 |
| Elizabeth Ortiz, Ed.D. |
In an accounting of a story there are always two sides. Conservatives bemoan so-called special considerations for underrepresented minority students in college admissions without looking at the broader societal context and implications of their policy perspectives. The latest court challenge to affirmative action, Fisher vs. Texas, is based on the premise of reverse discrimination. Diverse college students from across the country might argue otherwise. They are witness to minimal faculty diversity, low numbers of diverse university executives, and insufficient numbers of students who look like them on college campuses.
In an accounting of a story there are always two sides. Conservatives bemoan so-called special considerations for underrepresented minority students in college admissions without looking at the broader societal context and implications of their policy perspectives. The latest court challenge to affirmative action, Fisher vs. Texas, is based on the premise of reverse discrimination. Diverse college students from across the country might argue otherwise. They are witness to minimal faculty diversity, low numbers of diverse university executives, and insufficient numbers of students who look like them on college campuses.
If universities abolish affirmative
action without developing alternative policy mechanisms to level the playing
field what can we expect the result to be? I believe we will never achieve educational
parity. Student bodies will remain disproportionately
white and the pathway to opportunity will be further narrowed. Our universities will not reflect the changing
diversity of the United States, and inequality will become more ingrained. We will suffer economically and fail to live
up to the promises of a democratic nation.
Today,
diverse students continue to be admitted to colleges and universities in
insufficient numbers. Now is the time
for bold measures to increase college access and attainment for diverse
students not to reverse the gains that have made since the passage of the Civil
Rights Act. The threats to affirmative action continue
to affect higher education. “Advocates
who challenge the educational value of diversity, as well as the legitimacy of
corresponding racial and ethnic preferences, have shifted much of their
advocacy focus from a federal legal venue to one that is much more publically
driven. The shift, particularly in the wake of Grutter, reflects movement from
the court of law to the court of public opinion (Coleman, Palmer, Rippner, Riley, 2009).” Institutions of higher
education cannot bow down to this outside pressure. They are obligated to continue to make the
case that supports diversity not only in the courtroom and on college campuses but
also in in the forum of public opinion.
We
need to have a holistic view of the problem and appreciate what is at stake. “Truth” includes many perspectives but as a
board ILACHE believes in diversifying American Universities and the affirmative
action legislation that assists in this endeavour. ILACHE will continue to be an active player in safeguarding diversity in
higher education. We will seek
accountability from state universities and colleges in areas of student
enrollment and achievement as well as faculty and staff diversity. We will continue to support policies that are
inclusive of Latinos and students of color. This is what America
is all about, justice and the opportunity for a better life for all of its
citizens, not just a few.
