Beliefs About Affirmative Action: A Test of the Group Self-Interest and Racism Beliefs Models Euna Oh Tufts University Chun-Chung Choi University of Florida Helen A. Neville, Carolyn J. Anderson, and Joycelyn Landrum-Brown University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign Two models of affirmative action attitudes (i.e., group self-interest and racism beliefs) were examined among a sample of racially diverse college students. Open-ended questions were included to provide students an opportunity to elaborate on their beliefs about affirmative action and beliefs about the existence of racial discrimination. Findings from logistic regression analysis on a subsample (n = 376) provide support for both models; race (a proxy for group self-interest) and racism beliefs (as measured by the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale [CoBRAS] and an the open-ended question) helped predict endorsement of affirmative action in theoretically expected ways. Asian, Latino, and Black students were more likely to view affirmative action as helpful compared to their White counterparts, and limited awareness of institutional racism (i.e., higher CoBRAS scores) was associated with antiaffirmative action arguments. Follow-up analysis, however, provided support for the superiority of the racism beliefs model as measured by the CoBRAS in predicting affirmative action beliefs over the group-interest model. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed. Keywords: affirmative action, racism, college students, color-blind racial ideology Over the past several years, there has been much public discussion about the existence of institutional policies designed to challenge de facto segregation in which racial and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in institutions of higher education. For example, the Supreme Court decisions regarding the use of affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan (i.e., Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bolligner) sparked national debate on the topic of affirmative action as did the two recent anti- affirmative action initiatives on the November 2008 state elections: Amendment 46 did not pass in the blue state of Colorado, but voters approved Initiative 424 in Nebraska, which es- sentially banned affirmative action policies in business and higher education. Research sug- gests that a significant number of individuals (mostly White) oppose race-based affirmative action policies for a variety of reasons, includ- ing the belief that these policies unfairly dis- criminate against nonracial minority students and restrict their chances in gaining admission into college, particularly well-coveted schools (e.g., Newman, 1989). We argue that undergird- ing these antiaffirmative action beliefs is a col- or-blind racial ideological assumption. Color- blind racial ideology, in this instance, is the widely held belief that racial discrimination is a thing of the past and that everyone who works hard has an equal chance to become successful in the United States (Bonilla-Silva, 2006); Bonilla-Silva and others argue that this belief in racial color-blindness will most likely increase since the election of Barack Obama. The focus of this study was to use quantita- tive and open-ended data from a racially diverse sample of undergraduate students to examine Euna Oh, Counseling and Mental Health Services, Tufts University; Chun-Chung Choi, Counseling Center, Univer- sity of Florida; Helen A. Neville and Carolyn J. Anderson, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illi- nois, Urbana–Champaign; and Joycelyn Landrum-Brown, Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Relations, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Euna Oh, 120 Curtis Street, Sawyer House, Medford, MA 02155. E-mail: euna.oh@tufts.edu Journal of Diversity in Higher Education © 2010 National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education 2010, Vol. 3, No. 3, 163–176 1938-8926/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019799 163 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.