The absence of affirmative action policies in higher education has led to decreased percentages of minority students, according to recently released reports by both The Civil Rights Project of Harvard University and the New York-based Mellon Foundation.
The two Harvard reports released last week revealed the results of extensive research into the post-affirmative action admissions programs in Florida, California and Texas. These "percentage" plans claim to increase campus diversity in a race-neutral manner by "admitting a certain percentage of the highest-performing graduates of each high school to public universities in a state," according to one of the Harvard reports.
The percentage programs were established in 1996 in California and Texas as a replacement for the abolished affirmative action policies. California offers automatic admission to the top four percent of students at each high school, while Texas's plan offers admission to the top 10 percent.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush's Talented 20 Program guarantees the top 20 percent of public high school graduates admission to the state university system.
However, according to the Harvard report, these percentage plans have been unable to keep racial diversity on California, Texas and Florida campuses at a level equal to that achieved under affirmative action. Additionally, the study concluded that "relative to the current college-age population in each of these states, none of the campuses reflects the students they are intended to serve."
Of the 21,989 students deemed eligible for admission to the Florida university system in 2001, fewer than 1 percent were newly eligible after the implementation of the Talented 20 Program, according to the Harvard report.
"We looked at what was being claimed about percentage admissions and what the reality was," said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard. "Percentage plans offer instead of affirmative action to individuals, affirmative outreach to segregated schools."
The report "Race-Sensitive Admissions: Back to Basics," released by the Mellon Foundation Feb. 3, reached similar conclusions about the percentage plans being used as substitutes for affirmative action.
"Other troubling questions include: Do we really want to endorse an admissions approach that depends on de facto segregation at the secondary-school level?" the report asked. "Do we want to impose an arbitrary and mechanical admissions standard ... on a process that should involve careful consideration of all of an applicant's qualifications as well as thoughtful attention to the overall characteristics of the applicant pool?"
The Mellon Foundation report also disputes the claim that affirmative action-based admissions practices result in unqualified minority students who perform sub-par academically being accepted.
"According to all evidence, minority students admitted to academically selective colleges and universities as long ago as the mid-1970s have been shown to be successful in completing rigorous graduate programs, doing well in the marketplace, and, most notably, contributing in the civic arena out of all proportion to their numbers," the report said.
The Harvard reports come just weeks after President Bush filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging the Court to disallow affirmative action in the college admissions process, and citing race-neutral admissions processes as a better, fairer alternative.
Even within the President's own Cabinet, however, there is much disagreement on the issue. Secretary of State Colin Powell has publicly supported not just affirmative action, but also the specific policies used by the University of Michigan. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice announced that she opposes Michigan's methodology, but supports the future use of race as a factor in admissions decisions.
The information cited in the report could be of use to the many organizations planning to file briefs with the Supreme Court. Already several Ivy League schools, including Dartmouth, have expressed interest in doing so. Private companies such as Coca-Cola, United Airlines, General Motors, Microsoft and the American Bar Association have publicly announced that they too are considering filing briefs.
