10,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: Debating Race
- Sprache: Englisch
Affirmative action in college admissions - considering whether an applicant is part of an underrepresented group when making selection decisions - has long been a topic of heated public debate. Some argue that it undermines racial equity. Others advocate for its ability to promote equal opportunity in a racially unequal society. Who is right? Natasha Warikoo dives into the arguments for and against a policy that has made it to the US Supreme Court many times. She digs into the purposes of higher education and the selection process itself to argue that it is a mistake to equate college admissions with personal merit and reward. College admissions should be based on furthering the mission of higher education: contributing to our shared democracy and to the human condition. Ultimately, Warikoo concludes that a focus on individual fairness conceals much more important questions about justice. No matter what their perspective, readers will find themselves thinking anew and asking the deeper questions that underlie this emotive debate.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 145
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Series Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Introduction
Notes
Chapter 1: The Purposes of Higher Education and the History of Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action
Notes
Chapter 2: The Case For and Against Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action Creates Diverse Learning Environments
Affirmative Action Benefits Society
Affirmative Action Fosters Equal Opportunity
Affirmative Action Is an Important Form of Reparations
Affirmative Action Is Racial Discrimination
Affirmative Action Creates Mismatch between Students and Their Universities
Conclusion: The Importance of Affirmative Action
Notes
Chapter 3: Asian Americans, Achievement, and Affirmative Action
Asian Americans and the Diversity Rationale
Asian Americans and the Social Contributions Justification
Asian Americans, the Equal Opportunity Justification, and the Racial Discrimination Critique
Asian Americans and the Reparations Justification
Conclusion: The Complexities of Race
Notes
Conclusion: From Fairness to Justice
The Way Forward
Expand affirmative action
Expand enrollment
Greater contextualization
Make ability to pay less significant
An admissions lottery
Beyond Admissions
Notes
Acknowledgments
References
Index
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
ii
iii
iv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
Series Title
Debating Race
David Theo Goldberg,
Are We All Postracial Yet?
Ghassan Hage,
Is Racism an Environmental Threat?
Jonathan Marks,
Is Science Racist?
Laurie Cooper Stoll,
Should Schools Be Colorblind?
Gavan Titley,
Is Free Speech Racist?
Natasha Warikoo,
Is Affirmative Action Fair?
Alford A. Young, Jr.,
Are Black Men Doomed?
Is Affirmative Action Fair?
The Myth of Equity in College Admissions
NATASHA WARIKOO
polity
Copyright Page
Copyright © Natasha Warikoo 2023
The right of Natasha Warikoo to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published in 2023 by Polity Press
Polity Press
65 Bridge Street
Cambridge CB2 1UR, UK
Polity Press
111 River Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-4936-8
ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-4937-5(pb)
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022937423
by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NL
The publisher has used its best endeavors to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.
For further information on Polity, visit our website: politybooks.com
INTRODUCTION
For decades, considering whether an applicant is part of an underrepresented racial group when making selection decisions has been a topic of much public debate. When they hear the words affirmative action, most Americans have a visceral response. Some think it’s essential. Others think it is a violation of their rights. Most will have a view, and a strong one at that. And nearly always, our very strong opinions hinge on a very simple question—whether we think affirmative action is fair or not. When we talk about affirmative action, we are nearly always asking questions about core American values: whether we truly are a meritocracy, if we can (or should) legislate against racial injustice, how to best harness the power of education. Like abortion, this issue seems to polarize us even though our views are more similar than we believe they are. My aim is that by the end of this book, whatever your beliefs, you will have a deeper understanding of affirmative action and its value for higher education and for American society, more broadly.
Affirmative action arose in the United States during the 1960s as the federal government and universities attempted to increase opportunities for and representation of African Americans in government contracts, selective colleges, and beyond.1 It was one practice of the growing civil rights agenda. While affirmative action today is indelibly linked to liberals—and almost universally despised by conservatives—this was not always the case. Democratic President Bill Clinton didn’t think that affirmative action should be ended, although he did argue that we should “mend it” (but “not end it”); several decades earlier, Republican President Richard Nixon actually expanded affirmative action in federal employment.2
Though affirmative action is a painfully divisive topic, our views on the practice are actually quite complex, and seem to depend on the question we are asked and how the issue is framed. Six in ten Americans respond favorably when asked “Do you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial minorities?”3 And when college students are asked to choose from two candidates with similar backgrounds in a simulated admissions decision, even students who say they “oppose affirmative action” tend to pick the one from an underrepresented group.4 But when posed using the possibility of “reverse discrimination,” support drops: in a 2021 survey, Americans were asked:
Some people say that because of past discrimination, Blacks should be given preference in hiring and promotion. Others say that such preference in hiring and promotion of Blacks is wrong because it discriminates against whites. What about your opinion—are you for or against preferential hiring and promotion of Blacks?
Just 23 percent expressed support.5
While affirmative action plays a role in private sector hiring and government contracts, we seem to hear the loudest debates when it comes to college admissions. When selective colleges decide whether to admit an applicant, affirmative action means they take into consideration whether an applicant is part of a racial group that is underrepresented on campus. Over 300 of our selective colleges do so.6 In addition to considering race, most also consider an applicant’s SAT or ACT scores, grade point average (GPA), number of advanced-level courses, personal essays, teacher recommendations, and extracurricular activities. Some also consider an interview, requests from athletic coaches (“athletic recruiting”), ties to the university (“legacy” status), and whether a student needs financial assistance. The most elite colleges are even more specific—they look to have representation from all fifty states, students with a range of intended majors, diversity of parent professions, and much more.7 These criteria are considered together as part of a “holistic” process—the US Supreme court has prohibited specific points or quotas for racial groups. Applicants from underrepresented groups on selective college campuses—African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinx—are given the benefit of the doubt if, for example, their test scores are marginally lower than similar white applicants.8
The increasing demand—within and beyond the United States—for a limited number of seats at the most selective universities means that the question of fairness in admissions weighs heavily on the minds of many. The more parents believe that where their children go to college matters as the first step toward securing their futures, and as a marker of identity as someone “smart” and “worthy” of elite education, the stronger their opinions seem to be on what a fair system of selection entails. Rapidly declining admit rates to top colleges—for instance, Harvard University’s admit rate for undergraduates is now less than 4 percent, down from 6 percent just ten years ago and 12 percent in 1997—fuels this sense of insecurity about the future.9
It is not just parents who care. Elite colleges have a sacred quality, even to many of us who have never set foot on their campuses. They symbolize the American dream—something achievable by anyone with some talent and a strong work ethic. And we Americans like it this way—in the United States we believe, more than our European counterparts, in the importance of meritocracy: that one’s standard of living should follow from one’s effort and skills, and that addressing inequality means focusing on providing equal opportunities to everyone rather than supporting everyone in society regardless of their level of accomplishment.10 The very American individualism that French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville identified nearly two hundred years ago seems stronger than ever today.11 Our persistent individualism means we assume, and even insist, that admissions should be tied to individual achievements.
Political actors, too, have played a role in ensuring loud public debate on affirmative action. Conservative activists have strategically attacked it, employing the language of civil rights and racial justice in their critiques.12 They argue that affirmative action amounts to racial discrimination toward whites (and sometimes, toward Asian Americans, who are mostly not eligible for affirmative action in college admissions).13 Aside from organizing and funding multiple lawsuits since the 1970s that have landed in the US Supreme Court, conservative activists have also launched anti–affirmative action ballot initiatives in seven states to date, six of which have been successful. In addition, they have successfully pushed three more state bans by executive order or new state laws.14 To the question of “Is affirmative action fair?” these actors have voiced a resounding “No!” On the other hand, liberal defenders of affirmative action have loudly defended the policy as a cornerstone of an elite college education.15 Advocates attempted to repeal California’s 1998 ban through a 2020 referendum (but narrowly lost that vote).
Central to the framing of public debates over affirmative action is the notion of fairness. Is it fair to consider race, given our commitments to judging each person on their individual merits and not discriminating on the basis of race? Is it fair not to consider race, given the historical exclusion of certain racial minorities from elite college campuses, and from the American dream? What is a fair system of selection, anyway? The answers to these questions rest, in part, on our understanding of fairness in society. Some see treating everyone as a blank slate as the fairest mechanism, while others think fairness means considering a person’s accomplishments in light of the opportunities and roadblocks they have experienced. Some see the lack of significant numbers of Black, Latinx, and Native American students on campus as a sign of admissions gone awry, while others do not. And, in any case, all these perspectives, as we’ll see, fail to consider what colleges are trying to do when they admit students.
These questions of individual merit can all seem rather abstract and hypothetical; the real reason why affirmative action is so divisive is because it forces us to address America’s most divisive issue: race. Our views on affirmative action depend in large part on how we make sense of differences in achievement by race. If you oppose affirmative action, chances are you believe that racial gaps in achievement are related to cultural differences in commitments to academic excellence and willingness to work hard; you might also feel threatened by policies designed to address racial inequality.16 Your views are likely best described as “colorblind,” because in your view the only fair way to address race is to ignore it, even if you feel that racial inequality is a problem.17 Otherwise, we are strengthening a social category that has been used historically to disenfranchise vulnerable groups, and implying that those groups are inherently inferior. In the words of US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”18 But while you may view your attitudes as philosophical, studies of racial attitudes have shown, in fact, that opposition to policies like affirmative action are correlated with racial prejudice, even when we compare people with the same political views.19 Legal attacks on affirmative action rely on non-discrimination laws—designed to protect stigmatized minorities—to make the argument that affirmative action is actually racist toward whites (and, sometimes, toward Asian Americans). Many of these opponents also argue that it sets its supposed beneficiaries up for failure when they enter colleges in which they are not academically prepared to be successful.20
If you support affirmative action, chances are you see the world rather differently. You probably believe that race differences are fundamentally rooted in this country’s social policies, and that centuries of racial discrimination and exclusion continue to create disadvantage for Black, Native American, and Latinx youth. The history of race in the United States has shaped everything from dramatic wealth differences between white and Black Americans, to which neighborhoods Americans live in, to whether a birthright citizen is perceived as truly American or even personally warm.21 Given the history of race in the United States, proponents of affirmative action point out that race—due to both historical circumstances as well as present perceptions and economic resources—continues to affect the life chances, lived experiences, material realities, and perspectives of Americans. Most who recognize the ongoing social meaning of race in American society agree that ignoring race alone will not make those realities vanish. Any hope for racial equality requires actively addressing race; thus, affirmative action is important for fostering a more just, democratic society.
In addition to the reality of racial inequality, if you’re a proponent of affirmative action you might also recognize that people from different racial backgrounds are likely to hold different perspectives on the world, and that diversity is valuable for classroom and late-night discussions. Similarly, you might feel that an all-white government would feel a little less legitimate, or at least, a little less adequate to govern us all. To ensure a quorum of qualified minority leaders, this argument goes, we need affirmative action to counter other barriers that society, directly or indirectly, imposes on underrepresented groups. Under this view, affirmative action makes important contributions to a campus and to American society as a whole, not just to the individual who is admitted because of it.
So what is right? Should selective colleges continue to consider race in admissions? The answer to this question is a lot more complex than you may think.
In this book I am going to ask you to question the terms of this debate. Political philosophers have argued that selection for any social good—spots at an elite college, coveted jobs, or anything else in high demand—should be based on how to achieve the most just outcomes. No one deserves to be selected. This means that “merit” is inherently situational—it depends on what would benefit a particular society in a particular moment in time, and those needs are not static.22 The same could be said about organizations: they should evaluate people and select from them based on what the organization needs in a particular moment. In other words, no one is entitled to be admitted to a selective college, no matter their accomplishments.23 Indeed, how colleges view the best, most fair way to select students has dramatically changed over time.24 Even today, countries diverge in how they allocate university seats to prospective students when there are more interested students than spots available. To see affirmative action policies as a threat to fairness is to take a short-sighted view of what justice in college admissions might mean.
As simple as it may seem, without a shared understanding of the purposes of elite higher education we are hard pressed to determine whether affirmative action within admissions is the right thing to do. This analysis requires a deep dive into the purposes of higher education, to understand the role of admissions in the organizational purposes of our selective colleges and universities. In Chapter 1
