Tami: Yes.
There is ample anecdotal evidence that confirms this. When everyone
around you doubts your capability, it is not surprising that one might
have a crisis of confidence.
Mikhail: So, if that's the case, are the scholarships really increasing the outcomes that we want?
Tami: I think the scholarships do increase the outcomes we want, but not without problems.
Mikhail: Ok, I'm open to that (I hope it's true)...what makes you think so?
Tami:
These scholarships do increase the numbers of POCs in higher
education, which is a good thing and not just for communities of color.
What is rarely discussed is that diversity is a good thing for ALL
students. My presence, I think, made for a better academic experience
for the students around me--many of whom had no previous exposure to
people of color.
Mikhail: I agree 100%. And, as you probably know, that argument (diversity is good for all) was the one used by the University of Michigan to defend its affirmative action practice the last time the Supreme Court heard an affirmative action case, I think in 2004 [Editor's note: It was actually in 2003. More information is available here]. And I'm also aware that when California outlawed affirmative action, enrollment by racially underrepresented groups dropped precipitously [Editor's note: specific data are available here.].
Tami: Yep. I also think it is a fallacy that college admissions have always (until affirmative action) been completely objective. Here is where I bring up legacy admissions and athletic scholarships, both of which afford admission to students based on things other than academic performance.
Mikhail: I've made the same arguments in defending affirmative action in the past. In fact, I am surprised that legacy admissions still exist. They are inherently racist, given that POC were systematically denied access to mainstream higher ed until relatively recently. I'd like to see legacy admissions go away...incidentally, my university recently had an admission scandal [Editor's note: see details her e] in which the president lost his job because evidence emerged that politicians were requesting the university admit some applicants and the university was complying. And you don't need me to tell you that the students who were admitted this way were not students of color.
Tami: I think affirmative action admissions receive increased scrutiny precisely because they are related to race, whereas legacy admissions are related to privilege. We are used to Privilege getting what it wants and needs.
Mikhail: Yep. ...but I'm wondering if perhaps we have the right goal (more POC in higher ed) but using the wrong strategy (race-based scholarships, admissions).
Tami: I'm intrigued. What would be an alternate way of looking at the problem and a strategy for addressing it?
Mikhail: Need-based affirmative action in admissions and need-based scholarships, coupled with a racially diverse selection committee. Must have both! Number one without number two won't cut it!
Tami: I think ultimately I want to see a landscape where people who want to advance their education beyond high school are supported and encouraged to do so. I want to see a situation where being born in an area with below standard educational opportunities does not doom you from advancing. This is not the current situation. THAT is the problem.
Mikhail: Agreed! That's what I want too. And it is certainly NOT the current situation.
Tami: Regarding your alternative plan: Yes and yes. I think, though, that need extends beyond the financial. There has to be some path for students with scant pre-college educational opportunities to advance their educations. So, I would add that to the mix.
Mikhail: I agree. It seems like that would be where the community colleges come in. Frankly, they seem to be functioning much more equitably than their four-year counterparts.
Mikhail: So, if that's the case, are the scholarships really increasing the outcomes that we want?
Tami: I think the scholarships do increase the outcomes we want, but not without problems.
Mikhail: Ok, I'm open to that (I hope it's true)...what makes you think so?
Mikhail: I agree 100%. And, as you probably know, that argument (diversity is good for all) was the one used by the University of Michigan to defend its affirmative action practice the last time the Supreme Court heard an affirmative action case, I think in 2004 [Editor's note: It was actually in 2003. More information is available here]. And I'm also aware that when California outlawed affirmative action, enrollment by racially underrepresented groups dropped precipitously [Editor's note: specific data are available here.].
Tami: Yep. I also think it is a fallacy that college admissions have always (until affirmative action) been completely objective. Here is where I bring up legacy admissions and athletic scholarships, both of which afford admission to students based on things other than academic performance.
Mikhail: I've made the same arguments in defending affirmative action in the past. In fact, I am surprised that legacy admissions still exist. They are inherently racist, given that POC were systematically denied access to mainstream higher ed until relatively recently. I'd like to see legacy admissions go away...incidentally, my university recently had an admission scandal [Editor's note: see details her e] in which the president lost his job because evidence emerged that politicians were requesting the university admit some applicants and the university was complying. And you don't need me to tell you that the students who were admitted this way were not students of color.
Tami: I think affirmative action admissions receive increased scrutiny precisely because they are related to race, whereas legacy admissions are related to privilege. We are used to Privilege getting what it wants and needs.
Mikhail: Yep. ...but I'm wondering if perhaps we have the right goal (more POC in higher ed) but using the wrong strategy (race-based scholarships, admissions).
Tami: I'm intrigued. What would be an alternate way of looking at the problem and a strategy for addressing it?
Mikhail: Need-based affirmative action in admissions and need-based scholarships, coupled with a racially diverse selection committee. Must have both! Number one without number two won't cut it!
Tami: I think ultimately I want to see a landscape where people who want to advance their education beyond high school are supported and encouraged to do so. I want to see a situation where being born in an area with below standard educational opportunities does not doom you from advancing. This is not the current situation. THAT is the problem.
Mikhail: Agreed! That's what I want too. And it is certainly NOT the current situation.
Tami: Regarding your alternative plan: Yes and yes. I think, though, that need extends beyond the financial. There has to be some path for students with scant pre-college educational opportunities to advance their educations. So, I would add that to the mix.
Mikhail: I agree. It seems like that would be where the community colleges come in. Frankly, they seem to be functioning much more equitably than their four-year counterparts.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
