The University of Michigan case now before the Supreme Court has been the catalyst for an extraordinary level of disinformation. The case involved two White students who claimed that they were rejected in favor of less qualified Black students. The case has been entered by the White House which has called for the end of race sensitive admission policies.

These are the most frequently asked questions. The answers may be surprising.

What is affirmative action?

Supporters of affirmative action present two views. On the one hand they view it as an organizational process which seeks to increase the representation of selected groups in college. On the other hand, they view it as a process designed to end institutional discrimination which has resulted in the over representation of Whites in college. This perspective is rooted in a philosophy of social justice.

The opposition to affirmative action likes to define it as a process of race/ethnic/gender preference. They see it as a violation of the implicit rules of a meritocracy and a violation of constitutional notions of “equal protection.” This perspective is rooted in a libertarian philosophy.

What is wrong with selecting students according to their scholastic aptitude test scores?

Basically a single day’s performance on a time-pressured paper and pencil test measures only one narrow form of a college aptitude. Such tests do not measure adaptability, problem-solving skills, interpersonal competency, cognitive complexity, creativity, or achievement motivation. SAT scores are not any more predictive of students’ first-year grades than is their family’s socioeconomic status

Doesn’t affirmative mean that qualified applicants will lose out to unqualified applicants because of their gender, race or ethnicity?

There are no affirmative action guidelines that call for the choice of an unqualified applicant–not at the workplace nor in college admissions. Most decisions involve choosing between equally-qualified candidates or candidates only slightly different in qualification. Usually these decisions are not terribly controversial. The main arguments typically come when a qualified woman or minority candidate is chosen over a White candidate who has clearly better credentials. (Note that we are talking about qualified candidates of differing credentials.) If we extrapolate from workplace studies and national surveys, this appears to happen about 5 percent of the time. It is this 5 percent that has become labeled as “reverse racism” and engendered the greatest hostility. This occurs in part, these same studies show, because people perceive the incidence of reverse racism as four times more frequent than it may actually be.

What if we did away with affirmative action in admissions?

Our best guess is past experience. In the five states that did ban race-sensitive policies, the statistical record shows a decline in Black student enrollment. Further, what little recovery there has been had not moved enrollments back to where they were before the ban.

Doesn’t affirmative action undermine the self-esteem of its beneficiaries?

No, there is no hard social science evidence to back up that claim. We do know, however, that the majority of those benefitting do support affirmative action, hardly a reflection of lowered self-esteem. Looked at in reverse: how many Whites experience lower self-esteem because of the advantages they have?

Wouldn’t it be more fair if affirmative actions were based on socioeconomic status rather than color or ethnicity?

If socioeconomic class became the criterion, then Whites would continue to occupy most of the incoming slots. There are simply far more poor Whites than poor Blacks or Latinos. In one computer simulation based on the socioeconomic status of incoming students at the University of California, Berkeley, the number of Black students admitted would drop by 60 percent.

Doesn’t affirmative action result in higher drop-out rates for Black college students?

No. Studies at leading colleges and universities indicate that two-thirds of Black entrants earn a diploma. At the most prestigious institutions, the Black-White differences in graduation rates average about 5 percent.

Why does the perception of “reverse discrimination” occur?

At a psychological level we can observe many mechanisms: anger, disappointment, denial, self-delusion, rationalization. These are significant individualistic forms of response. The major issues, however, are sociological.

Underlying the oppositional perspectives on affirmative action is a view of the nature of race and ethnic relations in society. Those opposed to affirmative action believe that Blacks and most other minorities have already achieved inclusion and social standing in society. For them, discrimination is no longer a problem; the playing field is level. And since it is level, affirmative action disadvantages Whites. Proponents argue that discrimination in many guises is omnipresent in society. They point, as proof, to the continuing gaps in unemployment, housing discrimination, and the quality of inner city schools. (Just one recent illustration: the median net worth of White families is more than seven times greater than the worth of Black families.) Consequently, they see institutional reforms as necessary to achieve parity.

How can we create a “color blind” society if we use policies which emphasize color?

Color blind admissions will simply continue favoring White students since they are in the majority. In addition, more of them come from relatively advantaged backgrounds. Being “color blind” is another one of those slogans which short-circuits serious thought. It is an act of denial. What we want is to end discrimination. We cannot do so by ignoring its targets. When we have succeeded in ending discrimination, then we will have achieved a society in which color can be appreciated as part of our human variation.

Does “diversity” really make a difference in a college education?

The sociological research comparing students who did or did not attend diverse colleges indicates that there are two sets of advantages. Students from diverse collegiate settings show a greater valuing of intellectual and academic skills, a greater ability to understand different perspectives, and greater intellectual self-confidence. On a behavioral level, attending a diverse college results in more diverse friends, neighbors and work associates long after college graduation. Further, virtually all forms of intergroup experiences in diverse classrooms result in greater citizenship engagement and greater interpersonal engagement across group lines on graduation and even nine years after college entry. The evidence is compelling.

What do we need to look out for?

Because affirmative action programs are part of bureaucratic organizations, they tend to take on the characteristics of bureaucracies. For this reason, they need to be constantly audited and not allowed to become another rigid, bureaucratic office. As norms change and as the demographics of students change, what works today may not work tomorrow.

Furthermore, unless there is a commitment to intergroup education for staff, faculty, and students, the program will be easily assimilated into the campus culture.