Running head: COMMENTARY 1

COMMENTARY 8COMMENTARY: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS

IntroductionWith the development of colleges and universities across the United States, the process of being admitted to an institution of higher education was quite simple: if your family could afford to send to you to university, then you did so. As the country grew and developed, so did the standards for which students were admitted as well as the diversification of the countys universities. This included the development of a set core of classes that a student must graduate high school with, as well as scores on standardized test. In addition to new admissions standards, institutions were established to help with educating the entire nation ranging from students in rural agricultural areas to the former Confederate states who were facing a new integrated and equal world. In the twentieth century, higher education institutions experienced a boom in their enrollment numbers after World War II due to the G.I. Bill. As colleges and universities were finding that they could not accommodate all of the students seeking their services, the admission process became more difficult and competitive. By wanting to offer the opportunity to attend an institution of higher education to all citizens, many colleges and universities turned to their admissions process as a way to ensure that their student population was diverse, whether it be race, gender, socio-economic class, etc. From this desire and need to diversify college and university campuses came issues of discrimination against all involved in the college admissions process, especially in the area of affirmative action. So as we move forward with admissions standards and processes, can institutions of higher education continue to use affirmative action processes to admit students based on race?HistoryThe issue of affirmative action has predominately been dealt with by institutions of higher education during the twentieth century. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the main idea behind equalized education; however, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought the issue to the forefront of admissions standards and has been beneficial in integration efforts within higher education. According to the Court of Appeals (Alexander & Alexander, 2011, p. 435), the major issue with integrating institutions of higher education is that the problem is dealt with on a statewide basis as opposed to a school-by-school basis. Each state has the responsibility of creating education policies that provide for more and better-trained minority professionals. By doing so, the state must take into consideration the problems that minority students and black colleges face with gaining access to higher education. In 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson, it was decided that separate but equal public facilities, including educational faculties, were constitutional. It wasnt until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 that segregated educational facilities were deemed unequal as well as in violation of the Equal Protect Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. From this ruling, he United States began the process of school integration at all public schools. Because higher education is a choice of the student, colleges and universities had to discover and develop ways in which to desegregate them and speed up the process of integration. It is from this idea, that affirmative action has played a major role in the admissions process of many public schools, as well as redeveloped the way in which affirmative action can be used in the process.Key Cases of Higher Education Affirmative ActionAs colleges and universities examined their underrepresented minority student numbers, they also began establishing plans and programs to create more opportunities for these students. The construction of these programs is what has lead to our current understanding of affirmative action as it relates to the admissions process and what colleges and universities can and cannot do.A key case in affirmative action is that of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In this case, a white male named Allan Bakke filed a suit again the University of California-Davis Medical School: he believed that he had been denied admission because the process favored certain races. It was true, the university did set aside seats for underrepresented minority applicants as well as it established separate criteria for admission of those students, however, the idea behind doing so was perceived to be that of a compelling governmental interest to create a diverse student body (Alexander & Alexander, 2011, p. 440). The Supreme Court did view race and ethnic background as positive means for selection criteria in the admissions process; however, the ruling was in favor of Bakke. Race and ethnic background can be used as admissions criteria so long as admission is not considered solely on race nor can it deny a student because they are not of a specific race or ethnic background.Some minor cases addressing affirmative action in higher education include Farmer v. Ramsay, Tompkins v. Alabama State University and Pollard v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education. In Farmer v. Ramsay, Rob Farmer brought the University of Maryland School of Medicine to court on grounds that he had been denied admission due to his race and that the school favored minority groups. The court ruled in favor of the University and said that his denial was based on his academic ability. In Tompkins, Jessie Tompkins brought forward a case where Alabama State University and Alabama A&M, both historically black institutions, were encouraged to spend money to diversify their student body by attracting white students. When Tompkins brought the case to court, Alabama State University had a white-only scholarship in place. Although the language of the scholarship was changed to make it racially inclusive, Tompkins still believed that the scholarship program could function in a discriminatory manner. This case was later merged with another larger case involving desegregation. And lastly, in Pollard, the University of Tulsa held varying test-score requirements for students applying to Oklahomas Academic Scholars Program based on race and gender. When Scott Pollard filed this case, the subcategories for race and gender were remeoved.After Bakke, the next major cases related to the issue of affirmative action were that of Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. These two cases helped to establish the idea of narrowly tailoring in the admissions process. Narrowly tailoring is a process in which the court will defer judgment to administrators to make diversity of a student population its goal, so long as the means to achieve that diversity is narrowly circumscribed and implemented (Alexander & Alexander, 2011, p. 438). This process allows for diversity to be a factor in the admissions process, so long as the school has a compelling interest in attaining or maintaining a diverse student body.In Gratz v. Bollinger, Jennifer Gratz claimed she was a victim of reverse discrimination when she was denied as an undergraduate student to the University of Michigan. At the time, the University of Michigan used a point system for their undergraduate admissions process in which applicants could receive up to 150 points based on criteria such as race, athletic ability, depth of essay, leadership and service and personal achievement (NCSL, 2013). The issue was not that of the point system itself, but that of underrepresented minorities receiving points automatically. It was decided that the yes, the University of Michigan did violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using an overly mechanized system as a way to include race in admissions decisions (NCSL, 2013).Very closely related to Gratz v. Bollinger is the case Grutter v. Bollinger. Barbara Grutter also believed that she was subjected to reverse discrimination when she was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School (Law School). The Law School used an admissions process that focused on a applicants academic ability as well as their talents experiences and potential to contribute to the learning of those around them (Alexander & Alexander, 2011, p. 443). Through this holistic process, admissions officials must evaluate the entire profile of each applicant to determine if he or she will be successful in the program as well as graduate from the program. This process allows for the admissions officials to admit students who can bring varying diverse qualities both in and outside of race, however, by enrolling a critical mass of [underrepresent] minority student, the Law School seeks to ensure their ability to make unique contributions to the character of the Law School (Alexander & Alexander, 2011, p. 443). Because the Law School narrowly tailors the use of race in their admissions decisions in order to further a compelling interest, it was determined that the Equal Protection Clause was not violated.Most recently, Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin has been added to the list of court cases regarding affirmative action in higher education. In this case, Abigail Fisher brought her case to court when she was denied admissions to the University of Texas-Austin (UT-Austin) on the belief that she was denied due to her race. In addition, Fisher brought up the issue of UT-Austins Top Ten Plan. With the Top Ten Plan, UT-Austin admits the top 10 percent of each high school class in the state of Texas. Fisher was just shy of this benchmark and argues that due to this, she was placed in a much larger applicant pool. She also argues that the Top Ten Plan creates a diverse student body without the need for affirmative action and that she was denied because the institution admitted applicants who had fewer merit-based qualifications than she did. After evaluation of UT-Austins affirmative action program, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of UT-Austin using Grutter as precedent. In June of 2013, the case was brought before the Supreme Court only to be sent back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in order to determine if UT-Austins affirmative action programs passes a test of strict scrutiny.

Analysis In reference to affirmative action, admissions standards to colleges and universities must be thoroughly examined to determine that their process is understood and is created equal for all applicants. With this, some institutions establish strict standards based on a points system such as the Freshmen Index in the state of Georgia. With this system, students are admitted and denied based on their GPA and Standardized test scores. The institutions that use this method make it very clear what a student must score in order to be admissible to their institution. By using such a system, institutions of higher education are not faced with the issue of affirmative action in the same manner as those institutions that use other means and criteria for admissions. In contrast, many institutions look to other factors to determine if a student is admissible. Often times, these factors include a strong academic profile paired with other outstanding, unique or diverse factors. For institutions that look at the full profile of the student, it is important to maintain a holistic review process for admission in order to avoid issues of affirmative action. The issue with the holistic review process is that the applicant does not always understand exactly what other applicants may be bringing to the institution and why they are being admitted over other equally qualified applicants. In addition, there may be pressure on the admissions officials to bring in more students of a particular race or ethnic background. With both of these instances, the admissions process must be able to withstand strict scrutiny and analysis as well as demonstrate that the process makes use of narrowly tailored measures in order to further a compelling governmental interest. If the admissions process cannot prove this, then issues of affirmative action and reverse discrimination will arise.Overall, the major issue with affirmative action in admissions procedures is that the state places authority in the hands of the institution. As of now, colleges and universities are able to determine their admissions standards and use a narrowly tailored process to ensure a diverse student body. Currently, affirmative action emphasizes race, but according to Cohen (The Truth, 2013), institutions may begin to emphasize diversity in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion, first-generation-in-college status, and/or geographical location when admitting students. If this were to occur, the makeup of student bodies across the nation would change drastically as well as alter the state of affirmative action. In answer to the original question, yes, institutions of higher education can maintain admissions procedures that include affirmative action. However, these institutions must be able to withstand strict scrutiny as well as demonstrate a compelling governmental interest. In order to diversify a student body, many campuses rely on a more holistic review process, which allows for the admissions officials to use race in the process, so long as additional weight or importance is added to the students profile. In agreement with Cohen (2013), as more and more cases are brought forth questioning affirmative action at institutions of higher education, will the importance of this issue continue to be based on cases such as Gratz and Grutter or will considerations of race in admissions polices be altered or even become illegal?

References(2013). Affirmative action: Court decisions. National conference of state legislatures. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-court-decisions.aspxAlexander K.W. and Alexander K. (2011), Higher education law: Policy and perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge (2013). Challenging race sensitive admission policies: A summary of important rulings. Frontline. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/race/summary.htmlCohen, K. (2013, June 11). The truth about affirmative action cases and college admissions [Web log entry]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kat-cohen/the-truth- about-affirmative-action-cases_b_3415333.html

Feedback:Excellent! This summer, I had the chance to hear the attorney who argued the Fisher case on behalf of the University of Texas before the Supreme Court speak. It was a great experience!J GoreJ Gore