In the months leading up to May, many high school seniors anxiously check their inboxes for an email reading “Congratulations! I am happy to offer you admission in _______ University.”
After applications are submitted, all there is for students to do is to play the waiting game while admission officers are busy making decisions. Among schools who boast a holistic application review, a factor for evaluation may include affirmative action.
Affirmative action during the college admissions process is the act of trying to improve educational opportunities for racial minorities who have historically been treated unfairly.
In Texas, there is a Top Ten Percent Plan where seniors falling in the top ten percent of their graduating class are guaranteed admission at any public university in the state. For students falling outside of their class’s top ten percent, many other factors are considered for admission. The Top Ten Percent Plan allocates most of the spots at public universities, and creates a campus more reflective of the diversity in the state by pulling from all of the state’s schools. Affirmative action is one of those considered for the remaining spots.
In comparison, California public universities have a system where students in the top nine percent of their high school class will be offered a place at a University of California school, but not necessarily the UC they apply to. California public schools also do not have affirmative action.
In 2008, Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian Texas student below the top ten percent of her class, applied to the University of Texas: Austin, one of the top public universities in the country, and was denied admission. She sued the University of Texas: Austin, on the belief that the school denied her because the school uses affirmative action. Fisher used the 14th Amendment to back her position, which states people must be given “equal protection” of the law, which effectively means equal treatment by the government unless there is a compelling reason not to.
After Fisher’s appeal to lower court rulings, the Supreme Court heard the case on Dec. 9, 2015. Regardless of the decision the Supreme Court will ultimately make, Fisher v. University of Texas: Austin speaks on the issue of affirmative action in the college admissions process.
Aragon government teacher Jon Felder comments, “I feel like between all the different issues surrounding our country like economics or immigration, affirmative action isn’t super high on a lot of people’s radar. However, it’s still an important issue. Looking at the different affirmative actions cases the court has argued like California v. Bakke [in 1978] and Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, I don’t think this will be our last case on affirmative action.”
In order to remain fair, courts take previous Supreme Court rulings into account when deciding on a new case with similar circumstances. Previous rulings on the Fisher case in the lower courts ruled in favor of the University of Texas by applying the precedents of the Grutter v. Bollinger case. In the 2003 Grutter case, the Supreme Court had ruled that affirmative action did not violate the Constitution as long as applicants were reviewed on a case by case basis where there is not a quota to be met. It also upheld the idea that achieving diversity on campus is a compelling governmental interest that justifies considering race in admissions decisions. For Fisher, the Supreme Court’s decision may either apply Grutter and uphold the constitutionality of the University of Texas’s use of affirmative action, or invalidate the ruling in the Grutter case by ruling affirmative action unconstitutional.
“I think it’s good the Supreme Court is considering race in admissions and I’m glad they’re revisiting [affirmative action] because this is a topic that needs to be considered. It’s also an important factor for the court to think about, discuss, and debate the ways race can be legally used by universities. I’m glad affirmative actions is being discussed but I’m a little disappointed this is the case that made it because I don’t think her argument is compelling,” Felder says.
First generation college student Steven Lee says, “I think it’s a waste of time on [Fisher’s] part and the Supreme Court’s. I don’t understand the entitlement she has to go to University of Texas just because some minorities got in under affirmative action. I have no doubt she just felt entitled.”
Commenting on Fisher’s argument using the 14th Amendment, Lee continues saying, “I don’t think the University of Texas violated the 14th amendment. It’s just a way for people to equalize the playing field. There’s no malicious intent towards white people … It’s just to make sure that black and brown people have as much representation in a certain work field or even educational field.”
Senior Enzo Kalaveras has similar sentiments about the Fisher case. Kalaveras says, “I feel like she’s taking this a little out of hand just because she got rejected from a school. I feel like she should have just applied to a different school. White privilege has taken a long toil [sic.] in our society and it’s becoming more and more prevalent as I grow up and become more involved in politics.”
Senior Charlie Rodriguez says, “I think in the Fisher case, she was wrong to say because she was white she didn’t get in. She didn’t automatically qualify because she wasn’t in the top ten percent.”
However, one of Fisher’s arguments is that at highly competitive high schools, students who aren’t in the top ten percent of their school may still be highly qualified, whereas students in the tenth percentile at lower-achieving schools may not be prepared for an intense university environment.
Aragon students not only have opinions of the case, they also have their own perspective on the topic of affirmative action.
Felder is glad this is a topic of discussion. He says, “I think some people today as we get further away from the civil rights movement thinks [affirmative action] has a little less validity but that’s not the way everyone feels about it.”
Senior Gavin Scheldrup says, “Affirmative action seems very polar. You have people … saying its neo-racism. Then you have other people in the country who are more or less for it who kind of see it as helping African Americans today because of the long lasting scars from slavery.”
Scheldrup, who is Caucasian, does not see affirmative action affecting his admission statuses. He states, “I’m for it, I support it, but I don’t know if that speaks for everyone here or in our country. I see it as blacks don’t have as many opportunities to get into college … If a black student isn’t admitted even though he has lower grades, it’s just going to perpetuate the cycle of violence and poverty, especially in inner cities. So if you give an underprivileged kids [a chance] to go to a higher education, he’s gonna be able to make lot more money than he would have and hopefully get out of that cycle and start a family.”
In contrast, Rodriguez states, “I don’t like [affirmative action] because if you’re going to take someone into your school just because you’re lower class or minority, it should be based on your qualifications and not just the color of your skin.”
Junior Caitlin Chan notes advantages on both sides saying, “I think that it’s unfair because there are a lot of [not minority] people who want to get into a good college but it’s harder because of the large amount of people. It’s not fair but it’s reasonable for colleges to want to do this because they want to make their campus more appealing and diverse.”
Assistant Principal Ron Berggren says, “I don’t have much of a comment on affirmative action. Now what I do believe in is everyone deserves equal access to education. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough spots and that’s the real problem.”
Commenting on the current situation of affirmative action, senior Olivia Tandowsky says, “I think it’s fair because it gives a colleges a way to narrow it down and have diversity of thought in the classroom, but at the end of the day I don’t think affirmative action as it is now is right. [This is because] they’re basing it off of race and not socioeconomic status or resources. Race is not really what divides opportunity. It’s more of a socioeconomic issue.”
Although the outcome of the Fisher has yet to be decided and will not affect this year’s admission cycle, it may change American university admission processes in subsequent. If the ruling invalidates Grutter by ruling affirmative action unconstitutional, public institutions may have to reformat how they accept students. They may have to take affirmative action out of consideration and reconsider how they would handle diversity on campus. Depending on the ruling, private schools could also be affected, as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination by anyone receiving federal grants.
“For minorities, it’ll be even harder. I’m not trying to state stereotypes, but whites generally are more economically able to make mistakes and make up for it with money. For example ‘I can just apply to this school, this school, this school.’ But with minorities, on average, we don’t have those types of resources. It’ll just get harder for minorities if she does win this case. You’ll see the white privilege even more,” Kalaveras says.
If the Supreme Court chooses to rule in favor of University of Texas instead, they will strengthen the idea that affirmative action in theory and practice follows the constitution.
Scheldrup says, “I trust [the Supreme Court’s] decision because they sort of [represent] the country. I think in general, it’s not a clear cut case, there’s definitely arguments on both sides. I’ll still support affirmative action regardless of the outcome of the case.”
Says Kalaveras, “Affirmative action is there to make the playing ground fair. But at the same time if this was a job, then it should definitely be based on the ability to perform. But everyone should get into school — everyone has the right to an education.”
