The Rundown on Affirmative Action
The Future of ACA 5 and Its Impact on Asian and Arab Americans
On June 15th, the UC Regents voted unanimously in favor of ACA-5, which would repeal Proposition 209 and restore affirmative action.
Let’s dive into the intricacies of affirmative action.
Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute defines affirmative action as a “set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants [for professional employment or educational programs], remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future.”
The objective of affirmative action is to counter discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or creed in order to promote minority representation in schools and the workplace. Compared to other anti-discrimination policies, affirmative action takes an active approach: as opposed to simply prohibiting discrimination, affirmative action increases opportunities for women and minorities to remedy past discrimination. However, the constitutionality of affirmative action has been the subject of debate for decades.
The UC System
Passed in 1996, Proposition 209 states that,
The state [of California] shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
In light of the UC Regents’ call for the passage of ACA 5, which effectively repeals Proposition 209, it is worth examining the effects of Proposition 209 in public, post-secondary education in the state of California.
In a 2014 study in the IZA Journal of Labor Economics, it was determined that, “After Prop 209, minority graduation rates increased by 4.35 percentage points.” Though there appears to be a correlation between Prop 209 and minorities’ ability to succeed in the public education system, there are numerous other factors that could have influenced this increase. For example, the authors add, “We find that Prop 209 led to a more efficient sorting of minority students, explaining 18% of the graduation rate increase in our preferred specification.”
The authors cite two other possible reasons for this increase in minority graduate rates. One reason is, “selection, as affirmative action bans may result in students who had the lowest probability of graduating no longer being admitted to any campus in the UC system.” As the UC system becomes more selective, minority representation in public universities also becomes skewed, under-representing students with lower probabilities of graduating.
The second possible reason is universities’ development of “programs and activities that try to improve the graduation prospects of those minority students and those from disadvantaged backgrounds” in response to the prohibition of affirmative action. However, in 2015, the Civil Rights Project at UCLA concluded, “The lessons from the California experiment with alternatives to affirmative action are clear: billions of dollars spent in programs and practices to help diversify the university have no doubt benefitted some students, but overwhelmingly, those students do not go on to attend the UC, and so they do not increase the diversity of the university”, raising questions about the true impact of these programs.
This increase in minority graduation rates in response to the affirmative action ban in the state of California may be unexpected, but the authors note, “the across-campus changes that occur in minority graduation rates and the academic preparation of those minorities that do enroll is potentially consistent with the view that the Prop 209 ban of affirmative action resulted in minority students being better matched to campuses based on their academic preparation…[and] greater selectivity in UC minority enrollments post-Prop 209.”
This 2014 study draws attention to how difficult it can be to pinpoint one factor as the ultimate cause for changes in diversity in the public education system. At first glance, it may appear that Prop 209 caused an increase in minority graduation rates. However, numerous other factors (such as selectivity and the rising popularity of programs dedicated to minority representation) may have also influenced this increase. Evidently, the ever-changing conditions in the state of California makes it tough to establish a causal relationship between Prop 209 and minority graduation rates, particularly when different studies reach different conclusions.
Affirmative Action and AAPIs
In the fall of 2014, a lawsuit was filed by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University for discrimination against Asian Americans in admissions. In conducting data analysis, Students for Fair Admissions discovered that “Asian Americans would be admitted at a rate 19% higher absent this penalty.” In 2019, federal judge Allison Burroughs ruled that Harvard’s “admissions process is legally sound” and the “evidence presented in the lawsuit did not prove that Harvard policies are intentionally discriminatory.” Burroughs added that race-conscious admissions policies “will always penalize to some extent the groups that are not being advantaged by the process”. In a state whose population is a little over 15% Asian American, where along the broad spectrum of affirmative action do Californian AAPIs fall?
A quantitative study conducted by the National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education (CARE) noted that, “With the implementation of race-blind policies in 1998, there were declines in admissions rates for AAPIs at five of the eight UC campuses.” The authors add that there were increases in AAPI admissions rates at UC Davis, UCLA, and UC Berkeley from 1997–1998. However, from 1998–2009, there was a significant decrease in these rates at every UC campus except for UC Riverside after the passage of Proposition 209. This trend appears to counter the idea that affirmative action is wholly detrimental for Asian Americans, at least in the state of California, as supported by the following statement by the AAJC:
Since California eliminated affirmative action in its public universities, Asian American students have been less likely to get into the UC system than under an affirmative action regime.
The authors of the previous study determined that, “An analysis of empirical data indicates there was no direct causal relationship between increased Asian American enrollment numbers in the UC and the implementation of race-blind admissions policies in 1998”, highlighting how the effects of affirmative action on AAPIs (and other minority communities) are not necessarily clear-cut and predictable.
Given the uncertainty surrounding affirmative action’s impact on AAPIs, it comes as no surprise that many Asian Americans hold conflicting views on the reimplementation of affirmative action. A 2018 survey conducted by AAPI Datafound that 58% of Asian American voters believed, “affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses are a good thing”, but various AAPI groups have been vocal on both sides of the debate.
Over 60 AAPI organizations, 70 higher education leaders, and 115 community members and leaders have openly endorsed ACA 5. On June 22nd, the Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus released a statement in support of ACA 5 not only because of increased representation in employment and education, but also increased opportunities in public contracting. They revealed that, “Asian American-owned businesses have won more contracts in cities like Atlanta or Chicago where affirmative action is legal”. Additionally, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles also endorsed ACA 5, arguing that, “Proposition 209 has prevented many hard-working Californians from having access to opportunities that are created by policies like that of affirmative action, and in doing so continuing a legacy of inequities in communities of color.” For supporters of ACA 5, repealing Proposition 209 is seen as a pivotal step towards a more diverse California, characterized by ample minority representation and increased opportunities for disenfranchised communities.
Two key organizations in opposition to ACA 5 are the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) and the 80–20 Asian American Empowerment PAC. Both of these organizations’ support for Prop 209 is rooted in the belief that merit should be prioritized over race in decisions regarding employment and college admissions. In a statement released on June 15th, the SVCAF argues, “ACA-5’s proposal to legalize racial preferences erodes America’s fundamental principles of equal opportunity, merit and individual liberty.” Critics of ACA 5 fear that the repeal of Prop 209 will sacrifice true racial equality, sparking discussion about the most effective ways to promote diversity in the state of California.
CARE’s study ultimately concluded that, “California does not provide adequate evidence that Asian Americans benefit from race-blind college admissions policies”, sparking discussion about alternative methods of increasing diversity in public universities. However, it is key to remember that there may be numerous, dynamic factors influencing AAPI admissions rates within the UC system that may be influencing these statistics.
Affirmative Action and Arab Americans
As described by Louise Cainkar, “Arabs have experienced the double burden of being excluded from the full scope of whiteness and from mainstream recognition as people of color.”
If you’ve ever filled out the US Census, you may have noticed that there is not a separate category for Arab Americans. As a result, Arab Americans are legally considered to be a part of the same category as the European white majority. A major consequence of this absence of a category is the blurring of Arab Americans’ eligibility for affirmative action.
Arab Americans are forced to straddle the line between their social and legal identification, producing confusion within individuals and the community. Therefore, for Arab Americans to directly benefit from affirmative action, changes must first be made to the federal classification system. At present, Arab Americans and other minority groups excluded by this system of racial categorization remain overlooked by affirmative action policies. Before enacting race-based policies intended to uplift disenfranchised communities, it is crucial that we reevaluate the racial constructs currently in place. Though creating a separate category for Arab Americans would allow for direct benefits from policies such as affirmative action, Helen Hatab Samhan notes that a new category for Arab Americans could also bear negative effects, such as “becoming targets for stereotyping, resentment, and dealing with issues of government dependency.”
Therefore, the indirect consequences of affirmative action on Arab Americans could swing either way. As characterized by George Bisharat in “Arab Americans and Affirmative Action”, affirmative action produces a ripple effect with positive implications for Arab Americans. Though Arab Americans lack federal classification, Samhan adds that affirmative action could indirectly make “public institutions, civic coalitions, and private businesses sensitive to inclusion of Arab Americans” in meaningful ways.
Debates about ACA 5 tend to focus on how to better promote diversity, but at its core, ACA 5 deals with the systemic perception and treatment of minority groups. As opposed to relying on archaic race constructs, reexamining how minorities are characterized (both legally and socially) paves the way for a deeper understanding of minorities’ role in the larger community and allows for specialized solutions that directly support individuals of all backgrounds.
Alternatives to Affirmative Action
Essayist and professor Louis Menand writes, “Diversity, however we define it, is politically constructed and politically maintained. It doesn’t just happen. It’s a choice we make as a society.”
Affirmative action upholds the notion that diversity is to be achieved through political programs and agendas, prompting us to question how effective the Equal Protection Clause is without formal structures to sustain it. Critics of affirmative action characterize it as “reverse discrimination” while supporters believe that ignoring race altogether dismisses the struggles of those facing racial discrimination.
The Supreme Court has been firm in maintaining that racial quotas are unconstitutional and violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as demonstrated by the notable Regents of the University of California v. Bakkecase (1978). However, the Supreme Court has deemed that race can be one of many factors in an admissions or employment decision with the aim of increasing diversity in a constitutional manner.
One popular example of the inclusion of race among other factors is holistic admissions in post-secondary education. The topic of affirmative action often raises questions about its effects on other minority groups, such as Asian Americans and Arab Americans. However, according to the AAJC, “there is no evidence of a decrease in the number of AAPI total admits after the inclusion of race in UT Austin’s holistic review in 2005”, supporting holistic admissions as a potential alternative.
Another potential alternative is to use socioeconomic status as a basis for admissions decisions as opposed to race. However, the AAJC has determined that “such [nonracial] proxies fail to wholly eliminate the educational barriers facing many minority groups.” The AAJC also discovered that Proposition 209, which prohibited race to be a factor in university admissions, was followed by “a plunge in underrepresented minority enrollments that was not offset by nonracial programs to increase diversity such as target enrollments based on income.”
One final alternative involves redirecting our focus to K-12 public education, particularly in underserved communities. Rather than improving university admissions to promote diversity, California could instead allocate resources to public schools and target systemic inequality at its source. By creating a higher quality education for children of all socioeconomic backgrounds, individuals in underserved communities may not have as many systemic barriers preventing them from achieving their post-secondary ambitions.
Final Thoughts
In analyzing numerous studies conducted over the past two decades, it is evident that a clear conclusion about the effects of affirmative action is hard to reach. But one thing has become incredibly apparent: the implications of ACA 5 must be considered from all angles in a dynamic and diverse state such as California.
To extend George Bisharat’s ripple effect metaphor, the influence of affirmative action reaches far beyond its immediate effect on public universities and workplaces, making the fate of this bill incredibly important for the future of minorities in this state.
