RUNNING HEAD: Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action: How Higher Education Isn’t Ready

Nicolas Lee

Seattle University

SDAD 5740: College Access and Equity

Dr. Erica Yamamura

May 1st, 2018

Affirmative Action 1

Can Universities Keep Up?

Affirmative Action as a policy has been a contentious topic in higher education.

Regardless of political viewpoints, the goal of affirmative action is clear and does show

results. In order to create more diversity on campus, universities create certain admissions

policies to give favor to underrepresented students based on certain identities they hold,

usually based on race or socio-economic status. These policies are referred to as

Affirmative action. In terms of numbers on campus, Affirmative Action does accomplish the

goal of diversifying the student population. According to Reardon et Al. (2014), affirmative

action policies with higher quotas of racial diversity in admission policies have a significant

positive influence on increasing diversity numbers at schools. It’s even higher for schools

that disclose this information to students that they have Affirmative Action policies.

With this clear increase in underrepresented students on campus, how are

universities responding to this growing population? In this paper, I argue that universities

are not doing enough to support these students. Therefore, if students are not being

supported to graduation, then universities are not truly utilizing affirmative action policies

to the greater goal of eliminating inequity for marginalized student populations. Therefore,

Affirmative Action is a harmful policy that does not truly create equity; it just creates a false

image for students to think they will be successful at these universities.

Diversity as a Commodity, Not Capital

Many affirmative action policies are justified by stating how diversity creates a

positive learning environment. The definition of diversity was where many arguments for

or against affirmative action policies at individual schools are stemmed from. Diversity in

affirmative action policies (and the core argument for court cases like Fisher v. University
Affirmative Action 2

of Texas Austin) is measured by using the Critical Mass of a university. Critical Mass has

been the framework used to measure diversity in a university and based on this

framework, create policies under “narrow scrutiny” to address this need at different

universities. But how is critical mass determined?

The definition used in Fisher v. University of Texas Austin was primarily based on

reports and rationale that was only looking at the face value of diversity and a profit based

approach to defining the benefits of diversity. For example, the “business case for diversity”

has been the numbers based argument for Affirmative Action by showing that, when

managed properly, diversity increases productivity in the work force and make a business

competitive in the work place (Goldstein Hode & Meisenbach, 2017). By using this face

value approach to student identities, this perpetuates the idea that the mere presence of a

diverse student population can lead to a positive student environment. However, this

doesn’t center student voices and further erases marginalized students and their

experiences.

For diversity to truly have positive impacts, a more nuanced definition of critical

mass that centers student experiences and intersecting identities not only will promote a

positive educational environment, but will also be able to empower students and create

equity. One example of a better framework is Garces & Jayakumar’s (2014) definition of

Dynamic Diversity. Dynamic diversity is used as a replacement to critical mass so that

diversity can be understood by the contextual understanding of what diversity would look

like in a certain environment. It also takes into account the backgrounds and experiences

that incoming students have and being intentional about how those experiences will play

out and be engaged during a student’s time at college. With a nuanced understanding of
Affirmative Action 3

what diversity will look like at a university and the impacts that it will have in the

environment and on students, affirmative action has the potential to truly create equity and

learning. However, since most universities don’t use this approach and continue to use

critical mass from a numbers standpoint, this doesn’t allow for true diversity and can have

negative implications for students who are subject to these policies.

Are Students Ready?

One other factor that isn’t taken into account when Affirmative Action policies are

implemented is that some students may be admitted for their skin color without taking into

consideration their readiness to attend and be successful in higher education. “The four

basic dimensions [of college readiness] are key cognitive strategies, key content

knowledge, academic behaviors, and contextual and awareness skills” (Conley, 2010).

These dimensions are need in order for students to not only enter college but to be

successful and persist to degree attainment.

In order for schools to make students college and career ready, Conley (2010) notes

seven key principles that schools need to follow: create and maintain a college-going

culture in the school, create a core academic program aligned with and leading to college

readiness by the end of twelfth grade, teach key self-management skills and academic

behaviors and expect students to use them, make college and careers real by helping

students manage the complexity of preparing for and applying to postsecondary education,

create assignments and grading policies that more closely approximate college

expectations each successive year of high school, make the senior year meaningful and

appropriately challenging, and build partnerships with and connections to postsecondary

programs and institutions. According to Wellton and Martinez (2013), “there are only a few
Affirmative Action 4

examples of high schools… that have embraced the college readiness model and have

yielded gains in both academic achievement and college preparedness.” With only a

handful of schools being successful at preparing students for college, students who are

being admitted without consideration for their background are potentially being set up for

failure. If students are being admitted prematurely, then this is not only putting the student

at a disadvantage, it is further creating inequity.

Sense of Belonging

One of the major factors to a student’s persistence to degree completion is a

student’s sense of belonging. Sense of belonging is combination of so many different

characteristics and factors when it comes to students of color and other marginalized

students. Many environmental factors can affect sense of belonging. The base assumption

for increasing diversity on campus and having affirmative action policies is that have a

diverse student population can create educational benefits for cross-cultural and cross-

racial interactions. According to Denson & Chang (2015), not only is the amount of

interaction important, but also the qualities of those interactions are just as important,

maybe even more. Institutions who don’t use culturally responsive practices to support and

moderate the frequency of these interactions can cause gross oversight in the

implementation of Affirmative Action.

The lack of moderation can lead to negative cross-racial interactions, which, for

students of color, means they are more likely to witness or experience racism and racist

interactions on their college campus. Witnessing racism on college campuses can cause

students of color to feel less welcome on campus and have increased likelihood for

academic stress (Johnson et Al., 2014). With these factors affecting a students
Affirmative Action 5

connectedness to the campus and having a sense of belonging, if universities are not

properly moderating these interactions and not being prepared to engage these student’s,

affirmative action is essentially sending students to these campuses that aren’t going to

welcome or serve them.

Conclusion

With schools being ill equipped to accept students onto their campus and create an

environment that supports their identities, affirmative action is only furthering inequity on

college campuses. With colleges basing affirmative action policies on the face value of

diversity numbers, rather than using dynamic diversity as their base assumption, colleges

are truly looking boast diverse numbers rather than truly create a campus climate that

celebrates diversity. As well with affirmative action policies funneling students onto

campus blindly, these policies also blind campuses to seeing a student’s background and

determining if that student was given the proper support to persist and succeed in

attaining their degree. With only a few high schools being successful at getting students to

be college and career ready, students are being pushed through a pipeline too quickly for

them to be prepared and be set up for failure. Affirmative action does create diversity at

face value for universities, but without the proper supports and systems in place, these

students are being used simply to boast diversity for these universities without being met

with what they rightly deserve, an education that sees them and values their identities.

Reflection

This paper was one that really challenged me to think critically and try to make a

substantiated argument that I didn’t necessarily agree with. It also pushed me to take my

own assumptions or values and have to flip them in a sense. There were assumptions I had
Affirmative Action 6

to change in myself or think out in order for me to actually understand my topic and think

through an argument that not only opposes my own belief but also actually exists and is

utilized by important stake holders in our current educations system. For myself, my

opinion of affirmative action is that affirmative is a policy that helps to set the precedence

for equity and does create more accessibility to college. However, one thing I do believe

that universities need to do is make sure that is creating environments for students of color

and other marginalized students to be accepted and feel safe on their campuses. My points

around universities not being equipped to serve students is true, however, I do believe that

universities need to change the system they inhabit and create support and programs that

allow marginalized students to succeed and access the support they need.

For example, when I was at the University of Washington for my undergraduate

studies, I was part of a program that supported high school seniors in applying to and

accessing higher education. I served as a mentor for all four years of my undergraduate

career. I was able to learn about the college access process and support students in

navigating and understanding the process of accessing higher education. I became fluent in

the FAFSA and WASFA (Washington Application for Federal Student Aid) and able to give

students strong feedback on their personal statements and remember passwords on

passwords of login information for different application sites.

However, as I got into my last year of undergrad, I watched my former mentees

through social media and seeing a handful begin to transfer from their 4-year institutions

to 2-year institutions and some eventually left those institutions for various reasons.

Watching my students begin to leave institutions made me reflect on what I had worked on

with them. I had taught them the tricks and systems in sending in college applications but
Affirmative Action 7

that only stays applicable until they receive their first acceptance letter. The program I

worked with mostly focused on the navigating and managing the complexities of the

college application process (Conley, 2010). Without supporting the other principles that

Conley mentions, I wasn’t fully preparing students for college and being college and career

ready. The role I was meant to fulfill as a mentor and the goals I was given didn’t mean I

was bad at supporting students. The scope to which my work could extend was only to the

application process due to the parameters of the program (seeing students once a week for

an hour at a time, timing of the year, etc.).

When I graduated from my undergrad, I wanted to do work that actually prepared

students for college. When I became a college access coach, I was able to not only the same

work of navigating the college process, but I also was able to better prepare students for

college by incorporating other principles that Conley mentions like teaching self-

management skills and academic behaviors that benefit students. However, even in this

role I wasn’t able to guarantee students were completely college and career ready because I

wasn’t in their classrooms or was a teacher for them. I still had limitations to what I could

do.

I know that I’m not a rare case, where as an individual, there is only so much you

can do without over reaching, over stepping, or over working. This I don’t think is

uncommon knowledge and universities can easily see the limitations there are as well as

the inequity that exists in other parts of the P-20 pipeline. Thus, I think universities have

the potential to fill in the gaps or opportunities that students don’t always get in other parts

of the pipeline. This is where parts of my argument in this paper somewhat aligns with my

own views. Universities are not serving students well and aren’t fostering environments of
Affirmative Action 8

learning or support. Universities are working towards this though and I believe that, as a

future student affairs professional, I’ll be able to maintain those structures and supports for

the students like the ones I sent off to college. This is why I think Affirmative Action is

important and should be used in our current time. There should be reviews and revisions

to make sure that we aren’t using it to fill certain demographic needs but I do believe that it

has the opportunity to give students who would not be able to access college normally the

opportunity to achieve things they may not otherwise.

Redefining Capital

When thinking about what could be changed in order to create equity, there are

many suggestions I have. One of the biggest things that needs to change, which I mentioned

in the first half of this paper, is to make sure that affirmative action is being used to close

gaps between marginalized student achievement and dominant student populations. This

includes using dynamic diversity as a replacement for critical mass when creating

affirmative action policies. By being intentional about these students and centering their

voices and experiences, the true benefits of a diverse campus can occur and create a

positive environment.

To make sure students are able to recognize those spaces and know when they are

being centered, a similar approach should occur throughout the entire P-20 pipeline. By

turning away from a deficit model of thinking, students will be able to have their voices

heard and have their experiences valued in their education. Using Yosso’s Community

Cultural Wealth, educators through the entire pipeline can uniformly value students in a

way that can empower students to access resources and opportunities throughout the

whole pipeline. This would also support students in getting matched to colleges that are
Affirmative Action 9

right for them and also be given the supports they need. For example, when thinking of the

Rube/Ruby/Ruth activity in class, these different students had options for so many

different programs and supports they could access, but without centering their identities

and backgrounds and seeing the whole of these students, there wasn’t a clear answer as to

which kind of support these three different students needed. As I went through that

activity, I could have justified different supports for different reasons, but without taking

into consideration these students and their full identities, there was no way to know if any

of these supports would have worked for these students. By having a uniform framework

for educators throughout the P-20 pipeline, there can at least be consistency that students

can lean on and have work for them instead of students having to work around these

systems.

In general, in order for change and equity to happen, the student needs to be

focused on and the context that these students are in needs to be considered. The context

needs to show up strongly in the admissions process and through affirmative action

policies so that access can happen. This way it keeps universities accountable for the

supports and systems they control and can provide students with an environment they can

grow and thrive in. In this way, it allows students to persist and create a better sense of

belonging. Additionally, throughout the P-20 pipeline, to ensure that students are college

and career ready, they need to be given the four key dimensions that Conley mentions in

ways that center student voices and see students as having capital and moving away from a

deficit model.
Affirmative Action 10

Conclusion

Overall, this paper allowed me to have a critical view of my own opinion on

affirmative action. It gave me the opportunity to do the research and have a stronger basis

for my own opinions of affirmative action while also critically interrogating how

affirmative action is implemented and should change. It makes me reflect on how I need to

push myself to really understand my own opinions and the consequences that all these

stances can have. I may know that a certain stance is right and aligns with my values, but as

a practitioner, I need to make sure that I have a certain level of scrutiny in order to create

change and equity in the P-20 system.

Affirmative Action 11

References

Conley, D. (2010). College and Career Ready: Helping All Students Succeed Beyond High

School. 19-22, 104-133.

Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2015). Dynamic Relationships: Identifying Moderators that

Maximize Benefits Associated with Diversity. Journal of Higher Education, 86(1), 1-

37.

Garces, L., & Jayakumar, U. (2014). Dynamic Diversity: A Contextual Understanding of

Critical Mass. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 115-124.

Johnson, D. R., Wasserman, T. H., Yildirim, N., & Yonai, B. A. (2014). Examining the Effects of

Stress and Campus Climate on the Persistence of Students of Color and White

Students: An Application of Bean and Eaton’s Psychological Model of Retention.

Research In Higher Edcuation, 55(1), 75-100.

Knight, M. & Marciano, J., (2013). College-Ready: Preparing Black and Latino/a Youth for

Higher Education—A Culturally Relevant Approach. 1-21.

Reardon S., Baker, R., Kasman, M., Townsend, J., & Society for Research on Educational

Effectiveness (2014). Simulation Models of the Effects of Race- and Socioeconomic-

Based Affirmative Action Policies on Elite College Enrollment Patterns.

Welton, A., & Martinez, M. (2013). Coloring the College Pathway: A More Culturally

Responsive Approach to College Readiness and Access for Students of Color in

Secondary Schools. Urban Review, 46, 197-223.