Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

February-11-03

Alternative to Affirmative Action Less Effective, Study Finds

Two reports released this month by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University suggest that affirmative action alternatives—specifically the “race-neutral” percent plans advocated by the Bush Administration—are ineffective in promoting racial diversity.

The evaluated percent programs—implemented in Texas, California, and Florida—purport to enhance racial diversity at universities by admitting set percentages of students—10, 4, and 20 percent, respectively—from each high school. However, researcher and co-director of the Civil Rights Project Gary Orfield argued, “Affirmative action is a modest and effective tool that universities need… and it is simply wrong to suggest that we have found any kind of simple nonracial alternative,” reported the New York Times. Using data collected from various sources including state agencies, the federal National Center for Education Statistics, and the US Census, researchers found that in most cases, “institutions have not been successful in maintaining racially/ethnically diverse campuses through percent plans.” For example, at the University of California at Berkeley where affirmative action was last used in 1997, the percentage of blacks and Latinos in the freshman class declined from 6.7 and 16.9 percent in 1995, respectively to 3.9 and 10.8 percent in 2001, according to the Los Angeles Times. Racial breakdowns of university student populations continue to the lag behind those of general state populations.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in March for two related affirmative action cases involving the University of Michigan. Last month, the Bush Administration announced its decision to file an amicus brief supporting the white students against the University of Michigan’s admission policy, which considers race, along with geography, test scores, grades, and a host of other personal achievements. The Washington Post today reported that various groups and individuals including General Motors, the AFL-CIO, the American Bar Association, several Ivy League universities, and retired high-ranking military officers, plan to submit amicus briefs in support of Michigan’s position.

Media Resources: Civil Rights Project 2/7/03; NY Times 2/11/03; Washington Post 2/11/03; LA Times 2/11/03


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

9/12/2014 Violence Against Women Act Turns 20 - Saturday will be the 20th Anniversary of the groundbreaking federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to provide federal funding to improve local response to violence against women, including training and resources for law enforcement and judges. President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a proclamation commemorating the VAWA anniversary. . . .
 
9/12/2014 Indiana Woman Charged With Feticide For Premature Delivery - An Indiana woman has been charged with feticide after she delivered prematurely and sought hospital treatment. Purvi Patel, 33, sought help at an emergency room for vaginal bleeding where it was discovered that she had delivered prematurely at home. . . .
 
9/11/2014 Missouri Legislators Pass 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Law - Missouri legislators voted late last night to triple the state's current 24-hour waiting period to 72 hours, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Governor Jay Nixon previously vetoed the bill in July, calling it "extreme and disrespectful." Missouri's House voted 117-44 to override the veto, and then the Senate used a procedural move to stop a Democratic filibuster of the bill and vote 23-7 to complete the veto override Wednesday. "The only purpose of a 72-hour waiting period is to attempt to punish, shame, and demean women who have arrived at a personal decision that politicians happen to disagree with," said the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. . . .