Affirmative Action Views
Mohammad Chohan (l-r) and Jessica Schrimp with
Bucky Badger and fellow students Ryan Baxter and
Kristina Kim
Bucky Badger and fellow students Ryan Baxter and
Kristina Kim
Editor’s Note - As a part of a class taught by Professor Tess Arenas, four UW-
Madison students explored the issue of Affirmative Action. Two of the papers
submitted by the students, written by Mohammad Chohan and Jessica Schrimp,
are presented here.
By Jessica Schrimp
What does affirmative action mean to you? To some, it is a way to help erase
decades of discrimination that particular ethnic groups have endured. To others, it
is a form of racial discrimination in itself by hindering one race's opportunities in
furtherance of another's. With the recent comments released by the Center of Equal
Opportunity in regards to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, affirmative action
has been a lively topic on campus. With so many opinions being tossed between
students and faculty alike, one begins to wonder, what exactly is affirmative
action, where does it come from, and what is the University's stance on the issue?
Affirmative action, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "an active effort
to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority
Madison students explored the issue of Affirmative Action. Two of the papers
submitted by the students, written by Mohammad Chohan and Jessica Schrimp,
are presented here.
By Jessica Schrimp
What does affirmative action mean to you? To some, it is a way to help erase
decades of discrimination that particular ethnic groups have endured. To others, it
is a form of racial discrimination in itself by hindering one race's opportunities in
furtherance of another's. With the recent comments released by the Center of Equal
Opportunity in regards to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, affirmative action
has been a lively topic on campus. With so many opinions being tossed between
students and faculty alike, one begins to wonder, what exactly is affirmative
action, where does it come from, and what is the University's stance on the issue?
Affirmative action, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "an active effort
to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority
groups and women; also: a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons." Although easily
summarized, affirmative action is an incredibly complex issue. It dates back to the 1960s with President Kennedy. The basic structure of
affirmative action was described in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The President promoted it as an effort to "redress" the discrimination
that still existed during that time, despite the civil rights laws and amendments that had been passed to dispel it.
In a Congressional Research Service report for Congress on Affirmative Action, Charles V. Dales says, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
detailed that schools were allowed to take into account the origins of a person for financial aid to help "overcome effects of past
institutional discrimination" and to encourage a diverse student body. The act also outlined affirmative action rules for employment. The
goal of affirmative action was to create a temporary program that would help remedy the discrimination encountered by minority groups
in the past. This all made sense in theory, but with such broad terms applied to this complex of an issue, problems quickly arose.
A landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with affirmative action was the Bakke case in the late 1970s. In this case, a white male
student, Allan Bakke, was rejected twice from the medical school at University of California at Davis. The problem brought to the court
dealt with the University's policy that the school reserve every 16 spots out of 100 strictly for minority students. Bakke argued that less
qualified minority applicants had received admission over him. In this case, the Supreme Court saw the school's policy for admissions
as a quota system and outlawed it, because it put a white male at a disadvantage, despite his higher qualifications. The Court did,
however, uphold that race could be used as a helping factor in admissions, as long as it was not the sole deciding factor when looking
at a potential student's application.
In more recent years (such as the last decade), two other cases have surfaced dealing with the University of Michigan's undergraduate
and law school admissions process. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court held that the University's Law School was justified in its
consideration of race in admissions because it looked at each application using a holistic view. On the other hand, in Gratz v. Bollinger,
the court deemed the undergraduate process for admissions was not "narrowly tailored" enough to be acceptable and fair. The
undergraduate admissions process used a point system for applicants and assigned 20 points to every potential student that belonged to
a minority group. The court believed that this process "assign[ed] every underrepresented minority applicant the same, automatic 20-
point bonus without consideration of the particular background, experiences, or qualities of each individual applicant."
These two cases have helped shape what affirmative action is today. With its extensive history and many interpretations, it is no wonder
why the issue itself is so complicated and controversial. In regards to the University Wisconsin-Madison's stance on affirmative action,
the University believes in a holistic approach to admissions where not only is ethnicity taken into account, but leadership roles,
activities, and grades are also factors.
Knowing the University's position, I decided to ask a few students in different organizations on campus what their positions were on
affirmative action to see if they shared the same or conflicting views. When asked for her opinion on affirmative action, Althea Miller, a
member of the Multicultural Student Coalition, said that "The University describes affirmative action in only one way, and that's letting
students of color be admitted through scholarship programs. That's the only context I hear of it. I think it's fine and it's definitely needed,
but it needs to be more about socioeconomic status, not so much about race and ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are important, but when
you leave out socioeconomic status, you leave out a lot of people who can contribute to the campus."
Nichole P., president for the PanHellenic Council in Madison for the past year, believes that "inequality due to race and circumstance is
a very prevalent issue in the United States right now" and "appreciate[s] any efforts that work on combating the problem." She does not
know whether present policy is the most effective way to solve the problem, but that something should be done to help alleviate it.
Lastly, Connie Thai, co-chair for the Asian American Student Union, believes that affirmative action is necessary because there are
numerous "cultures" in the United States, for some of which it is "almost nothing to get into a four-year college or university", whereas
for others is it much more difficult, or not as easily accessible to get into a four-year college. She says that the goal of affirmative action
is equality, and she still does not see it as achieving that goal.
With these different viewpoints that convey both negative and positive thoughts about affirmative action, my next question was to ask
what could be done to better improve these efforts towards creating diversity. Miller suggested that she "would change not what it is,
but people's perception of it." She continued, saying that there needs to be a "reframing [of the program] and more dialogue on what
affirmative action is. A re-education."
Nichole recommends "try[ing] to work more with targeted communities to develop a program that reaches the populations that need it the
most in regards to assistance to making higher education a possibility."
Affirmative action is a complex, controversial issue that continues to be debated today. Is it still necessary? Should it be reworked?
Should it be reaching out to more groups? Is it fair? These are all important questions that have arisen as affirmative action evolved
over the years into what it is today. The real matter here, though, is whether you are willing to delve deeper into this issue to try to find
your own answers to all of these questions.
Divergent AA Views
By Mohammad Chohan
For many people, something only becomes a concern once it involves them directly. However, some things are understood so modestly
that they naturally do not get much attention until something catastrophic happens. Affirmative action is a concept very often heard but
not fully understood. Affirmative action is basically an idea developed to counter past histories of discrimination and under-service to
certain groups of people. Some things have taken place on the federal level, but it gets much more complicated once state and local
governments try to implement affirmative action.
At UW-Madison, affirmative action started not too long ago, and its first major victory was Proposal 2008, a plan designed to increase
and promote cultural and ethnic awareness and equal representation of “unidentified” and sometimes ignored societies. Proposal 2008
had many opponents, one of the most vocal being Professor Lee Hansen, an ex-economics professor at UW-Madison. In an interview
with the professor, he said that it was not the end of the world if a minority student did not get into a good university; he/she would find
some place that would eventually accept them. On the other hand, Professor Hansen claims that he is not against diversity; he merely
believes that admission into college should be strictly merit-based. However, when asked the question about knowledge-measurement
and achievement tests such as the ACT and how they are by nature designed for White, middle-class students and what we should do
about this unfairness to minorities, the Professor offered no solution.
Whereas Professor Hansen believes that minorities are being overly caressed, Luis Pinero, a worker in UW-Madison’s Office for Equity
and Diversity, who is mainly concerned about the employment sector, completely differed from Professor Hansen by saying that we are
not doing enough in terms of affirmative action. He believes that we have made some progress, but it could be further strengthened if the
leadership at UW-Madison sincerely promotes and prioritizes this issue. He believes that in any sector, a positive environment of
acceptance and fairness needs to be fostered so that diversity is given a comfortable place to grow and grasped as absolutely essential
for advancement. Another solution that he offered was a little more hands-on. He explained how research initiatives and diverse groups
such as WISELI need to be further expanded and promoted and how diverse groups around Madison need to be located and identified so
that there could be more diverse applicants applying for certain jobs.
Luis Pinero is absolutely right when he says that affirmative action is a top-bottom process which finds strength and stability through a
committed leadership structure. No matter if it be the admissions process or the employment sector, affirmative action can only be
successfully implemented through the understanding of its history and purpose, and then the genuine realization of its necessity for
global competition and equal opportunity for under-served groups.
Another commonly misunderstood thing is the operational definition of “under-served groups.” Nowadays, we have been compelled to
define it only as under-served “races.” In fact, when we talk about “under-served groups,” it takes into account sexual orientation,
gender, age, disability, etc. However, the most sensitive of these groups is undoubtedly race. Most people find no controversy in
implementing affirmative action when it comes to the disabled or women or the elderly, but why do we get involved in politics when it
comes to race? We have to realize that in order for affirmative action to fully work, we have to assist all under-served and under-
represented groups, not just a picked few. Perhaps the most useful thing to do right now is to cultivate a positive environment of
diversity — acceptance, not just mere tolerance. Prioritizing affirmative action as a worth-while issue can positively promote this
thinking and can create equal opportunity for all.
summarized, affirmative action is an incredibly complex issue. It dates back to the 1960s with President Kennedy. The basic structure of
affirmative action was described in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The President promoted it as an effort to "redress" the discrimination
that still existed during that time, despite the civil rights laws and amendments that had been passed to dispel it.
In a Congressional Research Service report for Congress on Affirmative Action, Charles V. Dales says, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
detailed that schools were allowed to take into account the origins of a person for financial aid to help "overcome effects of past
institutional discrimination" and to encourage a diverse student body. The act also outlined affirmative action rules for employment. The
goal of affirmative action was to create a temporary program that would help remedy the discrimination encountered by minority groups
in the past. This all made sense in theory, but with such broad terms applied to this complex of an issue, problems quickly arose.
A landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with affirmative action was the Bakke case in the late 1970s. In this case, a white male
student, Allan Bakke, was rejected twice from the medical school at University of California at Davis. The problem brought to the court
dealt with the University's policy that the school reserve every 16 spots out of 100 strictly for minority students. Bakke argued that less
qualified minority applicants had received admission over him. In this case, the Supreme Court saw the school's policy for admissions
as a quota system and outlawed it, because it put a white male at a disadvantage, despite his higher qualifications. The Court did,
however, uphold that race could be used as a helping factor in admissions, as long as it was not the sole deciding factor when looking
at a potential student's application.
In more recent years (such as the last decade), two other cases have surfaced dealing with the University of Michigan's undergraduate
and law school admissions process. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court held that the University's Law School was justified in its
consideration of race in admissions because it looked at each application using a holistic view. On the other hand, in Gratz v. Bollinger,
the court deemed the undergraduate process for admissions was not "narrowly tailored" enough to be acceptable and fair. The
undergraduate admissions process used a point system for applicants and assigned 20 points to every potential student that belonged to
a minority group. The court believed that this process "assign[ed] every underrepresented minority applicant the same, automatic 20-
point bonus without consideration of the particular background, experiences, or qualities of each individual applicant."
These two cases have helped shape what affirmative action is today. With its extensive history and many interpretations, it is no wonder
why the issue itself is so complicated and controversial. In regards to the University Wisconsin-Madison's stance on affirmative action,
the University believes in a holistic approach to admissions where not only is ethnicity taken into account, but leadership roles,
activities, and grades are also factors.
Knowing the University's position, I decided to ask a few students in different organizations on campus what their positions were on
affirmative action to see if they shared the same or conflicting views. When asked for her opinion on affirmative action, Althea Miller, a
member of the Multicultural Student Coalition, said that "The University describes affirmative action in only one way, and that's letting
students of color be admitted through scholarship programs. That's the only context I hear of it. I think it's fine and it's definitely needed,
but it needs to be more about socioeconomic status, not so much about race and ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are important, but when
you leave out socioeconomic status, you leave out a lot of people who can contribute to the campus."
Nichole P., president for the PanHellenic Council in Madison for the past year, believes that "inequality due to race and circumstance is
a very prevalent issue in the United States right now" and "appreciate[s] any efforts that work on combating the problem." She does not
know whether present policy is the most effective way to solve the problem, but that something should be done to help alleviate it.
Lastly, Connie Thai, co-chair for the Asian American Student Union, believes that affirmative action is necessary because there are
numerous "cultures" in the United States, for some of which it is "almost nothing to get into a four-year college or university", whereas
for others is it much more difficult, or not as easily accessible to get into a four-year college. She says that the goal of affirmative action
is equality, and she still does not see it as achieving that goal.
With these different viewpoints that convey both negative and positive thoughts about affirmative action, my next question was to ask
what could be done to better improve these efforts towards creating diversity. Miller suggested that she "would change not what it is,
but people's perception of it." She continued, saying that there needs to be a "reframing [of the program] and more dialogue on what
affirmative action is. A re-education."
Nichole recommends "try[ing] to work more with targeted communities to develop a program that reaches the populations that need it the
most in regards to assistance to making higher education a possibility."
Affirmative action is a complex, controversial issue that continues to be debated today. Is it still necessary? Should it be reworked?
Should it be reaching out to more groups? Is it fair? These are all important questions that have arisen as affirmative action evolved
over the years into what it is today. The real matter here, though, is whether you are willing to delve deeper into this issue to try to find
your own answers to all of these questions.
Divergent AA Views
By Mohammad Chohan
For many people, something only becomes a concern once it involves them directly. However, some things are understood so modestly
that they naturally do not get much attention until something catastrophic happens. Affirmative action is a concept very often heard but
not fully understood. Affirmative action is basically an idea developed to counter past histories of discrimination and under-service to
certain groups of people. Some things have taken place on the federal level, but it gets much more complicated once state and local
governments try to implement affirmative action.
At UW-Madison, affirmative action started not too long ago, and its first major victory was Proposal 2008, a plan designed to increase
and promote cultural and ethnic awareness and equal representation of “unidentified” and sometimes ignored societies. Proposal 2008
had many opponents, one of the most vocal being Professor Lee Hansen, an ex-economics professor at UW-Madison. In an interview
with the professor, he said that it was not the end of the world if a minority student did not get into a good university; he/she would find
some place that would eventually accept them. On the other hand, Professor Hansen claims that he is not against diversity; he merely
believes that admission into college should be strictly merit-based. However, when asked the question about knowledge-measurement
and achievement tests such as the ACT and how they are by nature designed for White, middle-class students and what we should do
about this unfairness to minorities, the Professor offered no solution.
Whereas Professor Hansen believes that minorities are being overly caressed, Luis Pinero, a worker in UW-Madison’s Office for Equity
and Diversity, who is mainly concerned about the employment sector, completely differed from Professor Hansen by saying that we are
not doing enough in terms of affirmative action. He believes that we have made some progress, but it could be further strengthened if the
leadership at UW-Madison sincerely promotes and prioritizes this issue. He believes that in any sector, a positive environment of
acceptance and fairness needs to be fostered so that diversity is given a comfortable place to grow and grasped as absolutely essential
for advancement. Another solution that he offered was a little more hands-on. He explained how research initiatives and diverse groups
such as WISELI need to be further expanded and promoted and how diverse groups around Madison need to be located and identified so
that there could be more diverse applicants applying for certain jobs.
Luis Pinero is absolutely right when he says that affirmative action is a top-bottom process which finds strength and stability through a
committed leadership structure. No matter if it be the admissions process or the employment sector, affirmative action can only be
successfully implemented through the understanding of its history and purpose, and then the genuine realization of its necessity for
global competition and equal opportunity for under-served groups.
Another commonly misunderstood thing is the operational definition of “under-served groups.” Nowadays, we have been compelled to
define it only as under-served “races.” In fact, when we talk about “under-served groups,” it takes into account sexual orientation,
gender, age, disability, etc. However, the most sensitive of these groups is undoubtedly race. Most people find no controversy in
implementing affirmative action when it comes to the disabled or women or the elderly, but why do we get involved in politics when it
comes to race? We have to realize that in order for affirmative action to fully work, we have to assist all under-served and under-
represented groups, not just a picked few. Perhaps the most useful thing to do right now is to cultivate a positive environment of
diversity — acceptance, not just mere tolerance. Prioritizing affirmative action as a worth-while issue can positively promote this
thinking and can create equal opportunity for all.
