmative action and acknowledged how their understandings of racial capitalism informed their perspectives and actions. Limited research has considered Asian American subjectivity in examining what shapes their diverse perspectives on affirmative action. This study adds to research on the racial politics of the debate, which has increasingly centered Asian Americans and their interests, and introduces a multidimensional model of raceclass frames representing different political perspectives and choices around affirmative action: abstract liberalism, ethnocentric nationalism, conscious compromise, and systemic transformation. The model offers insights on Asian American frames and ideologies of racism, capitalism, and education to account for their divergent political perspectives and choices in the affirmative action debate.

Colleges increasingly emphasize the importance of socioeconomic diversity, but little work examines the link between such diversity and outcomes important to the campus climate. Using a national dataset, we test the link between two measures of socioeconomic diversity and cross-racial interaction, an outcome paramount to triggering the benefits of diversity. Findings indicate that there was no direct effect associated with this form of socioeconomic diversity. However, cross-racial interaction was lowest at institutions with lower structural income diversity and lower structural racial diversity. Comparison of predictors between income groups also identify that middle and upper-income Black students have significantly higher rates of cross-racial interaction. Implications for policymakers and educators are discussed.

When President Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson for the U.S. Supreme Court, it seemed like a major civil rights victory. But that victory could feel like a bitter irony this fall, when the high court hears two cases that will likely obliterate affirmative action. If Jackson gets approved by the Senate, she will probably be making two divergent types of history in her first months on the court: being its first black female and hearing cases that could likely overturn 40 years of legal precedents involving race-conscious admissions. The cases, one against Harvard and the other against the University of North Carolina, were both brought by Students for Fair Admissions ("SFFA"), an organization founded by conservative entrepreneur and long-time affirmative action foe Ed Blum. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, as expected, colleges and universities would not only be barred from using race as a factor in admissions but also prohibited from knowing the race of applicants. The decisions will likely force schools to completely revamp their admissions policies and rethink how to apply for education grants. Colleges and universities will be able to find ways to preserve--and boost--diversity on their campuses. But they should not wait until the court issues what will likely be a landmark affirmative action decision in the spring of 2023.

This paper seeks to examine studies on participation of women in governance as applicable to the local government levels in Nigeria. Again, it sets out to identify what propelled the quest for more women participation in governance. Examination of treatments given to women by both male and female counterparts is critically explored. The paper employed mainly secondary source of data collection. In its finding, it observed that there is high women participation in governance in other parts of the world than Nigeria, as well as having more women participation at both Federal and State government's level above the local government level. It finds out that there is male domination in local governance over and above the women for low political consciousness. The paper revealed that attitude of women towards local governance is poor because they lack funds to achieving 30 percent affirmative action declaration' for women at the grassroots.

It will come as no surprise to most admission professionals that enrollment pressures related to the economic downturn of the last five years have placed American postsecondary education in the middle of a spinning plate, slipping and sliding as it tries to accommodate more students with fewer financial resources from federal and state governments, as well as the challenge of dwindling investment (endowment) income.This article discusses the need for diversity and commitment from U.S. universities to increase enthusiasm for foreign student recruitment. It notes that cooperative societies have been formed by universities to attain efficiency and cost control. The partnership between schools and private sector recruiting firms have risen.

Affirmative action is perceived as a corrective policy intended to promote social equity (Crosby, Iyer, & Sincharoen, 2006; Curry & West, 1996; Kaplin & Lee, 2007; Oppenheimer, 1996). Indeed, affirmative action as a policy has been used to address minority underrepresentation (Ball, 2000), remedying the effects of past/current discrimination (Oppenheimer, 1996; Tsuang, 1989), increasing diversity (Hsia, 1988), and providing equal opportunity (Dong, 1995). Dong (1995) states that in order for educational affirmative action to equalize opportunity for all students, at times it requires that some students be treated differently. Originally something that was created for employment (Executive Order 11246 under the direction of Lyndon Johnson; also see Crosby, Iyer, & Sincharoen, 2006; Oppenheimer, 1996, p. 929), affirmative action spread into other areas such as higher education. As a result, affirmative action facilitates the offering of flexible college admissions requirements for underrepresented applicants (Inkelas, 2003b). Underrepresented students may be racial minorities, but they may also be low-income, immigrants, language minorities, nontraditional, female, White, and/or first-time generation college students (Levine & Nidiffer, 1996). This article examines the attitudes that Asian Pacific American (APA) college freshmen hold toward the abolishment of affirmative action in college admissions. Frequently APAs are stereotyped as being "model minorities" (Brydolf, 2009; Chinn, 2002; Empleo, 2006; Pang, Han, & Pang, 2011). This label implies that they are educationally and socially successful, and that they do not experience discrimination. As a consequence of this label, oftentimes APAs are not considered "underrepresented," and are thus ineligible for affirmative action protection (Wu & Wang, 1996). Most insidious though, studies have documented that APAs may support the elimination of affirmative action against their better judgment (Kang, 1996; Kidder, 2006).

The underrepresentation of administrators of color in higher education is one of the most important ethical dilemmas facing colleges and universities today. Arguably, in no place is this more evident than at historically white colleges and universities (majority institutions). Prior to the 1960s, the lack of administrators of color in higher education's Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) was viewed as common place and a cultural normative due to the existence of segregation and widespread racism during that era. It was not until the American Civil Rights Movement that higher education was forced to expand, at which point, state and federal civil rights mandates--prompted by social justice concerns--began to challenge institutions that excluded minorities (Chang, 2005). Many of these mandates became known as affirmative action policies. Mostly race-sensitive in nature, these affirmative action policies aimed to increase access and opportunities for promotions, salary increases, and career advancement for minority employees. However, not all PWIs immediately welcomed the demand for a culturally diverse leadership upon their campuses (Arthur & Shapiro, 1995; Kawewe, 1997; Payne, 2004; Perna, Gerald, Baum, & Milem, 2007; Wilson, 1995). Studies on university hiring practices revealed that in many instances, once a minority hiring goal was met, departments stopped seeking minority applicants. In some cases, institutions took direct and intentional action to cease the recruitment of minorities (e.g., by pulling their ads from minority publications) regardless of the number of vacancies that occurred from then on (Wilson, 1995). Meanwhile, over time, legal disputes to affirmative action programs began to expose flaws amidst the policy's good intentions. Over 40 years after the American Civil Rights Movement, many of today's college and university policy makers have shown a willingness to embrace racial diversity. However, efforts to do so have proven that positioning a diverse administrative leadership to reflect the values, issues, and concerns on campus is a multidimensional and complex task (Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999; Holmes, Ebbers, Robinson, & Mugenda, 2000; Jackson, 2004; Jackson & Rosas, 1999; Watson, Terrell, Wright, Bonner, Cuyjet, Gold, Rudy, & Person, 2002). The purpose of this article is to summarize scholarship on the challenges of increasing administrative representation for people of color in higher education and to address implications for policy and practice.

The Supreme Court is taking up affirmative action at colleges and universities for the sixth time in 50 years. In that litany, an early case was the University of California vs. Bakke. Bakke complained about being denied admission to the university's medical school because seats were guaranteed for minority applicants, thus barring the door to him and other white applicants. When the Bakke case was on the Court's docket, John Kemeny was president of Dartmouth College. The Dartmouth Board wanted a public statement by the college on Bakke. Given their strong confidence in Kemeny, they gave him sole authority to craft Dartmouth's stand on affirmative action. Kemeny's voice from his bully pulpit into the public square about the Bakke case echoes today. Kemeny's argument displays ahead-of-the-curve insights. His major concern, one still very much at stake in the outcome of the Court's deliberations today, was that colleges had to be able to maintain their fundamental purposes in the face of any Court judgment.