UCSB Scholars Reflect on Higher Ed Post Affirmative Action

July 10, 2023, 9:04 am 8.0k Views 71 Comments

By Keith Hamm, UC Santa Barbara‘s The Current

In its recent ruling against admissions policies that take race into account at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its decades-long position on affirmative action, further complicating the challenges faced by institutes of higher education to increase, or even maintain, diverse student bodies.

Leading the court’s conservative supermajority, Chief Justice Roberts stressed that admissions policies that take race into account unconstitutionally violate the guarantee of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the ruling was “devastating” and that the court was “further entrenching racial inequality in education.”  

For perspective on the court’s position and UC Santa Barbara’s place in the post-affirmative action era, The Current caught up with political science professor Pei-te Lien and professor Jeffrey Milem, who has served as the Jules Zimmer Dean of the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education since 2016.

Lien has been teaching affirmative action for nearly 30 years in courses on Asian American and U.S. racial politics. Her research focuses on political action and representation among Asian and other nonwhite Americans. She is the co-founder of the Asian Pacific American Caucus, a related group of the Washington, D.C.-based American Political Science Association.

Milem specializes in racial dynamics and equity in higher education. His scholarship on affirmative action includes a study of the University of California v. Bakke decision, and commissioned research for the Harvard Civil Rights Project and the American Educational Research Association. In 2003, his published work was cited by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the University of Michigan’s ability to include the consideration of race in law school admissions.

Jeffrey Milem
Jeffrey Milem

Together with more than 1,200 other social scientists and scholars on college access, Asian American studies and race, Lien and Milem signed an amicus brief in support of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. 

The Current: What was your initial reaction to the ruling?

Pei-te Lien: For the majority of the nation concerned about equal opportunities for Black, Hispanic, Native American and other structurally disadvantaged students to enter elite colleges, it was an earthshaking decision. The Supreme Court had previously upheld the use of race as a factor in school admissions after the Bakke decision in 1978. Since then, and despite repetitive challenges, race-conscious admissions practices have been legal at the federal level.

Professor Pei-te Lien
Pei-te Lien

One fears there will be cascading effects of banning race in law school admissions and in other areas of affirmative action that cover employment and business contracting. Gender is another protected category in school decisions, and this decision may impair any efforts to advance gender and sexuality rights moving forward, beyond the abortion ban. Also, dismantling race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions may impair minority access to political representation by dismantling race-conscious redistricting efforts. So this decision has implications beyond race and racial justice. 

The UC president said in a statement that the use of race in admissions has been a valuable practice that has increased diversity. Overall, what have been the measurable benefits of affirmative action? 

Jeffrey Milem: They are abundant and profound. On an individual level, a review of the research on the benefits of diversity suggests that there is an important relationship between an emphasis on diversity and important student outcomes. Simply put, there are numerous ways in which individuals benefit from their interactions with diverse information and ideas and people while they are in college. Diversity also enhances the effectiveness of an institution or organization. For the whole of society, having a diverse workforce and student body contributes to the achievement of democratic ideals of equity and access, the development of an educated and involved citizenry and the provision of services to groups who are badly underserved.

What have been the imperfections of affirmative action?

Milem: The imperfection from a public policy viewpoint is that despite all of the work that has been done to establish abundant empirical evidence on the multiple benefits of diverse universities — plus the compelling data showing that racial equity and fair access to educational opportunities are still a very long way from being addressed — we have failed to protect the right of college and university leaders to use race as one of many factors in college admissions.

One shortcoming I see from an educational perspective is our failure as educators to establish all of the conditions that are necessary to produce the educational benefits that can be achieved. We are learning, but we have been slow in learning how to do this. 

Lien: For nearly 30 years, I have reminded my students that affirmative action is not another anti-discrimination measure. We can also keep in mind that affirmative action is a temporary measure and has been used as a ubiquitous, necessary, but also convenient fix to the remnants of systemic racism and structural inequality in education, employment, business contracting and other prized opportunities. 

Did the ruling surprise you?  

Milem: Given the composition of the court, the ruling did not surprise me. Even though I anticipated this outcome, I underestimated the profound hurt and disappointment I felt when it was announced. 

The court dismissed the compelling evidence of systemic disadvantages that many students of color and first-generation and immigrant students continue to face, and it dismissed the mountain of empirical evidence documenting the numerous benefits that diversity in higher education has for students, institutions and the private sector. Our society supports the use of race as a consideration in admissions, and there is abundant compelling evidence which supports the continued use of race as one of many factors in admissions. At the same time, there is paucity of any reliable evidence that supports the argument to end affirmative action. This decision violates every tenet of what I believe as a scholar and it poses a deep threat to our citizens and our democracy.

Since 1996’s Proposition 209, consideration of race in admissions has been banned in California. Since then, the UC has used a “comprehensive review process.” Can it serve as a template? 

Lien: UCSB was the first UC campus to adopt comprehensive review in our admissions decisions. We have developed a sophisticated system that considers many factors in one’s personal, family and contextual background that may impact one’s socialization and academic performance. The UC system also adopted a “percent plan” which currently guarantees admission to California resident applicants who are either in the top 9% of high school graduates statewide or the top 9% of graduates from their own high schools. I think this combined system has contributed to the distinction of UCSB being the first Hispanic-serving institution among the nation’s top elite institutions of higher education. We have moved beyond the simple consideration of a racial category, which most Californians and increasingly more Americans of all origins denounce. So as the nation laments the death of affirmative action, we have moved forward beyond affirmative action as we know it, and with some success.

Is the UCSB model the template for the post-affirmative action era? Yes and no. Whereas we have developed a system of comprehensive review in evaluating applicants, our admissions office also works diligently to recruit under-represented minority students. We recently abandoned standardized SAT testing as part of the UC directive. We’ve established partnerships with community colleges and four-year degree programs in the California State University system to recruit transfer students. And we offer generous financial aid and scholarships to support under-represented and first-generation students.

Overall, it is not affirmative action, but a strong and persistent commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion that matters.

Moving forward, what now?   

Milem: Despite this devastating ruling and the backlash against diversity in schools and colleges, it is clear to me that educators must take a much more active role in addressing both the quality of education delivered for an increasingly diverse nation and the ongoing power of race, class, gender, immigrant status and sexual orientation in shaping life chances in our society. We must do the difficult work to enact diversity on our college campuses so that we are able to achieve its benefits, but more importantly, so that we can finally achieve what to date has been one of our nation’s most elusive goals — educational equity.

Lien: One possible bright side of the recent court decision is to compel people to seek solutions to the root cause of racial and ethnic inequality, to invest in the infrastructure of K–12 education and to find alternative and less controversial measures to help achieve the goal of diversity, equality and inclusivity. The UC system — and especially UCSB — has a head start in this, but it’s far from enough. It is not sufficient to push for teaching a more diverse version of the nation’s racial and ethnic history. The key is to teach and learn American history critically and help students see that the system still largely sustains white privilege and condones racial inequality in contemporary society.

Avatar

Written by Anonymous

What do you think?

0 Points

Comments

4 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment

71 Comments

    • Totally agree! Let’s solve racism! First let’s make sure the public schools in marginalized communities have the same amount of funding as those in the wealthy communities. Let’s also make sure these children are fed and provided with the same resources (tutors, sports, music, extra circulars, childcare!) so they can learn as well as the upper class white children. Then let’s make sure their parents are earning livable wages and afforded with proper childcare options, sick leave, vacation, etc. so they can be their best selves to show up for their kids. And let’s make higher education free so lower/middle income families arent saddled with debt while trying to obtain better jobs and continued education. Once we do that after a few decades of hopefully stabilizing the massive inequities in this country, we should see things start to level out! Great idea Voice, love it!

      0

    • The mid to lower classes need to pay more in taxes because there are not enough rich people to pay for all this:
      “let’s make sure the public schools in marginalized communities have the same amount of funding as those in the wealthy communities. Let’s also make sure these children are fed and provided with the same resources (tutors, sports, music, extra circulars, childcare!) so they can learn as well as the upper class white children. Then let’s make sure their parents are earning livable wages and afforded with proper childcare options, sick leave, vacation, etc. so they can be their best selves to show up for their kids. And let’s make higher education free so lower/middle income families arent saddled with debt while trying to obtain better jobs and continued education.”
      How much do you (edhat socialist reader) pay your gardener and housekeeper? Do you pay them for missed days due to illness and do you pay them when they go on vacation? Or do you pay them cash under the table, personal check, no sick pay, no vacation?

      0

    • SB Surfer, all races suffer under classism, not just minorities. When looking at disparities relating to race, look at the racial makeup of lower class children in large metropolitan areas vs rural areas. It’s the large metropolitan areas that are failing the lower class worse than the rural areas simply because the proportion of minorities in big cities is higher than rural areas, and cities contain more people, so it’s easy to point to racism as the issue when it’s really classism.

      0

    • The opposition to school choice is a good example of this. Why force people who don’t have the means to attend private or move districts, into a school that is failing their child? How school choice became a “right wing” thing and not embraced by the progressives long ago is astounding to me (hint, they care more about the political power of public sector unions than the actual children in their district).

      0

    • Hahaha Voice. You don’t really want to understand another perspective, you just want to debate why you think your perspective is correct. No one here has time to explain racism and all the inequities that come with it in this country. Oh well, maybe some day you’ll take it upon yourself to seek some education on the topic.

      0

    • @1:59 our problems are not racism but classism. Those that benefit from classism want you believing it’s racism. They own the news, media and social media companies so it’s easy to manipulate people who lack critical thinking skills and believe the media is honest, unbiased and for some reason not a for profit enterprise. Politicians want you to keep to believing it’s racism because it appeases their donors ( the beneficiaries of classism) and it makes it easier to win your vote.

      0

    • @VOR, not 4:23, but one reason why people of color do not take “flight” is resources. Just look at the results of opening up GATE at Washington. About a dozen years ago, they changed the system to test ALL 2nd graders (not just parent/teacher requests) AND they changed the lottery system to no longer give priority to Washington students.
      Have we seen the expected increase in the number of students of color in that GATE program? No. Why not? One reason is that families of color are much less likely to have the resources to drive their children across town 2x a day, while the mid to upper-middle class families have no problem doing this.
      By pushing “school choice” without the additional bussing resources – you are essentially leaving poor students and disabled students (who never have “school choice”) where they are, with zero choices an no resources.

      0

  10. I know this sounds whack but, how about we educate the people who aren’t able to pass the “test” to get into higher ed?.
    Aren’t they the people that need the most help?
    Especially when they will become a part of society.
    F affirmative action for me because I think there is a huge amount of kids, teen and young adults that got cheated out of their education.
    Regardless of “color”.
    THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO NEED EDUCATION.
    NOT the educated that was able to learn in their youth.

    0

  11. People like to compare USA with European countries where tuition to public university is free, but hey all have very rigorous standards for that tuition free education that most SBUSD students could not qualify for.
    SBHS students graduate at a rate of 91% woo hoo. But wait. Only 31% of SBHS graduates pass for advanced placement at the community college level, which at this point is dumbed down simply what high school standard used to be in the 1970’s. Advanced placement at this low standard does not meet the European standard for free tuition or even admission. European standards for free tuition are entirely merit based

    0

  12. I think most people, regardless of what they say in public or on internet forums, knew that it was only a matter of time before Affirmative Action (AA) would be shut down. Justice Thomas may have benefited from AA, but he had everything necessary to be accepted to Yale on merit alone. Simply disagreeing with a decision made by the SCOTUS should not send anyone into a permanent “tailspin”….but that does happen all too often. A number of my family members probably have benefited from AA, but did suffer the typical “you don’t deserve to be here and the only reason you are here is because of this and that.” It’s interesting that many applications for professional schools require a photo…..hmmmm..a photo.

    0

  13. I slightly agree to affirmative action if it was relative to the population distribution. There are 76.3% caucasian people. 6% Asian. 13.4% African-American. 18.7% Hispanic. A comparable diversity in percentage would be fair. However, I still think we should educate the best and the brightest!
    Do you really want a pilot who became a pilot because he was 105th in the class but needed to get the job because of his race? Asians should certainly not be punished because they have such a strong education ethic. I think our education system is basically dead. I think in the future, AI will teach kids. Those that want to learn will and those that want to goof off will. If you want a better life, take advantage of the free education this country offers. Kids around the world would do anything for that opportunity.

    0

  16. UCSB Scholars too uneducated to realize the Supreme Court changes nothing in the UC system:
    ” California law has banned affirmative action since 1996 when it passed Proposition 209. So for schools like Berkeley, the court’s ruling does not represent much of a change.”
    Daniel Farber is a law professor at UC Berkeley, where he teaches and writes about constitutional law and environmental law. His most recent book is “Contested Ground: Understanding the Limits of Presidential Power.”
    Faber notes:
    “Since 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed universities to use affirmative action as a tool to increase racial diversity, but on Thursday the court slammed the door on this practice, holding that it violates the Constitution.
    The decision is extremely controversial, and there is much to be said about the court’s reasoning. But for present purposes, we should focus on a narrower question: the decision’s impact in California.”
    “At state universities like UC Berkeley, the immediate impact should be small. But private schools like Stanford will be heavily affected.
    The reason is straightforward: California law has banned affirmative action since 1996 when it passed Proposition 209. So for schools like Berkeley, the court’s ruling does not represent much of a change. No doubt scholars will be scouring the opinion to see if any details of the process need to change, but basically the court has imposed on schools nationally the same rules that already applied in California. ”
    For private schools, the impact will be broader because they were not subject to California’s ban on affirmative action. If they accept any form of federal funding, they’ll have to comply with the new Supreme Court decision. This will probably mean adopting something like the application process used across the University of California system.

    0

  17. When the schools in California ” abandoned standardized SAT testing as part of the UC directive” they made it clear that admission by merit was over. Ironic that one of the people quoted here is Asian, since statistically if admissions WERE solely by merit the law and medical schools would be overwhelmingly filled with Asians. Even first-generation ESL Asians outperform other races, and we can speculate if that is because their “culture” puts a priority on hard work and study for school or if they are a superior race. Ouch!

    0

  18. Data? Still waiting. Data comes from scientific studies, not news articles. But hey, when you came up with “Advanced placement classes in high school now are far more rigorous than HS classes were in the 1970s. Source: I have many many siblings who graduated in the 1970s, and I lived through the 1970s.”…when there actually WERE NONE (thanks for now rewinding that part of your original bogus comment), I think you lost me dude.

    0

  19. Not even. Watering down high school achievement with A’s and B’s for everyone and no SAT’s is a total mistake. 4.0 has become the new 3.0 GPA. The local School Districts – the Administrators, not the teachers – are looking to make everyone look good. In the end, a losing strategy for society and individual kids. It sucks to get a C, D, or heaven forbid an F. I get it, but rubber stamping is even worse.
    I’d like to hear exactly how LETMEGO can show support for the statement about AP classes now vs. 40/50 years ago, implying that high school is getting MORE rigorous. Really, I’m interested. Tell us.

    0

CalFire Secures 24 Additional Firefighting Aircraft for the State

Mysterious House Colorization