Affirmative Action

In light of upcoming Supreme Court decisions about the role of race in education decisions, here are some thoughts about affirmative action. Time to jump into the inferno!

 First, the law. Under the 14th and 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution, people must be granted "equal protection" based on race in making education admission and advancment decisions. This means that decisions based on race, even for positive reasons to support advancement of minorities, are subject to strict scrutiny by courts. Any decision based on race must be "narrowly tailored" to meet a "compelling state interest".

 However, the court has found that diversity in higher education does advance a compelling state interest. It encourages the free exchange of ideas, advancement in society, etc. They also tend to differ to the educational decisions of institutes of higher education, since courts are generaly not qualified to make technical decisions about education management. The question then is when these decisions are "narrowly tailored."

Several cases have provided specifics.Quotas based on race are impermissible. You cannot require that your admissions reflect the demographics of your state, for example. You also cannot give "points" for race. For example, you cannot give an extra +10 points out of a scale of 100 for students who are African-American. However, schools are allowed to consider race in making a holistic, individualized, whole-person admissions decision. So a school could read a personal statement describing a person's experience as a minority, look at their background, look at the current need for diversity at the school, and use race as one portion of their consideration in admitting them to the university.

 Dissenting liberal justices have commented that this type of consideration tends to give the same results as the "points" system. In reality it is a system of winks and nods that disguises a quota system underneath. They would prefer to just be honest, and allow points or quotas. They argue that without quotas or points, diversity collapses in higher education. They argue that minority students are more likely to do public service, give back to their community, and affirmative action gives a ladder to success.

 Conservative justices reject the underlying assumption that diversity is a compelling interest for education. They argue that it damages the reputation of minorities, since their presence at institutions of higher learning will always be questioned as being the result of unfair advantages. They also argue that unprepared students are being sent to university, where they flunk out or are less successful. Also, the principals of the Constitution create color-blind principals, where it is offensive to use race as a consideration for any social purpose.

 I personally think it is best to do away with use of race as a consideration in admissions in education. In California, race as a basis for affirmative action is against the state constitution. For a few years, diversity did collapse in the universities. But the admissions committees got smart-- they started using personal statements, and encouraged students to list "adversity" and give stories about poverty, struggle, discrimination, etc. They then use these stories as criteria for admission. Since many (although not all) minority students experience poverty, discrimination, etc., this is an easier way to increase diversity in society.

It also avoids the problem where the privileged or upper middle class minority student will be considered above the scrappy, discriminated against majority student. This discourages the "African princess" problem that occurs in Harvard, the U.N., etc., when race or geographic origin is the only consideration for diversity. I don't think socioeconomic status is enough. You can experience discrimination and struggle in spite of socioeconomic status. I think of many Sikh Americans, who may have Doctors for parents, but are hated for wearing turbins and growing beards, or Orthodox Jews, who may be very high income, but had a swastika sprayed on their synagogue. But that is something which you can discribe in your personalized statement-- and should.

 So I may be sponsoring a system of winks and nods, but I don't think so. I just think that the focus should be on individualized experiences of discrimination, hardship, and struggle, rather than just assuming that these are the case, based on race. I know this is a very individualistic perspective, but I think that is the best perspective for America, which is a very individualized society. Perhaps a different standard would be better for other countries (the caste system in India comes to mind, although that issue is even more complex.) But for the sake of minorities, so there is no shadow cast over their accomplishments, race should not be an explicit reason for any determinations.

 That being said, I think there are four very strong arguments that call my approach into question:

 1. Job applicants with minority names are very statistically less likely to get jobs. This systemic problem requires a systemic solution, even for rich and otherwise not disadvantaged minorities. According to this article, black-sounding names are 50% less likely to get a call-back-- for the same qualifications.

 2. Same problem for rich, middle class black and hispanic men. They are still racially profiled in driving stops, arrests, police shootings, etc.

 3. Some well-off students may not face discrimination now, but once they break into a highly segregated workplace (chemicals industry, some small businesses, etc.) they are statistically likely to experience discrimination in the future. Increased access to education, employment opportunities, etc. can help even the playing field.

 4. The history of slavery, racism, genocide, colonialism, territorial acquisition, etc. are so terrible that they justify some unfairness to the majority race and culture.

 Hey, if it was easy, it wouldn't be a difficult question, right? For the first point, I think that is a strong argument for affirmative-action hiring policies for employers. Again, this should still be in an individualized kind of review, to avoid the appearance of total reliance on race. If this degrades the accomplishments of minority candidates who were hired entirely on the basis of their experience, this might be still worth it, for the vast number of applications who would otherwise be excluded from jobs they could do well, simply based on entry-level prejudice.

 Second, affirmative action in education or employment are not the means to correct police misconduct. That is more a questions of justice system reform-- which should be a vital aspect of any police training and development program.

 Third, these highly segregated agencies may also need to engage in affirmative action. Again, this might degrade accomplishments, and reduce respect, but if the field is almost entirely inaccesible even to the best candidates, then what is there to lose? Better to have a job with doubts about your abilities, then not to even have the job at all. It is a lot of pressure, and a lot to prove.

 Finally, the history is so heart-wrenchingly terrible that something needs to be done. Social equality for historically marginalized people needs to move about fifteen places up the priority list for our national consciousness. If a qualified white candidate has a harder time because a minority candidate is given more preference, that sucks. But it also sucks if a black candidate is denied at the entry-level. Affirmative action in employment could help level that playing field, even if the cost in respect is high.

 So, in sum, I have talked myself into a personal-statement type application, with focus on adversity, for education institutions, and minority status as a positive consideration in a holistic employment hiring process for the more impersonal parts of the hiring process, and in highly segregated industries.

 Some Interesting Links:

 History of Legal Aspects of Affirmative Action in California Education: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/race/summary.html 

Affirmative Action in India: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/world/asia/indias-rich-benefit-from-schools-affirmative-action.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

 Black-Sounding Names and Job Applications: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-575685.html