Changing the Narrative: How an Intentional Focus on Socioeconomic Status Can Save Affirmative Action
A country based on drawing lines of freedom or slavery, state or territory, Union or Confederacy, the United States is “A House Divided”. Affirmative Action in higher education takes on discrimination by providing opportunities to historically oppressed groups based on race (Kennedy, 1961). It is broadly viewed as either a leg up for one race over another or as a leveler to a traditionally unequal playing field. When Affirmative Action was first implemented, the country had only banned school-based segregation a decade earlier, in Brown v. Board of Education II (1995). Reactionary fervor against the policy was immense.
Concerns over whether race or socioeconomics should be used in the implementation of this policy are a point of contention that hit at the heart of how the United States should address systemic inequalities. The Supreme Court, echoed by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, has taken the viewpoint that Affirmative Action should be allowed to play out until it is no longer necessary (Grutter v. Bollinger. 2003). In effect, the Court made Affirmative Action a temporary solution. In the years since the Court’s decision, race relations have only eased in the sense that neoliberal policies acknowledge the prejudice of an oppressive system but do very little to rectify or reverse inequalities (Olasov, 2016). Meanwhile, conservative policies largely continue to ignore minority concerns, as their constituencies tend to reside in less diverse regions of the country (2016). The true meaning of what Affirmative Action is at its core, is lost. In higher education, Affirmative Action needs to act as an agent of systemic change that is championed by broad impact rather than token instances of individual achievement.
This fact is clear: without Affirmative Action, the number of minority students within an academic institution is more likely than not to drop in the long run (Jaschik, 2020). The point of the policy is not only to increase diversity on college campuses, but to heal divisions that have been caused by racist policies against those who are historically oppressed. Some may garner resentment when rejected from a school where race is a factor, where it may seem that a Black person is getting preferential treatment, but it is more complex. When people have a better understanding of each others’ “norms, values, and belief systems”, ...[they will] not perceive others as an ‘other’”(Shelton, 2011). Affirmative Action should only be a starting point, though. Working towards eradicating racial prejudice is not a short process. At its core, Affirmative Action increases racial diversity on campuses. This provides opportunities to the historically underprivileged Black American while simultaneously educating the White American on the experiences of others, building a mutual understanding of shared dignity (2011).
The Supreme Court first took on Affirmative Action in higher education through Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ( 1978), where the Court struck down strict quotas for minority students saying that race is a necessary aspect of admissions, but that inflexible quotas were not. In this decision, the Supreme Court left many questions unanswered, but did admit that promoting educational diversity is “a compelling government interest” (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. 1 978). However, ignored in the decision is the more indicative socioeconomic status of applicants. If the Court, or policymakers, decided that race was not the compelling government interest, but socioeconomic status was, it would take out the racial division that Affirmative Action exacerbates, while also addressing the systemic problems that are largely associated with race (Kahlenberg, 2018). According to a Gallup poll 63% of Americans don’t think race should be considered in college admissions, while 61% think economic status should (Newport, 2016). Being economically disadvantaged poses a seven times greater obstacle than race in student achievement (Kahlenberg, 2018). With Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately affected by wealth inequalities, this would serve the purpose that Affirmative Action seeks (2018). Using socioeconomic status as the indicator would achieve the desired result without inflaming racial tensions.
In City of Richmond v. Croson ( 1989), the Supreme Court held the standard of ‘strict scrutiny’ to Affirmative Action. This reflected the Court’s caution in allowing unilateral measures to rectify past grievances (Brunner and Rowen, 2020). The Court held that Affirmative Action should be used only for a “compelling government interest” to rectify discriminatory practices already occurring or set to occur (City of Richmond v. Croson. 1989). The policy intended to uplift those historically underprivileged minorities because their current state is directly caused by their historical oppression, but the Court decided to limit its scope (American Psychological Association, 2017).
Both sides feel like the victim (Caplan, 1995). “[Those] who benefit from Affirmative Action confess to being undone by self-doubt, fearing that they don't deserve opportunities they've gotten, or by wariness at the resentment they stir in whites” (1995). While one group has been enslaved, suffered Jim Crow laws, and been oppressed by years of economic and judicial inequalities, the other directly benefited from that inequity. These lines of division largely split the political spectrum. In a study conducted by National Public Radio, 40% of Americans believed that Blacks and Hispanics losing out because of preferences for Whites was a significant problem, while 28% did not (Gonyea, 2017). If one takes a closer look, among those who voted for President Trump in 2016, 54% believe that the larger problem is Whites being passed over for opportunities in favor of Blacks and Hispanics, while only 12% of his supporters don’t (2017). The success of the policy in achieving its goal is counteracted again by political actors who have higher success rates with divisive rhetoric at the expense of Affirmative Action (Carpenter, 2020). The goal of Affirmative Action proponents should be to shift the national discourse from a race based discussion to one of socioeconomic opportunity. If socioeconomics were used instead, divisions would be less and the purpose could still be achieved. Developing a better understanding of the core of the policy and the fruition of its benefits is the only hope for Affirmative Action’s survival.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017, July). Ethnic and Racial Minorities & Socioeconomic Status. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minorities.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
Brunner, B., Borgna, R. (2020, October 29). “Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones.” InfoPlease, Sandbox Networks, www.infoplease.com/history/us/timeline-of-affirmative-action-milestones.
Caplan, L. (1995, February 12). WHY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS DIVISIVE, DIFFICULT --AND NECESSARY. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1995/02/12/why-affirmative-action-is -divisive-difficult-and-necessary/3c68fd1d-43c4-4f21-b02c-4a2118f6baa2/.
Carpenter, Z. (2020, October 23). QAnon Is Becoming a Republican Dog Whistle, www.thenation.com/article/politics/qanon-republicans-election/.
City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989).
CNN. (2018, July 04). Commentators spar over affirmative action. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBLkmQIf0Hg.
Gonyea, D. (2017, October 24). Majority Of White Americans Say They Believe Whites Face Discrimination, from www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559604836/majority-of-white-americans-think-theyre-discrimi nated-against.
Jaschik, S. (2020, April 13). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/04/13/study-finds-public-univer sities-lose-minority-students-when-they-ban.
Kennedy, John F. (1961, March 6), “Establishing The President's Committee On Equal Employment Opportunity”. Executive Order 10925, March 6, 1961.
Kahlenberg, R. (2018, September 4). Affirmative Action Should Be Based on Class, Not Race, https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/04/affirmative-action-should-be-based- on-class-not-race
Newport, F. (2020, January 13). Most in U.S. Oppose Colleges Considering Race in Admissions. Retrieved December 16, 2020, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/193508/oppose-colleges-considering-race-admissions.aspx.
Olasov, I. (2016, November 07). Offensive political dog whistles: You know them when you hear them. Or do you? Retrieved December 15, 2020, from: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/7/13549154/dog-whistles-campaign-racism.
Shelton, C. (2011, March 18). Building Trust Across Diversity. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://diversityjournal.com/1461-building-trust-across-diversity/.
Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)