Affirmative Action:
A continuing discussion -- A continuing commitment
An essay by Harold T. Shapiro
In recent months, affirmative action has been the subject of intense -- and frequently acrimonious -- national controversy. I would like to reflect on some aspects of this discussion, and then offer some thoughts about Princeton's programs, especially in the area of undergraduate admissions.
The national discussion
The adoption of affirmative action programs in the 1960s reflected our national aspiration to overcome long entrenched injustices and become a society where equal opportunity, or at least a fair opportunity, was a reality for more of our citizens. These programs were a response to economic, political and cultural circumstances that demanded, then encouraged, and then tolerated widespread and pernicious discrimination on the basis of such factors as color, gender and ethnic background. The common hope was that these programs would be transitory in nature and would enable us as a society to reach a point -- at some future date -- when they would no longer be needed.
Some of those who now advocate an end to affirmative action argue that these policies have accomplished all they can hope to accomplish, that many institutions of society (including colleges and universities) now fairly reflect the diversity of our citizenry, or that remaining limitations on opportunity are based on class rather than gender, color or ethnicity.
Others believe that color-conscious policies, whatever their intention, always generate so much ill will that they undermine their objectives, and that they perpetuate double standards, foster stereotyping and encourage inappropriate feelings of group entitlement and/or group inferiority. These critics contend that affirmative action intensifies a separateness that undermines our unity as a nation, fails to treat people as individuals, and leads inevitably to a society that is more color-conscious than ever.
While arguments over affirmative action are not new, the debate has been fueled recently by Supreme Court rulings that subject some affirmative action programs to greater scrutiny, disagreements (compounded by an absence of good empirical data) about the impact and effectiveness of such programs, increasing resentment by those (both minority and nonminority) who believe they have been disadvantaged by these efforts, and recent changes in public policy such as the decision by the Regents of the University of California to discontinue affirmative action in its admission practices.
Pernicious discrimination
As I reflect on this national debate, I believe there continues to be widespread agreement on the need to eliminate inappropriate and pernicious discrimination. But there is disagreement about how to define (or identify) discrimination, how serious and pervasive the problem is, and the proper means of achieving our goals. Is it enough to rely on existing legal and constitutional protections against discrimination and for equal opportunity, or are special efforts still necessary to overcome our legacy of discrimination? Are these special efforts more helpful than harmful, and are they effective?
In my view, among the most significant and positive features of American society are its cultural diversity and its broad commitment to fair treatment and a fair opportunity for all to share in both the governance and the benefits of our society. Since I believe it is essential to our common sense of humanity, to the effective functioning of our democratic institutions and to America's continued cultural and economic leadership that we achieve as full a degree of participation as possible, I believe we should make every effort to eliminate any social, cultural or economic impediments to this goal (including gender, ethnic, religious and racial biases).
The achievement of social justice in an increasingly diverse polity such as ours clearly depends on our capacity to extend empathy and mutual respect -- as well as toleration -- across lines of color, gender, religion and ethnic background. And since our society cannot be strong or just if many are without hope or a perceived stake in our future, I believe it is imperative that we aim to create a pervasive sense of inclusion and a rising sense of hope and possibility for all citizens. I not only believe we can achieve these objectives within the democratic institutions we have established, but that they are the best vehicles for this purpose, since they allow us to see our prospects as interwoven and dependent on each other.
Social deprivation
In her Tanner lectures last spring, Professor (now Dean of the Faculty) Amy Gutmann argued convincingly that in a society without any continuing pattern of color, gender or ethnic injustice, public policies providing special considerations based on these group characteristics would be inappropriate. But ours is a society in which these patterns continue. (Even while subjecting affirmative action programs to stricter scrutiny, the Supreme Court in its Adarand decision noted that "the unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from acting in response to it.")
The underrepresentation of members of particular minority groups in positions of power and prestige cannot be explained by differences -- if any -- in personal preferences or human capacity. Racially stratified social and residential patterns continue to preclude opportunity for some Americans and, by perpetuating lack of contact across colors and cultures, make it more difficult to attenuate prejudices on all sides.
In stark contrast to the ideals on which our country was founded, our political, economic and judicial systems have, over time, found effective means to block the full participation of women and many minorities in the opportunities open to other Americans, and thereby have caused members of these groups to suffer from high levels of unjustified social deprivation and inequality. While the efforts of the past three decades have succeeded in expanding opportunity in our society, and while some of these conditions certainly have improved, many still are denied fair opportunity and participation in both the practices and benefits of citizenship.
Principled response
In such circumstances, some affirmative action policies should be considered a principled, morally justified response that, if effective, will not only move society to a more just state, but improve society's overall economic and social prospects. The test is whether particular programs are effective in moving toward their objectives. Both governmentally imposed and private, voluntary actions are only useful when they have clearly defined objectives and are carefully designed not only to move toward those objectives, but to create conditions that, in time, will eliminate the need for their continued existence.
Finally, while injustice and discrimination based on color play a unique and continuing role in American history, they are bound up with an even more widespread inequity, as many of our fellow citizens -- stretching well beyond the boundaries of any particular group -- are excluded from the full range of educational, economic and other opportunities for reasons of economic deprivation.
Particularly poignant and outrageous is the predicament of the dramatically increased percentage of American children growing up in poverty. Our most important social objective must be to eliminate the poverty and lack of opportunities that afflict this broad range of Americans. I see effective affirmative action policies -- governmental and voluntary -- as one of the essential components in the more comprehensive attack we must wage to overcome all the barriers to fair opportunity in our society.
Princeton's admission policies
While the debate over government mandated affirmative action programs continues, private universities remain free to adopt policies that they believe will advance their educational and civic responsibilities, as long as they do not violate any laws or regulations. While these institutions have some flexibility in the area of employment, they enjoy greater discretion in admissions, where they are not bound by so many government directives.
On another occasion I will have more to say about Princeton's affirmative action efforts in employment, but at this point I would like to focus on our policies for undergraduate admission. (While we follow different procedures for admission to the Graduate School, we seek similar goals, knowing that if we succeed in attracting excellent minority students, we enrich the diversity of our community now when they are engaged in graduate study, and later when they become intellectual leaders in colleges, universities and other important social institutions.)
Princeton first adopted a policy of affirmative action in undergraduate admission in 1963 when President Goheen announced that, henceforth, Princeton would actively seek to attract and enroll excellent students of color. While there were a number of reasons for this action, four were especially important:
(1) If Princeton wanted to attract the country's ablest, most talented and most accomplished students, it simply could no longer afford to exclude entire pools of qualified candidates. (This and the following reasons also played a central role in Princeton's decision to admit women undergraduates, beginning in 1969.)
(2) Princeton had always aspired to educate young people who would become leaders in their communities, the nation and the world. As American society was becoming more pluralistic, it was evident that its leaders over time would more fully reflect its broad range of cultures, colors and ethnicities. Princeton aimed not only to educate leaders from all sectors of society, but to prepare all its students for life in a diverse national -- even international -- community.
(3) Princeton increasingly recognized the educational value of a learning environment that included students from different backgrounds and perspectives. In its earliest days, Princeton had a greater geographical diversity than the other colonial colleges, provided explicit protection in its charter for students of different religious faiths, and began as early as the 18th century to provide scholarships for the economically disadvantaged. The GI Bill brought an increased social diversity to Princeton after World War II, and by the mid-1960s there was a heightened appreciation of the educational benefits associated with a diversity of colors, cultures and ethnic backgrounds.
(4) As a matter of social justice, Princeton wanted to help overcome the historical circumstances that had denied opportunity to many Americans. Because of this history, it was not enough for Princeton simply to open its doors and invite those long excluded to enter; in many cases students of exceptional promise came from environments that had not permitted them to develop or demonstrate their full potential, or they were understandably uncertain about the extent to which they would be truly welcome and well served at Princeton.
Full range of American society
Over the last three decades, Princeton has continued to make special efforts to identify and attract excellent students from the full range of American society, and minority students comprise 28 percent of the Class of 1999. These efforts have been grounded in a continuing belief that this policy advances our most basic educational objectives and in an understanding that although Princeton is a private institution, it operates as a public trust. We are granted the privilege of managing our assets and programs in return for assuming the obligation of deploying these assets and designing these programs for the benefit of the society we serve.
Our programs do, of course, confer substantial benefits on our students, faculty, staff and alumni, through whom we serve the worlds of education and scholarship and help meet the broader needs of society. But our primary responsibility is not to any particular set of individuals, it is to society as a whole -- in the nation's service and in the service of all nations. To be of service to the pluralistic society in which we live, Princeton must educate leaders from as many sectors of society as possible in an environment that prepares these students for leadership in a world of many colors, cultures and ethnicities.
Since Princeton is fortunate enough to attract many more excellent candidates than we can admit, we try to allocate spaces in a manner that advances our educational goals and enriches our capacity to meet our civic responsibilities. We could base admission principally -- or even solely -- on demonstrated academic achievement (i.e., scores on standardized tests and grade point averages). But this has never been Princeton's policy.
For one thing, such an approach would downplay the enormous uncertainty involved in trying to assess the intellectual or leadership potential of 17 or 18-year-old students, most of whom are entering a stage in their personal development characterized by great change (to say nothing of Sturm und Drang).
Second, it would be a mistake to equate academic quality as typically measured with the more important concept of intellectual quality, which for us connotes a much broader and deeper characteristic. For example, many writers, poets and musicians do not excel academically on such measures as test scores or grade point averages, but are exceedingly intelligent and can enormously enrich an academic community.
Many paths to leadership
In my view, it is important to broaden our notion of academic quality to include skills and talents that are not measured by the standard indicators and to try to construct a student body with diverse intellectual and leadership qualities. It is wise to judge intellectual potential by a variety of measures that acknowledge the many paths to leadership.
Furthermore, we do not serve society best by simply providing another stamp of approval to students who have already demonstrated their ability to achieve high grades and test scores. These achievements are important and we give them very considerable weight, but we have an obligation to look beyond these measures and accept the challenge to develop potential that has not yet been realized. In other words, we have an obligation to help create new human capital, as well as to certify and build on a narrower conception of academic achievement.
Princeton's approach takes as its premise that our objective in admissions should be to attract a wide variety of students with different backgrounds, experiences and talents who all give evidence of having excelled, of seriousness of purpose, of a willingness and capacity to take substantial advantage of our academic and other programs, and who also show promise of playing a significant role in some aspect of their future community.
In taking this approach, we recognize that creating a good match between our faculty and students requires a critical mass of students whose primary commitment has been and will continue to be focused on academic achievement. At the same time, we also recognize that the overall quality and nature of our program is affected not only by the academic and personal qualities of the individual students, but by the characteristics of the student body as a whole.
We seek an interesting and diverse combination of students whose variety of talents and experiences will enrich the overall learning and living environment. Thus we make every effort to ensure that each entering class reflects interests that range from athletics and the creative and performing arts to debate and public service, and includes perspectives that provide continuity with Princeton's past while also preparing each generation of students for the future.
Additional attributes
To achieve these goals, Princeton has long given special consideration in admission to attributes in addition to a candidate's academic achievement and promise. Within the overall academic requirements set by the faculty, we currently give special consideration to athletes who have demonstrated a significant commitment to their academic programs, to academically competitive children of our faculty and alumni, to underrepresented minority students who have excelled, and to others who have exhibited special talents.
In the case of students with exceptional athletic skills, we acknowledge the special benefits of competitive athletics to the participants themselves; the qualities of perseverance, teamwork, discipline and leadership that athletics at their best engender; and the role athletics can play in helping to create a sense of community. In the case of alumni children, we have felt that Princeton's special bond with its alumni has helped us sustain valuable traditions and a sense of history, has assisted us in attracting very talented students, and has helped us ensure a level of resources that is critical to our distinction. In the case of faculty children, we acknowledge the extraordinary commitment faculty make to the scholarly and educational quality of Princeton. In the case of students from diverse backgrounds or who bring special talents, we believe that these characteristics invigorate our entire academic community and enable us to meet our obligations to educate leaders from all sectors of society.
Although we do not give special consideration to financially disadvantaged students per se, we do make every effort to understand each applicant in the context of his or her particular circumstances, and we help to assure opportunity for students from economically deprived backgrounds by following a "need blind" admission policy together with a financial aid program designed to make it possible for anyone who is admitted to attend.
These special considerations are applied in an admission process that for some decades has been based on the following principles:
a) no individual applicant -- whatever his or her level of achievement or other characteristics -- has any entitlement to a place in the entering class;b) only those students who can take very substantial advantage of our programs should be admitted;
c) the consideration of each applicant should be free of irrational prejudices and inappropriate forms of favoritism; and
d) a wide range of talents, experiences and interests is essential for the vitality of the student body and in order for Princeton to be a living/learning community and have impact on all aspects of society.
Within this context, the key criteria for selection are academic achievement and promise, seriousness of purpose and capacity for growth, potential to contribute to society, and potential to contribute to the student body, the learning environment and the broader University community.
In other words, our admission process focuses simultaneously on the basic qualifications of each student, the overall composition of the student body, and the potential contributions of each student to fellow students, the University and society. All of our entering students have excelled in one way or another; all are academically accomplished; and we believe all have the capacity to continue the long tradition of Princetonians occupying positions of leadership in public life, in academic life, in business and the professions and in many other important sectors of our society.
Compelling reasons
As I assess Princeton's objectives together with the realities of contemporary American society, I continue to find compelling reasons for affirmative action in our undergraduate admissions program. We may wish it were otherwise, but color and ethnic background continue to have a crucial impact on the experiences, perspectives and opportunities of Americans.
I continue to believe that special efforts to enroll excellent students of color will strengthen the quality of Princeton's programs, better enable us to meet important University objectives, and allow us to play a part in moving us all to a more just and productive society. This continuing commitment to educate talented students from the broadest range of backgrounds and experiences seems to me important in its own right, important for the quality of our educational programs and the achievement of our civic responsibilities, and important for the affirming message it sends to young people in disadvantaged and underrepresented communities that we recognize and value their talents and the enormous contributions they can make to Princeton and to the society we exist to serve.
October 16, 1995