Abstract
This paper analyzes racial and ethnic subgroup inequality in higher education in India and the US. Affirmative action policies in both countries rely upon broad categories that subsume distinct groups. These policies have failed to alleviate the significant underrepresentation of black natives and certain lower-castes by considering these populations alongside discrete and oftentimes more advantaged groups. Such inequality hinders attainment of affirmative action's remedial justice and diversity goals. Some states in India have implemented ‘quotas within quotas’ to alleviate such underrepresentation, dividing lower caste subgroups for admissions purposes. We suggest that US institutions of higher education adopt a similar model by considering black Hispanics, multiracial blacks, black immigrants, and black natives as separate categories in recruiting and admissions.
Introduction
India and the U.S. are heterogeneous countries marked by historic and ongoing ethnic discrimination. Similarly to America with its strong racial divisions, Indian society has long been divided hierarchically. But in India the divisions are more specifically defined among four Hindu castes known as varnas, which in total contain between two and three thousand subcastes, or jatis (Deshpande 2006). Dalits, or “untouchables,” include those jatis that fall outside the Varna caste system, and have long been subject to violent oppression.
Both countries have instituted affirmative action policies in higher education to increase the proportion of underrepresented ethnic groups on their nation's college campuses. Both India and the U.S. also rely upon broad racial and ethnic categories for allocating affirmative action benefits, a practice that subsumes distinct subgroups.
This paper will analyze the extent to which affirmative-action policies have failed to achieve equitable representation of caste subgroups and black subgroups in higher education in each country. The first section briefly describes the goals and implementation processes of both countries' affirmative action policies, and argues that subgroup inequality is a barrier to attaining the objective of equitable representation of minority groups. The next section examines the underrepresentation of subgroups in higher education, as well as explains socioeconomic and cultural differences that merit subgroup divisions. The final section discusses Indian state governments' attempts to diminish subgroup inequality by further dividing aggregated ethnic groups, and asserts that the U.S. should adopt similar strategies. We suggest that all American colleges and universities collect demographic data for black Hispanics, 1 multiracial blacks, 2 black immigrants, 3 and black natives, 4 and consider these classifications in recruiting and admissions.
Black Hispanics are defined as those who identify as both Hispanic and black.
Multiracial blacks are defined as non-Hispanics who have one black parent and one parent of another race.
Black immigrants are defined as non-Hispanic students with two black parents, at least one of whom was born outside the US.
Black natives are defined as non-Hispanics with two black parents who were both born in the US.
Affirmative Action's Higher Education Goals
Although affirmative action's basic premise is similar in India and the U.S., its implementation and rationale differ between the two nations. American affirmative action in higher education consists of an ambiguous combination of targeted recruiting efforts, ethnically specific scholarship programs, and consideration of race as a factor in admissions (Krishnan 2012). Indian affirmative action policies, or reservations as they are commonly known, are explicit quotas for historically oppressed castes and groups classified as Scheduled Castes 5 (SCs), Scheduled Tribes 6 (STs), and Other Backward Classes 7 (OBCs) (Deshpande 2006). Indian public institutions of higher learning set lower minimum qualifying scores for these groups, except in “super-speciality” fields, to increase the likelihood of filling the reserved seats (Weisskopf 2004).
Castes designated as SCs were at the bottom of the caste hierarchy and formerly known as “untouchables”.
Tribal communities outside of mainstream Indian society were given special designation as Scheduled Tribes.
Other Backward Classes include other lower jatis that were not “untouchables” but similar to SCs in socio-economic status.
The goals of American affirmative-action programs include both remedial justice for oppressed groups 8 and diversity on college campuses. The landmark Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program, which sought to attain “racial and ethnic diversity with special reference to the inclusion of students from groups which have been historically discriminated against, like African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans” (Bollinger 2003). Although Michigan's policy exhibits affirmative action's dual goals, the Court found the program constitutional based only upon the compelling governmental interest in the educational benefits derived from diversity (Grutter, 2003), rather than racial justice. Krishnan (2012) asserts that the diversity rationale, which does not exist in India, is simply a proxy for the true goal of social justice, while Rene (2011) argues American judges and legislators invoke diversity to circumvent discussions of racial disparities. Regardless of the relative importance of each of these affirmative action goals, both play significant roles in the formation of American affirmative action programs and should be considered in the context of subgroup inequality.
“Remedial justice for oppressed groups” is defined as remedying past or ongoing discrimination against a group. All members of the group receive all benefits conferred by remedial justice policies, without needing to prove specific discrimination against an individual.
Indian lawmakers explicitly recognize that reservations are designed to proactively remedy remaining inequalities among lower castes and other oppressed groups (Rene 2011). Relative to that of the U.S., the Indian government more openly recognizes ongoing discrimination and systematic group disadvantage (Cunningham and Menon 1999; Krishnan 2012), contributing to greater acceptance of affirmative action's goal of remedial and redistributive justice. Article 15(4) of the Indian constitution specifically permits the government to make reservations for backward classes in public institutions of higher learning (Indian Const. art. XV, § 4), further enabling recognition of reservation policies′ remedial purposes (Krishnan 2012).
Affirmative action programs, under the goal of remedial justice, intend to assist those groups who have experienced historical or present discrimination. The subgroup inequalities that affirmative action fails to proactively alleviate limit attainment of the policies′ goals. The continued underrepresentation of particular subgroups demonstrates that some have not received sufficient assistance from the policies.
Subgroup inequality is also salient in the context of the U.S. diversity rationale. Under the operating framework of affirmative action, having increased numbers of students from certain oppressed groups is equated with an increase in educational benefits derived from diversity. If subgroups offer distinct cultural perspectives, then underrepresentation of these groups represents a substantial failure in attaining the goal of true campus and classroom diversity. Subgroup inequality must therefore be identified and alleviated in order better attain affirmative action's objectives in both nations.
Subgroup Underrepresentation and Distinct Identities
This section establishes the underrepresentation of subgroups in higher education and explains the differences that merit subgroup division in both India and the U.S. In India, caste has been a major factor in determining socioeconomic differences among subgroups, advantaging some groups in accessing reservations over others. Similarly, socioeconomic differences in the U.S. favor immigrant and multiracial black subgroups over black natives, while cultural differences justify further subgroup categorization for diversity purposes.
India
Caste-related socioeconomic disparities create different opportunities for subgroups to take advantage of reservations, limiting the effectiveness of India's reparations-based affirmative action policy. Various regions exhibit subgroup inequalities in higher education enrollment. In the northern state of Punjab, for example, though the Chamars and Ramdasias compose only 38.6 % of the total Dalit population, they occupy 56.5 % of the available reserved seats in higher education. The Churas, in contrast, who make up 16.1 % of the Dalit population, only occupy 4.5 % of the seats (Rao 2009). The same phenomenon occurs in southern states such as Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.
Though more fortunate castes constitute 11 % of OBCs in Tamil Nadu, they receive four times more scholarship money and make up 44 % of the admitted engineering students. Less fortunate castes compose 12 % of the population but only 2 % of admitted engineering students (Sowell 2004). In Andhra Pradesh, the top seven castes only account for 30.6 % of the population, but receive 50.8 % of the scholarships for higher education (Lakshmanan 1990).
The same caste-based structural forces that prevent SC, ST, and OBC students from succeeding in open competition for admission in higher education extend to subgroups (Weisskopf 2004). Distinct caste-based employment histories and limited access to resources determine subgroups′ abilities to take advantage of reservations in higher education. In the state of Punjab, dalit jatis occupied positions due to their caste histories, which disparately equipped them for social mobility after economic liberalization. The Churas, as scavengers and low-wage laborers, lacked the skills to seek other professions after scavenging contractors lowered wages after liberalization, whereas the Chamars, as leather makers, adapted to the new economy quickly (Rao 2009).
Similar forces operate in the state of Andhra Pradesh, where caste-based economic security and discrimination disadvantaged the Madiga jati more than the Mala jati in seeking educational opportunities. Madigas' lower dalit caste status confined them to “impure” occupations such as carcass removal and leather making, which were stigmatized but earned secure sources of income. Malas, a higher status dalit jati, were in competition with other caste groups in a “purer” profession as agricultural laborers. This competition compelled them to search for other sources of livelihood, making them the first to take advantage of new government and missionary educational facilities for dalits (Rao 2009).
United States
Analogously, socioeconomic differences between black subgroups contribute to different educational outcomes, while cultural distinctions among applicants affect the realization of diversity goals in the US.
According to Massey et al (2007), 9 there is a disproportionate number of black immigrants in the nation's most selective colleges. In 1999, black natives composed 59.4 % of the black freshman population at Ivy League schools while black immigrants made up 40.6 % of the black freshman population at these schools (Massey et al. 2007). A 2007 study of freshmen entering the thirty-one elite colleges that comprise the Consortium on Financing Higher Education revealed that 19 % of the black students were multiracial, though only about 6 % of the college-age blacks in the US at the time were multiracial (Brown 2009). Similar trends apply when looking at individual university campuses.
This paper draws data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Freshmen, and only cites the socioeconomic data of admits as opposed to applicants. A study of applicants would complement the research and help to further explain disparities in admissions, potentially revealing further inequalities between black subgroups.
In a Harvard University survey administered during the 1999–2000 academic year, black natives composed 37.65 % of the black population on campus, though they made up close to 90 % of all blacks in America in the same year. Black immigrants constituted 49 % of black students at Harvard despite constituting only approximately 10 % of the general black population in the United States (Haynie 2002).
At the time these studies were conducted, universities grouped together all black students, including multiracials, immigrants, and natives, into a single category (Brown 2009). Though all the causes of this underrepresentation are not known, the monolithic categorization of “black” masked the relatively socioeconomically advantaged position that college-bound black immigrants and multiracials had over black natives, making it more difficult for black natives to compete for acceptance at selective universities. Advantages for immigrants and multiracials, such as lower exposure to violence and higher neighborhood integration lead to better educational outcomes, which can make them more attractive to admissions officers when considering all black applicants as one applicant pool rather than as distinct subgroups (Burdick-Will 2013; Massey et al. 2007).
Admissions offices simply focused on the fact that immigrants and multiracials were “black,” satisfying the affirmative action criteria, but ignored the causes of these subgroups′ higher test scores (Massey et al. 2007). 10 Black immigrants and multiracial blacks grow up in more integrated neighborhoods, which, among many other factors, is important to educational outcomes (Leong 2006; Massey et al. 2007). Card and Rothstein (2007) found that moving from a highly segregated to an integrated neighborhood is associated with a 45-point narrowing of the black-white SAT gap.
This study uses data from samples of SAT test takers in the years 1998–2001 to construct models that control for various factors such as family background and income, revealing a lower SAT scores among blacks in more segregated cities.
Similar differences are found in social capital and resource access between subgroups. Multiracial black families in which the father is white and the mother is black have resources that exceed those offered by monoracial blacks; black immigrants benefit from networking in tight-knit immigrant communities (Brown and Bell 2008; Haynie 2002). One study of 28 selective colleges and universities found that 70 % of black immigrants' fathers were college graduates and 44 % had advanced degrees. Among native black students, these figures were just 55 % and 25 % respectively (Massey et al. 2007). All these socioeconomic differences contribute to different educational outcomes between black subgroups that make it more difficult for black natives to compete when evaluating “black” applicants as a monolithic group.
Black subgroups also demonstrate distinct cultural identities. Relative to black immigrants and multiracials, black natives identify more with involuntary migrants and historical race-based discrimination in the U.S. At Harvard, only black native students mentioned the stereotyping of blacks as unintelligent and present-day racism as motivation to succeed academically, whereas black immigrants considered their ethnic origin, and black multiracials attributed no importance to their ethnicity or race (Haynie 2002) when they described their motivation.
This may be due to the fact that black immigrants draw from the culture of their host country, which makes them less likely to think of themselves in terms of their race (Brown and Bell 2008). Black immigrants and their children prefer to identify with their national origin rather than their race, in part because their national identity is not tied to the negative burden of stigmatization and victimization of blacks in America. Identification with national origin over race partially shields them from the effects of stereotype threat in the U.S, (Owens and Lynch 2013). A 1999 study of West Indian immigrants found that American-born children of immigrants tend to establish identities separate from African Americans to benefit from being considered model minorities (Brown and Bell 2008). 11
This is not to say that identity convergence does not occur at all (Waters 1994). It should be noted, however, that most studies regarding identity convergence are mostly done in the northeast, and not in the south, which has a more distinct racial past. In a qualitative study at Georgia State University, Ogundipe (2011) found that black immigrants were more likely to adopt identities and perceptions of discrimination similar to black natives. However, this study used a very small sample size, and is not generalizable, but suggests that further research should be done on regional differences.
Many multiracial blacks, in contrast, develop border identities that do not fully align with either of their racial origins (Brown and Bell 2008). At one predominantly white university, biracials had an 80 % lower chance of feeling close to other black students relative to monoracial blacks (Leong 2006).
Affirmative action policies in both India and the United States have broad categories that subsume subgroups with significant socioeconomic, historical, and cultural differences. A failure to differentiate these groups when implementing affirmative action allows for a continuation of disparities in access to higher education.
Policies to Alleviate Subgroup Inequality
Although both countries exhibit subgroup inequalities in higher education, Indian state governments have instituted policies to mitigate the maldistribution of affirmative action benefits within target populations, while the U.S. has done little to alleviate such concerns. This dichotomy follows the general trend of Indian governments' comparatively more careful, scientific approach to determining which groups should benefit from affirmative action policies (Jenkins 2004). However, the underutilization of reservations by specific jatis prevents Indian policies from achieving their goals of remedial justice, as those deemed entitled to the policies are denied adequate access to them.
Further compartmentalizing reservations better targets benefits to those groups the policies are designed to assist; U.S. affirmative action policies would be more effective if a similar strategy were implemented. The Tamil Nadu Second Backward Classes Commission (1985) asserts that the Indian Constitution recognizes the use of separate compartments in the distribution of benefits by differentiating between SCs, STs, and OBCs. Greater division within these overarching groups is a logical extension of India's affirmative-action policies.
Punjab was the first Indian state to differentiate between subgroups, instituting forty years ago what would become commonly known as “quotas within quotas.” In May 1975, the state government issued a directive to provide half of the existing 25 % reservation for SCs to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, citing difficulties these groups had competing with more socioeconomically advanced groups such as Chamars (Jodhka and Kumar 2007). This sub-quota applied only to government employment, but in 2006 a Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh advocacy group called for its extension to higher education, arguing the educational reservation would better prepare these groups to utilize the employment quota (Jodhka and Kumar 2007).
Tamil Nadu was the next state to divide its broad class categories to diminish subgroup inequality. In 1985, the Tamil Nadu Second Backward Classes Commission asserted that broad reservation categories exclusively benefited the elite classes within those groups. The Commission (1985) suggested correcting such inequalities by dividing OBCs by degree of ‘backwardness’ into three groups, and equally distributing the OBC reservations to each ‘compartment’ based upon its share of the OBC population. The Commission (1985) stated “social justice” (p. 293) motivated its policy suggestion, as it sought to correct specific castes’ underrepresentation in reserved positions.
In March 1989, Tamil Nadu's government implemented compartmental reservations based upon the Commission's suggestions, but employed a slightly different approach. The government set aside 20 % of all reservations in education and government employment to those OBCs considered ‘most backwards,’ and left the remaining 30 % of the existing 50 % OBC reservation to all other OBCs (Radhakrishnan 1989). Tamil Nadu again implemented subgroup reservations in 2009. The government set aside 3 %, out of the 18 % reservation for SCs in education and government employment, for seven underrepresented castes collectively known as the Arunthathiyar community and regarded as ‘untouchables among untouchables’ (The Hindu 2010; Viswanathan 2009).
Andhra Pradesh instituted the most specific of India's quotas-within-quotas in 2000, based upon the findings of a 1997 Commission report that revealed significant maldistribution of reservation benefits. The AP government placed castes in to groups A-D, descending in level of backwardness, and gave each group a reservation in education and government employment proportional to its makeup of the general population. Groups A, B, C, and D respectively contained the Relli, Madiga, Mala, and Adi-Andhra groups of castes, and respectively received 1 %, 7 %, 6 %, and 1 % reservations of all positions (Kumar 2009).
The United States government should adapt India's strategy of compartmentalization to the context of American affirmative-action programs in order to increase enrollment of underrepresented black subgroups. Although American universities' affirmative-action programs are distinct from India's reservations, the general strategy of dividing overarching categories is equally applicable. Nesiah (1997) argues that, similarly to the way India separates SCs, STs, and OBCs, American colleges already compartmentalize affirmative action benefits into the different ethnic and racial groups, resulting in different admissions standards for different groups at the nation's selective universities. Given the distinctions in culture and access to resources that exist between different black subgroups, further dividing the broad racial categories flows logically from India's precedent and the existing compartmental structure, and serves to advance affirmative action's goals of diversity and social justice for oppressed groups.
The Department of Education (DOE) currently mandates a nationally standardized system of reporting students' races and ethnicities. The policy, which was instituted in the 2010–11 academic year, requires that students who elect to report demographic information first state whether they are Hispanic/Latino. Respondents then check one or more of the following racial categories: (1) American Indian or Alaska Native, (2) Asian, (3) Black or African American, (4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and/or (5) White. The DOE requires educational institutions to report Hispanics/Latinos as “Hispanic/Latino” regardless of their race. Contrary to the previous admissions practice of categorizing multiracial blacks as “black,” the DOE now mandates that those who check more than one race be reported in the category “Two or More Races” regardless of the specific races selected (Brown 2011). These broad categories, however, subsume black subgroups. We suggest that the DOE reform its policies to require the separate reporting of black Hispanics, black immigrants, multiracial blacks, and black natives, and encourage selective universities to consider these classifications in their admissions and recruiting programs in order to alleviate underrepresentation.
This increased categorization will advance both the diversity and social justice goals of American affirmative action. Each of the aforementioned subgroups offers different cultural backgrounds, and has distinct access to resources rooted in disparate levels of historical and ongoing discrimination. Brown (2011) argues DOE standards create incentives for admissions officials to group black Hispanics with all others in the “Hispanic/Latino” category, as the federal government does not count black Hispanics as members of universities′ black populations. The DOE and American universities value the unique cultural perspectives of ethnic Hispanics, and it would thus be illogical to place black Hispanics in a general “Black/African American” category. Additionally, the distinct racial discrimination that black Hispanics experience in the US relative to other Hispanics necessitates separation from this broad group (Brown 2011; Brown and Romero 2011). Underrepresentation of black Hispanics is also more likely if they are considered members of the “Hispanic/Latino” category due to the greater relative access to resources non-black Hispanics tend to have.
Similar reasoning leads to the separation of multiracial blacks from other, broader categories. Just as the DOE policy motivates admissions officials to group black Hispanics with the broader category of “Hispanic/Latino,” multiracial blacks would be grouped in the “Two or More Races” category (Brown 2011). Multiracial blacks face distinct discriminatory pressures relative to other multiracial groups such as Whites/Asians, who currently constitute a large percentage of the “Two or More Races” category, but also have greater access to resources compared to black natives (Brown 2011). The creation of a distinct multiracial black category would alleviate potential underrepresentation of this group resulting from placement in the “Two or More Races” category, while ensuring that the significant underrepresentation of black natives is revealed.
Under current DOE regulations, black immigrants remain grouped with black natives in the “Black/African American” category, masking the underrepresentation of the latter group. Black immigrants are culturally distinct from black natives, and black immigrants' greater average access to resources integral to academic success necessitates their placement in a category separate from black natives (Massey et al. 2007). Under the remedial justice rationale, blacks' lower average access to resources relative to that of whites is used to demonstrate the effects of historical and ongoing racial discrimination. Disparate resource access between immigrant and black natives similarly demonstrates a greater level of historical and ongoing discrimination against black natives. The two groups, therefore, should be considered separately for affirmative-action purposes.
Creating a separate demographic category for black natives would help ameliorate American affirmative action's failure to target and increase the representation of one of the groups most in need of socioeconomic advancement. Affirmative action policies' specific references to historically oppressed groups demonstrate the need to separately count those who have endured generations of racial discrimination. This policy suggestion, therefore, would promote the diverse representation of racial groups with distinct experiences and histories, while better targeting affirmative action policies to attain their social justice goals. Bowen and Bok (1998) demonstrate that increased college selectivity results in post-graduation wage increases, and that the wage premium for attending selective schools is greater for blacks than it is for whites. Greater representation of black natives in selective schools will thus likely improve labor market outcomes for this group.
The policy is limited by the overlap of its categories. There will certainly be some multiracial blacks with Hispanic parents placed in the Hispanic black category, and multiracial students with black foreign-born parents placed in the multiracial black, rather that immigrant black, category. This imperfect subcategorization, however, is superior to a status quo in which distinct groups are amalgamated in such a way that reaching affirmative-action goals is not possible. There is also a risk of fraudulent self-reporting in order to gain greater benefits, but such fraud is no more likely in this model than it is in the status quo.
The policy is further limited by its use of parent place-of-birth as the determinant for categorization. This decision is largely practical, rather than based on empirical evidence, as it would be more difficult to set a certain number of grandparents or great-grandparents who need to be born outside the US in order to be considered an immigrant. This cutoff is also based on the definition of black immigrants used in the existing literature that compares immigrant and black natives.
Furthermore, the suggestion will likely reduce acceptance rates for other ethnic groups, as colleges attempt to increase the representation of black natives. Certain ethnic groups already have higher acceptance rates at selective universities under the status quo in the interest of diversity and social justice (Nesiah 1997), and thus this criticism does not undermine the overriding benefits of this policy suggestion.
Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Study
The United States should implement Indian states' policies of compartmentalization in order to diminish subgroup inequality and further advance affirmative action's goals of diversity and remedial justice. Failing to act would result in the continued dilution of black native representation at the nation's top colleges. Data regarding black Hispanics, multiracial blacks, and black immigrants are also lost under the current DOE standards. Such information should be tracked in order to ensure equitable allocation of affirmative action benefits and significant representation of these groups on college campuses. However, further studies should be conducted to determine the level of benefit affirmative action programs have conferred to the various black subgroups, relative to a race-blind status quo, in order to better understand this issue.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Professors William Darity, Jr. and Rhonda Sharpe for the assistance they provided us in crafting this paper. We would also like to thank all those who gave us comments at the “Subaltern Peoples: Comparative Experience of African Americans, Dalits, and Tribals Conference.”