Affirmative Action:
A continuing discussion / A continuing commitment
An essay by Harold T. Shapiro
In recent months, affirmative action has been the subject of intense-and
frequently acrimonious- national controversy. I would like to reflect on
some aspects of this discussion, and then offer some thoughts about Princeton's
programs, especially in the area of undergraduate admissions.
The national discussion
The adoption of affirmative action programs in the 1960s reflected our national
aspiration to overcome long-entrenched injustices and become a society where
equal opportunity, or at least a fair opportunity, was a reality for more
of our citizens. These programs were a response to economic, political and
cultural circumstances that demanded, then encouraged, and then tolerated
widespread and pernicious discrimination on the basis of such factors as
color, gender and ethnic background. The common hope was that these programs
would be transitory in nature and would enable us as a society to reach
a point-at some future date- when they would no longer be needed.
Our society cannot be strong or just if many are without hope or a perceived
stake in our future.
Some of those who now advocate an end to affirmative action argue that these
policies have accomplished all they can hope to accomplish, that many institutions
of society (including colleges and universities) now fairly reflect the
diversity of our citizenry, or that remaining limitations on opportunity
are based on class rather than gender, color or ethnicity. Others believe
that color-conscious policies, whatever their intention, always generate
so much ill-will that they undermine their objectives, and that they perpetuate
double standards, foster stereotyping and encourage inappropriate feelings
of group entitlement and/or group inferiority. These critics contend that
affirmative action intensifies a separateness that undermines our unity
as a nation, fails to treat people as individuals, and leads inevitably
to a society that is more color-conscious than ever.
While arguments over affirmative action are not new, the debate has been
fueled recently by Supreme Court rulings that subject some affirmative action
programs to greater scrutiny, disagreements (compounded by an absence of
good empirical data) about the impact and effectiveness of such programs.
increasing resentment by those (both minority and non-minority) who believe
they have been disadvantaged by these efforts, and recent changes in public
policy such as the decision by the Regents of the University of California
to discontinue affirmative action in its admission practices.
Pernicious discrimination
As I reflect on this national debate, I believe there continues to be widespread
agreement on the need to eliminate inappropriate and pernicious discrimination.
But there is disagreement about how to define (or identify) discrimination,
how serious and pervasive the problem is, and the proper means of achieving
our goals. Is it enough to rely on existing legal and constitutional protections
against discrimination and for equal opportunity, or are special efforts
still necessary to overcome our legacy of discrimination? Are these special
efforts more helpful than harmful, and are they effective?
In my view, among the most significant and positive features of American
society are its cultural diversity and its broad commitment to fair treatment
and a fair opportunity for all to share in both the governance and the benefits
of our society. Since r believe it is essential to our common sense of humanity,
to the effective functioning of our democratic institutions and to America's
continued cultural and economic leadership that we achieve as full a degree
of participation as possible, I believe we should make every effort to eliminate
any social, cultural or economic impediments to this goal (including gender,
ethnic, religious and racial biases).
The achievement of social justice in an increasingly diverse polity such
as ours clearly depends on our capacity to extend empathy and mutual respect-
as well as toleration-across lines of color, gender, religion and ethnic
background. .And since our society cannot be strong or just if man-- are
without hope or a perceived stake in our future, I believe it is imperative
that we aim to create a pervasive e sense of inclusion and a rising sense
of hope and possibility for all citizens. I not only believe we can achieve
these objectives within the democratic institutions we have established,
but that they are the best vehicles for this purpose, since they allow us
to see our prospects as interwoven and dependent on each other.
Social deprivation
In her Tanner lectures last spring, Professor (now Dean of the Faculty)
Arny Gutrnann argued convincingly that in a society without any continuing
pattern of color, gender or ethnic injustice, public policies providing
special considerations based on these group characteristics would be inappropriate.
But ours is a society in which these patterns continue. (Even while subjecting
affirmative action programs to stricter scrutiny; the Supreme Court in its
.J.darand decision noted that "the unhappy persistence of both the
practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority
groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not
disqualified from acting in response to it.")
The under-representation of members of particular minority groups in positions
of power and prestige cannot be explained by differences-if any-in personal
preferences or human capacity. Racially stratified social and residential
patterns continue to preclude opportunity for some Americans and, by perpetuating
lack of contact across colors and cultures, make it more difficult to attenuate
prejudices on all sides.
In stark contrast to the ideals on which our country was founded, our political,
economic and judicial systems have, over time, found effective means to
block the full participation of women and many minorities in the opportunities
open to other Americans, and thereby have caused members of these groups
to suffer from high levels of unjustified social deprivation and inequality.
While the efforts of the past three decades have succeeded in expanding
opportunity in our society, and while some of these conditions certainly
have improved, many still are denied fair opportunity and participation
in both the practices and benefits of citizenship.
I see effective affirmative action policies - governmental and voluntary
- as one of the essential components in the comprehensive attack we must
wage to overcome all the barriers to fair opportunity in our society.
Principled response
In such circumstances, some affirmative action policies should be considered
a principled, morally justified response that, if effective will not only
move society to a more just state, but improve society's overall economic
and social prospects. The test is whether particular programs are effective
in moving toward their objectives. Both governmentally imposed and private,
voluntary actions are only useful when they have clearly defined objectives
and are carefully designed not only to move toward those objectives, but
to create conditions that, in time, will eliminate the need for their continued
existence.
Finally, while injustice and discrimination based on color play a unique
and continuing role in American history, they are bound up with an even
more wide spread inequity, as many of our fellow citizens- stretching w
ell beyond the boundaries of any particular group-are excluded from the
full range of educational, economic and other opportunities for reasons
of economic deprivation. Particularly poignant and outrageous is the predicament
of the dramatically increased percentage of American children growing up
in poverty. Our most important social objective must be to eliminate the
poverty and lack of opportunities that afflict this broad range of Americans.
I see effective affirmative action policies Governmental and voluntary-as
one of the essential components in the more comprehensive attack we must
wage to overcome all the barriers to fair opportunity in our society.
Princeton's admission polices
While the debate over government-mandated affirmative action programs continues,
private universities remain free to adopt policies that they believe will
advance their educational and civic responsibilities, as long as they do
not violate any laws or regulations. While these institutions have some
flexibility in the area of employment, they enjoy greater discretion in
admissions, where they are not bound by so many government directives.
On another occasion I will have more to say about Princeton's affirmative
action efforts in employment, but at this point I would like to focus on
our policies for undergraduate admission. (while we follow different procedures
for admission to the Graduate School, we seek similar goals, knowing that
if we succeed in attracting excellent minority students, we enrich the diversity
of our community now when they are engaged in graduate study. and later
when they become intellectual leaders in colleges, universities and other
important social institutions.)
Princeton first adopted a policy of affirmative action in undergraduate
admission in 1963 when President Goheen announced that, henceforth, Princeton
would actively seek to attract and enroll excellent students of color. While
there were a number of reasons for this action, four were especially important.
- If Princeton wanted to attract the country's ablest most talented
and most accomplished students, it simply could no longer afford to exclude
entire pools of qualified candidates. (This and the following reasons also
played a central role in Princeton's decision to admit women undergraduates,
beginning in 1969.)
- Princeton had always aspired to educate young people who would become
leaders in their communities, the nation and the world. American society
was becoming more pluralistic, it was evident that its leaders over time
would more fully reflect its broad range of cultures, colors and ethnicities.
Princeton aimed not only to educate leaders from all sectors of society,
but to prepare all its students for life in a diverse national-even international-community.
- Princeton increasingly recognized the educational value of a learning
environment that
included students from different backgrounds and perspectives. In its earliest
days, Princeton had a greater geographical diversity than the other colonial
colleges, provided explicit protection in its charter for students of different
religious faiths, and began as early as the 18th century to provide scholarships
for the economically disadvantaged. The GI Bill brought an increased social
diversity to Princeton after World War II, and by the mid-1960s there was
a heightened appreciation of the educational benefits associated with a
diversity of colors, cultures and ethnic backgrounds.
- As a matter of social justice, Princeton wanted to help overcome the
historical circumstances that had denied opportunity to many Americans.
Because of this history, it was not enough for Princeton simply to open
its doors and invite those long excluded to enter; in Princeton aim[s] not
only to educate leaders from all sectors of society, but to prepare all
its students for life in a diverse national even international community.
In many cases students of exceptional promise came from environments that
had not permitted them to develop or demonstrate their full potential, or
they were understandably uncertain about the extent to which they would
be truly welcome and well served at Princeton.
Full range of American Diversity
Over the last three decades, Princeton has continued to make special efforts
to identify and attract excellent students from the full range of American
society, and minority students comprise 28 percent of the Class of 1999.
These efforts have been grounded in a continuing belief that this policy
advances our most basic educational objectives and in an understanding that
although Princeton is a private institution, it operates as a public trust.
We are granted the privilege of managing our assets and programs in return
for assuming the obligation of deploying these assets and designing these
programs for the benefit of the society we serve.
Our programs do, of course, confer substantial benefits on our students,
faculty, staff and alumni, through whom we serve the worlds of education
and scholarship and help meet the broader needs of society. But our primary
responsibility is not to any particular set of individuals, it is to society
as a whole-in the nation's service and in the service of all nations. To
be of service to the pluralistic society in which we live, Princeton must
educate leaders from as many sectors of society as possible in an environment
that prepares these students for leadership in a world of many colors, cultures
and ethnicities.
Since Princeton is fortunate enough to attract many more excellent candidates
than we can admit, we try to allocate spaces in a manner that advances our
educational goals and enriches our capacity to meet our civic responsibilities.
We could base admission principally- or even solely-on demonstrated academic
achievement (i.e., scores on standardized tests and grade point averages).
But this has never been Princeton's policy.
For one thing, such an approach would downplay the enormous uncertainty
involved in trying to assess the intellectual or leadership potential of
1/- or l~year old students, most of whom are entering a stage in their personal
development characterized by great change (to say nothing of sturm und
drang ).
Second, it would be a mistake to equate academic quality as typically measured
with the more important concept of intellectual quality, which for us connotes
a much broader and deeper characteristic. For example, many writers, poets
and musicians do not excel academically on such measures as test scores
or grade point averages, but are exceedingly intelligent and can enormously
enrich an academic community.
Many paths to leadership
In my view, it is important to broaden our notion of academic quality to
include skills and talents that are not measured by the standard indicators
and to try to construct a student body with diverse intellectual and leadership
qualities. It is wise to judge intellectual potential by a variety of measures
that acknowledge the many paths to leadership.
Furthermore, we do not serve society best by simply providing another stamp
of approval to students who have already demonstrated their ability to achieve
high grades and test scores. These achievements are important and we give
them very considerable weight, but we have an obligation to look beyond
these measures and accept the challenge to develop potential that has not
yet been realized. In other words, we have an obligation to help create
new human capital, as well as to certify and build on a narrower conception
of academic achievement.
Princeton's approach takes as its premise that our objective in admissions
should be to attract a wide variety of students with different backgrounds,
experiences and talents who all give evidence of having excelled, of seriousness
of purpose, of a willingness and capacity to take substantial advantage
of our academic and other programs, and who also show promise of playing
a significant role in some aspect of their future community.
Our admission process focuses simultaneously on the basic qualifications
of each student, the overall composition of the student body, and the potential
contributions of each student to fellow students, the University and society.
In taking this approach, we recognize that creating a good match between
our faculty and students requires a critical mass of students whose primary
commitment has been and will continue to be focused on academic achievement.
At the same time, we also recognize that the overall quality and nature
of our program is affected not only by the academic and personal qualities
of the individual students, but by the characteristics of the student body
as a whole.
We seek an interesting and diverse combination of students whose variety
of talents and experiences will enrich the overall learning and living environment.
Thus we make every effort to ensure that each entering class reflects interests
that range from athletics and the creative and performing arts to debate
and public service, and includes perspectives that provide continuity with
Princeton's past while also preparing each generation of students for the
future.
Additional tribute
To achieve these goals, Princeton has long given special consideration in
admission to attributes in addition to a candidate's academic achievement
and promise. Within the overall academic requirements set by the faculty,
we currently give special consideration to athletes who have demonstrated
a significant commitment to their academic programs, to academically competitive
children of our faculty and alumni, to under-represented minority students
who have excelled, and to others who have exhibited special talents.
In the case of students with exceptional athletic skills, we acknowledge
the special benefits of competitive athletics to the participants themselves;
the qualities of perseverance, teamwork, discipline and leadership that
athletics at their best engender; and the role athletics can play in helping
to create a sense of community. In the case of alumni children, we have
felt that Princeton's special bond with its alumni has helped us sustain
valuable traditions and a sense of history, has assisted us in attracting
very talented students, and has helped us ensure a level of resources that
is critical to our distinction. In the case of faculty children, we acknowledge
the extraordinary commitment faculty make to the scholarly and educational
quality of Princeton. In the case of students from diverse backgrounds or
who bring special talents, we believe that these characteristics invigorate
our entire academic community and enable us to meet our obligations to educate
leaders from all sectors of society.
Although Princeton is a private institution, it operates as a public
trust.
Although we do not give special consideration to financially disadvantaged
students per se, we do make ever effort to understand each applicant in
the context of his or her particular circumstances, and we help to assure
opportunity for students from economically deprived backgrounds by following
a "need blind" admission police together with a financial aid
program designed to make it possible for anyone who is admitted to attend.
These special considerations are applied in an admission process that for
some decades has been based on the following principles:
- no individual applicant-whatever his or her level of achievement or
other characteristics-has any entitlement to a place in the entering class;
- only those students who can take very substantial advantage of our
programs should be admitted;
- the consideration of each applicant should be free of irrational prejudices
and inappropriate forms of favoritism; and
- a wide range of talents, experiences and interests is essential for
the vitality of the student body and in order for Princeton to be a living/learning
community and have impact on all aspects of society.
Within this context, the key criteria for selection are academic achievement
and promise, seriousness of purpose and capacity for growth. potential to
contribute to society, and potential to contribute to the student body,
the learning environment and the broader University community.
Special efforts to enroll excellent students of color will strengthen the
quality of Princeton 's programs, better enable us to meet important University.
objectives, and allow us to play a part in moving us all to a more just
and productive society.
In other words, our admission process focuses simultaneously on the basic
qualifications of each student, the overall composition of the student body,
and the potential contributions of each student to fellow students, the
University and society. All of our entering students have excelled in one
way or another; all are academically accomplished: and we believe all have
the capacity to continue the long tradition of Princetonians occupying positions
of leadership in public life, in academic life, in business and the professions
and in many other important sectors of our society.
Compelling reasons
As I assess Princeton's objectives together with the realities of contemporary
American society, I continue to find compelling reasons for affirmative
action in our undergraduate admissions program. We may wish it were otherwise,
but color and ethnic background continue to have a crucial impact on the
experiences, perspectives and opportunities of Americans. I continue to
believe that special efforts to enroll excellent students of color will
strengthen the quality of Princeton's programs, better enable us to meet
important University objectives. and allow us to play a part in moving us
all to a more just and productive society. This continuing commitment to
educate talented students from the broadest range of back grounds and experiences
seems to me important in its own right, important for the quality of our
educational programs and the achievement of our civic responsibilities,
and important for the affirming message it sends to young people in disadvantaged
and under represented communities that we recognize and value their talents
and the enormous contributions they can make to Princeton and to the society
we exist to serve.
(Back to top)
Return to the AAD Homepage
Carl Gutierrez-Jones,
Department of English
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
E-mail: carlgj@humanitas.ucsb.edu