Affirmative Action and Race Relations

Affirmative Action and Race Relations

Affirmative action, in higher education and elsewhere has been a hotly debated issue, since its inception, among a group of minority faculty and faculty organization from U.S. law schools conceived of the need for forcing social change through guided plans and procedures that would make up for missing opportunities for racial minorities, a year prior to Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination. (Sander, 2004, p. 367) Since then there have been many legal challenges to affirmative action, the moniker given to the general guide of the plan, which was tailored significantly by nearly every university and many other institutions independently. The specific and individual affirmative action plans, of many institutions have been challenged, supported, challenged and struck down in several supreme court case, the most recent pairing being Grutter V Bollinger and Gratz V Bollinger, where affirmative action in one regard was struck down and in another (more tailored/goal oriented) application upheld. This work will first review and critique research based on the concepts of affirmative action in higher education. It will then move on to develop an independent research proposal to answer questions regarding affirmative action and finally it will review and discuss the breadth and depth of Grutter V Bollinger and Gratz V Bollinger and how they impact affirmative action and business.

It would seem that there have been as many challenges and debates with regard to affirmative action policies as there have been research studies on the subject of its effectiveness and therefore validity. Regardless of this fact there are also a significant number of researchers who seek to answer what they view as more important questions regarding affirmative action, not the least of which is does it help or hurt the minority population, or the majority population and has it been at all effective in eliminating discrimination in the broader society, institutionally or in business. The following research proposal will attempt to answer an enduring question associated with some of the broader questions of affirmative action namely; Is affirmative action policy implementation destructive to race relations in higher education and/or business? This question seems to be at the root of research, debate and conflict associated with affirmative action, and must garner some sort of answer for the development of a future for race relations and the role of affirmative action in decision making for admissions or hiring.

Review of Literature

Affirmative action and education, then is a significant issue, with regard to prior research, as such research can potentially help demonstrate, both the breadth of the questions being asked by it about affirmative action and what is yet to be asked, with regard to its effectiveness or derisiveness. In many ways this question is not answered, regardless of the breadth of the research, as both answers can be derived from the literature, as well as answers with considerable lists of contingencies, mostly regarding the type and application of affirmative action policies. Few if any research articles, contingent answers or not address the specific issue of race relations with regard to the application of affirmative action policies.

This first research article attempts to look at recipient reactions to affirmative action (AA) based admissions decisions, where admissions was offered contingent on affirmative action policies. In the review work Turner found that recipients of admission based on AA policies the author reviewed work from four specific areas of reactions "(a) self-evaluations of ability and performance, (b) motivation and task interest, - performance and achievement, and (d) evaluations of selection procedures." (Turner, 1994, p. 43) According to Turner the findings of this review indicate that the process of implementation of AA affected the responses of recipients in all four of the areas of reaction.

Self-evaluations of ability and specific components of performance were adversely affected when selection procedures did not provide unambiguous, explicit, and focused evidence of recipient qualifications. In contrast, measures of motivation were largely unaffected by any type of selection, although task choice was adversely affected when the selection process did not provide clear evidence of recipient qualifications. Task performance was complexly affected by selection process and other contextual variables. Finally, selection procedures that did not provide unambiguous, explicit, and focused evidence of qualifications were regarded by recipients as less fair than procedures that did not provide evidence of competencies. (Turner, 1994, p. 43)

In other words, the contingency of the application of AA policies in the above study indicate that AA application needs, in order to be positively viewed by recipients, to give those involved direct and transparent evidence of why they were selected for admission, i.e. why the university believes that they would be successful in their course of study. This contingency does not seem illogical, nor does transparency seem inapplicable to improved or at least unaffected race relations. If both parties (minority and majority) utilize unfounded assumption rather than probability and fact to determine why one student was admitted while another was not then they are both likely to be resentful of the process and resistant to its use, possibly even building a case for a deterioration of race relations rather than improvement of it.

Taylor in an employment rather than education-based study claims that the study was conducted on real subjects of AA policy hiring to better understand claims of the possible negative effect of AA employment polices on minority students, described as "debilitating social psychological effects." The researcher also questions the utilization of laboratory-based research on the questions of AA as such conditions do not hold any of the real motivational or psychosocial investment feelings of a real situation of employment. Those in the real situation have a much greater vested interest in the results of AA polices than do those in a theoretical setting.

This study takes a different approach to assessing the impact of affirmative action on beneficiaries. For White women and African-American employees of both sexes, we use 1990 General Social Survey data to compare workers whose employers practice affirmative action with those whose employers do not. Data from this national probability sample give no indication that benefiting from affirmative action has negative effects for either group on any social psychological outcome examined. African-American workers did show two positive effects of employment at an affirmative-action firm, with one clearly significant and the other nearly so: Those whose employers practice affirmative action (a) show greater occupational ambition and (b) are more likely to believe that people are helpful. Claims that affirmative action blights the psychological functioning of beneficiaries are not supported by these survey responses from a national probability sample. (Taylor, 1994, p. 143)

Taylor's findings demonstrate that, according to the application of AA studied here, there is no negative race relations issues in employment, and that most aspects or outcomes are significantly positive for minority hires.

In another study, along the same line as the first the researchers again asked questions of minority recipients with regard to their perceptions of the application of AA policies for admission. The study was conducted at a predominantly white university, to see how black students perceived the process of AA based admissions to a university.

422 questionnaires were sent out to African-American College students at a large, urban, public, comprehensive research university in the southern region of the United States. 400 questionnaires were completed for a response rate of 95%. The data revealed that a majority of the respondents felt race preferences should be used in making admission decisions at predominantly White colleges and universities. More significantly, all the respondents agreed that Affirmative Action and not a lower grade point should be used as part of university admissions decisions. (Antwi-Boasiako & Asagba, 2005, p. 734)

The development of the research findings indicate that again there are mostly positive outcomes, with regard to minorities who have been selected for admissions based, at least in part on race. The recipients felt that merit issues, such as lower GPA than a majority student seeking admission was not an appropriate guide, but that race should continue to be considered. In other words they do not wish to be given favor over students base don academic achievement but still wish their race to be considered as they obviously view it as a source of lost or limited opportunity, in a broader sense and feel that is needs to be made up for in some way.

Sander, in a review of research opens his work with the most important and logical "call for research" that was observed by this researcher in seeking information on this subject. Sander contends that all the debates regarding AA and its use in higher education and employment need to be inclusive of even the most difficult of questions to answer about AA and its effects, in Sander's words answers to the 35-year "social experiment" titled affirmative action. Namely:

What would have happened to minorities receiving racial preferences had the preferences not existed? How much do the preferences affect what schools students attend, how much they learn, and what types of jobs and opportunities they have when they graduate? Under what circumstances are preferential policies most likely to help, or harm, their intended beneficiaries? And how do these preferences play out across the entire spectrum of education, from the most elite institutions to the local night schools? (Sander, 2004, p. 367)

According to Sander, none of these questions have been asked effectively and therefore we as a nation continue to believe that affirmative action is a necessary social development for the creation of a more representative society, where disenfranchisement must be answered by active plans, policies and laws.

Few of us would enthusiastically support preferential admission policies if we did not believe they played a powerful, irreplaceable role in giving nonwhites in America access to higher education, entree to the national elite, and a chance of correcting historic underrepresentations in the leading professions. (Sander, 2004, p. 367)

Sander then goes on, surprisingly to develop the fact that racial preference, at least in elite law school statistical analysis has not been an effective tool in the development of a more representative and diverse population among lawyers and in fact he contends that if it were abolished minority races might actually fare better.

When one takes into account the corrosive effects of racial preferences on the chances of all black law students to graduate and pass the bar, these preferences...tend, system-wide, to shrink rather than expand the total number of new black lawyers each year. If all preferences were abolished, the data in Part VIII suggests that the number of black attorneys emerging from the class of 2004 would be 7% larger than it is. The number of black attorneys passing the bar on their first attempt would be 20% larger. even if the attrition effects of the current system were much smaller than I have estimated, we would still be producing approximately the same number -- and much better trained -- black attorneys under a race-blind system. (Sander, 2004, p. 367)

Sander's work is an exhaustive research article detailing year of admissions and Barr exam statistics, and leaves the readers feeling as if there are significant negative effects with regard to the ramifications of AA in institutions, but especially in institutions where the bar is set very high, such as is the necessary case in law education.

The final research article to be reviewed and critiqued here is one developed in response to previous research which indicated that people are resistant to AA policies, and therefore they are logically resentful when they are applied.

Several explanations have been offered to account for this resistance. Some of the explanations focus on characteristics of the target of affirmative action (e.g., the applicant is underqualified), or on the characteristics of the affirmative action policy (e.g., the policy is not procedurally just), while others focus on the relationship between the perceiver and the target (e.g., whether the applicant is a member of the same sex or racial group). The main conclusion offered by this work is that resistance to affirmative action is based on evaluations of the fairness of the affirmative action policy. What is unclear is whether the impact of the perceived fairness of the policy moderates the effect of the applicant, policy, or type of group membership on subsequent evaluations...criteria used for judgments of fairness are highly dependent on the social context. Judgments of policy fairness are likely to be contextualized by such factors as the type of selection policy, the qualifications of the applicant, or group membership of the perceiver. Thus, we suggest that characteristics of the target, the policy, or the group interact with the perceived fairness of the affirmative action policy to determine evaluations of an affirmative action applicant. (Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1998, p. 933)

The findings of the work indicate that the most tewlling features of individual perception of fairness of the model of AA are demographic, i.e. do the individuals belong to a group that could be furthered by AA or one that might be perceived as being slighted by it. This in and of itself gives credence tot the idea that AA could have some negative effects on race relations in the education or business setting.

Research Question

Is affirmative action policy implementation destructive to race relations in higher education and/or business?

Hypothesis

The application or perceived application of Affirmative action policies are destructive to race relations in education and the work place, and much more so given the majority status of the individual in the organization. Transparency in application of AA would improve race relations only when applicants given preferential admissions or offered employment are shown to be just as qualified or more qualified than other applicants seeking the same position.

Sample

Two business organizations will be asked to participate in a research study looking at race relations and affirmative action policy application. Each will be chosen based on the transparency and fairness tests (based on the hypothesis assumptions of qualifications). One organization will state that they practice AA and the other will not only practice AA but will also follow such practice with transparency showing that the candidate chosen was as qualified or more qualified than the majority candidate not chosen. The study sample will be 100-150 survey responses per organization.

Method

Employees of the company (excluding any who had been hired in the previous year, and having been selected based on AA policy) will then be surveyed to determine their perception of the policy of AA as they see it applied in their organization, and some general questions about AA and hiring practices of the company, as well as race relations within the company, based on known incidence and overall feeling of race relations. Results of the two groups will then be compared. Surveys will be distributed via company email with the permission of the company and results will be tabulated for both companies (utilizing non-identifying procedures) prior to potential publication, for the purpose of review and edification. All names email addresses and any other identifying characteristics will be stricken from the results.

Expected Findings

The company practicing AA policies with the inclusion of transparency and qualifications data will likely have an employee survey base that is more receptive to the general goals of AA as well as the specific manner in which it helps the company and will also likely answer more positively with regard to race relations. The transparent company will also likely have a greater positive response to questions about AA policy fairness of application.

Review of Legal Precedence of Grutter V Bollinger and Gratz V Bollinger

The recent Supreme Court case on affirmative action were reviewed in tandem by the Supreme Court and ruled upon in June of 2003. Each case represented a reverse discrimination claim regarding the utilization of admissions policies at University of Michigan (Gratz V Bollinger)) and Michigan Law School (Grutter V Bollinger. In the findings of the court the university's general undergraduate AA admissions policy was struck down, as not specific enough in purpose while the Law school's AA admissions policy was upheld, on the same grounds.

A in a five to four decision, substantially changed the nature of state imposed affirmative action when it held that diversity could serve as a "compelling government interest" and thus justify public sector preferential programs. Though this ruling pertained specifically to race-based preferential university admissions, it is likely to have wide ranging implications for all public sector affirmative action programs. (Robinson, Franklin & Epermanis, 2007, p. 33)

Robinson, Franklin & Epermanis go on to stress that the ramification of the two cases are limited, but broad as they do not alter the basic two part test, associated with prior legal precedence, and with regard to the constitutionality of AA policies, but instead establish what is important in determining the second part of the test i.e. compelling government interest.

Prior to Grutter, the boundaries for establishing a compelling government interest were very narrow and remedial in nature. Following Grutter, at least for university admissions, these boundaries have been expanded, and the remedial justifications for such preferences have been supplemented by proportional outcomes. This recent shift runs contrary to the longstanding judicial tradition that any state or local government action which treats any citizen differently on account of an individual's race, gender, or ethnic origin is inherently suspect as an Equal Protection Clause violation. (28) (Robinson, Franklin & Epermanis, 2007, p. 33)

The reason though that the Grutter case upheld the UM Law School AA policy has to do with the fact that it used both objective and subjective means to determine admission, and was therefore considered to be more specifically tailored to a goal of improving diversity in the law school and legal profession and demonstrative of a compelling government interest.

On the objective criteria side, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score, undergraduate coursework and performance were considered. On the subjective side, consideration was given to particular strengths, attainments or characteristics applicants possessed. Specific attention could be given to an applicant's employment experience, nonacademic performance or personal background. The stated objective for this delineation in applicants' qualifications was "to make the School a better and a livelier place in which to learn and to improve its service to the profession and the public." (3) Ethnic diversity was believed to be a desirable end as the admission policy stated. In addition to its own interest in forming a class which is strengthened by the talents and diversity of its members, Michigan recognizes the public interest in increasing the number of lawyers from groups which the faculty identifies as significantly underrepresented in the legal profession. In particular, those who are African-American, Mexican-American, Native American or Puerto Rican and raised on the U.S. mainland are strongly encouraged to apply. (Robinson, Franklin & Epermanis, 2007, p. 33)

While on the other hand the Gratz case found in favor of the students, who claimed they had not been admitted because they were members of the majority race and then challenged the AA undergraduate policy of the university. The policy contained a standard points system which combined SAT/LSAT scores, high school grades an curriculum completion as well as other standard admissions requirement and then amended this with AA policy standards.

A minority undergraduate applicants to LSA could receive a 20-point bonus on the basis of race, which takes into consideration other criteria including academics. Race is also covered in a category called "other factors" which also is entitled to 20 points, one-fifth of the total points needed for admission. The "other factors" point system is provided in Figure 1.In 1999 and 2000, the LSA also modified its admissions system whereby certain applicants, including underrepresented minority applicants, could be "flagged." This resulted in such applicants being kept in the review pool for further consideration. (8) (Robinson, Franklin & Epermanis, 2007, p. 33)

The AA policy was not delineated as well to serve a specific purpose regarding diversity and it was therefore ruled unconstitutional.

The case which decided the two part aspect of constitutionality for AA policies was actually Wygant V Jackson School Board, again a reverse discrimination claim

Affirmative action plans had to be "narrowly tailored" to achieve appropriate ends. Plans that hire one race over another are constitutional but laying off based on race was too harsh for innocent people and thus unconstitutional. (Anderson, 2004, p. 190)

So, in other words the AA plans had to be narrowly tailored and justifiable by means of a compelling government interest to better the position of a given minority.

Supreme Court, in 5-4 votes in Grutter v. Bollinger (6) and Gratz v. Bollinger, (7) struck down the University of Michigan's admissions plan for the undergraduate program, (8) but upheld Michigan Law School's more individualized program. (9)...Grutter is a very circumscribed opinion, and affirmative action remains constitutionally suspect in most areas other than education. (Sullivan, 2004, p. 1013)

Sullivan stresses that the case findings will likely seriously effect how all affirmative action plans are written and implemented, in the public and private sector (where there are actually few) including in business. These policies are dictated by government rules and regulations, but do not always follow into the private sector business plan, unless that particular business has received community criticism for racist polices or the company finds a code of conduct including AA principles a compelling thing to have and apply in the current state of demand for corporate social responsibility. It is also worth mention that CSR issues and public persona will likely drive more AA polices than will court rulings, which do not specifically apply to business and more specifically private sector business. Another thing that may more significantly alter the situation in business is recent research detailing continued discrimination in hiring and opportunity based on race. This is yet another reminder to the public as to why AA exists and needs to continue to exist, even outside the field of education. In a review of this research Sullivan stresses that employment discrimination is still alive and well as employment offers are more likely to go to white candidates, or candidates with white names. Call backs for interviews for even the most remedial service jobs in retail and other service trades are curtailed by race, with white applicants being given preference over other races.