Source: https://apps.tcf.org/content/report/future-of-affirmative-action/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:49:23+00:00

Document:
As the United States experiences dramatic demographic change—and as our society’s income inequality continues to rise—promoting racial, ethnic, and economic inclusion at selective colleges has become more important than ever. Most people recognize that to be economically competitive and socially just, America needs to draw upon the talents of students from all backgrounds. Moreover, the education of all students is enriched when they can learn from classmates who have different sets of life experiences.
At the same time, however, many Americans—including several members of the U.S. Supreme Court—are uneasy with explicitly using race as a factor in college admissions. To date, several states, with more than a quarter of the nation’s population, have banned the use of race in admissions at public colleges and universities, prompting institutions of higher education to experiment with a variety of new paths to diversity.
Higher education officials are understandably resistant to efforts by courts to closely scrutinize their use of race in admissions. No one likes to be told what to do, and in the case of college admissions, university officials are right to guard their academic freedoms strenuously. Moreover, these officials contend that, if a school’s goal is racial diversity, why not just let admissions officers consider race in admissions directly, as opposed to constructing less efficient, indirect means of creating a racially diverse student body?
In the Fisher case, though, only one justice—Ruth Bader Ginsburg— took that position, as the other members of the Court’s 7-1 majority said race should only be employed when absolutely necessary. Many legal experts suggest that now is the time for universities to begin seriously thinking about how to promote racial, ethnic, and economic diversity in new ways.4 In August 2013, on the heels of the Fisher decision, Lumina and Century assembled some of the country’s best minds to address this issue at a conference titled “New Paths to Higher Education Diversity.” The meeting included university and college presidents, admissions officers, government officials, civil rights leaders, legal experts, higher education scholars, and members of the philanthropic community. This volume is an outgrowth of that gathering.
In their chapters, the authors tackle the critical questions: What is the future of affirmative action given the requirements of the Fisher court? What can be learned from the experiences of states that created race-neutral strategies in response to voter initiatives and other actions banning consideration of race at public universities? What does research by higher education scholars suggest are the most promising new strategies to promoting diversity in a manner that the courts will support? How do public policies need to change in order to tap into the talents of all students in a new legal and political environment?
Many of the race-neutral approaches outlined in this volume emphasize efforts to embrace economically disadvantaged students of all races. In that sense, might Fisher represent not only a new challenge to the use of racial criteria but also a new opportunity to tackle, at long last, burgeoning economic divisions in society? Can new approaches be created that honor racial, ethnic, and economic diversity in one fell swoop?
This volume proceeds in five parts.
Part I addresses the stakes involved in diversity discussions. Why do racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity matter in higher education? Why are universities right not to simply select the students with the highest grades and test scores irrespective of diversity? Why, indeed, should we care at all about who attends selective colleges in the first place?
In Chapter 2, Nancy Cantor, the president of Rutgers Newark and the former chancellor of Syracuse University, explains with her colleague Peter Englot that racial, ethnic, and economic diversity on campus is vital. They begin by citing the economic imperative of tapping into the talents of America’s new majority. The twin trends of increasing economic inequality and the racial and ethnic shift in the population mean that America can no longer afford to bypass its growing number of low-income and minority students. The toddler population is already majority minority in fourteen states, including California, New York, Texas, and Florida, they write.
In Chapter 3, Sara Goldrick-Rab of the University of Wisconsin at Madison offers an additional, less widely recognized reason that economic diversity on campus is important. Not only does having students from a variety of economic backgrounds enhance the learning and discussions on campus, it also might make college more affordable for everyone, she argues. Selective colleges are economically segregated in part because they are so expensive.
But the converse may also be true: colleges are expensive because they cater to such a wealthy clientele. Rich students expect certain amenities (fitness centers, well-manicured lawns, elaborate sports facilities) that drive up costs. Having economic diversity on campus would temper these pressures, she says, and balance university priorities to serve all students.
Part II of the book examines the legal environment and the meaning of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas. In concrete and practical terms, what do universities need to begin to do to produce diversity in a way that will avoid litigation?
But the legal analysis in this volume suggests universities must carefully reexamine their policies.
In Chapter 4, Arthur Coleman and Teresa Taylor of Education Counsel LLC and the College Board’s Diversity and Access Collaborative note that while some perceived Fisher as “a dud” it is in fact “a decision of consequence,” one with “important implications for the higher education community.”19 In Chapter 5, higher education attorney Scott Greytak goes even further, declaring “Fisher represents a deliberate and measured step forward on the path to colorblindness. It is a blueprint for destabilizing race-conscious admissions plans. This is our warning, and we must react accordingly.”20 Although Coleman, Taylor and Greytak are all supporters of race-conscious affirmative action, they believe universities must change their way of approaching the issue in light of Fisher.
So what, as a practical matter, should universities and colleges begin to do? The chapters by Coleman and Taylor and by Greytak both home in on the meaning of the key passage: that universities bear “the ultimate burden of demonstrating, before turning to racial classifications, that available workable, race-neutral alternatives do not suffice.”28 A related passage provides, if a race-neutral approach “could promote the substantial interest about as well [as the race conscious approach] and at tolerable administrative expense,” the institution may not use race.29 In particular, three questions arise.
Second, what is the dividing line between a “workable” and “unworkable” race-neutral alternative? One aspect of this goes to academic selectivity. In Grutter, the majority said universities theoretically might achieve considerable racial diversity by using a lottery for admissions, but that would so fundamentally alter the academic nature of the institution as to render the alternative unworkable. But what about a ￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼much smaller diminution of selectivity? The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for example, conducted a study which found that if Chapel Hill adopted a Top 10 Percent plan like that used in Texas—admitting all students with the highest GPAs within North Carolina’s individual high schools—the nonwhite under-represented student population would actually increase modestly over race-conscious admissions (from 15 percent to 16 percent) but the median SAT score would decline 50 points, from the ninety-first percentile to the eighty-sixth.35 Will courts suggest that avoiding such a modest decline justifies the use of racial preferences?
Six states have spent money to create new partnerships with disadvantaged schools to improve the pipeline of low-income and minority students.
Eight states have provided new admissions preferences to lowincome and working-class students of all races.
Eight states have expanded financial-aid budgets to support the needs of economically disadvantaged students.
In three states, individual universities have dropped legacy preferences for the generally privileged—and disproportionately white—children of alumni.
In three states, colleges created policies to admit students who graduated at the top of their high-school classes.
In two states, stronger programs have been created to facilitate transfer from community colleges to four-year institutions.
Potter’s overview sets the stage for more detailed discussions of raceneutral strategies in some of the states that have been grappling with alternatives for more than a decade—Texas, California, Washington, and Georgia.
How effective were the race-neutral programs?
The Supreme Court’s Fisher opinion noted that in absolute terms, in 2004, the race-neutral programs achieved slightly more racial diversity (4.5 percent African American and 16.9 percent Hispanic) than had been achieved using race in 1996 (4.1 percent African American and 14.5 percent Hispanic).49 The Top 10 Percent plan also increases socioeconomic diversity.
Compared to the racial preferences employed in the past, the socioeconomic preferences were broader (applying to more students) but more shallow (providing a smaller admissions boost).
Meanwhile, in 2000, the University of Georgia, faced with an Eleventh Circuit ruling striking down the use of race in admissions, began shifting emphasis to a number of race-neutral strategies. As Nancy McDuff, associate vice president for admissions and enrollment management at the University of Georgia, explains in Chapter 10 (coauthored by Century’s Halley Potter), the university added do admissions a number of socioeconomic consideration (such as parental education and high school environment). The university also began admitting the valedictorian and salutatorian from every high school class and dropped legacy admissions, which disproportionately benefitted white and wealthy students. Although the latter move was opposed by alumni, the university “has not encountered noticeable fundraising challenges as a result of the change,” McDuff and Potter write.66 The university also stepped up recruitment efforts, particularly at high schools with high percentages of low-income students, and has strengthened partnerships with K-12 schools to boost readiness of underrepresented students.
States such as Texas, California, Washington, and Georgia have been able use race neutral strategies to boost racial diversity—in many cases, matching or succeeding representation of blacks and Hispanics achieved using race in the past—but could they do even better given the right tools? That is the question we take up in Part IV of the volume, drawing upon an array of the country’s top researchers on promising strategies.
Here we return to the distinction between law and policy. In narrow legal terms, the success of states where race considerations were banned by referendum in creating “sufficient” diversity through race-neutral strategies is likely to render the continued use of race legally vulnerable in other states. As a recent article in the Harvard Law Review notes, as more universities pursue successful race-neutral strategies, “the bar will continue to rise on what it means to demonstrate that ‘no workable race-neutral alternatives’ are available. A university will have increasing difficulty claiming that no workable race-neutral alternatives exist if peer institutions have developed and successfully demonstrated such alternatives.”69 But what is considered “sufficient” by the Supreme Court as a legal matter might be very different from what we desire as a matter of public policy.
As Marta Tienda and others point out, as a policy matter, we should not be satisfied, given growing diversity among high school graduates, with simply replicating past levels of university diversity. Many would like race-neutral strategies to be even more effective than they are today so as to better reach minority proportions in the general population. What does research suggest could improve these programs?
affirmative action in admissions that benefits economically disadvantaged students of all races.
Perhaps the least controversial way to boost racial, ethnic, and economic diversity—involving no preferences—is to get talented minority and disadvantaged students to apply to selective colleges in greater numbers. One major reason that low-income and minority students are underrepresented at selective colleges is that such students disproportionately “undermatch,” failing to apply to selective schools at which they would likely be admitted and succeed, instead attending less selective institutions or none at all.
As Alexandria Walton Radford of RTI International and Jessica Howell of the College Board note in Chapter 11, “undermatch is pervasive, especially among low-income, underrepresented minorities, and first-generation college-goers.”70 Looking at national research, as well as research from North Carolina and Chicago, Radford and Howell note that 43 percent of students who are academically qualified to gain admission to a very selective college undermatch, and that Hispanics and African Americans are especially likely to undermatch.71 In raw numbers, that translates into 4,000 Hispanic and 2,000 African American students who score above 1200 on the math and verbal portions of the SAT yet do not attend a very selective school.72 Caroline Hoxby of Stanford and Christopher Avery of Harvard, likewise, find considerable undermatching among low-income high achievers, an important subset of whom are black and Hispanic.73 Hoxby and Avery find that 35,000 low-income students are very high achieving—placing them in the top 4% of high school students nationally—and that only one-third apply to one of the country’s 238 most selective colleges. Of those low-income high-achieving students who score above 1300 on the SAT or the ACT equivalent, roughly 2,000 are African American and 2,700 Hispanic. To put these numbers in context, at Barron’s top tier of selective schools (about 80 institutions), there are currently only 5,400 black freshmen and 9,700 Hispanic freshman from all economic backgrounds. This research suggests there is enormous potential to increase socioeconomic and racial diversity without in any way sacrificing academic quality by simply getting more underrepresented minority and low-income students to apply, and, when admitted, enroll.
Of course, getting minority and low-income students to apply is a critical first step; but then universities need to admit them, so the rest of the chapters in this section address questions of university admission.
Admissions plans that seek to more broadly apply lessons from the Texas Top 10 Percent plan are the subject of Chapters 12 and 13. The Texas plan worked to produce racial and ethnic diversity for two distinct reasons. First, it enhanced geographic diversity, and leveraged the unfortunate reality of residential and high school segregation by race and class for a positive purpose, to promote integration in higher education. Second, the Top 10 Percent plan focused exclusively on class rank by high school GPA, effectively eliminating reliance on SAT and ACT test scores, which disproportionately screen out black and Latino candidates. But how would elements of the Top 10 Percent plan apply to public or private colleges that have a national, rather than state-wide pool of applicants?
In Chapter 13, John Brittain, of the University of the District of Columbia Law School and former chief counsel of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, and his coauthor Benjamin Landy, an editor at MSNBC, suggest applying more widely the other aspect of the Texas Top 10 Percent plan: reduced reliance on standardized tests.
The third bucket of race-neutral strategies involves policies providing a leg up in admissions to economically disadvantaged students of all races. The very early research on the issue suggested that preferences for low-income students would not produce much racial and ethnic diversity because low-income white students outnumber low-income black and Hispanic students, particularly among high-achievers.87 But more recent research—which defines socioeconomic status in more nuanced ways—suggests that this strategy can produce considerable racial and ethnic diversity.
In Chapter 14, Matthew Gaertner, a research scientist at the Center for College and Career Success at Pearson, describes the results of an experiment in class-based affirmative action at the University of Colorado at Boulder. In 2008, the university, fearing that a state anti-affirmative action referendum banning considerations of race would pass, turned to Gaertner to help devise a race-neutral alternative that provided a leg up to socioeconomically disadvantaged students of all races. In the event, the referendum narrowly failed, but the university developed a wealth of information about class-based efforts, and it ended up implementing a version of the policy, while continuing to use race as a factor in admissions.
￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼Based on national research, the University of Colorado at Boulder devised an index of socioeconomic disadvantage that looked at a number of factors, including: “the applicant’s native language, single-parent status, parents’ education level, family income level, the number of dependents in the family, whether the applicant attended a rural high school, the percentage of students from the applicant’s high school eligible for free or reducedprice lunch (FRL), the school-wide student-to-teacher ratio, and the size of the twelfth-grade class.”88 Under the program, socioeconomically disadvantaged students received a preference in admissions that was larger than what black and Hispanic students had been provided in the past.
If Colorado—a moderately selective school—was able to devise a class-based affirmative action that boosted racial diversity, how would such a program work nationally at the most selective colleges and universities? In Chapter 15, Anthony Carnevale, Stephen Rose, and Jeff Strohl of Georgetown University take a groundbreaking look at how socioeconomic affirmative action programs, percentage plans, or a combination of the two, could work at the nation’s most selective 193 institutions. What would the socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic outcomes of various admissions strategies be? And what level of academic quality (measured by mean SAT score) would various strategies produce?
Currently, under a system of race-based affirmative action, legacy preferences, athletic preference, and the like, African Americans represent 4 percent of students at the most selective 193 colleges and universities, and Hispanics represent 7 percent, for a combined 11 percent representation, according to the authors. The bottom socioeconomic half has a 14 percent representation. If we moved to a system of admissions strictly based on test scores, the representation of the bottom socioeconomic half would inch up slightly, to 15 percent, but racial and ethnic diversity would suffer dramatically. The proportion of African Americans would drop to just 1 percent and Hispanics to 4 percent, for a combined representation of 5 percent. This would clearly represent an unacceptable step backward for racial and ethnic diversity.
But would race-neutral alternatives like economic affirmative action and percentage plans see a similar fall in racial and ethnic diversity? No, the authors find. To the contrary, combined black and Hispanic representation actually rise under both scenarios.
The authors begin by examining what would happen if students were admitted based on test scores that also factored in socioeconomic disadvantages overcome.92 Applying a variety of socioeconomic obstacles (for example, family factors such as parental education, income, and savings—a proxy for wealth—and neighborhood factors such as school poverty concentrations), the authors find that the combined underrepresented minority population would rise from 5 percent (under pure merit admissions) and 11 percent (under the current system of race-based affirmative action, legacy preferences, and so on) to 13 percent. Hispanics would benefit (moving from 7 percent to 10 percent) and blacks would lose some representation (from 4 percent to 3 percent). The representation of the bottom socioeconomic half would rise dramatically, from 14 percent today to 46 percent. Mean SAT scores would rise from 1230 today to 1322 under socioeconomic affirmative action.
Under a merit-based simulation, in which the top 10 percent of test takers in every high school are among the pool admitted, African Americans and Hispanics both do better than under the status quo of race-based affirmative action, legacy preference, and the like. African American representation goes from 4 percent today to 6 percent, and Hispanic representation from 7 percent today to 11 percent. The bottom socioeconomic half would jump from 14 percent today to 31 percent. Mean SAT scores rise slightly, from 1230 to 1254.
Could socioeconomic affirmative action be refined further to improve its fairness and its racial dividend beyond the levels outlined in Carnevale, Rose, and Strohl’s research? In the past, Carnevale and Strohl have noted that their simulations use a proxy for wealth (savings) that is not ideal.94 In Chapter 16, Dalton Conley of New York University makes a powerful case that using wealth and parental education would provide an eminently fair basis for admissions preferences while also producing substantial racial and ethnic diversity.
As a practical matter, if universities are going to move to new race-neutral strategies, they will need support from the government and from philanthropic foundations. There is a reason that in the past universities have employed racial criterion to achieve diversity directly, often by recruiting well-off students of color. It is cheaper and easier. In Part V of the volume, two chapters lay out suggestions for how foundations and the government can ease the path for universities.
In chapter 17, Richard Sander calls for the government or foundations to support the creation of better data sets and software to enable universities to more easily identify and connect with students who will promote socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic diversity and are academically prepared to succeed. A national educational organization, Sander says, could create the database and software to make it possible for admissions officers to specify a desired academic threshold coupled with socioeconomic profiles that would generate a pool of admissible students.
Sander also takes on the critical issue of financing. Boosting application rates and addressing admissions gets us only two-thirds of the way to creating successful race-neutral alternatives. Also required are public policies that provide sufficient financial aid and support to students once in college.
In Chapter 18, Catharine Hill, the president of Vassar College (and an economist who has spent many years researching higher education), suggests three sets of public policies that would support universities in adopting race-neutral social mobility programs.
As the chapters in this volume make clear, the future of affirmative action is likely to be quite different than the policies we have come to know over the past half century. The experiences in several states where racial considerations have been banned suggest that it is possible, with creativity and commitment, to construct new paths to racial, ethnic, and economic diversity. The good news, then, is that the constraints imposed by the Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas do not have to mean the end of affirmative action, but rather could spawn the creation of new approaches.
Even conservative opponents of affirmative action recognize that while Americans may not like counting race in college admissions, they do not want to see higher education re-segregate, either. Liberals, too, often are more comfortable advocating for race-neutral programs that generate broad public support. The Obama administration’s January 2014 White House conference designed to boost the representation of low-income students of all races, is a recent example.106 Fisher v. University of Texas presents new challenges for universities, but it could also lead to an even broader and richer conception of diversity based fully on race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
Fisher v. University of Texas, 113 S.Ct. 2411, at 2420 (2013).
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 287 (1978).
See, for example, Thomas Kane and James E. Ryan, “Why ‘Fisher’ Means More Work for Colleges,” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 29, 2013 (“the court’s emphasis on the exploration of race-neutral alternatives represents a subtle but potentially significant shift”); Note, “Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin,” Harvard Law Review 127, no. 1 (2013), at 258, (“this case may prove to be the inflection point in the overt use of race in university admissions”); at 262 (“The resulting framework — in which courts apply a more stringent form of strict scrutiny to public-university affirmative action programs — is likely to place additional pressure on universities to develop, test, and implement new race- neutral alternatives”); and 263 (“there is a doctrinal shift here, one squarely in tension with the Fisher majority’s statement that Bakke, Grutter and Gratz were ‘take[n] . . . as given for purposes of deciding this case'”).
William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 341, Table B.2.
William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil, and Eugene M. Tobin, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005), 105, Table 5.1.
Beckie Supiano, “7 in 10 Undergraduates Get Financial Aid, New Data From a Major Federal Study Show,” Chronicle of Higher Education, August 20, 2013.
Washington Monthly, September/October 2013, 60-61.
Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, Separate and Unequal: How Higher Education Reinforces the Intergenerational Reproduction of White Racial Privilege (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, 2013), 12.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 2, 28.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 2, 30.
Thomas R. Dye, Who’s Running America? (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), 148.
Richard D. Kahlenberg, “Who Benefits Most From Attending Top Colleges?” Chronicle of Higher Education, March 10, 2011.
“Feeling the Heat: the 2013 Survey of College and University Admissions Directors,” Inside Higher Ed, September 18, 2013.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 4, 45.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 5, 59.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 4, 240, n. 17.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S.306, at 394.
Fisher v. University of Texas, 113 S.Ct. 2411, at 2421.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 5, 63.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 4, 49.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 5, 58.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 4, 51.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 5, 69.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 4, 53-54.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, at 330.
Kane and Ryan, “Why ‘Fisher’ Means More Work for Colleges,” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 29, 2013.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 4, 47.
See citations in Richard D. Kahlenberg, “Why Liberals Should Embrace Fisher v. Texas,” The Century Foundation, August 2, 2013.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 4, 241, n. 29.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 4, 52.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 4, 50.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 5, 72.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 6, 75-76.
Richard D. Kahlenberg, “A Fresh Chance to Reign in Racial Preferences,” Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2013.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 6, 90.
At an eleventh institution, the University of New Hampshire, there is no evidence that race-neutral alternatives were put in place.
Sigal Alon, “Insights from Israel’s Class-Based Affirmative Action,” Contexts, Fall 2013.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 7, 92.
Fisher v. University of Texas, 113 S.Ct. 2411, at 2416 (2013).
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 7, 95.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 7, 97.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 7, 93.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 7, 94.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 8, 99.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 8, 104.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 8, 105.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 8, 106.
Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter, “A Better Affirmative Action: State Universities that Created Alternatives to Racial Preferences,” The Century Foundation, October 2012, 13.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 8, 107.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 8, 102-03.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 9, 117.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 9, 117-18; Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter, “A Better Affirmative Action: State Universities that Created Alternatives to Racial Preferences,” The Century Foundation, October 2012, 40.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 9, 118.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 9, 119.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 10, 126.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 10, 129.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 10, 123.
Note, “Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin,” 266-67.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 11, 134.
Caroline M. Hoxby and Christopher Avery, “The Missing ‘One-Offs’: The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students,” NBER Working Paper no. 18586, December 2012.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 11, 138-39.
Richard V. Reeves and Kimberly Howard, “The Glass Floor: Education, Downward Mobility, and Opportunity Hoarding,” Brookings, November 2013, 9, citing Caroline Hoxby and Sarah Turner, “Expanding College Opportunities for High-Achieving, Low-Income Students,” Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper, 2013.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 11, 143.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 11, 144.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 12, 147.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 12, 155-56.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 12, 156.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 12, 153.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 13, 162.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 13, 160.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 13, 161-62.
he Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 13, 173.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 13, 174.
Thomas J. Kane, “Racial and Ethnic Preferences in College Admissions,” in The Black-White Test Score Gap, ed. Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998), 448-51.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 14, 177.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 14, 181, Table 14.3.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 14, 183-84.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 14, 185.
For a table of disadvantages, see Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, ed. Richard D. Kahlenberg (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 170, Table 3.7.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 15, 189, Tables 15.1 and 15.2.
Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, ed. Richard D. Kahlenberg (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 165.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 16, 206.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 16, 208-209.
See, for example, Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 270 (2003) (all racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny) and James v. Valteirra, 402 U.S. 137, 141 (1971) (wealth classifications are not subject to strict scrutiny).
See, for example, Antonin Scalia, “Commentary: The Disease as Cure,” Washington University Law Quarterly (1979): 153-54; and U.S. Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee, Nomination of Clarence Thomas to Be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, October 1, 1991, 102d Cong., 1st sess., 358-60.
Los Angeles Times poll (conducted January 30 to February 2, 2003); Newsweek poll (conducted January 16-17, 2003); and James M. Glaser and Timothy J. Ryan, “How ‘Race Neutrality’ Can Save Affirmative Action,” Washington Monthly, November/December 2013, 11-12 (non-Hispanic white California voters more open to preferences for the poor than for black and Latino students).
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 18, 228.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 18, 232.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 18, 233.
The Future of Affirmative Action, Chapter 18, 233-34.
Kahlenberg and Potter, “A Better Affirmative Action,” 11.
Kelly Field, “White House Summit Gathers College Leaders Who Pledged to Expand Access,” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 15, 2014; and Richard D. Kahlenberg, “Why the White House Summit on Low-Income Students Matters,” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 17, 2014.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v.