Affirmative action in India and

the United States

JULIE PALMER

Issue and Research Question

Overall Issues:

Affirmative action receives a lot of criticism in the United

States, but how is it viewed in other countries?
Is affirmative action actually helping students that need
increased access to higher education?
What shape is affirmative action legislation taking now?

Research Question:

How and to what extent have affirmative action policies

impacted access to higher education for students who identify
as having low socioeconomic status in India and United States,
respectively?

Literature Review
Affirmative Action in India

Began in late 19th century, early

20th century

Aimed to reduce power of

highest caste

Caste based

Affirmative Action in the U.S.

Began with Civil Rights Act of
1964

Dalits (untouchables), Adivasis,

Other Backward Classes (OBC)

Originally race based

Quotas and reservations

2008: 15% reserved for Dalits

and 7.5% Adivasis
Most states have higher quotas
Tamil Nadu: 69% for
backward castes

Specified in Executive Order

No. 11246
Began with African
Americans, now includes
other racial groups
Merit based in some states

Factor in admissions

U of C v. Bakke (1978)

Literature Review contd.

Basis for Comparison
Democratic electoral

systems

Constitutions that protect

individual and civil rights

Identities with history of

oppression

Considered the focus of

affirmative action policies

Recent changes in AA

policies are hotly debated

Politically and judicially

Cultural Indicators
Individualism vs. Collectivism

India: Close social networks, what

is best for the community
U.S.: Personal responsibility,
American Dream

Pluralistic vs. Non-pluralistic

India: Different identity groups

exist among one another
U.S.: Place differences aside to
absorb society norms

Class structure

Mobility in India v. U.S.

Conflict Perspective
Education as a system for reinforcing norms and power

dynamics
Affirmative action policies-struggle between the ruling
class and subordinate class?
False consciousnessAA is allowing for exploitation of
the subordinate classes
Limitations
U.S. does not have class based AA policy
Public schoolshigher education is not owned by
the Bourgeoisie
Marxs definition of class has changed

Methodology
Indias Mandal Commission Report (1978)

Social, educational, and economic factors weighted to determine the

categorization of caste as backward or advanced

U.S.s Texas House Bill 588 (1997)

Color blind AA created to comply with Hopwood v. Texas (1996), which forbid
race-based affirmative action

Criteria for analysis:

1. The history behind the document, and the feelings toward
affirmative action at the time
2. The content of the text, specifically, how access for low
socioeconomic students is addressed
3. Analysis of the history, attitudes, and text itself through the
conflict perspective

Analysis of Findings
Mandal Commission Report

Provided greater quotas for those of lower castes

Driven by powerful politicians of higher castes
Greater emphasis on class, reinforcing capitalist system

People are being advantaged or disadvantaged based on family history

House Bill 588

Top 10% of high school class guarantees admissions to any Texas

state school
Driven by push back against race based affirmative action
Class and family situation is considered for students not admitted
under 10% rule

Economic and educational privilege is not a large consideration

Suggestions and Further Research

Suggestions for India

Update caste criteria with familial income criteria

Too much emphasis based on class, even if policies are positive

Suggestions for the U.S.

Consider the benefit of diversity to all of the student body

Top 10% rule is a start, but more is needed for low SES students

Further Research

Efforts being made to weed out the creamy layer or the groups that
do not need AA to increase their access to higher education
Retention of students admitted under different phases or types of
Affirmative Action

Which policies are most successful for increasing access to low SES
students?

References

Primary Sources
Constitution of India (1947). Republic of India. Retrieved from http://india.gov.in/my-government/
Mandal Commission Report (1978). Republic of India. Retrieved from http://india.gov.in/my-government/
Texas House Bill No. 588 (1997). Retrieved from http://www.legis.state.tx.us
Secondary Sources
Beckwith, F., & Jones, T. E. (1997). Affirmative action: Social justice or reverse discrimination?. Amherst: Prometheus
Books.
Chandola, M. V. (1992). Affirmative action in India and the United States: the untouchable and black experience. Indiana
International & Comparative Law Review, 3(1), 101.
Combs, G. & Nadkarni, S. (May 2005). The tale of two cultures: Attitudes towards affirmative action in the United States and
India. Journal of World Business, 40(2), 158-171.
Cunningham, C. D. (Fall 1999). Affirmative action: Indias example. Civil Rights Journal. Retrieved from
http://law.gsu.edu/Equality/CivRtsJournal.pdf
Desai, S. & Kulkarni, V. (May 2008). Changing Educational Inequalities in India in the Context of Affirmative Action.
Demography, 45(2), 245270.
Fgerlind, I., & Saha, L. (1989). The Origins of Modern Development Thought, Education and National Development (pp. 331). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Harris, G. (7 October 2012). With affirmative action, Indias rich gain school slots meant for poor. New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/
Lynch, K. (1989). The hidden curriculum: Reproduction in Education, a Reappraisal. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
Parikh, S. (1997). The politics of preference: Democratic institutions and affirmative action in the United States and India.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sowell, T. (2004). Affirmative action around the world: An empirical study. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Weisskopf, T. E. (2004). Affirmative action in the United States and India: A comparative perspective. New York: Routledge.
Wyatt-Nichol, H., Brown, S., & Haynes, W. (2012). Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(2), 187-208.