It
is definitely interesting to read about how affirmative action policies and
cases in different countries are formed and how they are rationalized for
various reasons. As a US citizen and student, I myself have only been exposed
to the US affirmative action cases. Regrettably, I have never really encountered
or researched any other cases of higher education affirmative actions
throughout the world. Michele S. Moses does an excellent job in not only
covering affirmative action in France, India, South Africa, United States, and
Brazil; Moses also explains the justifications behind each countries
affirmative action stance. Moses categorizes the justifications into four
categories. The first category being remediation, in which the justification
for affirmative action is to rectify past discrimination and to correct unfair
treatment of minority races, class, and sex. The second category of
justification revolves around economics. The justification of affirmative
action and its economic value incorporates how countries want to integrate all of
its citizens with a better education to than enter in to a workforce. With a
better education, one will then be ready for the workforce which will overall
impact the country to build a stronger economy. Moses categorize the third
category as diversity. The justification for diversity encompasses how
affirmative action is beneficial to the overall learning experience. This means
that a diverse setting actually improves the learning experience because a
diverse population infuses different opinions and perspectives when it comes to
problem solving and other skill sets. The fourth justification is social
justice. Moses describes social justice as the integration and elimination of
institutionalized inequalities. Michele S. Moses emphasizes that social justice
should be in fact the primary reason for affirmative action; however,
justifications in “France, India, and South Africa all mention justice as
associated with affirmative action, but it is not the primary argument used” (Moses, 2010, p.221).
In
my opinion I would agree with Moses in that social justice should be the
primary reason for affirmative action across the globe. Social justice is what
ties all the other justifications together. By putting social justice first, we
can make up for the wrongs of our past of disadvantaged minorities. When can make
the effort to better all of the citizens to improve our country's workforce and
economy. With the inclusion of everyone from diverse backgrounds, classes, sex,
and ages, the learning experience would be most beneficial to everyone. It
should be a priority for a country to make sure it’s citizens are educated. It
is not only beneficial to the workforce and the economy; it just makes a nation
stronger.
I
did find it interesting that in France, there were no national affirmative
action policy and that the institutions themselves took the initiative to
establish affirmative action programs. This example should be set in every
institution and even in the workplace. One should not rely on the government to
start making a change if one institution can do it legally on their own.
It
is saddening to know that not everyone is in agreement with the affirmative
action ideas in higher education. According to Smith (2014), “many people lack
a detailed knowledge of affirmative action, which could serve as a contributing
factor in negative attitude formation toward diversity initiatives” (p. 480). In
the case of Abigail Fisher versus University of Texas, Abigail argued that she
was not admitted to the University of Texas because she was white. This is a
reflection of how several people feel that affirmative action policies are not
beneficial to them; therefore, it is a “bad idea”.
Another
interesting country to research its higher education is Argentina. Silvina
Gvirtz and Betina Duarte do a great job at describing the historical changes in
access policies in Argentina as well as describing the current assess system.
It was not so surprising to read that the current access policies of public
universities in Argentina seem to be more beneficial to families with higher
incomes than families with lower incomes. This problem of inequality seems to
be prevalent in most Latin American countries. It seems to be the opposite here
in the United States. The private elite universities, such as Harvard, seem to
cater and maintain families with higher incomes.
What
I did find interesting is that Argentina’s higher education’s system has high
dropout rates, low graduation rates, and slow studying process. Considering
that most of public universities are free, I can see how students try it out
and do not take it seriously. This seems like the most logical explanation for
the dropout rates and low graduation. I wonder if this would possibly be the
case in The US. If public universities were to become free throughout the
country, would the US encounter the same issues?
References
Gvirtz, S., & Duarte, B., (2012)
Equity and unrestricted access in the Argentine university
system. As the world turns:
Implications of global shifts in higher education for theory, research, and
practice, 151-168.
Moses, M. S.
(2010). Moral and Instrumental Rationales for Affirmative Action in Five
National
Contexts. Educational Researcher, 39(3),
211-228.
Smith, E. L., (2014) An examination
of the relationship between mindset, attitudes toward
affirmative action, and perceptions of diversity. Senior
Honors Projects, 2010-current.
480. http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/honors201019/480
No comments:
Post a Comment