Looking at the Past and Future of Affirmative Action

Author: Juan Garcia

Middlebury College's Handbook states, "The mission of Middlebury College is to educate students in the tradition of the liberal arts." To fulfill this mission, the College admits students who show evidence of intellectual curiosity, high motivation and superior academic accomplishment, and who, both individually and collectively, encompass a wide range of interests and talents. The College seeks students who are actively involved and committed to the ideals of community and who are, therefore, prepared to become leaders in society.
The debate on the table at the College and in society at large is whether affirmative action policies, which seek to promote diversity within the admissions process, provide a means of achieving Middlebury's academic mission.
When not understood or if taken to its base form without any historical context, affirmative action may seem to be a policy that "forces" an academic institution to admit an "under-qualified minority" of the population solely for the purpose of achieving institutional diversity. This is one of the myths surrounding affirmative action that loses sight of the remedial intent, which served as one of the cornerstones of the policy at its inception. To combat this incomplete understanding of affirmative action one must first look at the real definition of affirmative action and understand who is classified a "minority".
The latter question, although it may seem to be easily understood to be all of those people of the population not of Caucasian desent, is often the most misunderstood. When first put into practice, the policy of affirmative action not only targeted the "non-white" population but also was geared to help white women. The term "minority" was applied to all those who were not fairly represented and being discriminated against in institutions of higher education.
Affirmative action is used to combat this discrimination and help to promote equality within the power structure of the United States.
Originally set forth under the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson following the 1964 Civil Rights Act, affirmative action was put into practice to ensure government contractors did not discriminate in their hiring and employment practices. A more aggressive and broader set of rules that encompassed academic institutions was promulgated by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in revised Order No. 4 issued in 1972, under the Nixon administration, as a means of accomplishing previously stated goals.
Debates today about affirmative action claim that after 30 years, the policy has not only worked but has started to create a reverse discrimination against white males. It is argued that "overqualified" whites are being rejected from institutions because "under-qualified" minorities are taking "their" places. It is also argued that discrimination doesn't exist anymore other than that created by this policy. Data collected in the Federal Class Ceiling Commission in 1995 suggests otherwise: In 1994, women were earning 72 percent of men's salaries, even after controlling for work experience, education or merit. In 1992, black men with professional degrees earned 79 percent of the salaries of white men holding jobs at comparable levels. Black women with professional degrees earned 60 percent of the salaries of white men at comparable levels. Based on 1992 data, both white females and black males must work about eight months to earn a salary equal to what white males earn in six months. Black females must work 10 months to earn comparable salaries. Fewer women and minorities than white males are promoted to senior levels in organizations. (Murrell and Jones, Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995).
At Middlebury College, women have experienced the most significant change given that women now outnumber men 1,141 females to 1,124 males. Prior to the issuance of Revised Order No. 4 in 1972, which formally launched affirmative action as a mandate for institutions of higher learning, in the period 1970-1971 males outnumbered females by 975 to 702. Contrary to popular misconceptions the same gains and increases do not hold true for the other portion of the "minority" population.
At Middlebury, admission rates do not reflect national population demographics where Hispanics, followed by blacks constitute the largest minority populations. The group with the largest share of seats at the College, 75 percent of the population, is still Caucasian, followed by Asian Americans with eight percent. Presumably, the next group classified as "unknown" stands at seven percent, and may include members of other groups.
Blacks and Hispanics collectively accounted forbetween 25 percent and 30 percent of the country's population.
Many universities like Middlebury do not strictly adhere to a formulaic approach that places greatest emphasis on SAT scores, recognizing that achievement on standardized testing is not necessarily reflective of true intellectual ability, but the quality of secondary and elementary school education.

Next Week: Charlie Goulding further explores affirmative action and diversity at Middlebury College.