COLUMN: Affirmative action based on real need

From Jeremy Reiss', "Vegas, Baby," Fall '00 From Jeremy Reiss', "Vegas, Baby," Fall '00In a few short weeks, many of the nation's top colleges and universities will reject a record number of applicants. Indeed, The New York Times reported Sunday that an increase in the number of high school students -- coupled with the growing perception that an elite education is necessary for future success -- has caused applications to competitive schools to skyrocket. The story is nothing new. But as admissions slots become all the more scarce, a growing number of schools have changed or eliminated their affirmative action policies. Several states have also begun to crack down on admissions deans who admit students based on race or ethnicity. On our own campus, such developments have drawn the ire of a large contingent of students. Last Thursday's "Call to Action 2000" rally on College Green is indicative of the support for increased minority admissions. But as the debate rages on, both affirmative action supporters and detractors seem to have the argument all wrong. Instead of debating whether schools should be allowed to use affirmative action in their admissions decisions, all parties should examine ways to change the nature of affirmative action so that such policies can more realistically meet the goal of giving disadvantaged -- though promising -- students a chance at success. In that sense, instituting policies based on economic disadvantage -- rather than one based on racial preference -- seems to be a more effective way to attack the basic problem of inequality. And doing so could counteract the perception that many top schools -- including our own -- are dominated by affluent white students. Many people believe that affirmative action exists to rectify the historic hardships faced by minority groups, such as African Americans and Latinos, by giving such students special consideration for admission. But this line of reasoning -- a reaction to America's legacy of racial discrimination -- is flawed in that by grouping minority students under the neat category of "hardshipped," schools are only perpetuating that discrimination. There's no denying, for instance, that the way this country has historically treated African Americans is criminal. Still, while those injustices have been far from rectified, it is difficult to measure the hardship suffered by each individual. Nor is it fair to say that other students haven't faced more difficult obstacles that don't show up on their applications. Preferences for students from low-income families, though, can be a truly color-blind policy. These policies will create a student body that is no less diverse and would give students from underprivileged backgrounds a greater chance of success. Earlier in my college career, I thought differently about the issue. Though I was happy to be at Penn, I couldn't help but think that students with lesser credentials than mine were accepted to schools from which I was rejected, simply because of their racial background. Merit, I thought, should never take a back seat to diversity. Maybe I'm older and wiser; or more likely just no longer bitter. Whatever the reason, I now realize that growing up without the opportunities I had would have made a world of difference in my academic performance. But let's call it what it is. The reason no one can agree on affirmative action is that admissions officers seem to be using their own subjective criteria to determine which students have faced hindering obstacles. The only purely objective criterion, though, for determining whether a student has faced significant hardship is his or her family income. Just look at the factors that either contribute to or are caused by poverty: Divorce. Loss of a parent. Less time for studies because the student needs to work to support the family. Exposure to drug pushers, addicts and violent criminals. All of these can certainly prevent even the most promising students from fulfilling their potential. And there are many others. After attending an economically diverse public school, I know there are many academically talented students in those situations who can beat the odds their neighborhoods have stacked against them. But they need a break. And while it would be naive to expect that break to come at the expense of students from wealthy families -- whose future donations could help finance the university and pay for financial aid -- the reality is that some middle-income students might have to receive one or two fewer acceptance letters than they thought they deserved. Maybe such a policy doesn't directly deal with the problem of low minority enrollment. But I'd be willing to bet it would increase representation of minority groups at many schools.