Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on affirmative action and diversity

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,  Winter 2000  

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Affirmative Action and Diversity)

INTRODUCTION

Across the United States, in classrooms and courtrooms the controversial topics of diversity and affirmative action have come to the fore. They are separate issues, but linked because of the populations they seek to benefit. Critics of affirmative action generally assert that it is wrong to accord preferential treatment to any group of applicants or students. Proponents of diversity programs argue that a more inclusive student population benefits students of all races and backgrounds by better preparing them to live and work in America's increasingly diverse society. As part of this debate over diversity and affirmative action, AACP determined to move beyond the clash of opinions to examine critically the track-record of pharmacy education and offer recommendations to increase diversity and establish cultural competence as an educational outcome.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In 1997, the AACP House of Delegates voted in favor of adopting a 1995 policy statement of the American Council on Education (ACE). The ACE policy statement strongly supports the values of diversity and affirmative action as a means to foster student body diversity in educational institutions. The ACE statement on affirmative action and diversity is the policy of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. The statement is a four-part testimonial to the importance of racial and cultural diversity in educational programs of all subjects and professional fields (see Appendix A). Since the whole area of affirmative action is fraught with legal implications, it is important to begin with a summary of the major case law and other types of legal decisions that shape the present discussion.

LEGAL HISTORY

Since the nation's founding, our laws have reflected Americans' prejudices and aspirations regarding race. What one writer has called the apogee of more than 200 years of oppression occurred in 1857, when the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford embraced pro-slavery arguments in ruling that black citizens of a free state remained enslaved under the laws of the state from which they came. Although the Civil War and Reconstruction brought the Fourteenth Amendment's broad prohibition against states denying equal protection of the laws, that mandate was not soon carried into effect. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court held that the Amendment's Equal Protection Clause did not entitle "colored persons" to sit in the same railway car as whites. The Constitution and sound policy, that Court said, required no more than "separate-but-- equal" public accommodation.

Plessy remained the law for 58 years, through and beyond World War II, until the Supreme Court threw it out in 1954. Brown v. Board of Education and related decisions affirmed the societal need for racial integration of public schools, and ordered that it be achieved "with all deliberate speed." A decade later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited race and sex discrimination by employers (Title VII), and barred race, color, and national origin discrimination by recipients of federal funding (Title VI), including almost all education institutions. Also, in the decades after Brown, the concept of affirmative action emerged in earnest and was applied to racial, ethnic, and other minority groups - as well as to women - in such areas as education, employment, and federally-funded construction.

The development of affirmative action came in a patchwork. President Kennedy in 1961 issued Executive Order 10,925 to forbid race, religion, color, and national-origin discrimination in federal employment. The Order required the federal government to take "affirmative steps to realize more fully the national policy of nondiscrimination," and established a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity. Two years later, President Kennedy expanded "affirmative action" requirements to reach federally-assisted construction projects(l).

In a recent legal battle in Texas, Hopwood v. Texas (1996), a threejudge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (LA, MS & TX) ruled that a Texas law school could not use race as a consideration in its admissions process. The Law School established separate admission processes for minority students. This ruling has made racebased decisions for admissions and financial aid difficult in every public and private educational program in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi. There continue to be reports of majority or white students who are qualified being denied admission to state and other publicly-supported educational programs in order to make room for possibly less qualified minority applicants. Legal challenges continue to appear against all forms of programs, i.e., admissions, financial aid, and scholarships that appear to be preferential to minority students (see Appendix B).

AACP'S RESPONSE

In 1998 AACP President Jordan Cohen recognized that the current policy regarding affirmative action at AACP was susceptible to criticism from outside observers. To assist AACP member schools in understanding the foundation of the AACP policy supporting diversity and affirmative action in pharmaceutical education, President Cohen appointed the AACP Ad Hoc Committee on Affirmative Action and Diversity. The committee was charged to address the following topics and questions: