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

11/20/2014 Ms. Wonder Awards Honor Young Grassroots Leaders in Anti-Violence, Fair Wage Movements - "I don't think I've ever been in a room with so much personal history, and so much future," Gloria Steinem opened. Today, Ms. . . .
 
11/20/2014 Transgender Day of Remembrance Raises Awareness of Dangers of Transphobia - Transgender people are about 400 times more likely to be assaulted or murdered than cisgender people. . . .
 
11/20/2014 Federal Appeals Court Rejects Priests for Life Challenge to Birth Control Coverage Rule - In a victory for women's health, a unanimous panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Friday rejected a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) contraceptive coverage benefit brought by Priests for Life, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington and other religiously affiliated non-profit organizations. Judge Nina Pillard, a former law professor who was nominated to the DC Circuit by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate in December, wrote the opinion for the Court, which found that the ACA birth control benefit did not substantially burden or violate non-profits' religious freedom. Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies must cover the full cost of all FDA-approved contraceptives - including the pill, IUDs, and emergency contraception - without requiring co-pays or cost-sharing. . . .