Affirmative action has been a controversial topic ever since it was established in the 1960s to right past wrongs against minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The goal of affirmative action is to integrate minorities into public institutions, like universities, who have historically been discriminated against in such environments. Proponents claim that it is necessary in order to give minorities representation in these institutions, while opponents say that it is reverse discrimination. Newsweek has a story on this same debate which has hit the nation spotlight once more with a case being brought against the University of Michigan by some white students who claimed that the University’s admissions policies accepted minority students over them, even though they had better grades than the minority students. William Symonds of Business Week, however, thinks that it does not really matter. He claims that minority status is more or less irrelevant in college admissions and that class is the determining factor.

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, affirmative action is “an active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for members of minority groups and women.” However, despite its well-intentioned policies, it has been the source of much controversy over the years. Barbara Scott and Mary Ann Schwartz mention that “proponents of affirmative action argue that given that racism and discrimination are systemic problems, their solutions require institutional remedies such as those offered by affirmative action legislation” (298). Also, even though racism is no longer direct, indirect forms still exist in society and affirmative action helps direct. On the other hand, opponents to affirmative action make the argument that it is reverse discrimination to hire or admit minorities of whites based on race. For instance, “[in] the California higher education system, affirmative action based on race has been eliminated by popular referendum” (298).

The April 14, 2003 edition of Newsweek’s article titled “Michigan’s Day in Court” brings to light the controversy surrounding affirmative action. It claims that the case against the University of Michigan is the biggest case concerning affirmative action in 25 years. In 1978 the Supreme Court ruled, in what is known as the Bakke case, “that quotas and two-track admissions systems were unconstitutional, but upheld the vague notion of using race as one of many ‘plus’ factors in admissions.” In the Michigan case, three white students have brought the school to court over the fact that they believe the school accepted less-qualified minorities over themselves. They hope the court will put a ban on using race as a determining factor. As it stands right now, University of Michigan admits applicants using a 150-point system. Minorities and underprivileged people get an extra 20 points by default. The Michigan law school does not use this system; rather, it uses a “critical mass” system, where a critical mass of minorities must be admitted to the law program. This is now under fire for being much like a quota system, as a certain number of minorities must be admitted to the school, according to policy.

As affirmative action becomes another “right vs. left” political battle, some people do not buy either argument. One such person is William Symonds; he argues that affirmative action does not really promote integration into institutions of higher education. This is because he does not agree with the notion that people are discriminated against because of race when it comes to getting accepted to universities. Instead, he makes the case that class is the determining factor in getting into college. He claims that the lower classes have a harder time getting into college for the simple fact that it is so expensive. The higher up in the social strata one looks, he or she will notice more whites and less minorities. Therefore, whites in general have more money than minorities do. That makes whites more eligible to go to college than minorities.

Symonds states that affirmative action has upped freshmen enrollment in colleges and universities to 12% African-American and Hispanic. He mentions, however, that African Americans and Hispanics make up 28% of the 18-year-old population of the United States. Symonds also provides other numbers that support his claim. He uses two charts to illustrate his point. The first one compares enrollment rate to family income. Someone from a family that makes $25,000 or less per year has a 35% chance of going to college; one with a family income of $25,000 to $50,000 has a 54% chance; one with $50,000 to $75,000 has a 66% chance; and those with a family income of over $75,000 in family income have an 80% chance of attending college. But that is just getting accepted and going to college, it does not necessarily mean that a person is going to go to graduate with a degree. For that, Symonds has another chart. This one compares socioeconomic status to graduation rates. According to the article, socioeconomic status “Includes factors such as family income and parental education.” Those in the bottom quartile have a 55% rate of graduation; both the second and third quartiles have a 63% graduation rate; and 73% of the top quartile will graduate from college. He also mentions that “while the University of Michigan case centers on admission to the most competitive colleges, the issue of economic segregation affects a far broader universe.” Not only is it very unlikely for a lower-income person to attend an elite college, they are less likely to attend college in general. He also states that “By the time they turn 26, just 7% of students who grow up in the lowest-income families have earned a [Bachelor of Arts degree], vs. 59% of students who come from the most affluent families.”

Symonds claims that the only way for there to be true equality in college admissions is to allow for everyone to have an equal chance at a college education. However, he notes, “truly meeting the needs of low-income students would require fundamental reforms in financial aid.” He alludes to the early days of the Penn Grant, which in the beginning covered 84% of college expenses, making attending college for the poor a real possibility. Today, the Penn Grant covers half that, or only 42% of the costs of college. For many low-income families, sending their kids to college has become a financial impossibility. Many poor students end up going to community colleges, the cheaper alternative. However, Symonds points out that “few students who begin at a community college ever go on to earn a BA.”

He also states that the average poor student with financial aid that attempts to get a degree from a four-year college will still end up “$3,800 short of covering expenses at a four-year, in-state school.” A solution to the problem would be to use affirmative action “ to give preference to good students from low-income families.” In theory, this would put 38% of the lowest-income families into the nation’s top universities rather than the meager 10% right now. Symonds admits that this would not be a cheap thing to do, especially with state and federal budgets turning out deficits. However, he claims that it could be even more costly in the long run to keep the lower classes from easily obtaining a college degree, as it would prevent a large number of people from moving up in the world. The more people there are with degrees, the more money they will make overall, and the more money made overall means more income tax revenue for federal and state governments.

While affirmative action has allowed some integration of racial minorities into the nations public universities, it does not solve the problem that it is trying to fix. As it is now, it facilitates the entrance to college to minorities of the higher classes. In its current form, affirmative action is well intentioned, but it is rather ineffective, and it sets itself up for causing a stir among whites who feel that minority status is taking precedent over academic performance, and calling this practice reverse discrimination. The case against the University of Michigan is a prime example of this. But William Symonds has a solution that would not only allow for more racial integration, but with race not playing a big role, if any roll at all in being a factor in deciding college admissions. Basing affirmative action off of financial need, with the money provided for the less fortunate to attend four-year universities would not only draw from the pool of minorities that make up a large portion of the lower classes, it would also give everyone a truly equal opportunity to attend college. The benefits of equality would be twofold, as there would be more people with the ability to work their way up the social ladder, and bringing in revenue for local and nation governments. The students at the University of Michigan may or may not have a case against affirmative action that it is based on race, but the real problem with affirmative action is that it is not based on socioeconomic status.

Works Cited


"Affirmative Action." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 21 Apr, 2003 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=3961>

Rosenberg, Debra. “Michigan’s Day in Court.” Newsweek. 14 Apr, 2003. MSNBC Online. 20 Apr, 2003 <http://www.msnbc.com/news/896093.asp>

Scott, Barbara Marlene, and Mary Ann Schwartz. 2000. Sociology: Making Sense of the Social World. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Symonds, William C. “College Admissions: The Real Barrier Is Class.” Business Week 4 Apr, 2003: 66-67.