Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
At UT-Austin, as everyone knows, there is a two-track admissi
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
At UT-Austin, as everyone knows, there is a two-track admission system for incoming freshmen. (freshpersons? ?)
First is the “10% plan.” All students graduating in the top 10% of their class at a Texas public high school are guaranteed admission to Texas public universities, including UT. Because this automatic admission only applies to 75% of the incoming class, once that number (75% of the class) is reached, no more students are admitted through this path. At UT, there are so many applicants that for the 2023 entering class, only about the top 6% of students were automatically admitted under the “10% plan.”
The other 25% of the entering class are admitted under “Holistic Review.” This is the controversial part. Here’s what is considered under holistic review:
“The following items are considered during holistic review:
Class rank
Strength of academic background
Test scores
Record of achievements, honors, and awards
Special accomplishments, work, and service both in and out of school
Essays
Special circumstances that put the applicant’s academic achievements into context, including his or her socioeconomic status, experience in a single parent home, family responsibilities, experience overcoming adversity, cultural background, race and ethnicity, the language spoken in the applicant’s home, and other information in the applicant’s file
Recommendations (although not required)
Competitiveness of the major to which the student applies”
As you can see, race and ethnicity are included, among numerous other factors.
No one is admitted solely as a result of any one factor (even football), including race or ethnicity. It’s one factor that has been considered among many, as you can see above.
Opponents of their inclusion say race and ethnicity is not related to a student’s ability to succeed. “Admissions should be a purely merit-based process.”*
Others say “Schools should be able to consider everything about a student and their background and balance all characteristics of their entering freshman class according to what they think is best in their situation.”
In 2023 the Supreme Court handed down an earth-shaking decision in two cases consolidated to be considered together, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. The decision ended use of race and ethnicity in college admissions.
Here’s an article from SCOTUSBlog talking about these two cases.
In the case of affirmative action there’s an obvious and easy-to-defend answer: “Of course we shouldn’t consider race and ethnicity. Those don’t tell us anything about a person’s intelligence, persistence, character, etc. Why should skin color matter? Of course affirmative action is wrong. Even racist!”
But as H.L. Mencken is reputed to have said, “To every difficult question there is an answer that is easy, obvious, and wrong.”
Before you adopt a position one way or another, I really hope you’ll read the Students for Fair Admissions decision. It’s 237 pages long, though, so who’s really going to read it? At least, if you think affirmative action is desirable you should read the main opinion, which argues against it. If you think affirmative action is undesirable you should read the dissents, which argues that it is not only desirable, but essential.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, starting on page 140, argues, among other things, that race-conscious admissions policies are fully consistent with the Constitution. Justice Jackson’s dissent, starting on page 209, argues that we’ve had race-conscious admissions throughout our history. But they’ve largely excluded Black applicants.
Justice Jackson writes:
“Imagine two college applicants from North Carolina, John and James. Both trace their family’s North Carolina roots to the year of UNC’s founding in 1789. Both love their State and want great things for its people. Both want to honor their family’s legacy by attending the State’s flagship educational institution. John, however, would be the seventh generation to graduate from UNC. He is White. James would be the first; he is Black. Does the race of these applicants properly play a role in UNC’s holistic merits-based admissions process?
To answer that question, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921). Many chapters of America’s history appear necessary, given the opinions that my colleagues in the majority have issued in this case.
Justice Thurgood Marshall recounted the genesis:
“Three hundred and fifty years ago, the Negro was dragged to this country in chains to be sold into slavery. Uprooted from his homeland and thrust into bondage for forced labor, the slave was deprived of all legal rights. It was unlawful to teach him to read; he could be sold away from his family and friends at the whim of his master; and killing or maiming him was not a crime. The system of slavery brutalized and dehumanized both master and slave.” From Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 387–388 (1978).”
What do you think? Should schools be able to consider race and ethnicity in admissions? Should ANY affirmative action policies be allowed?
*(My attitude about life is that we should question everything. Without giving you my mini-lecture about questioning, I just want to say that a *lot* of people these days, and I am among them, question the desirability of “meritocracy,” which asserts that the only legitimate factor in, for example, hiring or admissions decisions, is “merit.” If doubting meritocracy sounds crazy to you please read some of the articles I’m linking to in this paragraph.)
FYI: Before 2023 the Supreme Court had considered whether schools should be able to consider race in admissions numerous times. Some of the main cases are
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003),
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin I (2013)
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin II (2016).
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.