AP English Language Practice Test (Section 2)

Race-conscious admissions policies, known as affirmative action programs, are implemented in select colleges and universities in the United States. The debate and discussions surrounding affirmative action programs in numerous US colleges and universities have persisted for several decades. Over the years, these institutions have taken into account, among other factors, whether applicants belong to underrepresented minority groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Native American. Recently, the US Supreme Court invalidated affirmative action policies at both Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Some individuals, who have supported this judicial decree believe in elimination of race-conscious policies across all universities. Critics of the decision, however, have shown concern over the implications of race-neutral admission policies on socio-economic aspects of representation and opportunities in the US.

Carefully read the seven sources, including the introductory information for each source. Write an essay that synthesizes material from at least three of the sources and supports your position on the question: Does affirmative action still hold relevance in the context of university education or should it be completely abolished?   

• Source A (Fenwick)
• Source B (Scientific American)
• Source C (Gramlich)
• Source D (ACLU)
• Source E (Arum & Stevens)
• Source F (Stossel)
• Source G (Cole)

In your response you should do the following:

• Respond to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.
• Select and use evidence from at least 3 of the provided sources to support your line of reasoning. Indicate clearly the sources used through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. Sources may be cited as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the description in parentheses.
• Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
• Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.

Source A

Leslie Fenwick. “The untold history of affirmative action — for White people.” Washington Post. July 18, 2023.

The following article is excerpted from an article published by a major American daily newspaper.

As I document in my book “Jim Crow’s Pink Slip,” states recorded in their statutes, laws and budgets their commitment to racial segregation and their outlawing of qualified Black people from attending public colleges and universities. The language of these statutes was common. To this end, state legislatures created “Negro tuition scholarships” in an attempt to skirt the 14th Amendment rights of Black people and maintain their segregationist hold on public colleges and universities.

These “Negro tuition scholarships” were a segregationist tool. They were designed to maintain the states’ mandatory exclusion of Black students from undergraduate and graduate programs in public colleges and universities. This was able to happen because racial discrimination in state laws, violence and intimidation resulted in few Black people being registered to vote in border and southern states. With Black citizens denied their most basic right in a democracy — the right to vote — White people maintained control over all state and local elected and appointed offices, policy formulations and implementation, and state budget allocations and expenditures.

So, what did Black people locked out of taxpayer-funded public colleges and universities do? They established and attended public and private HBCUs. These institutions have never had racially exclusive admission policies. Black residents desiring to attend graduate or professional school could only attend HBCUs. But few HBCUs had graduate and professional school programs, most notably Howard University, Atlanta University, Fisk University and Meharry Medical College. If the HBCUs did not have their field of study, Black students were forced to leave their state of residence to attend an integrated university, usually those located in one of the northeastern or Midwestern states. “Negro tuition scholarships” were allocated for this purpose, essentially booting citizens out of their home state rather than using state funds to integrate colleges and universities.

Generations of Black citizens (seeking PhD, MD, DDS, JD and other graduate and professional degrees) played by the rules — convoluted, imposing and insulting as they were — and trekked to the Northeast, Midwest and even far West to earn master’s and doctoral degrees. As my book discusses, Black teachers and principals (in the border and southern states) seeking master’s and doctoral degrees primarily earned them at these nationally preeminent institutions: New York University, Columbia University, University of Chicago, Harvard University, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, Ohio State University and Iowa State University. Between 1930 and 1960, Columbia University alone awarded 144 doctorates to Black graduates of HBCUs.

The trek by Black educators was an academic migration and did not result in an exodus from the border and southern states. They returned to their home states and continued serving as principals and teachers in segregated all-Black public schools. As part of their community leadership (before and after their academic migration), these educators led voting rights campaigns and established National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapters. Despite their superior academic credentials, exceptional leadership as principals and teachers, and civic activism, 100,000 Black principals and teachers were summarily fired, dismissed and demoted between 1952 and the late 1970s as backlash to Brown.

What is lacking from the leveling-the-playing-field narrative about affirmative-action policies? The long, documented history of Black people competitively outperforming White people (on academic, intellectual and other standardized measures required for entrance into universities and employment). Still, the historical and contemporary records show us that merit has yet to triumph racism.

Source B

The Editors. “The Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Decision Harms Science, Education and Health.” Scientific American. July 6, 2023.

The following article is excerpted from an article published on the online portal of a popular science magazine.

Race-based affirmative action improves lives, as abundant scientific research shows, but the U.S. Supreme Court once again ignored evidence and decided to put an end to the use of the policy in college admissions.

The judges who delivered the majority opinions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University and the University of North Carolina in June interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment—long used to prevent racial discrimination against people of color—to uphold the idea that race should never be discussed in society, let alone be a positive factor in educational decision-making. This ahistorical interpretation, and the broader pushback against the diversity that it represents, leaves anyone who isn’t a cisgendered white man with fewer opportunities than before.

Success is not a finite resource. Society does better, generation after generation, when we extend educational opportunities to people who historically haven’t gotten them. White students benefit educationally from diversity. Black people live longer when they have Black doctors. In study after study, more diversity makes for better work. More innovation happens. More people make money to support the economy. And accomplishments are more meaningful when we lift others up, instead of pulling the ladder up.

State laws already tell us what we need to know about a nationwide ban on affirmative action: making it illegal will reduce the number of minority students who attend college. This deficit will trickle up the education chain. A study of public medical school admissions in states with affirmative action bans showed a drop of nearly 5 percentage points in students from underrepresented groups after the bans took place, while enrollments in other states inched up. And the number of minority students who got STEM degrees in states that prohibited affirmative action fell approximately 10 percent in just five years after the bans set in.

What the affirmative action decision means is fewer Black lawyers who will eventually become partners, judges and justices of the Supreme Court, fewer Latinx doctors in a country where this demographic is rapidly growing and is reaching plurality or majority in some states. There will be even fewer Native American scientists than today in a STEM world that is still overwhelmingly white.

The Harvard suit was brought by a group of students with Asian heritage who said that the university lowered their admissions rankings based on race, making it harder for them to get in. But people with an Asian background are not a monolithic group, and educational achievement varies. While still higher than the average national enrollment rate of about 40 percent, at 57 percent, students with Southeast Asian ancestry in the U.S. are less likely to be enrolled than other Asian Americans (Chinese ancestry, 78 percent, South Asian ancestry 68 percent) and far less likely to have a college degree than other Asian Americans. Some 54 percent of Asians overall have a bachelor’s degree or more, but few Asians ever reach the C-suite, and they still face discrimination throughout their careers.

Different upbringings, social norms and perspectives enrich our world; every generation of immigrants to the U.S., whether European or otherwise, has changed the very definition of what it means to be American. But too many people with too much power have tried to stop this evolution. In one year, our stacked Supreme Court has made it harder than it already is to be a woman, a person of color, someone who is LGBTQ or someone who cannot pay for college outright. In each of the conservative majority’s decisions, outcomes will be bad for many, including white people, but worse for someone who isn’t white.

The status quo doesn’t need equal protection—and the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War to protect formerly enslaved people, has long been interpreted to protect those who need it. To that end, we call on Congress and the Biden administration to ensure protection for students of color (and ultimately, white women, who have long been the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action and who will also lose out as such laws expand beyond race to gender). We call on institutions of higher learning to respond to the evidence their own scholars have gathered supporting race-based affirmative action. Find ways to uphold and strengthen diversity goals in admissions, help build pipelines of college-ready students from underrepresented groups, and work hard to keep them there.

Source C

John Gramlich. “Americans and Affirmative Action: How the public sees the consideration of race in college admissions, hiring” PewResearch.org. June 16, 2023.

The following graphic has been provided by a nonpartisan thinktank website that covers globally relevant issues, opinions, and trends.

Source D

 American Civil Liberties Union. “What you need to know about Affirmative Action at the Supreme Court.” aclu.org. October 31, 2022

The following Q&As are drawn from the online portal of an American non-profit human rights organization that advocates for protection of constitutional rights and liberties.

Below, we answer some of the key questions that you need to know about how race conscious admissions policies work, how students and universities benefit from them, and what’s at stake at the Supreme Court.

Q: What is affirmative action, or race conscious admissions policies?
A: Race conscious policies, such as affirmative action, aim to address racial discrimination by recognizing and responding to the structural barriers that have denied underrepresented students access to higher education. Race-conscious admissions practices allow universities to consider a student’s race as one factor in the admissions process in order to help create a diverse student body that enriches the educational experiences of all students.

Q: What cases are before the Supreme Court concerning race conscious admissions policies?
A: There are two cases in which the Supreme Court will consider whether to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard, and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. In both cases, the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), led by anti-affirmative action crusader Edward Blum, is once again, after previous failed efforts, seeking the elimination of all race-conscious admissions practices. Twice already, the Supreme Court has rejected Blum’s arguments and ruled that universities can consider race in admissions to promote diversity on campus and enrich students’ learning experience.

Q: What legal rights do universities and colleges have to consider race in the admissions process?
A: Colleges have an important interest in student body diversity that furthers the values of academic freedom and equal protection. A holistic, race-conscious admissions process is the extension of a university’s academic freedom to assemble a diverse student body. Removing the consideration of race in admissions conflicts with the ability of a university to select its student body.
Additionally, the consideration of race in college admissions furthers the values of equal protection under the Constitution by helping to diminish stereotypes, promoting integration on college campuses, and improving the ability of students of all races to participate in the academic community.

Q: Has the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action before?
A: Yes. In Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that diversity is a “compelling governmental interest,” permitting schools to consider race as a contributing factor to admissions in higher education. Time and again, lower courts and the Supreme Court have recognized this.

Q: How do colleges, universities and students benefit from affirmative action?
A: Race-conscious admissions policies help create a diverse student body, promote integration on college campuses, and create an inclusive educational environment that benefits all students. Students from diverse backgrounds who learn from each other and are exposed to a variety of experiences, backgrounds, interests, and talents are better prepared to be successful in our society. Banning any consideration of race would hamper the growth of generations of students who will be unprepared for an increasingly diverse nation.

Q: What actions can colleges and universities take if the Supreme Court does rule to block race conscious admissions policies?
A: Higher ed institutions will still be able to do outreach and recruit students from all backgrounds. Universities will still be able to stop considering factors that have been proven to create unjustifiable barriers for historically underrepresented students of color. For example, many schools have already stopped considering SAT and the ACT. No matter what happens, we continue to advocate for race conscious admissions and ensuring higher education is accessible to all.

Source E

Richard Arum & Mitchell L. Stevens. “For most college students, affirmative action was never enough.” The New York Times. 8 July 2023

The following is excerpted from an article published in a major United States newspaper.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions, we should recognize that, in practice, affirmative action mattered a great deal for very few and very little for most.

Yes, the decision will likely dramatically reduce the racial diversity of incoming classes at highly selective institutions like Harvard, Stanford and the University of North Carolina.
But because affirmative action only opened a tiny window of access to America’s most elite institutions, the ruling will make little difference for most college students.

Even with affirmative action in place, most students of color did not go to elite colleges, and last week’s ruling does nothing to change that. The current opportunity to bring racial equity to American higher education lies in a collective re-commitment to the quality and success of more accessible institutions.

In fact, the majority of Black and Hispanic students attend universities that accept more than three-quarters of their applicants. The exception here is Asian students, who on average are much more likely to attend elite universities. The proportion of all Asian students who attend a school with an acceptance rate under 25 percent is more than three times that of Black, Hispanic and white students.

What drives this dynamic is that most students apply to and enroll at schools near their families, regardless of whether the school is a good academic fit. We live in a country full of colleges that don’t have the resources and academic quality to match their students’ talents. Social scientists describe this problem in the college selection process as “undermatching.” Efforts to nudge students to broaden their horizons and consider attending selective colleges further from home have had only modest success.

While the Supreme Court’s decision is a blow to Black and Hispanic students who dream of attending the most competitive universities, improving and better supporting the institutions that serve the lion’s share of students of color will do far more to advance the cause of racial equality in this country than anything that admissions officers can do in Cambridge, Palo Alto and Chapel Hill.

The ruling provides America with an opportunity to redirect the conversation from a relatively small number of schools and instead direct urgently needed attention to the vast middle and lower tiers of postsecondary education. Non-selective colleges and universities can be genuine engines of economic mobility, but they do so in the face of significant headwinds.

Consider the amount of money schools report spending on student instruction each year. For example, in our state, California, U.C.L.A. and the private liberal-arts college Pomona report spending richly per student at $60,528 and $40,275, respectively. Meanwhile, less selective and more diverse institutions like San Francisco State ($8,087) and California State University, Los Angeles ($6,631), report expenditures that are less than a quarter of those amounts.

The key to greater racial equity in American higher education is elevating the quality of the broad range of schools most students attend.

Nearly 60 years ago, educators and politicians took bold and imaginative steps to take up this challenge. The Higher Education Act of 1965, enacted as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty, made college education attainable for millions of Americans who might never have dreamed of bachelor’s diplomas were it not for federal grants and loans.

States also did their part in this era, investing some of the prosperity of the post-World War II decades to create and subsidize public colleges and universities. (Historians remind us that our country accomplished these milestones at a time when colleges and universities were far more closed off to women and people of color.)

We call for that kind of bold civic action once again. This country needs to attend to the unfinished business of making college education a truly inclusive mechanism of social mobility.
Less selective schools and the millions of students they serve each year deserve the same resources and attention to program quality found in selective institutions. Affirmative action never went far enough. Winning the admissions lottery to Harvard or a selective University of California campus must not be the only path to upward mobility through higher education. All colleges, especially those serving the most diverse student bodies, should be capable of providing outcomes of similar quality.

Taking the necessary steps to do this will not be easy. State leaders will need to look hard at budget allocations that favor flagship campuses at the expense of public schools serving historically marginalized groups. They will also need to encourage colleges to improve how undergraduate education is provided and measured. Students at less selective schools should have access to programs that are well designed, adequately funded and demonstrably effective at promoting learning, graduation and meaningful employment.

Imaginative, even radical ideas for reconfiguring higher education may be necessary to offer it in ways that will not saddle additional millions of people with billions of dollars of student debt. Obliging private schools with large endowments to offer affordable, academic credit-bearing courses to students from other institutions as a requirement of tax exemption would change the national conversation about what it means to attend and graduate from an elite school. So too would an expectation that all students be able to attend an adequately funded, high-quality community college for a year or two before enrolling in a flagship public or private university.

Source F

John Stossel. “Affirmative Action is Racist and Therefore Wrong.” Reason Magazine. July 12, 2023

The following is excerpted from an article published in an American libertarian magazine that strives to produce independent journalism.

The left is angry because the Supreme Court ruled race-based affirmative action unconstitutional. President Joe Biden says he “strongly disagrees.”

But Chief Justice John Roberts was right to say, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

It’s a victory for Students for Fair Admissions, the group that sued, thereby forcing Harvard to admit that Asians had to score 22 points higher on the SAT than whites, 63 points higher than blacks

Economist Harry Holzer, who defended Harvard, says the school did the right thing.

“Asians are not interesting?” I ask. “They don’t have interesting qualities?”

“Personal ratings reflect a wide range of characteristics,” Holzer responds. “It’s possible that some of that is anti-Asian bias, but you certainly can’t prove that…. When you have a long history of discrimination based on race, you have to take race into account.”

“There are many, many different ways to achieve diversity without discriminating against Asian Americans,” Cheng responds. “Race-focused affirmative action helps rich people. Seventy percent of the students of every ethnic group at Harvard come from the top 20 percent of family income.”

But Asians already do well in America, earning more money, on average, than other ethnic groups. Blacks have faced more discrimination. “Isn’t it Harvard’s job to try to make up for some of that?” I ask Cheng.

“The right path out of the history of discrimination based on race is not more discrimination,” he replies.

Cheng is right. Affirmative action is racist, and therefore wrong.

I once tried to make that point by holding a racist bake sale. I called it an “affirmative action bake sale.” I sold cupcakes at a mall. My sign read:

Asians—$1.50

Whites—$1.00

Blacks/Latinos—50 cents

People stared. Some got angry. One yelled, “What is funny to you about people who are less privileged?” A black woman called my sign “very offensive, very demeaning!” “You got to be out of your gosh darn mind, boy!” said another. One man accused me of poisoning the cupcakes.

But after the initial anger, when people let me explain the reasoning behind my racist sign, many expressed second thoughts about affirmative action. “I guess it is unfair,” said one black student.

Now that affirmative action is illegal, universities will still discriminate by race. They’ll just hide it better. One tactic is to become “test-optional.” Over 1,800 schools, including Harvard, no longer require students to submit SAT scores.

Already, schools practice legacy admissions, meaning that they favor the children of alumni. That’s clearly unfair. It helps mostly rich people, who are mostly white people.

The problem with both “test-optional” schools and affirmative action is that ultimately it harms black students. Those admitted with lower standards often struggle or drop out. Had they attended other schools, they might have done well.

And of course some people look at even the smartest black students and wonder, is she really smart? Or did she just get in because of her race?

If activists want to help young people, they should start before college. Promote school choice. It allows all kids to escape bad public schools.

That will help more kids than rigging college admissions.

Source G

John Cole. “Blind Justice Roberts”. The Columbus Dispatch. June 29, 2023

The following political cartoon was taken from The Scranton Times-Tribune and published on the website of a daily newspaper based in Columbus, Ohio.

In 1916, an emergency convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) aimed to address the strategic focus of the suffrage movement—whether to concentrate efforts on a federal amendment, state legislation, or pursue both approaches in the lead-up to the national presidential election. On September 7, during the second day of the convention, Carrie Chapman Catt delivered her presidential address to seek a clear course of action for the organization. Read the passage carefully. Write an essay that analyzes the rhetorical choices made by Carrie Chapman Catt to convey her viewpoint to her audience and urge them to act unitedly and decisively.
In your response you should do the following:

• Respond to the prompt with a thesis that analyzes the writer’s rhetorical choices.
• Select and use evidence to support your line of reasoning.
• Explain the relationship between the evidence and your thesis.
• Demonstrate an understanding of the rhetorical situation.
• Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.

I have taken for my subject, “The Crisis,” because I believe that a crisis has come in our movement which, if recognized and the opportunity seized with vigor, enthusiasm and will, means the final victory of our great cause in the very near future. I am aware that some suffragists do not share this belief; they see no signs nor symptoms today which were not present yesterday; no manifestations in the year 1916 which differ significantly from those in the year 1910. To them, the movement has been a steady, normal growth from the beginning and must so continue until the end. I can only defend my claim with the plea that it is better to imagine a crisis where none exists than to fail to recognize one when it comes; for a crisis is a culmination of events which calls for new considerations and new decisions. A failure to answer the call may mean an opportunity lost, a possible victory postponed.

The object of the life of an organized movement is to secure its aim. Necessarily, it must obey the law of evolution and pass through the stages of agitation and education and finally through the stage of realization. As one has put it: “A new idea floats in the air over the heads of the people and for a long, indefinite period evades their understanding but, by and by, when through familiarity, human vision grows clearer, it is caught out of the clouds and crystalized into law.” Such a period comes to every movement and is its crisis. In my judgment, that crucial moment, bidding us to renewed consecration and redoubled activity has come to our cause. I believe our victory hangs within our grasp, inviting us to pluck it out of the clouds and establish it among the good things of the world.

If this be true, the time is past when we should say: “Men and women of America, look upon that wonderful idea up there; see, one day it will come down.” Instead, the time has come to shout aloud in every city, village and hamlet, and in tones so clear and jubilant that they will reverberate from every mountain peak and echo from shore to shore: “The woman’s Hour has struck.” Suppose suffragists as a whole do not believe a crisis has come and do not extend their hands to grasp the victory, what will happen? Why, we shall all continue to work and our cause will continue to hang, waiting for those who possess a clearer vision and more daring enterprise. On the other hand, suppose we reach out with united earnestness and determination to grasp our victory while it still hangs a bit too high? Has any harm been done? None!

Therefore, fellow suffragists, I invite your attention to the signs which point to a crisis and your consideration of plans for turning the crisis into victory.

In the context of today’s rapid technological evolution, we cannot help but ask ourselves if artificial intelligence (AI) can truly rival human creativity. AI excels at processing extensive data, generating sophisticated and intricate outcomes. However, it can be argued that human creativity stems from a flux of emotions and unique experiences that can never be fully replicated by a machine. Technology enthusiasts like Mark Gazit, the CEO of ThetaRay, suggests the possibility of inventing machines that can match complex constructs of human thought, memory, and emotions. On the other hand, scientists like William Dally posit that artificial intelligence can never supersede human agency and collective intelligence. Thus, the pivotal question arises, “Can AI supplant human creativity, or will humans continue to beget and spearhead innovation and original thought?”

Write an essay that argues your position on whether or not AI can match or replace human creative genius and originality.

In your response you should do the following:

• Respond to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.
• Provide evidence to support your line of reasoning.
• Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
• Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.