Yes and no; According to a recent Gallup poll (discussed in detail here), 67% of adults surveyed believe that admissions decisions should be solely based on merit, while 58% still generally favor affirmative action programs for racial minorities. In essence, this means that although Americans generally reject affirmative action in relation to college admissions, they still support the government taking action to improve the condition of minority groups. So, while affirmative action itself doesn't seem to be heavily opposed, its implementation into higher education is. This poses some interesting questions: should colleges continue to factor race into college admissions, even though the majority of the public rejects it? If not, how can a university maintain a diverse student body?
gallup.com
Generally, I would say that I fall into the group that rejects the use of race-based admissions. I understand that it's difficult not to consider race, what with pressure from different political and social groups and a looming stigma of racial homogeneity among college campuses. However, I also understand that merit transcends racial boundaries and that no one who is deserving should be denied admission to a university in favor of diversity. A system that rewards "racial points" is as flawed as a system that denies an applicant based on the color of their skin. Such a system devalues each applicant's educational work from achievement to a result of their inborn attributes. When achievements are held in regard to race, the achievements themselves lose value, which seems wrong to me. How are intelligence and work ethic (essential factors in determining if an individual is fit for a university) any more or less valuable depending on race (which is an arbitrary factor - what determines how well-off any one race is and how much leeway its members receive as a result)?
Granted, affirmative action wasn't intended to target the majority. It was intended to help minorities, but the unintended consequences - namely, the alienation of the majority - created a dilemma in that the isolation of these groups is not to the benefit of all considered.
I take a Rawlsian approach to college admissions in this way - when you take away the color of an applicant's skin, their socioeconomic class, etc., you're left with someone in the "original position", i.e. without the social stigmas attached to race or any other social position. Under such a "veil of ignorance", institutions are able to develop a fair system of admissions ignorant to the privilege of certain classes. Each member of society has an equal claim on society's goods, including higher education, which is not affected by natural-born attributes because one doesn't morally deserve his inborn privilege and is therefore not entitled to the full benefit of that privilege. This can be applied to both individuals in the majority and the minority; regardless of social position, no one is entitled to a college education, which is why such a privilege should be earned based on merit and academic achievement and not given based on inborn characteristics. However, I do acknowledge that certain conditions may affect the way an individual can go about achieving that merit, such as learning disorders or the quality of education received prior to college. For this reason I do support government involvement in the improvement of conditions for minorities consistent with Rawls's second principle of justice that inequalities are to benefit the least-advantaged members of society. These programs should target inequalities prior to the admissions process (like improving the conditions of public schools) so that each individual has the opportunity to earn the merit required to be admitted into a university.
gallup.com
Now, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any promotion of diversity in higher education. I value diversity and I believe that it is necessary for us to grow as individuals and as a culture. However, I don't believe that race-based admissions are the proper way to go about increasing diversity, for it helps some groups while alienating others, which I find to be extremely polarizing. For instance, when examining the graph above, you can see that the different racial groups are divided on the issue of affirmative action, with those who are helped by such programs defending it and those who are hurt by affirmative action rejecting it. The face that the percentage of minorities backing government programs to improve their condition is more than double that of the majority indicates a flawed system in trying to fix the lack of diversity at universities. Diversity should be a way for individuals from different aspects of life to interact, not a cause for divide and racial strife. More inclusive alternatives to affirmative action include the 10% Plan, which equates college applicants in comparison to their own high school class, or the University of Colorado Boulder's plan which looks at economic inequalities in addition to academic achievements.
Ultimately, the Gallup poll highlights an important issue: the majority of the public denounces race-based affirmative action, while many universities continue to factor in race in admissions in spite of public demands. Should universities come to recognize that they need to make a change, how can they maintain a representative student body without ignoring the needs of any one group? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about the topic, including counterarguments and possible alternatives to race-based affirmative action.
No comments:
Post a Comment