Search

Background: For over 50 years, the United States (US) used affirmative action as one strategy to increase diversity in higher education including medical programs, citing benefits including training future public and private sector leaders. However, the recent US Supreme Court ending affirmative action in college admissions threatens advancements in the diversity of medical college faculty. Objective: Our study evaluated the demographic trends in Internal Medicine (IM) faculty in the US by assessing sex and race/ethnicity diversity to investigate who is likely to be impacted most with the end of affirmative action. Design: Longitudinal retrospective analysis Subjects: IM faculty from the Association of American Medical Colleges faculty roster from 1966 to 2021 who self-reported sex and ethnicity Main Outcomes: The primary study measurement was the annual proportion of women and racial/ethnic groups among IM faculty based on academic rank and department chairs. Results: Although racial/ethnic diversity increased throughout the era of affirmative action, African American, Hispanic, and American Indian populations remain underrepresented. White physicians occupied > 50% of faculty positions across academic ranks and department chairs. Among the non-White professors, Asian faculty had the most significant increase in proportion from 1966 to 2021 (0.6 to 16.6%). The percentage of women increased in the ranks of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor by 19.5%, 27.8%, 25.6%, and 26.9%, respectively. However, the proportion of women and racial/ethnic minority faculty decreased as academic rank increased. Conclusion: Despite an increase in the representation of women and racial/ethnic minority IM faculty, there continues to be a predominance of White and men physicians in higher academic ranks. With the end of affirmative action, this trend has the danger of being perpetuated, resulting in decreasing diversity among IM faculty, potentially impacting patient access and health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the author discusses the issue of racism in the U.S. by citing his experiences of growing up in a segregated neighborhood in Charlotte, North Carolina and in segregated public schools. Other topics include the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on public education, the issue of race-conscious college admissions, and the benefits and disadvantages of race-conscious affirmative action in the country.

The article examines the failure of the diversity in education framework in the U.S. in light of the high attrition rate for African American law students. Topics discussed include the role of the lack of continued support for Affirmative Action programs in the attrition rate, history behind the creation and implementation of the program which was inspired by the employment equality movement, and the extracurricular pressures facing African American law students.

If there is one thing that Brown teaches South Africa, it is that the struggle for equal educational opportunities will be a long one, and that successes as well as reversals are inevitable. If there is one thing that South Africa teaches the United States, it is that the passion and hope of ordinary people can inspire judicial activity and stir judicial conscience by relentlessly exposing the contradictions between law and reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. First Circuit Court case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College which deals with equal protection and college admissions program. Topics discussed include the emphasis of the ruling on the legality of the program, failure of the court to address the effect of race discrimination on the affirmative-action admissions program, and refusal of the court to merge the analysis of affirmative action and discrimination.

Can universities legally employ race- and sex-based preferences in faculty hiring? This Article explores the history, law, and practice of faculty-related affirmative action, tracing its origins back to several largely forgotten legal challenges brought in the early 1970s concerning universities' blatant discrimination against women. Since that time, universities have developed hiring schemes that are typically hidden from public view and steer certain minority and female faculty candidates into special hiring processes. These special processes, called "Target of Opportunity Programs" (TOPs), create faculty positions for which candidates are identified on the basis of race and sex and for which candidates from non-preferred demographics cannot apply. The legality of TOP searches is rarely discussed openly on campus. While some have suggested that the Supreme Court's diversity rationale in the admissions context permits preference-based faculty hiring, this Article shows that the diversity rationale translates poorly to the context of faculty hiring. Moreover, faculty hiring, unlike admissions, is regulated by a complex system of anti-discrimination norms in state law, federal employment law, and administrative regulations that appear to tightly constrain permissible employment-related affirmative action. This Article concludes that race- and sex-based preferences for faculty hiring are problematic; they are difficult to justify under the standard diversity rationale, and they seem to violate employment law and an Executive Order governing government contractors by creating the functional equivalent of race- and sex-based set asides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of critical mass has been invoked by social scientists and the Supreme Court in affirmative action decisions as a solution to problems related to underrepresentation of minority students in institutions of higher education. Little distinction is made by scholars between the Court's use of critical mass as a metaphor and its application in research as a mathematical concept. I use Agent‐Based Modeling—a simulation technique in which systems are modeled through repetitive interaction of autonomous decision‐making "agents" to observe the complex dynamics that emerge from interaction—to investigate the Supreme Court's conception of the relationship between student‐body composition and student isolation and stereotyping. Findings demonstrate that the relationship between student body representation and the educational outcomes of interest as detailed by the Court, specifically minority students' feeling of isolation and majority students' retention of negative stereotypes, does not exhibit a specific threshold or tipping point as we would expect from a system that has a critical mass at which sudden and sustainable change in the state of the system occurs. Simulations of student interactions show there is not one definable threshold or critical mass of minority students that achieves educational goals of reducing either the isolation felt by minority students or the negative stereotypes held by majority students about their minority peers. Instead, greater minority representation is consistently associated with better outcomes for students in all contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While there is no absolute right to education in the Constitution of the United States, legislation and litigation have created and elucidated specific rights of children to, at a minimum, equal opportunity in education. For students with disabilities, the right to equality in educational opportunity can be found in both federal statutes and under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Rapidly developing education policy currently promotes increasing options for parents to use federal and state funds to send their children to schools other than their neighborhood public schools ("school choice "). However, the specific rights of students with disabilities have been largely overlooked. This Article will explain the ways in which school-choice laws and the rights of students with disabilities overlap and interact, expose gaps that leave students with disabilities vulnerable, and suggest actions that legislators and litigators can take to mitigate that vulnerability and ensure equal opportunity in education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For four decades, the diversity rationale has offered a lifeline to affirmative action in higher education. Yet even after forty years, this critical feature of equal protection doctrine remains constitutionally insecure and politically fraught. Legal challenges persist, the Justice Department has launched a new assault on affirmative action, and a rightward shift on the Supreme Court could usher in an era of increased hostility toward the concept of diversity itself. The future of race-conscious admissions may hang in the balance. In this Article, I contend that the diversity rationale's present fragility rests, in part, on its defenders' failure to center diversity's most compelling quality: its ability to promote personal equality within the university. To fill this void, this Article advances the first comprehensive case for diversity rooted in each student's interest in an equal opportunity to enjoy, regardless of race, the full benefits of university membership. This framing is appealing, in part, because it makes salient the present and personal equality harms that students of color suffer when severely under-represented in predominately white institutions. Race-conscious admissions, in turn, emerge as an essential component of institutional efforts to further normative commitments--ranging from racial integration to individual meritocracy--that should resonate with Justices across the ideological spectrum. To support this new framing, I resurrect the Supreme Court's pre-Brown desegregation cases. These decisions reinforce the constitutional infirmity of institutional conditions that compromise a student's ability, because of her race, to access the full benefits of university membership. I then bridge the theory to social science that reveals how environmental cues--including racial demographics--can exact concrete and quantifiable burdens on students from negatively stereotyped groups. Although well-traveled in other domains, this research has only begun to inform legal scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An increasing number of American institutions of higher education now include some mention of "diversity" in their mission statements. A survey of the research literature on higher education also reveals the cultural pervasiveness of this topic. But the exact meaning of diversity is often unclear, and its proper application is frequently debated. Broadly understood, diversity is a concept that can encompass a range of ideals, intentions, programs, outcomes, proportions, curricula, and many other elements. Many institutions now have entire departments devoted to diversity, and it has become something of an imperative in higher education. This literature review will attempt to condense the ongoing national conversation about diversity into a clear and concise summary of current conditions and prevailing perspectives. The author's intention is to add clarity to the conversation, helping to explain the extensive focus on diversity that permeates the institutional culture of higher education in contemporary American society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American selective colleges and universities use affirmative action policies to achieve diversity, given blacks and Latinos have somewhat lower SAT scores than their Asian and white peers. Critics of affirmative action argue that this results in lower grades and greater dropout among underrepresented minority groups. Using the Educational Longitudinal Study, a nationally representative longitudinal data set, we examine the relationship between SAT mismatch and college outcomes for students at selective institutions. We find that mismatch is not associated with graduation from a selective institution, but is associated with lower grades. The negative relationship between mismatch and grades holds for all racial-ethnic groups, not just blacks and Latinos, and is less predictive of academic performance than is high school grade point average. Thus, although mismatch may lower performance at selective colleges, it does not appear to prevent students who may have benefitted from affirmative action from obtaining important credentials from America’s elite educational institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racial and ethnic student body diversity is essential for medical schools to serve their educational mission of addressing racial and ethnic health inequities in the United States. Yet bans on the practice of affirmative action in six states have led to declines in students of color enrolled in medical schools. In this article, we examine prior stages that contribute to enrollment declines—namely, applications and admissions—to better inform educational policies that seek to address the negative consequences of affirmative action bans. Findings suggest that a focus on institutional actors at the admissions stage is an important lever for medical schools seeking to address the nation’s racial health disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores discriminatory discourses articulated by Italian professionals operating in educational, health and social services for refugees in Rome, in relation to the educational and social inclusion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children. It locates such narratives within the historical ‘concealment and invisibilisation of race and racism’ that have characterised Italy particularly since the end of the Second World War, while showing how they legitimate contemporary processes of disablement and over-representation of forced migrant children in the category of Special Educational Needs. A theoretical framework influenced by Dis/ability Critical Race Studies, Italian postcolonial studies, and Judith Butler’s notions of subjectivation and performative politics is used to discuss how a ‘colour-evasive’ racial ideology has seeped into various institutions in Italian society, and importantly into education policies and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

* Students benefit from having teachers who reflect their own background and the full racial/ethnic diversity of the U.S. population. * Nationally, only 18% of special educators were teachers of color, while almost half of students with disabilities are students of color; however, there is marked variation in teacher and student racial/ethnic diversity across states. * Using the Teacher-Student Parity Index (TSPI), a standardized metric for comparing representation across states with different demographics, we calculated the extent to which teacher and student racial/ethnic diversity is aligned in all 50 U.S. states. * We found that teachers of color are underrepresented in all but one state. * We provide specific recommendations for cultivating a racially/ethnically diverse special education teacher workforce, including how states, districts, and schools can use the TSPI to assess changes in parity over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the author's claim that college admissions policies at Ivy League and other elite American schools exacerbate the problem of economic inequality in the U.S., and it mentions admissions-related reforms, affirmative action in higher education, and class rank policies.

The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Topics discussed include employment discrimination law; employee diversity in the workplace; constitutional validity of affirmative action admissions programs; and laws related to hiring and promotion decisions involving race.

The article discusses the lack of affirmative action and its impact on the educational opportunities of minoritized students. Mentioned is the need to hurdle 4 critical junctures which are academic preparation, graduation from high school, admission to and persistence in college. Cited is the widening racial divide due to the risk factors which are segregation, economic disparities, lack of financial resources and social capital to be able to navigate the higher education system.

The article discusses affirmative action and the Supreme Court landmark decisions that impact admissions process of universities and colleges. Mentioned are the Supreme Court pronouncement that diversity is an imperative factor for quality education and the rulings from the pertinent cases of the 1974 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger and the 2013 Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

Twice in the past two years, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved educational diversity as a compelling state interest that justifies the use of race in higher education admissions decisions. Nevertheless, it remains on somewhat shaky ground. Over the past decade, the Court has emphasized that its acceptance of diversity stems from the expectation that a diverse student body will enhance the classroom environment, with students drawing on their diverse backgrounds during classroom conversations that ultimately bring the law to life. Yet, the Court provides no support for its assumption that admitting and enrolling diverse students actually result in these educational benefits. In fact, empirical research on law students indicates that structural diversity (i.e., diversity in numbers) does not lead automatically to interactional diversity (i.e., meaningful interaction among diverse students) or classroom diversity (i.e., meaningful diverse interaction in the classroom specifically); instead, these enhanced classroom experiences depend on adept facilitation by faculty and mutual respect among diverse students. The Court could draw from a wide body of empirical scholarship with students to better understand the ways in which educational diversity could provide true scholastic and professional benefits. Yet, another group of classroom participants and observers offers even more astute perspectives. Law faculty members have never been asked about their perspectives on educational diversity as part of a formal empirical study, though as the ones facilitating discussion, leading classroom conversations, and instilling a model of respect, they have unique experiences and insights into the possible benefits of educational diversity. This Article presents findings from the Diversity in Legal Academia (DLA) project, a landmark empirical study of the law faculty experience. DLA findings suggest that law faculty members from all racial/ethnic backgrounds not only appreciate the many benefits of diversity, but they also recognize the educational and professional challenges associated with the lack of diversity currently plaguing many law schools. Courts, administrators, and others should rely on these findings to provide additional support for affirmative action through educational diversity, especially to bolster it while it is under attack. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Education Policy Analysis Archives / Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas / Arquivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas is the property of Educational Policy Analysis Archives & Education Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article proposes that if the benefits of diversity outweighs the burdens of the affirmative action, the universities should be able to demonstrate this cost-benefit ratio by accommodating the real burden-bearers. Topics discussed include the benefits of diversity and burdens of affirmative action, designs for the accommodation mechanism that schools could customize, and the impact of accommodation on schools, students, and society.

The article discusses the need for U.S. colleges and universities to support affirmative action based on class than on race in terms of student admission. Topics include the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaw prospective racial discrimination in education, former President Richard Nixon's proposal of the Philadelphia Plan, which imposed racial hiring quotas on the construction industry in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the research on college admissions by William Bowen.

The article focuses on racial inequality faced by African American with reference the U.S. court case Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Topics discussed include unconstitutional policy reflected from the U.S. court judge Sonia Sotomayor's disagreement, racial injustices in in higher education and affirmative action programs in education.

The author reflects on a article related to use of mismatch theory by legal scholars in the U.S. to argue race conscious selection policies of schools by Stacy Hawkins published within the issue. Topics discussed include race conscious selection policies that violates equal protection clause in the country, need of addressing the problem of racial and ethnic disparities in schools, and role of the U.S. Courts' affirmative action jurisprudence on education.

The article discusses the use of mismatch theory by judges, legal scholars, and policymakers in the U.S. to argue race conscious selection policies of schools that violates equal protection clause. Topics discussed include harm of race-conscious admissions plans to underrepresented minority students (URMS), need of addressing the problem of racial and ethnic disparities in schools, and role of the U.S. Courts' affirmative action jurisprudence on education.

The article discusses how colorblind individualist framework and the race conscious selection policies of schools violate equal protection clause in the U.S. Topics discussed include use of racial classifications in context to colorblind individualism in equal protection, decision of the U.S. Supreme Court's in the court case 'Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin' in which the court confronted with race-based affirmative action, and the educational quality as per the equal protection clause.

The article reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's review of the Fifth Circuit's decision in the court case 'Fisher v. University of Texas' in which the court confronted with race-based affirmative action. Topics discussed include need of constitutional analysis of the U.S. Courts' affirmative action jurisprudence, decision of the U.S. Supreme Court's in the court cases concerning school integration, and the educational quality standards as per the equal protection clause.

The article reports on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the court case 'Fisher v. University of Texas' in which the court confronted with race-based affirmative action. Topics discussed include need of constitutional analysis of the U.S. Courts' affirmative action jurisprudence, decision of the Supreme Court in the court case 'Brown v. Board of Education,' and the educational quality standards as per the equal protection clause.

The article offers information on a panel discussion that was held at the Journal of Constitutional Law's Symposium on "Preferences, the Mismatch Question, and Improving the Racial Pipeline." It mentions that panelist including Peter Arcidiacono, Thomas Espenshade and Stacy Hawkin discusses the impact of affirmative action on the U.S. higher education admissions.

This article presents our conceptualization, initial creation and implementation of a university-school-community partnership, the Westside Pathways Project. We introduce our work in developing and sustaining this K-16 educational pathways partnership as one way of broadening the affirmative action discussion. By describing a model of acción that addresses college access starting at the earliest educational stage in which students and families interact with public institutions of education, we pivot from traditional notions of affirmative action research. In delineating our partnership, we argue for affirming Chicana/o students culturally and academically while simultaneously taking action to create awareness of and access to higher education across educational settings, with students of varying ages, together with families and community members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the extent to which affirmative action policies and practices as remedies for racial injustice in higher education reflect a silent covenant that sacrifices the cultivation and presence of Latina/o faculty. Drawing upon the lived experiences of 22 Mexican American faculty and post-doctoral fellows, the author argues that, by invoking affirmative action policies and practices, institutions of higher education can promote the value of racial/ethnic diversity while still limiting the presence of Latina/o faculty. Meanwhile, the few Latina/o faculty who manage to gain access to research-intensive universities are commodified and sacrificed within hostile department cultures and through oppressive institutional practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]