Fisher v. Texas: On Race, Merit, and Affirmative Action in College Admissions |

Tomorrow the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Fisher v. Texas, addressing the constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions. I wrote a piece on the history of the case and how the Court might rule back in July, and I’d encourage you to go take a look at it if you’re not familiar with the background. But this morning I want to talk about something a little less technical.

Here’s how the case’s plaintiff, rejected University of Texas applicant Abigail Fisher, described what’s at stake in today’s New York Times:

“I’m hoping that they’ll completely take race out of the issue in terms of admissions and that everyone will be able to get into any school that they want no matter what race they are but solely based on their merit and if they work hard for it.”

For better or worse, that’s not remotely on the table.

Colleges accept and reject candidates for all sorts of reasons that have little or nothing to do with merit. They take legacies — relatives of other graduates — because those admissions are good for alumni donations. They accept football players because bowl games and shirt sales are good for the bottom line. Many private colleges consider a student’s wealth in admissions decisions, and many publics are pumping up out-of-state admissions to enhance tuition revenue. None of this has anything to do with merit.

And all of it is completely legal.

That’s worth underscoring. It’s not illegal to discriminate on the basis of non-academic factors in college admissions in the United States. There are no barriers to rejecting students because they’re not rich, or went to crappy high schools, or studied the piccolo instead of the oboe in a year when you’ve already got enough piccolo players. Unfair, arbitrary, and venal admissions standards are part of the fabric of every selective college’s decision-making process.

And there’s something truly twisted about the argument that all of that is okay but affirmative action — precisely because it’s intended as a remedy for the country’s long history of racial discrimination, a history that didn’t end in 1865 or 1954 or 1963, but continues to this very day — is not.

When we as a country say that it’s right and just to accept one student because her high school had a great gymnastics program or her parents are big donors or her grandfather was a dean while while we simultaneously recoil at the “racism” of giving a boost to another student who, as a result of the nation’s persisting inequities, had no chance to acquire any of those advantages, we aren’t saying we want to move beyond our history of racial discrimination.

We’re saying we want to lock it in.

8 comments

Comments feed for this article

October 9, 2012 at 10:27 am

Iris

Thanks for a great argument.

October 9, 2012 at 11:43 am

Offie Wortham

What about the argument of replacing race and ethnicity with financial need? This would still help increase the number of poor minority students as well as poor white students. The lowering of academic standards has been proven to hurt any student who gets in way over their head. They have a higher drop-out rate, and generally can not perform as well in a highly competive academic situation. So who are you helping by assuming all minority students need affirmative action…even the ones from private prep schools?

October 9, 2012 at 11:59 am

Angus Johnston

Offie, I’m a huge supporter of class-based affirmative action, and I’ve written before about the risk that purely race-based affirmative action will be used to benefit society’s elites. But there are a few things worth noting.

First, class-based affirmative action isn’t under attack. It’s available for any institution that wants to use it, and many do. Yes, most should weigh it more heavily, but it’s already part of the mix.

Second, and this is really important, research has shown conclusively that race-blind class-based affirmative action will generally benefit white students more than students of color. This is partly because of weaknesses in how the programs measure “class” — if you score an applicant based on family income rather than wealth, for instance, you’re going to favor relatively privileged people. But it’s also because the persistence of racism in the US means that of two identically economically situated students, one white and one black, the white student is still likely to have educational, social, and other advantages.

Finally, I agree that there’s a danger in accepting academically under-prepared students to selective colleges, but it’s not at all clear to me why you think that danger is more relevant to a discussion of race-based affirmative action than class-based, or for that matter why you think it’s more significant with regard to race than with regard to legacy admissions, athletic admissions, or any other non-merit-based factor.

October 9, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Daniel Kirk-Davidoff

So what about a push for legislation that would require colleges that accept federal funds not to favor children of alumni in admissions? Or at least, not to favor them over kids whose parents didn’t attend any college?

October 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm

Sign me up, Dan.

October 9, 2012 at 3:34 pm

Kelly