The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in Fisher v. University of Texas, which raises questions about the use of race in admissions to American universities. Sigal Alon, currently a RSF Visiting Scholar, has published several studies dealing with admission, affirmative action and financial aid policies in post-secondary education. Below, she answers questions about her research and affirmative action in the United States.
Q: Let’s first look at the Top 10 Percent admission rule in Texas. Give us some background on the policy – why was it enacted, and how is it different from the previous admission rule in Texas? What can you tell us about the Fisher v. Texas case?
A: Following a judicial ban on the use of race preferences in college admissions in Texas (imposed by the 1996 Hopwood decision) the Texas legislature passed H.B. 588, which guarantees seniors who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class admission to any Texas public college or university. In University of Texas, Austin, the flagship institution in the state, for example, it accounts for 80 percent of the entering freshman class. Abigail Noel Fisher applied to UT-Austin in 2008 (at the time she was a senior at Stephen F. Austin High School in Sugar Land, TX). She did not qualify under the automatic Top Ten Percent program so she had to compete with others for the remaining 20 percent of seats. Admissions decisions for students who do not graduate in the top 10 percent of their class are based on a broad range of objective and subjective criteria. Since 2005 (following the Grutter decision) UT added race to the list of factors they considered in making the admission decision. In essence they have implemented a race-conscious admissions policy for applicants who are not in the Top Ten Percent. The motivation: bring racial and ethnic diversity at the university closer to the state’s overall population diversity, especially at the classroom level and in the major field of study. Fisher sued the UT, contending that her academic credentials exceed those of minority students who were admitted.
Q: In a study co-authored with Marta Tienda and Sunny X. Niu, you examined the impact of the 10 percent rule. Can we say that the rule lead to more diversity in Texas universities?
A: The need of UT-Austin to implement a race-based admissions policy arises because the percent plan did not generate enough racial and ethnic diversity to meet the changing demographic composition of high school graduation cohorts. This is not surprising because, by default, any race-neutral policy cannot produce the same level of demographic diversity as race-conscious admissions tools. Moreover, while the plan was successful in broadening geographic diversity, it failed to augment socioeconomic diversity.
Q: Since race-based affirmative action policies are controversial, a number of states and policymakers have argued that class or socioeconomic status should be the main focus of such policies. What do we know about the effectiveness of class-based affirmative action policies? Can they be effective substitutes for race-based policies?
A: The discontent with race-sensitive admissions in higher education—prompting, in recent years, public referendums as well as judicial bans and numerous lawsuits against such practices—has motivated the search for race-neutral measures to generate diversity. The failure to produce noticeable socioeconomic diversity at elite institutions, at times of rising income inequality, is no doubt a key factor underlying this growing discontent. The student bodies of elite institutions may have become diverse in many ways, but they remain extremely affluent. In a paper published in the American Sociological Review in 2009, I document the widening class divide in higher education, especially at elite schools, and reveal how it was generated. From this backdrop we can understand the appeal of the idea of implementing class-based preferences in the U.S., either in addition to or as an alternative to race-conscious admissions. It is not surprising that this shift is also suggested now, just before the Supreme Court hearing of a landmark case about affirmative action. But the key question is what we know about the effectiveness of class-based preferences. Unfortunately, not much. This is largely because class-based affirmative action policies, until recently, have never been implemented in the U.S. or elsewhere.
Q: In a recent study, you looked at a need-blind and color-blind affirmative action policy recently enacted in four flagship Israeli universities. You suggest that this experiment might have lessons for American universities – so, first, what is the policy in Israel based on? How does it work, and how is it different from typical affirmative action policies?
A: The policy was incorporated into the admission practices of the four most selective universities in Israel during the early to mid-2000s, and promotes preferential treatment for academically borderline applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, in evaluating the eligibility of applicants, neither their financial status nor their national or ethnic origins are considered. The emphasis, rather, is on structural disadvantages, especially neighborhood socioeconomic status and high school rigor, although several individual hardships are also weighed.
Q: You praise the Israeli policy for “[infusing] the student body of the four flagship universities…with under-represented and disadvantaged populations.” Why did this policy succeed in increasing demographic diversity even without considering race? What are its crucial elements that American universities should consider?
A: This neighborhood/school-based need-blind and color-blind affirmative action policy capitalizes on the overlap between spatial boundaries and categorical inequality. That is, bad neighborhoods and failing schools are populated with categorically disadvantaged groups, such as racial and ethnic minorities, recent immigrants, and the poor. These insights can enrich the ongoing discussion of admission regimes and equality of opportunity in other countries. I am now writing a book on this topic with the goal of developing new, more universal, insights about the capability of race-neutral public policy to promote equality of educational opportunity at selective post-secondary institutions.
References:
Alon, Sigal. 2011. “The Diversity Dividends of a Need-blind and Color-blind Affirmative Action Policy.” Social Science Research, 40(6):1494-1505.
Marta Tienda, Sigal Alon, and Sunny X. Niu. 2010. "Affirmative Action and the Texas Top 10% Percent Admission Law: Balancing Equity and Access to Higher Education." Sociétés Contemporaines. 79:19-39
Alon, Sigal. 2009. “The Evolution of Class Inequality in Higher Education: Competition, Exclusion and Adaptation.” American Sociological Review. 74(3):731–755.
Recent Books
