20
Current Status
Running head: COMPREHENSIVE EXAM QUESTION 2
Comprehensive Exam Question 2:
The Current Status of Merit Scholarships
and Race-Specific Merit Scholarships
Brandi N. Hutchins
University of Cincinnati
Abstract
Merit scholarships have increased in popularity over the last decade and race-based scholarships are being challenged due to the overwhelming claim that they discriminate on the bases of race. Resulting from the legal cases claiming reverse discrimination, the use of affirmative action and race-policies in higher education are being eliminated. Merit-based scholarships continue to increase while race and need-based scholarships are on the decline. Currently, Whites are receiving more merit-based scholarships. To examine the current status of merit-scholarships, the Georgia HOPE Scholarship Program will be studied. Conversely, to review the current status of race-based scholarships, historical landmark cases and affirmative action policies will be explored.
The Current Status of Merit Scholarships
and Race-Specific Merit Scholarships
Affirmative action is a widely discussed controversial topic. It has provided opportunities for minorities and women that were once nonexistent. Since its inception in the early 1960’s, affirmative action has opened doors and has leveled the playing field for people of color; however, many individuals are now questioning its mission and relevance. In higher education, affirmative action is a common tool used to benefit minorities. Many colleges and universities proclaim that they are an equal opportunity employer and do not discriminate based on race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. This encouraging statement demonstrates to future students, faculty, and staff that the university has a commitment to diversity.
Many predominately White institutions are coping with the decline in student of color enrollment. Altbach, Lomotey and Rivers (2002) suggested that student of color enrollment has been a major topic since the 1960’s, forcing many U.S. colleges and universities to improve racial diversity on campus. This also holds true for faculty and staff. Affirmative action was the one mechanism used to increase minority enrollment. It has given underrepresented students, faculty, and staff the opportunity to become more represented in many institutions by factoring in race.
To assist in the endeavors of bringing more students of color to the university, race-specific policies were implemented. Recruitment teams from admission offices have been set in place to venture out into inner-city schools to promote their universities to the minority student population. The university aspires to portray an inclusive image such as a melting pot, suggesting that the diversity on campus is recognized and embraced. These images soon become distorted when the true realization occurs that the minority population is very minimal at predominantly White institutions.
One way the university has increased its student of color population is by offering monetary awards primarily to minority students. Race-based scholarships comes in many forms: a) some awards are strictly academic, b) individual colleges award scholarships for specific majors, and c) universities develop relationships with the city or state by providing scholarships to students who attend a school in certain districts or geographic locations. Currently, the use of race-based policies in higher education is being strongly challenged because many White students feel that these restrictions violate their Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Merit-based scholarships have increased in popularity over the last decade (Heller, 2002; Farrell, 2002; Cornwell & Mustard, 2002). These scholarships award the student based on their academic accomplishments and do not make considerations based on race and social class. Everyone is considered equal in this process. Nevertheless, these scholarships have also been undoubtedly challenged because they have a selective process and minorities are not adequately represented in these award allocations.
In this paper, the author will discuss the current status and the affects of race-based and merit-based scholarships in higher education. The challenges consequently affecting affirmative action will be addressed, along with landmark legal cases that have changed the course of national policies. The author will also investigate race policies and their prospective outlook in higher education.
Landmark Affirmative Action Cases
Race-based scholarships began in the 1960’s to assist those who were financially disadvantaged (Ware & Determan, 1966). Also, race-based scholarships were important given that they helped diversify many college campuses at a time when minorities were blatantly underrepresented. Throughout history, race-based scholarships are still used to promote diversity on campus. To some they grant opportunity, to others they are tactics for diversification. Presently, race-based scholarships are being opposed by some Whites claiming that they experience reverse discrimination.
As the title suggests, race-based scholarships are awarded on the premise of race.
Some race-based scholarships cater to all students of color, while others may have clauses or stipulations in order to apply. Many of these scholarships are also merit-based, requiring students to have a certain grade point average or test score. A majority of these scholarships are renewable under the condition that the student maintains their academic requirements.
Recently, many race-based policies including race scholarships have come under attack. It has been claimed that they discriminate on the bases of race. Many Whites have verbalized their concerns, stating that race policies are unfair and they violate their Fourteenth Amendment right and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; nonetheless, other minority groups have also verbalized their concerns, especially when a scholarship only grants an award to one racial group.
There are many legal cases on racial policies that have impacted the future of affirmative action and the current use of race in the admission process and scholarship distributions. Many of the historical cases regarding race in higher education where filed by Blacks who were discriminated against in admission policies (Moore, 2005). However, changes occurred in the 1970’s after the pivotal case, The University of California Regents vs. Bakke (1978). Whites claiming reverse discrimination became a common occurrence.
Bakke, a White male, sued the University of California claiming that he was denied admission into medical school because of his race. Bakke had also applied to 12 other medical schools and was rejected. The university had instituted affirmative action programs to increase their minority student population in their medical school. Bakke proclaimed that the University of California Medical School rejected his application based on preferential admission policies for students of color. Of the 100 medical school openings that year, 16 slots were set aside for minority applicants. The California Supreme Court favored Bakke; however, this decision was appealed and was tried in the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that race quotas were illegal; however, the university continued to allow race considerations in their admission practices (Moore, 2005; Teddlie & Freeman, 2002; Malman, 1996)
In Hopwood vs. Texas (1996), Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School because she was denied admission (Moore, 2005). Again, affirmative action was an issue in this case. She claimed that the admission requirements were set higher for White students than minorities. In the past, Texas has had an extensive history of discrimination against minorities, especially Blacks (Moore, 2005). The university implemented a desegregation plan which required the state to admit 10 percent Hispanics and 5 percent Blacks into its entering law school class. According to Moore (2005), this was not a quota, but a goal to improve its diversity. The court ruled in favor of Hopwood, finding that the university violated her equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that diversity was not a compelling state interest (Moore, 2005; Olivas, 1999; Anderson, 2002).
Gratz vs. Bollinger (1997) and Grutter vs. Bollinger (1997) are two recent landmark cases in higher education pertaining to affirmative action (Moore, 2005). As a comparison to the Bakke decision, the University of Michigan faced many legal challenges due to the use of race in their admission policies. Jennifer Gratz and another White student, were denied admission to the University of Michigan in 1995 and 1997. They met the admission requirements and filed suit declaring that the university admitted minorities that had lower test scores. The university indicated that students of color were underrepresented. The two also argued that students of color admitted into the university did meet the admission requirements. The plaintiffs claimed discrimination on the bases that students of color and athletes were granted extra points on their applications (Moore, 2005).
Barbara Grutter was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School in 1996 (Moore, 2005). The university was sensitive to the needs of underrepresented students of color and was known to enroll large numbers of minority students. Grutter’s grade point average and test scores qualified for her admission. She felt that the university displayed racial preference to minority applicants (Moore, 2005).
In the ruling of both cases, the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act played a pivotal role; nonetheless, in 2003 the court found that the use of race policies in the admission process was constitutional. However, the use of the university’s point system was unconstitutional (Devins, 2003; Moore, 2005). The University of Michigan upheld that the decision to use race to diversify the student body was educationally beneficial. This decision aided in the reduction of racial stereotypes, and supported a more racially tolerant society, in which the Supreme Court concurred (Moore, 2005).
Each of these riveting cases and countless others that pertain to racial policies, have changed the current status of how race is viewed in higher education. Many of the cases filed mostly pertain to Whites who have been denied admission; however, Whites are not the only racial group to sue on the basis of race. In 1991, Daniel Podberesky sued the University of Maryland claiming that he was denied a scholarship because of his race. The university had instituted the Benjamin Banneker scholarship (a race-based scholarship) that was awarded to 30 to 40 Black students annually (Anonymous, 1998). Podberesky argued that he did not receive the scholarship because he was Hispanic. The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Podberesky be considered for the scholarship and denied the university the right to appeal the case (Harvard Law Review, 1994; Mulman, 1996; Moore, 2005). As a result of this ruling in 1995, the five states in the Fourth Circuit Court: Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia cannot institute race-based scholarships; they are now illegal (Anonymous, 1998).
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education reported the following changes that occurred following the Podberesky case: the Benjamin Banneker Scholarship Program merged with the university’s Key Scholarship Program. Nineteen of the 71 recipients were Black, reducing the number of Black applicants in half. After the court’s decision, the University of Virginia’s Achievement Award created in the 1980’s, provided full tuition for approximately 50 Black students with the use of private money. This award was modified to admit non-Black minorities and White students. The University of Texas terminated the state’s minority scholarship program to avoid legal ramifications (Anonymous, 1998). These legal proceedings have drastically changed minority’s access to higher education.
In most of the research, affirmative action has been used to remedy past discrimination. Opponents of affirmative action feel that provisions have been made to apologize for past discrimination practices. As a result of the many court rulings, Texas, Washington, Florida, and California have forbid the use affirmative action policies in their universities (Cross, 2000). The states have declared all race-based programs illegal. Nonetheless, in order to assist students of color and those of lower socioeconomic status, programs and scholarships have changed their language. The use of the word “underrepresented” and the use of certain geographic locations have been strategically inserted to aid in the support of certain populations without referencing race.
Merit Scholarships
Merit scholarships have increased in number over the last decade. Heller (2002) indicates that through collaboration with the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, and the State Student Incentive Grant Program, it was encouraged that states provide scholarships to fund higher educations so that all students could obtain access. The Pell Grant, established in 1972, was another incentive to give students who came from lower income families the opportunity to attend college based on financial need and socioeconomic status (Geiger, 1999).
Currently, academic merit awards have replaced many need-based awards (Heller, 2002). The most popular and well know merit scholarship is the Georgia HOPE (Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally) Scholarship. In 1993, the HOPE program was founded and is one of the oldest state-sponsored merit scholarships. It has been a model for many other merit scholarships in the country. The scholarship was established by the Georgia Student Finance Commission which was founded in 1965 (Heller, 2002). This commission has dedicated itself to help Georgia residents receive education beyond high school. The monetary commitment for this scholarship is funded by the Georgia state lottery. Students considered for this scholarship must be a resident of the state of Georgia and plan to attend an in-state university. This award is based on high school achievement. Students must obtain at least a 3.2 cumulative grade point average on a 4.0 scale. HOPE provides full tuition, fees and a $300 book allowance to any in-state public university. For private institutions, HOPE awards $3000. HOPE does not provide room and board for both public and private universities (HOPE Regulations).
Academic excellence is paramount for the HOPE scholarship. Many common issues have surfaced for students upon receiving the award. In order to meet the academic standards, students have been known to enroll in fewer classes per term, withdraw from the classes that are difficult, and enroll in courses that are less demanding and challenging (Cornwell & Mustard, 2002). HOPE has implemented checkpoints to insure that students are maintaining their academic requirements and limiting the use of decreasing credit hours when students are faced with difficulties (Cornwell Mustard, 2002). Based on Cornwell and Mustard’s (2000) observation, those who lose the HOPE scholarship tend to be those who have majored in science, computer, and engineering fields; nonetheless, there are no racial differences in students who fail to meet the scholarship requirements. The HOPE award has instituted stricter academics guidelines to balance the scholarship’s budget. In its attempts to toughen academic standards, in 2002, high school students had to earn an A or B in core courses instead of less challenging elective courses. Increasing the academic standards has reduced the number of qualified applicants by approximately 30 percent (Cornwell & Mustard, 2002).