On disguises, tokens, and affirmative action policies

Indiana Law Journal

Volumn 85, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1293-1301

  Strasser, Mark ^a  

^a CAPITAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954990307     PISSN: 00196665     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (51)

1. Deidre M. Bowen, Brilliant Disguise: An Empirical Analysis of a Social Experiment Banning Affirmative Action, 85 IND. L.J. 1197, 1198 (2010). 2. Id. ("[M]inority students will experience external stigma because other students will assume that they were admitted based on their race and not on their merit.").
2. Id. ("[M]inority students will experience internal stigma because they will always doubt their abilities and their merit.").
3. Id.
4. Id. at 1198-99 (emphasis in original).
5. Id. at 1199 (emphasis in original).
6. See id. at 1224-25. "[S]tudents experience far more stigma at schools without affirmative action, contrary to what color-blind idealists would argue." Id. at 1225.
7. Id. at 1199.
8. Professor Bowen includes the state of Washington as one of the states with anti-affirmative action policies even though the state engaged in aggressive recruiting to increase the number of minority students. See id. at 1202-03 n.24.
9. CAL. CONST, art. 1, § 31(a) (added in 1996 by Proposition 209) ("The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.").
10. WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 49.60.400(1) (West 2008) (added in 1998 by Initiative Measure No. 200) ("The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.").
11. FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. r. 6C-6.002(7) (2009) ("Neither State University System nor individual university admissions criteria shall include preferences in the admissions process for applicants on the basis of race, national origin or sex.").
12. MICH. CONST, art. 1,§ 26(1) (added in 2006 by Ballot Proposal 2) ("The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.").
13. See Bowen, supra note 1, at 1217-18.
14. Id. at 1218 n.112.
15. A total of 332 students took the survey, id. at 1216, and fifty-five were from anti-affirmative action states, id. at 1218 n.112. Therefore, 277 were from states and territories that allow affirmative action.
16. Id. at 1216 n.104 ("Due to the sensitive nature of the subject, the Board did not want questions that would identify the school a respondent attended beyond the state in which it was located. Thus, information on whether the students attended a historically black college or university or whether they attended a public or private institution is not available.").
17. See id. at 1217-18.
18. Id. at 1218 n.111.
19. Id. 21. See infra notes 30-31 and accompanying text
20. See Bowen, supra note 1, at 1217 n.108 (California's Proposition 209 was passed in 1996).
21. Raphael Rajendra, "The People" and "The People": Disaggregating Citizen Lawmaking from Popular Constitutionalism, 27 LAW & INEQ. 53, 71 (2009) ("In the months leading up to the November 2006 election in which Michiganders passed the MCRI, debate over the MCRI was fierce.").
22. Bowen, supra note 1, at 1234.
23. See id. at 1202-03 (discussing decreased minority enrollments after these policies were adopted).
24. But see infra notes 38-40 and accompanying text (discussing the increased minority enrollments in Washington's public schools that resulted from aggressive recruiting strategies adopted after the ban on affirmative action).
25. See Rajendra, supra note 23, at 71-72 (discussing the "fierce" public debate in the months leading up to an affirmative action ballot initiative in Michigan); Sylvia R. Lazos Vargas, Judicial Review of Initiatives and Referendums in Which Majorities Vote on Minorities' Democratic Citizenship, 60 OHIO ST. L.J. 399, 404 (1999) (suggesting that a "ballot initiative!] affecting minority rights" may well involve "a highly charged political contest").
26. See Michelle Maitre, A Decade Later, Affirmative Action Debate Still Boils, SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES (Cal.), Nov. 3, 2006 ("Proposition 209 is as debated today as it was 10 years ago.").
27. Bowen, supra note 1, at 1224.
28. See Id. at 1218 n.111.
29. See id. at 1212 n.87.
30. Id. at 1203 ("[M]any colleges and universities in anti-affirmative action states developed programs to help ensure support of undeirepresented minorities in their pursuit of higher education." (footnote omitted)).
31. A surprisingly high percentage of students simply did not know what their school's admissions policy was. See id. at 1222 tbl.2. (showing that 30.2% in the anti-affirmative action states did not know the school's policy).
32. Id. at 1220-21.
33. See id. at 1224-25 (noting that "one-third of students in both categories were not aware of their school's policy on admissions").
34. See id. at 1226 (One student recounted: "Just because we don't have affirmative action doesn't mean they think I should be here. They're always looking for the loophole of how I got here.").
35. See id. at 1224 n.126 (explaining that minority students reported that they had been asked by nonminority students whether they had been admitted because of some athletic program).
36. Id. at 1217 n.109.
37. Id. at 1202-03 n.24 ("Washington State encountered precipitous drops in applications of minority students."). But see id. at 1252 app.B ("Brown and Hirschman's work from 2006 in Washington State suggests that underrepresented student enrollment was most affected at the state's most competitive school, the University of Washington, but had virtually no effect at the state's other schools in the aftermath of the passage of a 1998 ban on race-based admissions.").
38. Id. at 1202-03 n.24 ("Four years later, however, due to aggressive recruitment efforts, the state has seen enrollment increase to levels higher than the previous decade, prior to a ban on race-based admissions policies.").
39. Id. at 1199 (emphasis in original).
40. Id. at 1228-29.
41. See id. at 1229-31.
42. See id. at 1227 tbl.4.
43. Id. at 1229.
44. See Id. at 1230 tbl.6 (showing that 74.2% of those who had been the sole minority in one or more classes rated their ability to succeed as high, compared to 86.5% of those who had never been the sole minority in class).
45. Id. at 1219.
46. Id. at 1225.
47. Id. , at 1205 (footnotes omitted).
48. Id. at 1240 ("[W]hen white students encounter fewer minority students, those students are more likely to conceptualize race in terms of stereotypes.").
49. Id. at 1230 tbl.6.
50. See id. (showing that 91.6% of students who had never been the sole minority in a class said that they fit into the college population, compared to 66.4% of students who had been the sole minority in one or more classes).
51. Id. at 1231.