Peter Bozzo writes in today’s Crimson in favor of switching from race-based to class-based affirmative action. He makes a very strong case, but I think he ultimately goes wrong.
First, his interpretation of Brown v. Board as a decision rooted in the principle of color-blindness is implausible to me. The heart of the ruling was this passage: “To separate [black schoolchildren] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” It was not simply the racial classification that was objectionable. It was the place that the racial classification played in a society-wide system of racial subjugation—of making blacks into an inferior class.
Second, Peter writes, “The use of holistic admissions guidelines still excludes qualified applicants based on their race.” I wish that he had considered the other ways in which qualified people are still excluded based on their race—and that he had considered the race of the people who are usually excluded. I wish he had mentioned all the little ways in which, studies show, race still makes an appearance in people’s judgments—whether it is the judgment of realtors deciding which houses to show, or bankers deciding which loans to offer, or employers deciding which resumes to favor, or teachers deciding which kids to place in advanced classes.
You can say, well, that sort of discrimination may be real, but it’s less explicit and therefore less demeaning than affirmative action. Maybe. But the results for African-Americans have been disastrous: residential segregation, sky-high foreclosure rates, rampant unemployment, and an educational crisis. Now, I’m not saying that discrimination explains these phenomena entirely, I’m saying it explains them partially. And then you have to add to that the “soft bigotry of low expectations”—George W. Bush may have been talking about affirmative action itself, but the phrase is a good one. I’m talking about the sense that there’s just no point in ambition, that there’s no hope for success. That form of discrimination might be societally imposed or it might be self-imposed, but it’s probably a little of both.
And if (I grant that this is a big if) affirmative action has played a role in counteracting these forces, and in raising up an African-American professional class, then that’s a good thing both for African-Americans and for society. For that reason, Peter’s most compelling argument is that affirmative action “typically benefits only middle- and upper-class minority students”—that is, students who probably aren’t nearly as vulnerable to segregation, foreclosure, unemployment, educational inequality, and other social disadvantages. If that’s true, I am completely open to revising my view on race-based affirmative action, so long as it is replaced by class-based affirmative action.
Here’s the thing, though. Given the reasons he has stated for opposing the former, I don’t think Peter can consistently support the latter. I don’t see what is worse about “consigning students to particular races assumed to define their identities” than assigning them to certain socioeconomic groups assumed to define their identities. If you support color-blindness, why not class-blindness? If every person deserves to be treated as an individual, not as a member of a class, during the admissions process, isn’t it unfair to assume that a poor kid has had a harder life than a rich kid?
I have discussed these objections before in greater detail.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.