Susan Sheybani  Sheybani is a
fourth-year political science student. She has been working on an
upcoming book about females and affirmative action, which will be
published by the American Enterprise Institute. Â Â
Affirmative action was intended to provide equal access and
opportunity to groups of individuals previously discriminated
against. These previously discriminated groups not only include
different ethnic and racial groups, but females as well.
In recent years, affirmative action supporters have sought
equality of outcomes in education rather than equality of
opportunity. Feminist organizations call for legal measures to
enforce statistical parity between male and female populations in
various educational fields. Affirmative action is steadily trying
to produce equal outcomes, which is social engineering.
Is gender-based affirmative action still needed when dealing
with university admissions? There was once a time when gender-based
affirmative action was needed to ensure women were admitted into
universities. But with the many advances women have made in
education, it is clear that time has passed.
Current literature supports the fact that women’s
participation in higher education is greater than that of men. In
addition, their performance on standardized tests is equal to that
of men. With a steady rise in the percentage of women earning
degrees, women have exceeded the number of men in both
undergraduate and graduate school since 1984. (Diana
Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba,American Enterprise Institute,
“The Feminist Dilemma: When Success is Not Enough,”
2000).
In spite of the present status of women, there was a time when
women were the victims of extreme educational discrimination. Yet
even though the educational ambitions of women were hampered for
over a century, women today have the opportunity to pursue any
educational goal at any university.
When will the corrective and affirmative action be put to an
end? One major goal of affirmative action was to overcome the
effects of past discrimination. The effects of the past
discrimination toward women in university admissions have been
overcome.
According to the 1999/2000 admissions data provided by the U.S.
News web site, UCLA had a male acceptance rate of 28 percent and a
female acceptance rate of 29 percent. University of California,
Berkeley had a male acceptance rate of 26 percent and a female
acceptance rate of 29 percent. Clearly, the admissions rate of
women are greater than that of their male counterparts at a
majority of California schools, even after the implementation of
Proposition 209.
The University of California, San Diego, for instance, in Fall
1994 recorded a male acceptance rate of 63 percent and a female
acceptance rate of 65 percent. Even in fall 1999, with a more
competitive applicant pool, females continue to have a higher rate
of admission at 49 percent, in contrast to the male rate at 47
percent.
Today, enrollment numbers in higher education indicate a larger
population of women than men. The 1998 New York Times article
“U.S. Colleges Begin to Ask: “˜Where Have the Men
Gone'” (Dec. 6, 1998) noted a decline in the number of
men enrolled in college as opposed to a steady rise in the number
of women enrolled in college.
The literature even states that women are such an overwhelming
majority at some universities that administrators are having
trouble attracting more men. The U.S Department of
Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement
released the NCES Mini-Digest of Education Statistics 1999, which
stated that fall enrollment in institutions of higher education
reported a greater increase for women since 1980 than men.
The digest reported a total male enrollment of 5,874 and a total
female enrollment of 6,223 for the year 1980. For 1999, the digest
reported a total male enrollment of 6,370 and a total female
enrollment of 8,511, a significantly greater increase in female
enrollment.
Still, affirmative action supporters deny the data on
women’s achievements as proof of equality in educational
opportunities. Feminist organizations such as National Organization
for Women (NOW) and the American Association of University Women
(AAUW) continue to support gender-based affirmative action, their
primary reason being that women are not entering certain
educational fields.
Majors in fields dealing with mathematics, science and
engineering continue to be dominated by men. Common sense would
lead a person to conclude that some majors are more appealing to
men than women. For example, women continue to dominate majors in
the fields of dance, nursing and English.
Affirmative action supporters are not looking for common sense
answers. They are seeking the equality of outcomes in education
rather than the equality of opportunity. If women do not make up
half of a particular major, discrimination is branded the culprit.
I believe women choose their majors because of personal preferences
and not educational discrimination.
History clearly demonstrates that for over a century, women were
victims of discrimination; hence, their educational aspirations
were obstructed. But unlike the past, women today can pursue any
educational field they choose. The little female participation in
certain fields can be attributed not to discrimination, but to
choice.
The women of the present enter institutions of higher education
at a rate higher than that of men. Despite this fact, affirmative
action supporters claim that the trend of a women majority
population on university campuses is not enough. Women’s
organizations such as NOW and the AAUW are pushing for parity in
all majors, including those underrepresented by women.
Affirmative action was designed to provide equal opportunity,
not equal outcomes. The goal of affirmative action for women in
education has been achieved.