Affirmative Action How Does Affirmative Action Affect Higher Education?

The issues that are related to race relations in the United States have reached unprecedented levels of tension on many fronts. Minorities are significantly more likely to be higher unemployment levels, be incarcerated, have health issues, and face discrimination in seeking employment among many other challenges. The racial divides that exist today are consistent with the heritage of the country's founding, and despite many efforts, much of the same types of trends pervade the social and cultural fabric of the society. One potential solution has remained controversial throughout the years, however Affirmative Action policies have been argued to be tools that could help level the playing field and give African-Americans and minorities a more equitable chance of improving their opportunities through higher education. This analysis will provide a background on some of the challenges that are present in the U.S. today for underrepresented demographics and consider whether Affirmative Action can be an effective part of a more comprehensive solution.

Disadvantages for Minorities

There are many forms of discrimination that throughout society that are present for many different reasons. Race, gender, social status, or similar superficially derived groupings often can dictate the opportunities that one faces rather than their qualifications and abilities. The perceived differences that can divide different groups are often based on gender and race due to the fact that such characteristics are easily visible. However, there are also other forms of discrimination that also occur, such as based on religious preferences or political affiliations. However, division in race and gender are typically more pronounced because many people can hide their beliefs but physical characteristics are often readily visible. Furthermore, there have been many race and equality issues that have erupted national dialogues about race, gender, and discrimination.

Figure 1 - Public Religion Research - Discrimination Against Poll (Berman, 2015)

There are many reasons that these trends represent major challenges for society in general based on arguments of fairness and egalitarianism. However, there are also practical aspects to increasing diversity in organizations. For example, social scientists have shown that teams and organizations whose members are heterogeneous in meaningful ways, for example, in skill set, education, work experiences, perspectives on a problem, cultural orientation, and so forth, have a higher potential for innovation than teams whose members are homogeneous (Nelson, 2014). Such results seem to support the notion that individuals with different backgrounds can offer novel contributions that have direct impacts on group performance.

Benefits of Diversity

In fact, the benefits of diversity can occur along the lines of many different categories. For example, one study has shown that in higher education the relationship between diversity and educational benefits can be thought of in three main perspectives that include structural diversity, curricular diversity, and interaction diversity (Denson & Chang, 2015). Each of these categories has a different set of advantages that are gained from having diverse student body, covering diverse content, and interacting with diverse crowds that can be found in a higher educational environment. This illustrates the fact that the benefits of diversity can be multi-faceted and stem from a range of different considerations.

Furthermore, the roles and the benefits of diversity can also be dependent upon the environment or the particular set of circumstances that a team may face. For example, researchers have recognized that the performance benefits of diversity are more likely to emerge on more complex tasks with stronger creative, problem-solving, and decision-making requirements (Pieterse, Knippenberg, & Dierendonck, 2013). Furthermore, research has indicated that teams and organizations whose members are heterogeneous in meaningful ways, for example, in skill set, education, work experiences, perspectives on a problem, cultural orientation, and so forth, have a higher potential for innovation than teams whose members are homogeneous (Nelson, 2014).

One of the best examples of diversity in organizations today can be provided by Google. Most of the top software or hardware companies have learned to create an environment that effectively utilizes the advantages of a diversity workforce. Google is probably one of the best examples of a company that truly values diversity. From Google's internal statements the company describes its culture as (Google, N.d.):

We strive to maintain the open culture often associated with startups, in which everyone is a hands-on contributor and feels comfortable sharing ideas and opinions. In our weekly all-hands ("TGIF") meetings -- not to mention over email or in the cafe -- Googlers ask questions directly to Larry, Sergey and other execs about any number of company issues. Our offices and cafes are designed to encourage interactions...

The company has 61% white employees, 30% Asian employees and the rest from at least five different cultures. Furthermore, Google has a policy of discussing issues originating out of employee diversity openly to resolve the issues quickly and relatively effortlessly. It institutes polices like inclusiveness of every employee for the decision making process, equal benefits for all employees without any discrimination on the basis of culture or ethnicity, and practice of fairness in the company policies are beneficial for reduction of workforce diversity related problems in Google (Google, 2015).
Affirmative Action

Like most Americans, colleges and universities recognize the power of education to be a positive force in society and the benefits of an education in an integrated educational institution, where people of various backgrounds come together, is an integral component of this experience. Without affirmative action, it is likely that our nation's premier colleges and universities would be mostly occupied by white men and Asian-American students, who tend to score higher on standardized tests than women and other minorities. As a nation that is growing increasingly diverse, we need to determine what kind of future we want and what standards we are going to use to allocate educational opportunities (Hairston, N.d.).

There are many misconceptions about the ways in which affirmative action policies actually affect to composition of student bodies. While some forms of affirmative action that can favor unqualified candidates, this is typically not the form of these policies that is implemented. In fact, there is a range of levels that an institution can commit to that include several different options such as (Plous, 2003):

1. Selection among equally qualified candidates. In this form a female or minority candidate is chosen from a pool of equally qualified applicants and most people do not see this type of affirmative action as discriminatory.

2. Selection among comparable candidates. A somewhat stronger form occurs when female or minority candidates are roughly comparable to other candidates, although these may not be technically equal, the candidates are within a small range of qualifications.

3. Selection among unequal candidates. A much stronger form of affirmative action occurs when qualified female or minority candidates are chosen over candidates whose records are better by a substantial amount.

4. Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. This is the form of affirmative action that is typically thought of when criticisms are given. However, this is the strongest form and is rarely used by any educational institution.

Too often people mistake affirmative action with educational preferences for unqualified Students but in practice this is rarely the case. Most institutions typically offer selection preferences in equally qualified groups or in comparable groups. Such selection processes do not disadvantage anyone that is more qualified, but it basically gives the preference to the historically oppressed group when there is a tie in qualifications which works to favor a diverse environment without sacrificing the quality of students. As previously suggested, there are many benefits of diversity that universities can gain with or without affirmative action. However, affirmative action programs have resulted in doubling or tripling the number of minority applications to colleges or universities, and have made colleges and universities more representative of their surrounding community and better positioned to create a diverse environment (Messerli, 2014).

Conclusion

This analysis has suggested that there is value in creating diverse environments is beneficial by its own merits as it creates the ideal environment for learning. However, many argue that affirmative action policies are necessary in order to compensate for centuries of racial, social, and economic oppression and use forms of social engineering to create more equal outcomes. Personally, given the fact that there is evidence to suggest diversity is intrinsically beneficial, I believe that this line of reasoning would be less prone to objections. Furthermore, there are many myths that are associated with affirmative action that simply are not true. For instance, many argue against unqualified people being given the preference, where in most cases the selection measures are based on equally qualified candidates. Thus, if you remove the myths and misunderstanding associated with affirmative action, then most of these programs will receive wide levels of support.

Works Cited

Berman, M.…