Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza

Support affirmative action in schools.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

Happy Thursday! As promised, here's an overview of affirmative action, particularly how it's unfolding in higher education right now. This was a conversation requested after last week's newsletter on tokenizing people of color. I hope it encourages us to look at key issues with a nuanced lens and hold conflicting truths. In this case, we can acknowledge the flaws of affirmative action programs while working to improve it.

How has affirmative action impacted you? Respond to this email with your stories. And get your questions ready for Saturday, where we dive deeper on the key topics from this week with community insights and feedback.

Thank you all for pitching in to make this possible! You can make a one-time or monthly contribution on our website, PayPal, Venmo (@nicoleacardoza) or subscribe monthly on Patreon. 

Nicole

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

  • Follow conversations on affirmative action and how they impact your alma mater and/or schools in your community.

  • Ensure affirmative action initiatives at your company or organization are equitable for all marginalized groups.

    If you're based in CA:
    Vote to repeal Proposition 209, a state constitutional amendment from 1996 that banned any consideration of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions at the University of California, the California State University and other public entities.

GET EDUCATED

By Jami Nakamura Lin

Last week, the U.S. Justice Dept. accused Yale of discriminating against white and Asian American students in its application process (NYTimes). The case argues that Asian American and white applicants have 10–25% of the chance of being admitted as African Americans with similar applications, and accuses Yale of “unlawfully dividing Americans into racial and ethnic blocs” (Washington Post). Harvard won in a similar case last year, but the case was appealed with support of the Trump administration in early 2020 (Inside Higher Ed). Both Ivy League schools “categorically denies” these claims, each asserting their commitment to fair and equitable acceptance policies (Washington Post). Regardless, the challenges against both universities, in the midst of conversations of race and equity, have placed the strengths and peril of affirmative action in the spotlight.

 

The idea behind affirmative action is simple: create rules and regulations that require organizations to proactively pursue equitable practices re: hiring, acceptance rates, etc. This means excluding race, ethnicity, and gender from the selection process and choosing the best candidate, regardless of identity. But it also means including race, ethnicity, and gender in the selection process to ensure a diverse and equitable community. This creates a paradox – how do we equitably prevent racial discrimination without reinforcing it at the same time? This matches public perception; a Gallup poll shows that most Americans both support affirmative action programs for racial minorities, and oppose hiring decisions that take racial backgrounds into consideration (Gallup).

 

Before we dive into the nuances, let’s explore why affirmative action is relevant to education. In America, communities of color have had significantly less educational opportunities than their white peers, based on a wide range of factors that perpetuate systemic oppression. From inequitable public school funding to redlining, the school-to-prison pipeline to lack of representation in staff and administration, students of color face challenges for equitable educational opportunities (Brookings for a quick overview, and visit our archives for newsletters related to education). Because of these factors, it’s no surprise that 65 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, students are increasingly attending racially segregated schools (Vox).

 

Besides, access to quality higher education in the U.S. has been reserved for the wealthy and privileged, made evident by the college-admissions cheating and bribery scandal that made news last year – right around the same time as the Harvard case (The Atlantic). Even without fraud, these families have more opportunities to secure a spot for their children at prestigious universities (examples at The Atlantic). Affirmative action at universities is designed to weigh these systemic disparities against applications for marginalized groups, create a more equal playing field, and create more accountability for inclusivity. Studies show that marginalized communities that have benefited from affirmative action are more likely to graduate college, earn professional degrees, and have higher incomes than peers who haven’t, which fosters necessary social mobility for disadvantaged populations (Harvard).

 

Critics against affirmative action in schools argue that it takes away spaces from white students that deserve the spaces as much, or more so, than marginalized groups. Ironically, the group of people that have benefited most from affirmative action has historically been white women. When affirmative action was institutionalized in 1961 by President Kennedy, it focused on “race” and “color,” a direct response to the growing civil rights movement of the era (Vox). The term is designed to encourage companies and institutions to “do something,” and was coined by an African-American lawyer named Hobart Taylor, Jr. (New Yorker). Pressure from the Women’s Movement in the late 1960s encouraged President Johnson to amend the order to include gender. After two decades of affirmative action in the private sector, the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) (Vox). Despite this, most white women are in opposition to affirmative action, and most cases brought against affirmative action initiatives are led by white women (Vox).

 

But the particular case against Yale was initiated by an Asian American advocacy group, which raises another critical lens to the issue. Affirmative action is intended to support people from all racial and ethnic backgrounds. However, there are concerns about how Asian Americans are treated based on the “model minority myth,” a stereotype suggesting that all Asian Americans are smart, hard-working, and likely to be successful (Wiley). Thus, schools may cap the number of Asian American recipients to make way for other marginalized groups. This is called “racial balancing,” and harms everyone, including Asian Americans. It reinforces the stereotype and treats Asian Americans as a homogenous group (American Progress). Data shows that college attendance rates vary drastically among Asian ethnicities, so it’s crucial to hold affirmative action programs accountable for how they can fuel these disparities (American Progress). When it comes to the Yale case, 20% of Yale’s undergraduates are of Asian descent, 14% are Hispanic or Latino, 8% are Black, and 7% are multiracial (Washington Post). 

 

Affirmative action can also fall flat if students aren't adequately seen, heard, and supported once they arrive on campus. Students can find themselves propped up as tokens for colleges and universities to look more diverse than they really are (Anti-Racism Daily). And students at colleges across the country have taken to social media to share sobering accounts of racism and discrimination they've faced from teachers, administration, and peers (Vox). If we don't find a more equitable way to implement affirmative action practices and policies, we can continue to uphold the same systems of oppression within higher education.

Some people have argued shifting affirmative action from looking at race towards analyzing class, which would support economically disadvantaged individuals across race and gender divides (The Atlantic). Others suggest that we need to shift the outcomes away from this “quota” mentality to “outcomes” for systemically marginalized groups: less diversity, more reparations (The Atlantic). Whatever the case, it’s clear we need a more equitable solution. Part of that needs to be investing in solving the systemic inequities that have created this issue. 


But another necessary component of this work is protecting the right to implement affirmative action policies altogether. The Trump administration rescinded Obama-era guidance documents encouraging affirmative action at colleges and universities back in 2018, which signaled potential lawsuits to come (NPR). The decisions at Yale and Harvard could signal more comprehensive efforts to dismantle affirmative action as a whole. Like many responses to social injustice, affirmative action is not perfect. But the concept can’t be discarded based on its application – we need to do better, and continue to advocate for equitable opportunities for all.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • U.S. Justice Dept. accused Yale of discriminating against white and Asian American students in its application process

  • Affirmative action has been proven to increase opportunities for marginalized communities, but also contribute to the "model minority myth" and view Asian Americans as a homogeneous group

  • Dismantling affirmative action can reduce collective accountability for inclusivity for marginlized communities

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More
Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza

Study Hall! Affirmative action, sliding scale pricing, and the right intentions.

Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›

Welcome to our weekly Study Hall where we answer questions and reflections from the previous week. We dove into some tricky topics this week, and I appreciated your kind and thoughtful reflections.

Remember that you can always respond to these emails with a question and we'll do our best to add it to future newsletters! It can be related to the topic or something else that you're learning about. Sometimes it sparks an idea for a future newsletter!

As always, your support is greatly appreciated. These contributions are our only source of funding and help us pay writers and develop new resources. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

Nicole

ps – if you opted-in to weekly digests this is the only newsletter you will receive. If you prefer to get weekly newsletters than the daily ones, update your profile here. 

Share | Tweet | Forward

TAKE ACTION

1. Reflect on the questions prompted by our community.

2. Ask yourself two questions about one of the topics we discussed this week. Discuss these questions with a friend or colleague.

GET EDUCATED

You mentioned that the government should do more to support unemployed workers right now. What do you think that should look like?
From Understand the unemployment gap | COVID-19 on Sunday, August 8.

I'm certainly not an economic expert, so I'll leave this up to the officials. But I do think we need a more long-term, sustainable solution than the federal aid announced last weekend. And that proposal was more generous than the actual outcome; it looks like most people will receive $300, not $400, and these extended benefits don't support some of the lowest-wage workers. Workers must qualify for at least $100 a week in unemployment benefits to be eligible. According to the NYTimes, would exclude roughly one million people, nearly three-quarters of them women (NYTimes).

I agree with the importance of learning names as parts of identities. It's also important to honor when individuals choose to use their Americanized names instead of their given names, too! 
From Respect the relationship between name and identity on Monday, August 9.

Absolutely. Some people may choose to adopt a name that's easier to say for their own comfort and ease. And if that is their choice, it's our responsibility to respect that. Names are an important part of our identity, regardless of which ones we choose to adopt. Your response cautioned us not to "bulldoze people with our good intentions" of asking for a different name or using it without consent, which I appreciate. Thank you for this important note, Risa!

Why didn't this piece talk about how the travel industry exploits different communities and harms the environment?
From Travel for diversity and inclusivity. on Tuesday, August 11.

There's many ways we can look at how white supremacy impacts certain industries, including travel. We are committed to publishing one newsletter a day in perpetuity – that's 365 opportunities to talk about racism this year. We often publish a newsletter / day that focuses on one aspect of large and complex issues. This issue was about Black representation and stigmatization in the industry.

When we write about one issue, we don't consider it the only issue. And one issue within an industry shouldn't minimize the issues of another. We have a lot of work to do to unpack the patriarchal, colonized approach to travel in America, and reckon with its environmental impact. But as we do, we can also rally for inclusivity and representation to make the industry safer for those marginalized.

Many of the issues that affect communities of color are sidelined because they don't seem "as important" as others. That dismissal in itself is systemic oppression in action. As we continue this work remember that there is enough space in our hearts and minds to take action on a wide range of issues, even if they're not "as important" to you. 

How does tokenization differ from affirmative action? I know that affirmative action is looking to add more representation in certain spaces, but can it cause more tokenization as a result?
From Don't tokenize people of color. on Thursday, August 13.

I had a feeling this question would be coming, so I'm writing a whole newsletter on affirmative action for next week. But in short, there's absolutely a relationship between the two. Tokenization can happen consciously or unconsciously. Our newsletter last week looked at more conscious examples of how we can tokenize people – hiring them and placing them in visible roles without addressing racism internally, using people of color as examples that "racism doesn't exist anymore," etc. 

But tokenization can also happen because of other structures and systems that place people of color into visible and inequitable spaces. Affirmative action is one of them. Although the intentions of affirmative action may not be to tokenize, the impact may be the same. And, there are absolutely affirmative action programs that are intentionally designed so organizations "look diverse" without "being diverse;" using the diversity data of new members to avoid blame and guilt, and maintaining oppressive systems that don't truly support non-white communities. We see this often in colleges and universities.

I'm a therapist and when I was starting private practice, I wanted to advertise a sliding scale fee for BIPOC to decrease barriers to services. I've seen a few organizations do this. But colleagues responded that I should not do this as it assumes BIPOC people don't have the capacity to pay. What are your thoughts on the two perspectives?

General question

Sliding scale pricing (which means providing a range of payment options for products and services) is a great way to increase accessibility for people of all socioeconomic statuses. And non-white people are more likely to be lower-income than white people (Pew Research). But, as your colleagues mentioned, advertising services that connect socioeconomic status with racial identity does infer that all non-white people can't afford to pay, which is likely untrue. I also think it alienates the white people that could also benefit from lower prices – most lower-income people by population size are white, most lower-income individuals are feeling the strain of the economic impact of COVID-19.

I'd recommend offering sliding scale pricing for everyone, regardless of racial or ethnic identity.  

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More