Affirmative Action And The University

DIVThe first major book to argue in favor of affirmative action in higher education since Bowen and Bok's The Shape of the River /div

Affirmative action in college admissions has been a polarizing policy since its inception, decried by some as unfairly biased and supported by others as a necessary corrective to institutionalized inequality. In recent years, the protected status of affirmative action has become uncertain, as legal challenges chip away at its foundations. This book looks through a sociological lens at both the history of affirmative action and its increasingly tenuous future. J. Scott Carter and Cameron D. Lippard first survey how and why so-called "colorblind" rhetoric was originally used to frame affirmative action and promote a political ideology. The authors then provide detailed examinations of a host of recent Supreme Court cases that have sought to threaten or undermine it. Carter and Lippard analyze why the arguments of these challengers have successfully influenced widespread changes in attitude toward affirmative action, concluding that the discourse and arguments over these policies are yet more unfortunate manifestations of the quest to preserve the racial status quo in the United States.

The use of race-based affirmative action in higher education has given rise to hundreds of books and law review articles, numerous court decisions, and several state initiatives to ban the practice. However, surprisingly little has been said or written or done to challenge a larger, longstanding "affirmative action" program that tends to benefit wealthy whites: legacy preferences for the children of alumni. "Affirmative Action for the Rich" sketches the origins of legacy preferences, examines the philosophical issues they raise, outlines the extent of their use today, studies their impact on university fundraising, and reviews their implications for civil rights. In addition, the book outlines two new theories challenging the legality of legacy preferences, examines how a judge might review those claims, and assesses public policy options for curtailing alumni preferences. The book includes chapters by Michael Lind of the New America Foundation; Peter Schmidt of the "Chronicle of Higher Education"; former "Wall Street Journal" reporter Daniel Golden; Chad Coffman of Winnemac Consulting, attorney Tara O'Neil, and student Brian Starr; John Brittain of the University of the District of Columbia Law School and attorney Eric Bloom; Carlton Larson of the University of California--Davis School of Law; attorneys Steve Shadowen and Sozi Tulante; Sixth Circuit Court Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. and attorney Donya Khalili; and education writer Peter Sacks.

Argues that affirmative action actually harms minority students and that the movement started in the late 1960s is only a symbolic change that has become mired in posturing, concealment, and pork-barrel earmarks.

As the United States experiences dramatic demographic change--and as our society's income inequality continues to rise--promoting racial, ethnic, and economic inclusion at selective colleges has become more important than ever. At the same time, however, many Americans--including several members of the U.S. Supreme Court--are uneasy with explicitly using race as a factor in college admissions. The Court's decision in Fisher v. University of Texas emphasized that universities can use race in admissions only when "necessary," and that universities bear "the ultimate burden of demonstrating, before turning to racial classifications, that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice." With race-based admission programs increasingly curtailed, The Future of Affirmative Action explores race-neutral approaches as a method of promoting college diversity after Fisher decision. The volume suggests that Fisher might on the one hand be a further challenge to the use of racial criteria in admissions, but on the other presents a new opportunity to tackle, at long last, the burgeoning economic divisions in our system of higher education, and in society as a whole. Contributions from: Danielle Allen (Princeton); John Brittain (University of the District of Columbia) and Benjamin Landy (MSNBC.com); Nancy Cantor and Peter Englot (Rutgers-Newark); Anthony P. Carnevale, Stephen J. Rose, and Jeff Strohl (Georgetown University); Dalton Conley (New York University); Arthur L. Coleman and Teresa E. Taylor (EducationCounsel LLC); Matthew N. Gaertner (Pearson); Sara Goldrick-Rab (University of Wisconsin-Madison); Scott Greytak (Campinha Bacote LLC); Catharine Hill (Vassar); Richard D. Kahlenberg (The Century Foundation); Richard L. McCormick (Rutgers); Nancy G. McDuff (University of Georgia); Halley Potter (The Century Foundation); Alexandria Walton Radford (RTI International) and Jessica Howell (College Board); Richard Sander (UCLA School of Law); and Marta Tienda (Princeton).

Explains role of affirmative action, presents the debate over these programs, and clarifies guidelines within the current law.

A scientific response to the best-selling The Bell Curve which set off a hailstorm of controversy upon its publication in 1994. Much of the public reaction to the book was polemic and failed to analyse the details of the science and validity of the statistical arguments underlying the books conclusion. Here, at last, social scientists and statisticians reply to The Bell Curve and its conclusions about IQ, genetics and social outcomes.

Author note:Steven M. Cahnis Provost and Professor of Philosophy at the Graduate School of the City University of New York.