Returning Affirmative Action to its Original Intent

Affirmative action has been allowing more students of an underrepresented race the chance at a college education; however it has been deemed racist and discriminatory by many students. Although the original intent of this program was to increase the diversity of the student body on college campuses, affirmative action has indeed become an unintentional form of racism at the moment known as reverse racism. Even if it is for the intent of increasing the diversity of colleges and universities, is it fair that Caucasians and Asians are placed at a disadvantage because blacks, Hispanics, Latinos, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders are given a boost on their applications?

Despite the current approach being unintentionally discriminatory, diversity is important to colleges and universities and affirmative action is needed in the college admissions process in order to increase the diversity of the student body. To make this process fairer, affirmative action should first operate from an income-based perspective rather than a race-based one. Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, argues that affirmative action is supposed to aid students who come from underprivileged backgrounds, and by only looking at race and ethnicity, that goal is not being achieved. He argues that a purely income-based approach would be a fairer approach to affirmative action and that it would bring in diversity at a different level without diminishing diversity in a racial and ethnic perspective.

Income-based affirmative action would allow students of a lower socioeconomic class a greater opportunity to obtain a college degree. This would also continue to contribute to the diversity of the student body, because focusing on socioeconomic factors would naturally create a student body that is racially diverse. The majority of low-income families are headed by minorities and 44% of families that are headed by a working minority parent are considered low-income opposed to the 16% of white families, where it is three times more likely for a working poor family to be headed by a minority parent.  Accepting a larger number of students from the lower classes of the socioeconomic spectrum would already be accepting minority students since the majority of families who are of the working poor families of the lower-income socioeconomic classes are minority families.

While an income-based approach would be fairer and more beneficial than a race-based standpoint, Kahlenberg’s proposal does not cover enough ground. He does not take into consideration that aside from income, factors such as the resources the students have access to and the neighborhoods they live in may not be visible from looking at their socioeconomic class alone. Casey Quinlan also believes that while income can in most cases reflect the conditions in which the students grew up in, it differs in some cases such as when the surrounding neighborhoods affect the students and the amount of resources they have access to. The achievement gap within each race differs as well and it is necessary to observe the specific differences between what low-income is defined as across the different races. Achievement gaps define both socioeconomic class and race in a different perspective, so it is impractical to compare the achievement gaps across the races as a whole because that will not accurately reflect the achievement gaps within each race. Looking at achievement gaps within each race would also reflect the different environments the students are living in and the neighborhoods that affect them. The achievement gap is large for minority students who attend higher poverty schools—particularly those who are black, Hispanic, or Latino—which is also affected by the racial and ethnic gaps that already exist within their parents’ educational attainments and achievement gaps of that generation. Moreover, in richer places, the achievement gap is much larger than it is in poorer places, because in more affluent places, an increased competition and a larger focus on school success create hyper-achievement orientations that cause high competition for resources and will take a toll on those who are not as affluent.

There is, however, one major aspect that is being overlooked: gender. With the legalization of gay marriage in 2015, the United States has been increasingly aware and open to different identities. However, many problems remain on college campuses as nine percent of LGBT-identifying students have experienced sexual assault involving penetration, compared to seven percent of women. Although awareness and acceptance appears to be slowly increasing, there are still many conflicts and reported incidences among those who identify as LGBT on college campuses. If the purpose of having affirmative action in the college admissions process is to promote diversity and to create a more diverse student body on college campuses, then shouldn’t gender and identity need to be taken into account as well? An increase in the number of students who identify as a part of the LGBT community would contribute to the diversity of the student body in a less conventional way, but it would nonetheless benefit every student in fostering awareness and inclusion and promoting greater acceptance of people as a whole, as well as being the first step in encouraging acceptance and lowering the bullying and assault that wrongfully occurs to many of these students in college.

In a world where just about everything and anything can be labeled discriminatory, affirmative action is nonetheless necessary in the college admissions process if it holds true to its original intent to generate and promote a more diverse student body. A race-based process has transformed into reverse discrimination, but it can become fairer by looking at it from income, environment, and gender of a student. Diversity is the trademark and the pride of the United States, and it is necessary to preserve and promote such a vital aspect of our country.