A majority of the Supreme Court said states have the power to decide whether or not to continue affirmative action. While I think the reasoning was flawed--Justice Kennedy said the case was not about racial preferences, but about who has power to resolve the issue--I have never favored affirmative action as it is usually constituted.
Affirmative action can be implemented by different methods. Schools can recruit, give scholarships, provide tutoring, and act affirmatively to bring in minority students who are underrepresented. The easier way, however, and the one often adopted, is to assign a rough quota for the various demographic groups. This being America, those groups are usually defined by race, ethnicity, and gender. Thus, what is important is not “achieved” characteristics, such as effort, grades, or activities, but “ascribed” characteristics, i.e., the ones you are born with.
If we only thought in terms of class. Rich kids, whatever race or gender, will get in. Alumni kids will get in. What is the largest underrepresented group in American universities today? Poor kids. Of course, poor kids are often American Indians or ethnic or racial minorities, but just suppose instead of recruiting students by race and ethnicity, we instead asked them how much their parents made last year and helped those on the bottom, who, by the way, probably attended inferior high schools as well.
It’s the old Populist Party dream--unite the people on the bottom across all ethnicities and races. I so wish it would happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment