What does psychology have to do with affirmative action? In the author's opinion, questioning the relevance of psychology to an issue such as affirmative action is, unfortunately, not an uncommon query, even among many people within the field of psychology. When most people, both within and outside the field, make an association between psychology and affirmative action, it is in terms of the debate over racial differences in performance on intelligence tests. Thus, the decision to write this book was based upon what was seen as a need to demonstrate and highlight the substantive contribution that psychology can make in terms of improving our understanding of why it is that people respond to affirmative action with a variety of reactions and emotions. The primary goal of this book is to discuss empirical research and theoretical work on affirmative action from a psychological perspective. The intended audience is academics, including undergraduate and graduate students, and social science researchers.

This study used two contrasting theoretical perspectives in an assessment of college student's attitudes toward affirmative action policies for women and minorities. One perspective was Wellman's (1977) Interest Theory of Discrimination and the other one was based on the Minority Identity Development Model constructed Atkinson, Morten and Sue (1989). Survey methods were utilized to gather data from 479 undergraduate students enrolled in a Midwestern university. Following the development model, it was argued that white female students and black students (both males and females) would have favorable attitudes toward affirmative action policies because of their minority status. Conversely, following Wellman's "interest theory of discrimination," the attitudes of white male college students would be unfavorable toward affirmative action policies. The minority identity/true consciousness perspective explains many, but not all, of this study's findings. That the white female and black college students have not developed "true consciousness" regarding their mutual minority status is suggested by the data. Likewise, Wellman's (1977) interest theory was also useful in explaining some of the findings.

* Marshalls the arguments for affirmative action* Offers strategies for actionWhy is affirmative action under attack? What were the policy’s original purposes, and have they been achieved? What are the arguments being arrayed against it? And–for all stakeholders concerned about equity and diversity on campus–what’s the way forward, politically, legally, and practically?The authors explore the historical context, the philosophical and legal foundations of affirmative action, present contemporary attitudes to the issue on and off campus, and uncover the tactics and arguments of its opponents. They conclude by offering strategies to counter the erosion of affirmative action, change the basis of the discourse, and coordinate institutional support to foster inclusive college environments and multi-ethnic campus communities.This book analyzes the ideological and legal construction of colorblind legislation that has led to the de facto exclusion of people of color from institutions of higher education. It addresses the role of the courts in affecting affirmative action in higher education as a workplace and place of study. It documents the under-representation of collegians of color and presents research on student opinion on race-based policies at two- and four-year institutions. It details the pervasiveness of the affirmative action debate across educational sectors and the status of race among myriad factors considered in college admissions. Finally, it considers affirmative action as a pipeline issue and in the light of educational policy.

"This book answers this important question. It examines explanations put forth by social scientists, finding various degrees of truth in most of them. Some situate the problem in the policy itself, suggesting that affirmative action functions as a governmentally sanctioned form of reverse racism or sexism, or that is is ineffective or socially disruptive. Such explanations may sound plausible, but they are incorrect. Other explanations locate the problem in the people who react to the policy, citing studies that document the links between ignorance, prejudice, and opposition to affirmative action. Yet even well-informed egalitarian people sometimes oppose affirmative action.".