I don’t know about you, but I prefer to see in color.
When I say color, I mean color in the sense of diversity—ethnic, racial and cultural. I believe that diversity is a relevant and essential trait in an educational setting, which is why I am worried about the argument for a “color-blind” admissions process that has re-emerged during a recent case on affirmative action policy in education. We cannot afford to be a color-neutral society until disparities in education and employment cease to be defined and accentuated by race.
In Fisher v. University of Texas, Abigail Fisher, a white student from Louisiana State University, held that she was denied admission from the University of Texas because of her race. The case involves a policy called the “Top Ten Percent Plan” that admits public school students in the top 10 percent of their graduating classes into the state university system, a policy that has seen a remarkable rise in the numbers of black and Hispanic minority students. Fisher, who did not graduate in the top 10 percent of her class, claims that additional racial considerations unfairly denied her admission.
The case recalls the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger, during which the Court affirmed the use of race as a compelling state interest in the admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School. What’s interesting about the case is a much-recalled statement by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that the use of preferences will no longer be necessary in 25 years.
We may have several years to go before reaching our deadline for racial integration in education, but eliminating the affirmative action policy now would only serve to dismantle the efforts to overcome a key obstacle in the path toward increasing racial diversity and equal opportunity in education: removing the institutional barriers to racial mobility.
One of the strongest arguments against affirmative action—that it causes the “reverse discrimination” of whites, and in certain cases, Asian-Americans—mistakes a lack of preferential treatment for a denial of constitutional rights. The purpose of such programs, however, is not to discriminate against majority racial groups but to provide preference for minority groups of similar merit. These programs do not, and should not, deny opportunities on the basis of race. Instead, they use race as an additional consideration in the application process, with the ultimate goal of increasing diversity and providing opportunities to those from underrepresented populations.
If diversity and access to education are accepted as values on par with academic standing in an admissions decision, then universities have a right to use these factors when admitting students. On these grounds, preference is not a denial of equal protection granted in the 14th Amendment, as Fisher attempts to claim in her case.
Even so, it can be argued that giving preference to students of minority groups becomes harmful when it devolves into a policy of racial balancing, where quotas are given for certain groups and students are picked solely on these grounds in order to uphold an institutional definition of what diversity means. By strictly adhering to these quotas, universities could sacrifice academic standards in order to fulfill racial quotas in the application process.
There’s also the question of whether affirmative action is actually an effective means of ensuring that minority groups from low-income neighborhoods are given opportunities to receive higher education. Policies driven toward giving preference to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, rather than certain racial minorities, have been proposed as an alternative to affirmative action programs. Whether or not this policy would be a preferred alternative to affirmative action, however, should still be the decision of the university—the effectiveness of affirmative action is a question of university policy and is not a constitutional issue.
As someone who went to an ethnically diverse high school in Miami, Fla., I highly value the influx of different cultural and racial perspectives on education. At Duke, there isn’t necessarily a lack of diversity in the student body, but there does seem to be a lacking acceptance of and desire to socially interact with those outside of one’s racial or ethnic group. And although policies like affirmative action will not necessarily redirect our social preferences, they can help create a setting conducive to greater openness and tolerance for those of different backgrounds.
Nothing can reverse or erase the centuries of racist policies that have stifled attempts at racial equality in this country. But efforts can be made to ensure that minority groups, through increased educational and leadership opportunities, do not face such discrimination moving forward.
The road to achieving equal access to education will not be in easy one. But we shouldn’t have to wait until 2028 to finish the journey that began in 1964.
Sony Rao is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every other Tuesday. Follow Sony on Twitter @sony_rao
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.