2005 De Witt Wallace: Reader's Digest Distinguished Lecture: A Forward Glance in a Mirror:

Diversity Challenged: Access, Equity, and Success in Higher Education

Author(s): Walter R. Allen
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 34, No. 7 (Oct., 2005), pp. 18-23
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699796 .
Accessed: 21/11/2011 17:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Educational Researcher.

http://www.jstor.org
 12005 Wallace-Reader's
DeWitt Digest
- Lecture
Distinguished
A Forward Glance in a Mirror: Diversity Challenged-
Access, Equity, and Success in Higher Education
by Walter R. Allen
Affirmativeaction addresses disparitiesin highereducation. Recent
trends threaten gains,resegregationis underwaynationally.Califor-
nia outlawed affirmativeaction, the qualityof K- 12 education is de-
clining,and prison construction is soaring. AfricanAmerican and
Latino participationin higher education has declined; both groups
are overrepresented in prisons and among the poor. Opponents
pretend affirmativeaction threatens academicqualityand promotes
reverse discrimination.Infact, economic instabilityspurs efforts to
defend status quo privilege.There is a clash of nationalideologies,
the American Dream versus White supremacy. Higher education
must be a model for society in promoting equity, excellence, and
diversity.
n July 23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two
aO
majoraffirmativeactioncasesfrom the Universityof
Michigan, one involving Law School admissions pro-
cedures (Grutter v. Bollinger) and the other, admissions to the
undergraduate college (Gratz v. Bollinger). Both White female
plaintiffs had charged that the University of Michigan discrimi-
nated againstWhites by granting Black, Latino/Latina,and Native
American applicants special consideration under a race-conscious
admissions system. The battle lines were drawn for a struggle that
engaged the nation's attention. At root were core sociocultural
beliefs, values, and ideals about race, equity, and fairness in
America. In this sense, the court cases symbolized a long national
debate, joining Dred Scott;Plessyv. Ferguson;Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka;Bakke v. Regentsof the Universityof Cali-
fornia; and a plethora of other court cases that wrestled with race,
equity, and opportunity in America (Byrd-Chichester, 2000).
The court's decisions (to support the Law School in Grutterand
to overturn the college in Gratz) briefly quieted the storm but
failed to fully resolve ongoing debates over fairness, equity, affir-
mative action, and race-conscious admissions in American
higher education. As the racialgap in academic achievement and
relative socioeconomic status persists, myriad questions remain
about race, opportunity, equity, and public policy, in higher ed-
ucation specifically and more generally in the larger society.
The American Dream lies at the very heart of the American
cultural ethos. At the center of the American Dream is the em-
phatic conviction that, in this society, education opens doors to
Educational Vol.34, No. 7, pp. 18-23
Researcher,
18| EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER
successand that, with talent and hardwork, even the poorest
American-of no matter what race, creed, or culture-can
achievegreatness(Hochschild,1995). In manyinstances,talent
hasbeenequatedwith the levelof educationattained.Education
and educationalopportunityare thereforepart of the essential
foundationof democracy;the extent to which citizensare af-
forded equal educationalopportunity speaks volumes about
openness and power relationsin Americansociety. America's
Dream,alongwith hercontributionto worldcivilization,is em-
bodied in the promisethat all who arriveon the shoresof this
uniquesocietywill be allowedunfetteredpursuitof their"hap-
piness"(read"successand prosperity").
Racialdiscriminationhas also been an integralpart of the
Americanculturalethos-it representsthe darkerpart of this
country'sheritageand soul (Mills, 1997; Takaki,2000). The
Americannightmareis revealedin this country'sstubborncore
culturalbeliefthatWhitesareinnatelysuperiorto Blacks-and,
to be sure, other people of color, but especially,definitively,
White trumpsBlack.The United Statesof Americawasfounded
upona systemthatinstitutionalizedracialslaveryin the customs,
mores,and lawsof the land.White supremacy,the beliefin in-
nate White superiorityand the commitment to achievingor
maintaining White dominance over non-Whites, is woven
deeply in the very fabricof this society (Mills, 1997; Takaki,
2000). Over history, this nation has grown prosperousand
powerfulthroughracialexploitation,racialconquest,andracial
domination.The persistenceof racismand the effectsof orga-
nized racial advantage-also known as "White privilege"-
haveleft "marksof oppression"on all the majorinstitutionsin
our society, profoundly limiting life options for Blacks and
other people of color (Brown et al., 2003). America'ssocial,
political,economic, cultural,and educationalinstitutionshave
been shaped (should we say warped?)by beliefs, values, and
practicesestablishedand evolvedin defenseof racialhierarchy.
Racialhierarchyis not merely a part of this nation's distant,
painful past-it is also a fact of the present and prologue to
our future.
Race and Higher Education in America:
A Brief Historical View
Educationhas been an elusive,long-denieddreamfor African
Americans-first as slavesforbiddento readandwriteat riskof
death or maiming, and later throughvarious societal machi-
nations blocking accessto schools and educationalresources.
Yetdespitestereotypesof Blacksas lazy,ignorant,andmentally
deficient, and despitebeing facedwith history'smost elaborate
systemof institutionalbarriersto schooling,Blackpeople con-
tinued to pursueeducation.The Holy Grailsof educationin
general,and highereducationin particular,havelong embodied
the hope and frustrationof a peopleseekingthe PromisedLand
of freedom and equality. For Black people, the centuries-old
strugglefor access and success in higher education has been
emblematicof a largerfight for personhood and equality in
America.In this struggle,progresshas come in fits and starts,in-
terspersed with rollbacksandlost ground,asWhitebacklashperi-
odicallyrearedits uglyhead,intenton reversingBlackeducational
gainsand in the processdefendingWhite superiority(Allen &
Jewell,1995).
For two centuries,the yoke of legalizedslaverydominated
people of Africanancestryin this country.Reflectingthis na-
tionalconsensus,the U.S. SupremeCourtdeclaredin the Dred
Scottcase (1857) that Blackswere "beingsof an inferiororder"
and thus that they "hadno rightswhich the White man was
bound to respect."The North's victoryover the South in the
Civil War signaledthe dawningof a new day-or so it seemed.
Congressratifiedconstitutionalamendmentsthatoutlawedslav-
ery(theThirteenthAmendment);grantedfreedslavescitizenship
(the FourteenthAmendment);and extendedthe rightto vote to
Blackmales(theFifteenthAmendment).Buttheseadvanceswere
soon overshadowedby the implementationof restrictive"Black
Codes"acrossthe country.Thesecodesensconcedin statelawsa
racialcastesystemthat strippedBlacksof theirnewlywon free-
doms.Ultimately,the racialcastesystemwasgivenlegalsupport
by the U.S. SupremeCourt and federallaw in the casePlessyv.
Ferguson(1896), whichvalidatedthe conceptof"legalequality"
or "separate,but equal."For the next 50 years,the legitimate
aspirationsof AfricanAmericansfor equaleducationalopportu-
nity saggedunderthe weight of an oppressiveJim Crow, racial
apartheidsystem.
In 1954, the SupremeCourt decided in Brownv. Boardof
Educationof Topekathatseparatefacilitiesmeantinherentlyun-
equal,inferiorfacilities,and declaredall racialsegregationille-
gal. In the decade following Brown, many of the country's
universitiesandcollegesstubbornlyresistedthe Court'sorderto
desegregate.The resistancewas especiallyfierceacrossthe Deep
South,whereWhite citizens,governorsand statelegislaturesin
Arkansas,Mississippi,Alabama,and Georgiadefiedfederallaw.
In thewakeof riotsand bloodshed,federaltroopshadto be mo-
bilized.Congress,the president,andfederalagenciespassedlegis-
lation,issuedorders,andenforcedlawsto overturntheentrenched
customs and practicesof racial discriminationin education.
Even with active federalintervention,progresstowardeduca-
tional desegregationand expandededucationalopportunities
for Blacksin K-12 and in highereducationwas excruciatingly
slow.As Blacksbecamemoreimpatientand insistenton full cit-
izenshiprights,the countrywas on the vergeof a second Civil
War (Franklin& Moss, 1994; Harding, 1983; Morris, 1984).
Acrossthe nation, one city afteranotherwent up in flames,ig-
nited by racial tensions and conflict. Meanwhile, the world
watchedintentlyto see how America,the self-proclaimed leader
of the "freeworld,"wouldaddressracialinjusticeat home.Some-
thinghad to be done to savethe Union ... andAmerica'sinter-
national image.
Affirmative Action in Higher Education
The loomingnationalcrisisof racialinequalityandcivil disorder
wasaddressedby governmentinterventionin the formof a patch-
work of temporary,narrowlyfocused, relativelyweak "equal
Aspredecessors of affirmative actionpro-
opportunityprograms."
grams,equal opportunityprogramswere rooted in Fourteenth
Amendmentconstitutionalguaranteesof equalrightsto all U.S.
citizens.Despite this ideal,for generationsBlackshad been de-
nied equalprotectionunderthe law. From 1619 to 1865, Black
slaverywaslegalandprotectedby the U.S. Constitution.For250
years,personsof Africandescentwerelabeledas chattelproperty,
to be bartered,branded,brutalized,dehumanized,andmurdered
in the twincausesof economicgreedandWhitesupremacy.From
1865 to 1965, another100 years,Blackswerelegallysegregated,
strippedof humanrightsand dignity,humiliated,definedas in-
feriorbeings,anddeniedcitizenshiprightsof equalopportunities
and participationin society.By 1965 the formallegalbarriersto
Blackprogresswerefinallytorn down, only to be replacedwith
moresubtleformsof oppression,no lesspotentin denyingBlacks
full opportunityand equity.What remainedfirmlyentrenched
werethe "not-so-blind" laissez-faire
forcesof durable,structured
inequality,multigenerationalpoverty, race stereotyping,racial
discrimination,and inferioreducations.To this day,thesepow-
erfulfactorsand forcescontinueto ensurethe subordinatestatus
of the massesof AfricanAmericans(Oliver & Shapiro, 1995;
Omi & Winant, 1994;Wilson, 1996).
PresidentLyndonB. Johnson'sexecutiveordermandatingaf-
firmativeactionattemptedto addressthe twinheritagesof slavery
and Jim Crow segregation-historicaland contemporaryracial
oppression-which keptAfricanAmericansmiredin povertyand
despair(ExecutiveOrderNo. 11246, 1965). The United States
KernerCommissionreport(1968), issuedaftera periodof racial
unrest acrossthe nation, made official what everyonealready
knew:Americacontinuedto be a societydividedby race,"sepa-
rateand unequal."
Johnsoninvokedthe powerfulmetaphorof a peoplein chains
for 350 years,or ten generations,being requiredto engagein a
foot racewith otherpeoplewho were (andhad been) freeof re-
straints.Overthe years,the unchainedpersonof coursebuilt up
quite an advantageor head start.Therefore,Johnsonargued,it
was not sufficientin 1965 to finallyunchainAfricanAmericans
and declarethe contestfairand even from that point. Johnson
(1965) said, "Youdo not takea personwho, for years,has been
hobbledby chainsand liberatehim, bringhim up to the starting
line of a raceand then say,'Youarefreeto competewith all the
others,'andstilljustlybelievethatyou havebeencompletelyfair"
(p. 2). Instead,special,systematiccorrectiveactionswererequired
to compensatefor the accumulateddisadvantages. Afteryearsof
vigorouslyenforcingthe exclusionof Blacks,as well as women
and otherpeople of color, then, it was not enough for agencies
andinstitutionsto merelyadoptthe passivestanceof"comeif you
want (or must)."Rather,Johnson'sExecutiveOrdercalledfor
vigorous,proactivesteps-affirmativeaction-to broadenandin-
creaseaccessto previouslyexcluded,underrepresented groups.
In one sense,affirmativeactionasa policyrecognizedthe "root
and branch"natureof racism(personal,institutional,and sys-
temic)in America.Absentextraordinary efforts,U.S. institutions
OCTOBER2005 jE
would continueto do "businessas usual,"which translatedinto
continueddiscriminationagainstBlacks,women,andotherpeo-
ple of color.In responseto this situation,equalopportunityleg-
islation and policies evolvedinto "affirmativeaction"policies
and the subordinate,degradedstatusof AfricanAmericanswas
inverted.Sincethe U.S. racialcastesystemlocatedWhitesat the
top and Blacksat the bottom (historically,other groupswere
arrangedbetweenthesepoleson the basisof variousfactors,e.g.,
skin color, physicalfeatures,culture,language,and U.S. geo-
politicalinterests),a paradoxicalnationalconsensusarose.It de-
claredthat "whatyou would do for the leastof us [i.e., Blacks],
you most certainlyshould do for the restof us."Thus the affir-
mativeactiontent was broadenedto incorporateWhite women,
Asians,Latinos/Latinas, the physicallyimpaired,thosewith dif-
ferentsexualorientations,non-nativeEnglishspeakers,andmany,
manyothers.What this shift signaledwas the eventualredefini-
tion of affirmativeactionawayfroma remedyorcompensationfor
historical,legallysanctionedracialdiscriminationto the status
of a tool for increasing"diversity"or the participationof "under-
represented" groups.
From 1965 to 1995, equalopportunityprograms(and later
affirmativeactionprograms)representedraysof hope forthe dis-
enfranchised.For a relativelybrief,shining moment, the doors
of opportunitycrackedopen as neverbefore.Blacksand others
(Latinos/Latinas,women, Asians, poor Whites, the physically
challenged,gays)previouslyexcludedfromprestigiousuniversi-
ties, corporations,and organizationsslipped in, although not
necessarilyin massivenumbers.Underthe imperativesof equity,
inclusiveness,and diversity,these institutionsrecruitedAfrican
Americansand other previouslyexcludedgroups from North
Carolinatobacco fields, Newark ghettos, Californiaorchards,
Oklahomareservations, andChicagosuburbs.Equalopportunity
and affirmativeaction programsgave people of color, women,
and others routinelypushed to society'sfringesthe chance to
prove their worth. These programsdid not guaranteesuccess;
they only providedthe chanceto competeand the opportunity
to succeed(or fail).
Havingprovedtheirvalueandeffectiveness,affirmativeaction
programscame underwitheringattack.Affirmativeaction had
made, and promisedfurther,significantinroadsagainstthe es-
tablishedstatusquo of racial,patriarchal,and economichierar-
chy. Predictably,powerfulvestedinterests,underthe bannerof
high societalideals-colorblind society,endingreversediscrim-
ination,competitivetesting-mounted devastatingchallengesto
theseprograms.In manycases,affirmativeactionprogramswere
weakenedor discontinued,justifiedif not by unsupportedclaims
of "reversediscrimination"(Pincus,2003) then by the absurd
claim thatAmericahad becomea colorblindsociety,no longer
discriminatingon the basisof race(Brownet al., 2003; Omi &
Winant, 1994).
Race, Equity, and Higher Education in California
America'sculturalwaterscontinueto roilfromperiodicnational
debatesover race,educationalinequity,and affirmativeaction.
Californialed the rushto rollbackexpandedaccessto highered-
ucation, passing a Regental ban against affirmative action in
highereducationin 1993, followedby a statewideproposition
also banning affirmativeaction in higher education in 1995.
20i EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCHER
WardellConnerly,a regentfor the Universityof Californiasys-
tem and the chiefarchitectof this anti-affirmativeactionmove-
ment, was a Blackman who readilyadmits that he personally
benefited from affirmativeaction programs(Wallace, 1995).
Nevertheless,Connerlyand othersfound reasonsto deny simi-
larbenefitsto deservingBlackand Latino/Latinastudents.Var-
ious rationalesare used to justifyattackson affirmativeaction:
Some say that affirmativeaction has accomplishedits purpose
and is no longernecessaryin our "colorblind" society;otherssay
that affirmativeaction is unfair,that it represents"reversedis-
crimination"againstguiltlessWhites;andstillotherssuggestthat
the poor and disenfranchisedneed simplyto takeresponsibility
and pull themselvesup by their own bootstraps.In the final
analysis,none of theseargumentsis satisfactoryor sufficient.
Affirmativeaction (and the equalopportunityprogramsthat
precededit) changedthe faceof Americaby tearingdown barri-
ers that had systematically blockedaccessand preventedthe full
of
participation Blacks, people of color, and women. Although
the primaryagendaof affirmativeactionwas to breakdown dis-
criminatorystructuresso that these groupswould all be repre-
sented in the many sectors of American society, the actual
outcomeshavebeenskewed.In fact,Whitewomenhavebeenby
farthegreatestbeneficiaries action(Wise,1998).As
of affirmative
a resultof affirmativeaction,White femalesalsorealizedsignifi-
cantgainsin manyareasof education,employment,contracting,
and professions.In addition,AsianAmericanshave made dis-
proportionategainsin highereducation,due in partto affirma-
tive action.Severalcampusesin the Universityof Californiaand
the CaliforniaStateUniversitysystemsnow haveAsian-Pacific
Islandermajoritiesor pluralitiesandqualifyas "Asian-Serving In-
as of
stitutions,"that is, havingAsianenrollment 25% higher or
(Allen,Bonous-Hammarth, & Teranishi,2001).
This is the history that brings us to the present moment,
when Americanhigher education is in a processof resegrega-
tion (Orfield, 2004). ForAfricanAmericansin particular,low
ratesof college enrollment, retention,and degreeattainment
havecausedconcern.Since the rollbackof affirmativeaction in
1995, Blackand Latino/Latinaenrollmentsat the Universityof
California'smost prestigiouscampuses(BerkeleyandLosAnge-
les) havedroppedby roughly50% (Allen,Bonous-Hammarth,
& Teranishi,2001). A seasonof gainsfor Blacksin collegeen-
rollmentand earneddegreeshas been reversed.Moregenerally,
since the early 1960s, AfricanAmericanshad made significant
gainsin enrollmentand degreeattainmentat the universitylevel.
The percentageof AfricanAmericanswho completed4 yearsof
collegeor morerosefrom4% in 1962 to 18.1%by2002 (Harvey,
2003; U.S. CensusBureau,2000). Althoughthisis positivenews,
the representation of AfricanAmericansin this categoryas com-
pared with other racialgroupsis relativelypoor. The 8.3% in-
creasein undergraduate enrollmentfor AfricanAmericanssince
1993 is less than half the ratesof increasefor Latinos/Latinas,
AsianAmericans,and NativeAmericansduringthe sameperiod
(Wilds,2000). The disparitybetweenWhite and Blackenroll-
ment is even moreextreme.If we removedthe positiveand dis-
proportionatecontributionsof historicallyBlack collegesand
universitiesto totalBlackstudentenrollmentandearneddegrees,
thesefigureswould be much moretroubling.
 College enrollment rates for Latinos/Latinas follow a pattern
similar to that of African Americans. Since 1974, the percentage
of both Latinos and Latinas who completed 4 years of college or
more rose from 5.5% in 1974 to 11% in 1999 (U.S. Census Bu-
reau, 2000). Moreover, Latino/Latina total enrollment in higher
education increased 79.2% from 1988 to 1997 (Wilds, 2000),
the highest gain of the four major racial groups. However, al-
though Latinos/Latinas have a 45% completion rate at Division
I colleges and their enrollment rates have increased 8 percentage
points since 1990, they continue to trail both Whites and African
Americans in the completion of 4-year degrees. Further, al-
though Latinos/Latinas represent9% of undergraduatestudents,
they were awarded only 5.3% of all bachelor's degrees in 1997
(Wilds, 2000). Asian Americans have made significant gains in
enrollment, degree attainment, and participation in higher edu-
cation over the period. Their enrollment in higher education in-
creased 73% from 1988 to 1997, and they were awarded 6% of
all bachelor's degrees in 1997 (Wilds, 2000).
In California, the effects of anti-affirmative action legisla-
tion have dramatically decreased Black and Latino/Latina par-
ticipation in the University of California system. For example,
whereas in 1997 nearly 50 Blacks and 50 Latinos/Latinasenrolled
in the UCLA Law School, the entering class in 2000 counted only
2 Black students and 17 Latinos/Latinas. Thisis the nature of the
crisis currently confronting race, equity, and affirmative action
in U.S. higher education. It is deja vu all over again. We see a
return to the apartheid in higher educational systems that ei-
ther completely excluded or allowed only a few token Blacks or
Latinos/Latinas and Native Americans.
It is of interest that much of this move to resegregate U.S.
higher education occurs under the guise of efforts to improve
academic standards and academic quality. Students of color are
implicitly and explicitly identified as "threats"to academic qual-
ity; growth in their enrollment or graduation numbers is taken
as prima facie evidence of declining academic standards. Thus it
is presumed that the best way to improve academic reputation is
to exclude Blacks or, at the very least, to greatly limit their pres-
ence. We are seeing the proliferation of "high-stakes"standard-
ized tests that privilege White and Asian Pacific Islander students
who have access to educational resources and experiences denied
to Black and Latino/Latina students. This thicket of Advanced
Placement courses, standardized tests, and high-priced personal
academic coaches often torpedoes the educational goals and
achievement of Black and Latino/Latina students and ensures
that after a "fair"competition, they will end up at the bottom of
the heap.
The state of California leads the anti-affirmative action and
pro-punitive academic standards movements, largely as a result
of poor educational policy and planning-and declining invest-
ment in education. Over the past three decades, the state's
population nearly doubled, growing from 19 million in 1970 to
35 million in 2000. During the same 30-year period, California's
Black population grew by roughly 71% (from 1.4 million to
2.5 million), an impressive rate of population growth under most
circumstances. However, this rapid growth was dwarfed along-
side the astounding rates of increase in the Latino/Latina and
Asian American populations. From 1970 to 1998, the state's
Latino/Latina population grew by more than 450% (from 2.4 to
10 million),while the AsianAmericanpopulationgrewby more
than 500% (from671,210 to 3.7 million) (CaliforniaDepart-
ment of Finance,1999). Multiplegovernorsand stateadminis-
trationsfailed to anticipateor addressthe consequencesof the
populationexplosionfor the Californiapublichighereducation
system,thus contributingto severedemand-supplydiscrepan-
ciesin highereducation.Insteadof addingbedsin collegedorms,
theseadministrationschose to investin exponentialincreasesin
the numberof prison beds, an investmentdecision that made
neithersound fiscalnor sound moralsense.
Twenty-oneprisonshavebeenbuilt in Californiasince 1984,
as comparedwith threestate universitycampusesand one Uni-
versityof Californiacampus(currentlyunderconstruction).This
defieslogic,giventhateachprisonercoststhe statemorethanten
timesthe standardin-statetuitionfora collegestudent($38,000
v. $3,800) (Families to Amend California'sThree-Strikes,
2000). Moreover,with implementationof the highlycontrover-
sial "three-strikeslaw," the Californiaprison population in-
creasedsevenfold, growing from 23,511 inmates in 1980 to
162,000 by 2000 (CaliforniaDepartmentof Corrections,2000).
California'sradicallydisproportionateinvestmentin the crimi-
nal justiceprogrammultipliedthe annualbudgetfor the Cali-
forniaDepartmentof Correctionsfrom$728 millionin 1985 to
$4.5 billion by 1998 (CaliforniaDepartmentof Corrections,
2000). Alongsidethese prodigiousexpenditureson the prison
system, the state of Californiais facing extremeshortagesin
K-12 andcollegeeducationalresources,facilities,andpersonnel.
In short,in California-and acrossthe nation-misplaced values
and mis-investmenthavecauseda needlesscrisiswheredemand
for collegeseatsoutracessupply.The unhappy,short-sightedso-
lutionhastoo oftenbeento erectstillmorebarriersto collegeop-
portunitiesand accessin the form of high-stakesstandardized
tests,higherthresholdsof"collegeeligibility,"the dismantlingof
affirmativeaction, and the proposedimplementationof high
schoolexit exams.
What Future for Race, Economics,
and Educational Opportunity?
In the dawningmomentsof the 21st century,raceand ethnicity
continue to challengethis society. Americastill wrestleswith
whetherrace and ethnicitywill be basesfor unity or division.
Nowhereis thissoberingassessmentmorevividlyportrayedthan
in California,the GoldenStatein the landof opportunity.In the
nation'smythology,Californiais the antithesisof the racerela-
tions that characterizeMississippiand the Deep South. In the
view of many,Californiawas at one time livingproofof the pos-
sibilityof a multiracial,multiculturalsociety,a testamentto the
decliningimpactof racialdiscrimination.So, on the face of it,
comparisonof the statusof Blacksin contemporaryCalifornia
with that of Blacksin historicalMississippiwould seem to be
ratheroutlandish.However,when one carefullyexaminesthe
currentlandscapeof race,ethnicity,and nationaloriginin Cali-
fornia,sucha comparisonbecomesconsiderablylessfar-fetched.
Few are unfamiliarwith the heated rhetoricassociatedwith
successfuleffortsin Californiato passanti-immigrantand anti-
affirmativeactionlegislationstatewide.In eachinstance,the lan-
guagewas coded but nonethelessraciallycharged,stereotyping
BlacksandLatinos/Latinas asthreatsor problems.This language,
2005 IE
OCTOBER
these patternsof behavior,and the underlyingracistattitudes
demonstratea strikingaffinitywith the moresof the bygoneseg-
regationistSouth.The ultimateresultwasto turnbackthe clock
of racialprogressand to maintainstructuresof racialoppression
(beliefs,customs,and institutionalpractices).
In California(as in the United Statesmore broadly),news
coverageand governmentstatisticsshow that Blacks,Native
Americans,andLatinos/Latinas aremassivelyoverrepresentedin
prisons,among the unemployed, on welfare rolls, and among
thosewith high morbidityand mortality.AfricanAmericansare
17 timesmorelikelythanWhitesto be chargedunderthe three-
strikeslaw in Los Angeles County (Torbet, Griffin, Hurst, &
MacKenzie,2000). The three-strikeslaw can resultin life sen-
tencesfor thirdcriminalconvictions,no matterhow minor the
offense. In California,more than one third (39%) of African
Americanmen in theirtwentiesarein prison,on probation,or
paroled(Torbetet al.).At the sametime, Blacksarewoefullyun-
derrepresented on collegeand universitycampuses(as students
and as faculty)and among those in high-status,powerful,well-
paid occupations.
From 1989 to 1998, California'sAfricanAmericanpopula-
tion remainedconsistent,yet the Universityof Californiasystem
experiencedan 18.1%decreasein Blackstudentenrollment.Be-
tween 1997 and 1998, AfricanAmericanfreshmanenrollment
in the Universityof Californiasystemdropped24%, from 917
to 739. A significantdrop in enrollmentwas seen at the Berke-
ley campus,whereAfricanAmericanfreshmanenrollmentfellby
51% (from257 to 122), althoughtotalfreshmanenrollmentin-
creased,from3,215 to 3,333 students(BuncheResearchReport,
2004). With 2.3 million AfricanAmericans,Californiahas the
third-largesttotal Blackpopulationin the country (afterNew
York and Texas). Yet in 1999, only 3% of Blackhigh school
graduatesqualifiedfor admissionto the Universityof California
system,as comparedwith 13% of Whites, 30% of Asians,and
4% of Latinos/Latinas. AlthoughAfricanAmericanswere7% of
the statepopulation,they were only 3% of Universityof Cali-
forniaundergraduate enrollment.
Despite these facts, the stateof California,throughProposi-
tion 209 (1996), continuesto ban affirmativeaction in college
admissions.A clearlyambivalentU.S. SupremeCourtapproved
"narrowlytailored,"time-limitedaffirmativeaction admissions
programs;nevertheless,"liberal"Californiacontinuesto oppose
affirmativeactionprograms.Lastyear,the chairof the Univer-
sity of CaliforniaBoardof Regentsmalignedthe Berkeleycam-
pusadmissionsprocess,fearingthat381 studentsadmittedin fall
2002 with SAT scoresof less than 1000 might somehow"con-
taminate"anddegradeacademicqualityforthe other25,000-plus
studentson campus(Moores,2003). Will the lasteverbe first?
Ethnicityand nationaloriginrepresentadditionalfactors,be-
yond raceand socioeconomicstatus,with the power to either
uniteor divideCaliforniaas a stateand the United Statesasa na-
tion (Chua,2003). Contestsare consistentlywagedin relation
to these issuesacrossthe countryas variousgroupsseeka com-
petitiveedge.In manyrespects,thesecontests-characteristicof
the multicultural,21st-centuryreality-are castin sharpestrelief
in California,the 35 million-strong,raciallyand culturaldiverse
subcontinentwithin a nation. Not surprisingly,the economic
situation is often the triggerfor such contests or conflicts-
221 EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER
certainly,thishasbeenthe casein California.AfterCaliforniaex-
periencedeconomic downturnsin the aerospaceindustryand
otherdeclinesin the high-techsector,the state'ssocialfabricwas
severelystrained.SinceWorldWarII, Californiahadseenan ex-
pandingeconomyandCaliforniansoverallhadexperiencedgreat
prosperity.When finallythe stateconfronteda "bustcycle,"fol-
lowing the prolonged"boomcycle,"peoplepanicked,resorting
to race-baiting,stereotyping,hostility,economicexclusion,xeno-
phobia, and discriminatoryidentitypolitics.
Predictably,the psychologicalandrealburdenfromthisback-
lashfell disproportionately on AfricanAmericans,as the equiva-
lent of an "untouchable" castein this society.To be sure,Latinos
and Latinaswerealso targetsof the racialbacklash,in factmore
so with regardto nativistcitizenshiparguments.Blacks,however,
were the disproportionatefocus becauseour uniquehistoryde-
finesBlacksas the anchorgroupin this society'sracialhierarchy,
with Whitesat the verytop and Blacksat the verybottom (other
groupsjockeyforpositionsbetweentheseextremepoles).Blacks,
some peopleof color,and some immigrantsbecameconvenient
targetsfor White and mainstreamfears,anger,and personalin-
securityresultingfrom widespreadeconomic insecurity.Thus,
initial effortsto dismantleaffirmativeaction were justifiedby
mythsof "reversediscrimination" and competitivedisadvantage
for Whites. The foundationwas laid for undermininggovern-
ment commitmentto and supportfor Blackand Latino/Latina
accessand successin highereducation.
Californiais a metaphorfor the statusof racein Americain
these dawningmomentsof the 21st century.Californiarepre-
sentsas appropriatea metaphornow, as Mississippidid 40 years
agowhen the Civil RightsMovementbroughtthe wallsof racial
segregationtumblingdown.The focuson Californiarevealsthat
the problemsof the color line are still very much alive in the
United States,not only Down-South,but also Up-South,East-
SouthandWest-South.As a casestudy,Californiaplacesin stark
reliefthe complexintricacyof the nation's"raceproblem"in the
new century:racialconflictlinkedto racialor ethnicconflictand
to conflict basedon citizenshipor nationalorigin. This com-
plexitypropelsus to searchfor alternativemodels,modelsthat
would eventuallyclarifythe roots of otherstrugglesfor power,
personhood,and inclusion,for examplethoserelatedto gender,
social class, and sexual orientation (Collins, 1998; Marable,
2002). Ultimately,conflictsin California,Mississippi,Michigan,
acrossthe country,and around the world (e.g., in Iraq,Peru,
Kashmir,and the Congo) are traceableto sociopolitical,eco-
nomic systemsthat requireand thriveon exploitativerelation-
ships (Chua,2003).
Americastruggleswith warringideologies:On the one hand
is the shiningdreamof vast opportunity,limitedonly by a per-
son'svision,energy,andtalents;on the otherhandis a profound
and abidingbeliefin and commitmentto the ideasof racialsu-
premacy.Betweenthese extremes,at the centerof the struggle,
lie the heartand soul of this country.Addingto the complexity,
both the nationalidealsof unboundedopportunityandthe daily
realityof racialhierarchyoperateunderthe powerfulspellof an
inherentlyexploitativeeconomicsystem.
A striking paradox confronts the nation: How to be human
in the context of an inhumanesystem?Will Americaeverfully
embracethe U.S. Constitution'ssweepingpronouncementsof
liberty, equality, and fraternity for all? Or will our nation con-
tinue to indulge its demons of degradation, domination, exclu-
sion, and exploitation, penalizing Blacks, non-Whites, the poor,
and other excluded groups? This struggle is presently being
waged in the nation's institutions of higher learning. Universi-
ties are on the front lines in a battle for the soul of our nation and
the security of the world. Perhaps this is as it should be? For more
than any other institution, the nation's colleges and universities
are charged with visioning and modeling this society's ideals.
Colleges and universities acrossAmerica and in the great state of
California can win the struggle for equity, excellence, and diver-
sity in higher learning, winning in the process the larger struggle
for human dignity. Our society and the world depend on us to
light the way; to do otherwise would be to fail a most sacredtrust.
NOTE
This DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Distinguished Lecture was pre-
sented on April 11, 2005, at the annual meeting of the American Edu-
cationalResearchAssociation,in Montreal,Canada.Fundingfromthe
AndrewK. Mellon Foundationand the UCLAGraduateSchoolof Ed-
ucationand InformationStudiespartiallysupportedthis research.
REFERENCES
Allen, W. R., Bonous-Hammarth, M., & Teranishi, R. (2001). Stony
the road we trod . . : The Black strugglefor higher education in Cali-
fornia.Unpublishedresearchreport.CHOICES:Access,Equityand
Diversity in Higher Education, University of California, Los Angeles.
Allen, W. R., & Jewell, J. 0. (1995). African American education since
An American dilemma: An American dilemma revisited. Daedalus,
124(1), 77-100.
Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
Brown, M. K., Carnoy, M., Currie, E., Duster, T., Oppenheimer, D. B.,
Schultz, M. M., & Wellman, D. (2003) Whitewashingrace: The myth
of a colorblindsociety.Berkeley: University of California Press.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Bunche Research Report. (2004). Separatebut certainly not equal, 1(2),
1-15. [Special report:2003 CAPAAfindings]. Published by the Ralph
J. Bunche Center for African American Studies, University of Cali-
fornia, Los Angeles.
Byrd-Chichester, J. (2000). The Federal courts and claims of racial
discrimination in higher education. Journal of Negro Education,
69(1/2), 12-26.
California Department of Corrections. (2000). CDCfacts: Secondquar-
ter 2000. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved September 6, 2000,
from http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/factsht.htm
California Department of Finance. (1999). Race/ethnicpopulation with
age and sex detail, 1970-2040. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved
October 12, 2000, from http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/demograp/
race.htm
Chua, A. (2003). World on fire: How exportingfiee market democracy
breedsethnic hatred and global instability. New York: Doubleday.
Collins, P. H. (1998). Fighting words:Black women and the searchfor
justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Exec.OrderNo. 11246, 3 C.F.R. 1965 Supp., 167 (1965).
Families to Amend California's Three-Strikes. (2000). Latest statistics.
LosAngeles,CA:Author.RetrievedJuly 13,2000, fromhttp://www.
facts 1.com/general/stats.htm
Franklin, J. H., & Moss, A. A., Jr. (1994). From slavery to freedom: A
historyofAfrican Americans. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gratzv. Bollinger,539 U.S. 244 (2003).
Grutterv. Bollinger,539 U.S. 306 (2003).
Harding, V. (1983). There is a river: The Black strugglefor feedom in
America.New York:VintageBooks.
Harvey, W. (2003). Minorities in higher education:Annual status report,
2002-2003. Washington,DC: AmericanCouncilon Education.
Hochschild, J. L. (1995). Facing up to the American dream: Race, class
and the soul of the nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Johnson, L. B. (1965, June 4). Tofulfill these rights. Commencement
address, Howard University, Washington, DC.
Marable, M. (2002). The great wells of democracy:The meaning of race
in American life. New York: BasicCivitas Books.
Mills, C. W. (1997). The racial contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-
sity Press.
Moores, J. C. (2003, October 6). A preliminary analysis of the Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley,Admission Processfor 2002. Report pre-
pared for the University of California Board of Regents.
Morris, A. D. (1984). The origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black
communities organizingfor change. New York: Free Press.
Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (1995). Black wealth/White wealth: A
new perspectiveon racial inequality. New York: Routledge.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racialformation in the United States:
From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.
Orfield, G. (2004). Brown at 50: King'sdreamorPlessy'snightmare?Cam-
bridge, MA: Civil Rights Movement Project, Harvard University.
Pincus, F. L. (2003). Reversediscrimination:Dismantling the myth. Boul-
der, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Plessyv. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Proposition 209 (1996, November). California Civil Rights Initiative.
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).
Takaki, R. (2000). Iron cages:Race and culture in 19th-centuryAmerica
(rev. ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Torbet, P., Griffin, P., Hurst, H., & MacKenzie, L. (2000). Juveniles
facing criminal sanctions: Threestatesthat changedthe rules.Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,Of-
fice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
United States Kerner Commission. (1968). Reportof the NationalAdvi-
soryCommissionon CivilDisorders.With an introduction byT. Wicker.
New York: Bantam Books.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Population profile of the United States:
1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wallace, A. (1995, January 20). End race-based admissions, UC regent
suggests. LosAngeles Times, p. Al.
Wilds, D. J. (2000). Minorities in higher education, 1999-2000: Seven-
teenth annual status report.Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears:The world ofthe new urban
poor.New York:AlfredA. Knopf.
Wise, T. (1998). Is sisterhood conditional? White women and the roll-
back of affirmative action. NWSAJournal, 10(3), 1-26.
AUTHOR
WALTER R. ALLEN is the Allan Murray Cartter Professor of Higher
Education at the University of California, Graduate School of Educa-
tion and Information Studies, 3101A Moore Hall, P.O. Box 951521,
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521; allen@gseis.ucla.edu. He is also a Pro-
fessor of Sociology and co-director of CHOICES, a longitudinal study
of college attendance among African Americans and Latinos/Latinas in
California. His research and teaching focus on higher education, in-
equality, race-ethnicity, African American males, and socialization.
OCTOBER2005 |