Compensate student-athletes.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court made a decision that could significantly impact the lives of student-athletes. The Court ruled against the National College Athletic Association to allow student-athletes to receive education-related payments of up to $6,000 a year and unlimited non-cash education-related benefits (CNN). College sports bring in billions of dollars of revenue each year. The 2019 March Madness tournament was estimated to have brought $1.18 billion in advertising revenue for CBS and Turner Sports, with networks paying about $800 million for the rights (CNBC). Given the profitability of college athletics, it would be expected that athletes receive fair compensation for the labor that they perform.

Happy Monday, and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily! The conversation around compensation, value and worth for athletes in the U.S. – particularly student-athletes – is certainly not new. However, last week's decision by the Supreme Court re-ignites conversations about the role of race and equity in collegiate sports. Read more in Nia's recap below.

Are you a student-athlete? I'd love to hear your thoughts – reply to this email.

Thank you for your support! This daily, free, independent newsletter is made possible by your support. If you can, consider making a donation to support our team. You can start a monthly subscription on Patreon or our website, or give one-time using our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza).

– Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Sign the #paytheplayers petition to demand fair pay for college athletes in every state.
Support the College Athlete Advocacy Initiative, which advocates and provides legal support for college athletes.

GET EDUCATED

By Nia Norris (she/her)

In reality, college athletes are not compensated at all beyond scholarships and possibly a stipend. College athletes could be compensated similarly to professional athletes if not for NCAA amateurism rules barring payment by their schools. College athletes are not considered employees and are therefore not protected by federal employment laws that allow other workers to unionize and demand fair compensation for their labor (CNBC).

College athletes sign their name and likeness over to the schools they play, but are not permitted to receive compensation for playing (The Guardian). Student-athletes work full-time hours, often 30-40 hours a week on top of their academic course load. With only 1.6% of college football players and 1.2% of college basketball players getting drafted into major professional leagues, the majority of them will not go on to a career in professional sports. Though are “compensated” with scholarships, graduation rates are significantly lower for student-athletes than non-student athletes and many report lackluster academic support and challenges finding post-college employment (The Guardian).

These athletes often suffer chronic injuries playing for coaches who are the highest-paid public employees in 39 states (IPS). A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that athletic department revenue doubled in the last 14 years – along with salaries for both coaches and athletic department administrators. While athletic staff is generously compensated, revenue-generating athletes are considered “amateurs” and therefore receive little to nothing in what’s been described as “the injustice of fake amateurism” (The Nation).

Black students comprise only 5.7% of the population at Power Five schools, but makeup 55.9% of men’s basketball players, 55.6% of men’s football players, and 48.1% of women’s basketball players. On condition of anonymity, many student-athletes discussed what The Guardian described as “the racist dimensions of their experiences at Power Five PWIs” (predominantly white institutions). Many described the power imbalance between schools and Black athletes and reported feeling exploited and pressured to not express opinions or take on interests outside of the sports they played (The Guardian).

Both professional and college athletics have a history of racism and exploitation. Initially, professional sports were segregated, with Black players excluded from Major League Baseball until 1946 when Jackie Robinson joined the Montreal Royals and later the Brooklyn Dodgers. The National Hockey League still has a majority of white players and when Black players do come onto the rink, they are often subject to racist abuse from fans (McGill Tribune).

The recent Supreme Court decision will not lead to full compensation for student-athletes as it only applies to payments and benefits related to education. However, it invites further challenges to the NCAA ban on paying athletes. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote that “nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate” (NYT). Effectively, if this decision were to be successfully challenged further in the Supreme Court, it could entirely change the way that student-athletes are compensated and open up the door for more opportunities for them.

Student-athletes are workers and should be compensated as such. They should be permitted to earn money from their names, images, and likenesses that bring in billions of dollars of revenue for the NCAA, schools, and the broadcasting industry. A 2020 survey found that two-thirds of adults believe that college athletes should be able to reap some of the profits that are generated by their hard work (Forbes). The NCAA must change their unfair policies regarding student-athletes.

Key Takeaways

The NCAA prohibits student-athletes from receiving compensation as “amateurs.”
College sports are a billion-dollar industry. Coaches are generously compensated; players receive little more than a scholarship.
A recent Supreme Court decision allows education-related compensation for college athletes, though the NCAA still bans direct payments.

10/21/2020 | Change racist sports team names.

2/2/2021 | Rally against racist sports mascots.

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

Nicole Cardoza 6/22/21 Nicole Cardoza 6/22/21

Learn the cost of college remediation.

Less than a quarter of community college students who take remedial courses go on to complete college-level courses. At four-year colleges, just over a third of students assigned to remediation continue to take college-level courses. The majority of students assigned to remediation at two-year colleges or universities will not graduate within three years or six years, respectively (Complete College America). Students who take remedial courses pay just as much for these courses as students who begin with college-level courses and are often left with student loan debt for coursework that did not lead to a degree.

Good morning and happy Tuesday! Today we're diving into the racial disparities in higher-level education, particularly, the barriers that college remediation courses can create for underestimated students. Nia joins us today to dive deeper.

ps – Thank you for your support! This daily, free, independent newsletter is made possible by your support. If you can, consider making a donation to support our team. You can start a monthly subscription on Patreon or our website, or give one-time using our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza).

– Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Donate to the Center for American Progress to support research on fixing inequality in education.
Support equitable funding for all public schools.
Advocate for fixes to remediation and public school inequality in your community.

GET EDUCATED

By Nia Norris (she/her)

College enrollment rates have nearly doubled since the 1960s, and people of color now attend college at a significantly higher rate (Education Data). Upon entering college, students often take an exam to assess their readiness. If they perform poorly, their school will recommend they take remedial classes to help them catch up before beginning college-level courses (Brookings).

Suppose high schools are not preparing students for a college education. In that case, it could be helpful for colleges to offer students an opportunity to begin their college career with a refresher course. But it is estimated that these courses cost students $1.3 billion every year, even though they do not count towards their degrees (American Progress).

Almost 68% of Black students who attend community college are assigned to remediation, as are 40% of Black students at universities (Complete College America). Black students are also overrepresented among those who fail remediation in college and ultimately do not complete their education (NCBI). There is also evidence suggesting that many students are assigned to remedial coursework they do not need (Brookings). Since education is strongly tied to lifetime earnings (SSA), it is essential to ensure that students who are seeking higher education are able to complete the ultimate goal of gaining a degree.

There are two potential solutions. The first is to improve primary and secondary education. In a previous newsletter, we discussed the effects of racialized tracking, the phenomenon of sorting minority students out of gifted and talented programs (ARD). Providing supplemental instruction to high school students who would need remediation upon entering college is another solution that has been implemented in Washington State. This eliminates the need for remediation altogether (Inside Higher Ed). Classes should be built into curriculums and allow students to gain credits while they complete them (Complete College America). And multiple modes of assessment should be used to assign students to remediation, ensuring students aren’t placed there unnecessarily (Brookings).

Part of the reason remediation is necessary for so many students of color is because of wildly different levels of resources given to different public schools. Because schools are funded by local property taxes, wealthier areas get well-resourced, better-performing schools. If education dollars were distributed fairly across school districts, schools in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods could offer more equitable education to their students (The Atlantic). Remediation courses are a bandage that educational institutions apply to a deeply inequitable system.

While we work to make primary and secondary schools more equitable educational institutions, we must enact strategies that eliminate the necessity of remediation or find a way to make it count so that it is not an additional burden to students who are pursuing an education. Applying strategies to integrate remediation into the curriculum and to ensure that we are not placing students in remedial courses who do not need them is the first step to providing an equitable college education which provides a pathway to graduation.

Key Takeaways

A large number of students being placed in remedial courses to make up for what they did not learn in high school.
These courses cost students over a billion dollars annually and do not count towards college credit.
Black students are placed in remedial courses at a disproportionately high rate compared to white students.
Schools should receive equal amounts of resources. Remediation should be eliminated and replaced with a more equitable practice.

3/30/2021 | Support the mental health of students of color.

12/14/2020 | Understand racialized tracking.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 4/12/21 Nicole Cardoza 4/12/21

End solitary confinement.

Last week, the HALT (Humane Alternatives to Long-Term) Solitary Confinement Act was signed into law in NY (Bronx Times). This law establishes a series of limitations for the use of solitary confinement, particularly to protect vulnerable individuals from its adverse health effects (NY Senate). It also prevents the denial of essential services to those experiencing solitary confinement, requires due process for solitary confinement sentencing, and mandates the use of rehabilitative programming for those that experience it. This is a small but necessary step forward in reshaping the role of incarceration in our society.

Happy Monday and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily. The passing of the HALT Solitary Confinement Act in New York last week is symbolic, especially considering the stories of Kalief Browder, Layleen Polanco, and so many others that have lost their lives after experiencing solitary confinement in NY state prisons. Today's email explains more about the harmful practices of solitary confinement and encourages us to learn more about the practice in our states.

This newsletter is a free resource and that's made possible by our paying subscribers. Consider giving $7/month on our website or Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website or PayPal. You can also support us by joining our curated digital community. Thank you to all those that support!

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Listen to first-hand accounts of those directly and indirectly impacted by solitary confinement, including Ian Manuel, Darlene McDay, Dyjuan Tatro, and Akeem Browder.
Research the status of solitary confinement in your state and act accordingly. Review the tools provided by the ACLU to help inform your advocacy efforts.
Support the work of Black & Pink, a national prison abolitionist organization dedicating to supporting the safety and liberation of the LGBTQIA2S+ and people living with HIV/AIDS impacted by the criminal justice system. You can make a donation or become a pen pal with someone incarcerated.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)

Solitary confinement is the most extreme form of isolation in a detention setting, and can include physical and social isolation in a cell for 22 to 24 hours per day. During this time, those in solitary confinement receive very little human interaction (and always behind a barrier), have no or little natural light, are stripped of any reading materials or entertainment, and are severely limited from communication to the outside world (ACLU).

There’s a misconception that this form of punishment is reserved for violent offenders. In reality, most of the individuals held in solitary confinement have a cognitive disability or mental health condition. Many others impacted are those unfairly penalized for a low-level infraction (ACLU). In four of the five facilities that participated in a study with the Vera Institute for Justice, low-level, nonviolent offenses were the most common infractions to result in solitary confinement (Vera).

A 2018 study found that men of color were much more likely to be placed in solitary confinement than white men. Although women, compared to men, are less likely to experience solitary confinement overall, they’re more likely to be sent there because of a low-level infraction (Vera). Prisoners between the ages of 18 and 36 were more likely to be segregated than were older individuals (ASCA). And incarcerated individuals that identify as LGBTQ+ are more likely to experience solitary confinement. A national survey of LGBTQ+ people that have been held in state or federal prisons found that 85% of respondents spent some time in solitary confinement during their time behind bars – some because it was “safer” than the abuse they experienced in general lockup (Solitary Watch). At least 80,000 people are held in “restricted housing” each day (Prisons Within Prisons: The Use of Segregation in the United States). A more recent study found that nearly 2,000 prisoners have been held in isolation for more than six years (NYAPRS).

Solitary confinement is detrimental to the health of those that experience it. Psychologically, the social deprivation caused by solitary confinement can rewire the brain, creating long-lasting neurological damage. Individuals who experience prolonged social lack can experience “social pain,” which the brain processes in the same way as physical pain. Young people, who are still in the formative stages of their physical and mental development, are particularly vulnerable to this. Individuals who experience solitary confinement can suffer from hypertension, heart attacks, strokes, and exacerbated pre-existing health conditions. It’s also directly linked to premature death. In New York State, the rate of suicide was 5x higher for those that experienced solitary confinement than the average prison population (Vera).

It also harms those that experience it indirectly. Family members of those held in solitary confinement experience added levels of duress when they couldn’t be in contact with their loved ones, which has lasting implications (Vera). Staff members often experience higher stress and anxiety levels when working in restrictive housing units (Vera).

And not only is it cruel, research indicates that it’s ineffective to change behavior. Studies show that the practice does not significantly reduce misconduct, violence, or recidivism. In fact, in some cases, it might increase the likelihood for people to re-offend, especially if they transition directly from solitary confinement to release (Supermax incarceration and recidivism). It’s also costly, calling for 2-3x the costs of housing an incarcerated individual in the general population (Solitary Watch). Facilities could instead leverage these resources for safer and effective forms of care.

There are alternative options that center the wellbeing of those incarcerated while maximizing safety for all parties involved. Alternative practices have included severely limiting the time of solitary confinement, divesting some of the time/energy in solitary confinement towards mental health care, and fostering social interaction in a more healthy and generative way. They also rally to end the use of solitary confinement entirely for young people, pregnant women, and those with severe mental health conditions. You can read specific tactics taken by five facilities in a partnership with Vera, and review the Restrictive Housing Assessment Tool they created to guide other facilities to adopt similar practices.

Solitary confinement is a public health issue that needs to be addressed. No one person’s wellbeing should be at the expense of the illusion of safety.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Last week, the HALT (Humane Alternatives to Long-Term) Solitary Confinement Act was signed into law in NY (Bronx Times). This law establishes a series of limitations for the use of solitary confinement, particularly to protect vulnerable individuals from its adverse health effects (NY Senate).
Solitary confinement is detrimental to the health of those that experience it and their loved ones, and the staff that participates in it. It's also not proven to reduce levels of misconduct, violence, or
recidivism.
There are alternative options that center the wellbeing of those incarcerated while maximizing safety for all parties involved.

RELATED ISSUES

1/29/2021 | Abolish prison labor.

1/12/2021 | Abolish the death penalty.

1/6/2021 | End felony disenfranchisement.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 4/9/21 Nicole Cardoza 4/9/21

End exploitative internships.

This week, Condé Nast resumed its internship program after shuttering it due to a class-action lawsuit in 2013. That controversy sparked a national dialogue on unpaid labor, one that’s important to revisit in these uncertain times. Currently, about 43% of internships at for-profit companies are unpaid (Washington Post), and new research indicates that number may be increasing (NBC News). Yet at the same time, a young workforce is eagerly looking for potential opportunities to gain experience this summer after a year disrupted by COVID-19. How do we reconcile the inequities of the industry with the desire to learn and grow?

Happy Friday, everyone! A dear reader reminded me of this topic this week, which I've been meaning to write about all month. I really dislike how much youth are expected to prove themselves to get a job while they redefine culture and society from their smartphones. I can't stop thinking about how many teenagers have testified during the Derek Chauvin trials. And yet somehow we're still creating barriers to entry-level employment?!

I wrote this today because I've been researching how we can continue to support young writers over here at the ARD. I don't have anything formed yet, but I DO have an open inbox for young BIPOC writers looking for advice. Just reply to this email.

Tomorrow is our weekly Study Hall where I answer questions from the community about what we published this week, or how this work is showing up in your life. Reply to this email to submit your own.

This newsletter is a free resource and that's made possible by our paying subscribers. Consider giving $7/month on our website or Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website or PayPal. You can also support us by joining our curated digital community. Thank you to all those that support!

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

Support Pay Our Interns, an organization advocating for paid internships across all work sectors.
Donate to organizations offering funding to ease the burden of taking internships, like the Black Girl 44 Scholarship and Latinx44 Scholarship Program.
Advocate for the compensation of any unpaid interns at your organization.
If you have the capacity, consider offering mentorship to those entering a new career path so they can generate experience with more flexible terms.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)

Unpaid internships blossomed in the 1970s, where there was a higher rate of college graduates than ever before. The rise of increased supply was well-timed with a workforce that needed less labor-intensive roles than ever before, thanks to the rise of technology. Internships became a way for companies to get more hungry and skilled workers on projects at a much lower cost, effectively replacing the entry-level job (Time). Over time, entry-level employers grew to expect employees to have this experience.

But these came to a head after the lawsuits referenced above. In 2013, two former interns from W and The New Yorker sued, citing that they were underpaid for the work they contributed at their offices (one individual was paid $1/hour to organize accessories in the fashion closet) (Reuters). Similar lawsuits in fashion and entertainment led to a shift in the industry, and the unpaid internship became less popular, moving to college credit or a small stipend. However, the U.S. Department of Labor still allows employers to offer internships without pay as long as they meet allow employers to offer unpaid internships, on the condition that they can be proven as “educational” (dol.gov). And often, the light compensation does little to change the conditions that make these opportunities untenable.

It’s clear that working an unpaid internship takes a lot of privilege. Many people can’t financially afford to work for free, and are forced to either decline opportunities or work an additional job to sustain themselves (The Eyeopener). It also takes a lot of time privilege; people with kids at home or other time-consuming responsibilities might not be able to get away. But internships like these have more lasting implications, too. Often, entry-level roles are filled from unpaid internships, which means that those with the most privilege to weather these roles are first to be hired (NACE). This can accelerate the lack of diversity and representation at major companies.

But on a broader scale, it starts creating a narrative of worth and value around our youth. There’s a correlation between knowledge and capabilities with having an internship. Young people that can’t get access to an internship may not be perceived as someone that deserves the same level of recognition. When access to internships is already to center those privileged, it’s easy to see how those from marginalized backgrounds can suffer from the insinuation that they are “less than” in the workforce. This subtle form of bias adds to the layers of discrimination that people with marginalized identities face in the workplace.

Important to note that many internships require candidates to be in school, which even further excludes youth that aren’t pursuing a degree and older people that might be starting their careers for the first time.

Some internships offer college credit as compensation. Although that offers some sort of recognition for work completed, it often costs more than it might be worth. Most students still have to pay the university for those credits accumulated, which increases their financial burden instead of eases it (Washington Post). You can argue that they would have had to pay for those credits anyway, but is that justification to extract labor? Some colleges have waived these fees.

"
Experience doesn't pay the bills. An intern cannot go to the grocery store, go to the checkout line, and when the cashier says cash or credit you can't pay with experience. You can't go to your landlord and pay your rent with experience. That's the key thing here. No one is denying that the main purpose of education is to get experience. It is. But people need a paycheck to pay for bills while they're getting that experience.

Carlos Mark Vera, co-founder and executive director of Pay Our Interns, for NBC News

Some people are quick to defend unpaid internships for a few reasons. First, there’s the perception that people have to earn their dues before being compensated for their labor. This reasoning tends to ignore that students who receive internships while in college already earn those dues in class all day – often racking up tens of thousands of dollars of debt in the process. Others admonish that unpaid internships are the only way that smaller businesses with tight budgets can gain extra labor. We know that small organizations often thrive off of volunteer support, and are often necessary to reach scale. However, the normalization of unpaid internships is reinforced by large, multimillion corporations, not small businesses.

If you want to participate in an unpaid internship, by all means. But let’s shift the expectation that everyone can, and must, to thrive. If you’re an employer hiring someone new to your industry, consider placing less emphasis on internship experience during the interview process. If unpaid internships are absolutely necessary for your work, ensure you’re offering as much care and attention to the burden it places on its participants. And most importantly, notice how our appreciation of labor shapes our perception of the worth and value of entire communities.

11/17/2020 | Cancel student debt.

8/17/2020 | Fight for equity in remote learning.

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Nicole Cardoza 8/20/20 Nicole Cardoza 8/20/20

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

7/16/2020 | Respect AAVE.

7/15/2020 | End racial bias in school discipline.

7/8/2020 | Investigate school district funding disparities.

7/2/2020 | Remove police from our public schools.

ARCHIVES

Compensate student-athletes.

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

Key Takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Learn the cost of college remediation.

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

Key Takeaways

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

End solitary confinement.

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

KEY TAKEAWAYS

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

End exploitative internships.

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Support affirmative action in schools.

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

KEY TAKEAWAYS

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT