The debate
surrounding the Fisher v. University of
Texas affirmative action case has unleashed a cacophony of voices urging
colleges and universities to replace race as a factor in college admissions
with class or socio-economic status (SES).
Whether the "conversation has shifted" in the media or on college
campuses in support of SES as a replacement for race is, frankly, irrelevant,
however. The reality is that race
continues to be a barrier to equal opportunity in education as well as in
employment and contracting.
As Justice
Blackmun wrote in the Bakke decision
(1978), "In order to get beyond racism we must first take account of race. There is no other way." The merits of taking race into account in
university admissions should never be determined by whether this policy is the
"flavor of the month." Moreover, the
palpable backlash against diversity programs does not suggest their lack of
importance. If that were the case, the
Supreme Court would never have handed down the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.
Popularity
has little to do with justice and equality.
The "Tyranny of the Majority" must always be viewed with caution when
one considers the constitutionality or morality of a law or policy. California's Proposition 209 and Michigan's
Proposal 2, both of which outlawed taking race into account in university
admissions, inter alia, are the
embodiment of such oppressiveness by those who, for fear of losing a presumed
advantage in college admissions have severely limited the educational
opportunities of an ever growing population of minorities. What the majority of voters failed to
understand was that diversity programs benefit everyone . Equal opportunity is not a
Zero-Sum game.
The mantra of
"Class vs. Race" is merely the latest salvo against equal opportunity programs
in admissions. Those with wealth and
privilege have been the majority of students attending selective colleges and
universities since 1636. Urging the
Academy to diversify its student body by considering socio-economic status as
well as race, athletic ability, musical ability, geographic diversity and host
of other factors, is a laudable effort.
To substitute race with class is not.
First, with the
sheer number of low-income white students, the proportion of minorities in this
pool will decrease. Those who champion
the "class vs. race" argument understand and yet accept this outcome. Secondly to assert that "wealthy" blacks, for
instance, should not receive a "preference" is to ignore the reality that there
are very few so-called wealthy blacks and that given the well-documented wealth
gap, the "wealth" of African Americans pales in comparison with that of their
white counterparts. As important,
research has shown that middle-class students of color are more likely to
perform as well as their white peers than their less well-prepared
counterparts.
In addition,
while we assume that low SES minorities are as prepared to perform in competitive
colleges as their low-SES white counterparts, the opposite is the case. As we noted in our Fisher amicus brief (American Association for Affirmative Action, http://www.affirmativeaction.org/node/30),
"Research shows that whites outperform underrepresented minorities in
standardized testing within income groups." Low SES plus race has a more disadvantaging
effect than SES alone. Thus, abandoning
race as a factor would worsen the racial divide in higher education.
Lastly, if
one removes race from among the many factors used in college admissions, the
chances of a white student being admitted increase by only approximately 1.6
points. (Goodwin Liu, "The Myth and Math
of Affirmative Action, Washington Post, April 14, 2002 at B1.)
There is no
reason why colleges and universities cannot use both race and socio-economic status in fashioning the best student
body. Class as an admissions factor
should not eliminate the opportunities conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment to
its intended beneficiaries -- even if it is popular.
1
1
1
