Dohyeon Kim, Amherst College
Ed Feeney, Vassar College
Kaitlyn Chalker, Washington and Lee University
Meghan Espalin, Hamilton College
We started out with two research questions in mind. First, how have the members of our respective college communities (including students, faculty, and the administration) responded to major Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action throughout history? Second, how have such decisions affected the ways in which race is discussed in the context of college admissions?
After doing some preliminary research, we realized that major Supreme Court decisions do not have to be the sole center of our research because the discussion around affirmative action has been happening for an extended period of time, often being prompted by various factors outside the major Supreme Court decisions. Therefore, we came up with new research questions. First, what factors have prompted the discussion of affirmative action on campus? Second, how are different racial groups represented in the discussion of affirmative action on campus?
Another important thing that we realized is that we cannot and should not look at just race when we are talking about affirmative action. Other factors, such as gender, class, financial need, legacy status, and athletics, are bound to come into the picture. For example, when we were documenting our sources, there were multiple articles that compared race-based affirmative action to legacy admissions. There were also articles that argued we should or should not replace race-based affirmative action with class-based affirmative action. These articles reminded us of the fact that an individual always holds multiple, intersecting identities, which is something that the authors of Data Feminism emphasize. Based on this understanding, we came up with our third research question: how are different factors in admissions decisions, including race, gender, class, financial need, legacy status, and athletics, discussed in relation to affirmative action?
We answered these questions by uploading the student newspapers of Amherst College and Washington and Lee University to Voyant and visualizing the frequency of certain terms over time using the Trend tool. We had difficulty doing the same thing with Vassar College and Hamilton College because we had too few news articles to really visualize the trend over time. However, we were able to conduct a comparative analysis of all four schools, which will be included in our final presentation.
Amherst College
What factors have prompted the discussion of affirmative action on campus?
The line graph below shows the frequency of the word “affirmative action” in each academic year. The academic years with top five frequency rates are 1994-95, 1996-97, 1998-99, 2002-03, and 2012-13. By examining the articles from these specific periods, I sought to understand what prompted robust discussion around affirmative action at Amherst College.
First, events related to affirmative action in hiring prompted discussion of affirmative action in college admissions. For example, articles published in the 1994-1995 academic year are about Steelworkers v. Weber, Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, the takeover of the Republican Party, and so on, all of which concern affirmative action in hiring. However, the authors of these articles go one step further and talk about affirmative action in college admissions as well. This shows that affirmative action in different sectors are by no means separate from each other.
Second, major Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action in college admissions were covered extensively in the Amherst Student. For example, the articles from the 1996-97 academic years are about Hopwood v. Texas, which was the first successful legal challenge to a higher education institution’s affirmative action policy. Articles from the 1998-99 academic year discuss the aftermath of Hopwood v. Texas as schools like University of Massachusetts and the University of Texas Law School got rid of race-based affirmative action. Similar patterns are found in later periods. In 2003, there were two major Supreme Court cases: Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. In 2013, there was Fisher v. University of Texas. These events are reflected in the high frequency of “affirmative action” in the 2002-03 and 2012-13 academic years.
How are different racial groups represented in the discussion of affirmative action on campus?
The line graph above shows the frequency of the following racial groups: Black, white, Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, and Indigenous/Native. We can see that affirmative action in the 1970s and 80s was framed as a matter of Black-white race relations. Later on, Asian American students come into the picture. For example, in “A Paradox, Safe Spaces and Asian Student Invisibility,” published on April 25th, 2018, Eugene Lee writes that Asian American individuality has been “central to several legal disputes over affirmative action.” There are several more examples like this. However, Hispanic/Latinx students and Indigenous/Native students have barely been represented in the discussion of affirmative action at Amherst College since the 1970s.
How are different factors in admissions decisions, including race, gender, class, financial need, legacy status, and athletics, discussed in relation to affirmative action?
This graph shows the frequency of words that describe an individual student’s identity. We can see that the debate on affirmative action has revolved mainly around race and class. However, it is important to note that the admission of legacy students and athletes was also considered highly relevant to the affirmative action debate. Gender was occasionally mentioned too, but when I read the articles that included the word, it was not really about affirmative action policies for female students. The lack of discussion on gender-based affirmative action is perplexing because Amherst started admitting women only in the fall of 1976, and there were less women in the college than men for quite some time even after that decision. We would like to delve into this topic more and find out why affirmative action in college admissions was discussed in the context of racial equality and/or class equality but not gender equality.
Washington and Lee University
What factors have prompted the discussion of affirmative action on campus?
The frequency of “affirmative action” peaked in 2003, the year the Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger decisions took place. However, the rest of the graph does not really coincide with the timeline of major Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action. Hopwood v. Texas and Fisher v. University of Texas are not addressed, let alone mentioned, in the newspaper.
How are different racial groups represented in the discussion of affirmative action on campus?
Affirmative action has been discussed as a matter of Black-white race relations throughout the time period we are examining (1978-2023). “Asian,” “Indigenous/Native,” and “Hispanic/Latinx” are mentioned occasionally, but not in direct relation to affirmative action. They are mostly mentioned as examples of minority groups. Overall, these groups are grossly underrepresented in the discussion of affirmative action, even when the policy clearly affects them.
How are different factors in admissions decisions, including race, gender, class, financial need, legacy status, and athletics, discussed in relation to affirmative action?
The discussion on affirmative action has revolved mainly around race and class/socioeconomic background/financial need.
Gender is only mentioned in articles that talk about affirmative action in general: not just in the context of college admissions but also hiring. For example, in a 2006 article titled “Bringing Balance to the Lectern: Prominent Conservative Thinker and Policy Maker Comes to Campus for Lee Chapel Address,” it says that Dinesh D’Souza spoke against affirmative action by asking, “Should we focus on gender diversity and racial diversity, or things like diversity of thought and belief?”
When “legacy” is mentioned, it is used to defend race-based affirmative action by also defending legacy-based affirmative action. For example, in a 2003 article titled “Bush Not Consistent on Affirmative Action,” Jonathan Wortham writes, “The legacy preference is a perfectly acceptable practice that allows universities to maintain alumni donations and build upon tradition. Likewise, carefully planned affirmative action plans (like Michigan’s) are perfectly acceptable plans to increase diversity and extend opportunities to those who have not been so fortunate. Both practices help make American colleges and universities the envy of the world, and I think both should continue.” In another 2003 article titled “W&L Supports Affirmative Action, Not Quotas,” Matthew McDermott writes that the Supreme Court’s decision against affirmative action means that “other preferences, such as legacy or socioeconomic status, could also come under legal assault.” Overall, the argument in favor of race-conscious admissions does not bring into question the practice of athletic recruitment, which disproportionately benefits white and wealthy students.
