In an ideal world the benefits of our society would be equally distributed and proportional to the various constituencies within. As we all know, they are not. Some people have more wealth and greater access to certain privileges. Moreover, certain groups have enjoyed historically consistent advantage across many spheres. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the case of educational access.
The structural disadvantage suffered by the poor and other minorities is especially evident in college admissions. Sadly, this issue has become needlessly politicized and highlights one of he greatest flaws in our society. Since the 1950s we as a nation have struggled to reconcile both race and economic inequality as they relate to educational equity. While arguable strides have been made, there is still much that remains to be done.
As evidenced by the continued morass that is the Pulaski County Special School District, issues of desegregation are not as settled as we might like. Although in that particular case, the governing issue still seems to be one of color — green.
On a national level we have enacted several policies that steer the nation in a better direction (i.e. Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, federal student loan programs and assistance programs like Pell grants).
While these initiatives have furthered the causes of social justice, much remains to be done. One of the most import issues still hanging over the head of American education is affirmative action in educational admissions. Later this fall the U. S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. The plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, a white woman, argues that the university’s policy using race as a factor in admissions unconstitutionally barred her from acceptance. Fisher was in the top 12 percent of her high school class. The university has a policy of accepting individuals in the top 10 percent without consideration of race. After the top 10 percent are admitted, race is then used as a factor in determining admission eligibility. The merits of Fisher’s particular circumstances aside, the case points to a heretofore unassailed problem in American academics. Specifically, we as a nation have come to regard higher education as a right rather than a privilege. While everyone should have an equal footing from which to petition for that privilege, higher education itself is not an intrinsic right.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Certainly, it is a noble and laudable goal to which many should aspire, but it is not the best path for everyone. Our strength as a nation is in our diversity — not just in terms of race or ethnicity — but in terms of abilities, aptitudes and talents. A large number of us have skills and inclinations that would not be well served by a traditional university curriculum. To many in this constituency, vocational and technical training might be more appropriate and relevant.
Even so, we funnel our young people into universities as if that is the only thing that can be done once high school has been completed. This causes several problems in higher education. First, it needlessly crowds colleges. In an attempt to serve overflowing enrollments, colleges deliver a lower quality and intensity of educational product. Enormous cattle-call lecture classes become the norm. Students barely know professors, and professor barely recognize their students. Their is no intimacy of exchange. All involved leave unsatisfied and under-served.
Secondly, we have lost contact with the ideal of academic merit. In the commodification of academia, we have abandoned a central tenet of higher education: It should be an aptitude- and intellect-based meritocractic competition. Higher education is no place for remediation. That we have made it thus degrades the whole enterprise. There is no need to perform in high school because many colleges will still accept innumerate and barely literate high school “graduates.”
None of this is easy. Higher education is a system informed by historic discrimination and well-meaning, but injudicious over-compensation. That said, one thing is for certain, our international competitors will not wait while we sort out the issues.