Print
EmailBy Steve Mintz
Last month, a federal appeals court revived the longstanding debate over affirmative action when it ruled that a race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas at Austin was constitutional.
The ruling affirmed an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which was asked to reconsider at the request of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Critics of the ruling believe that race should not be a factor in admissions decisions. Some argue that affirmative-action policies lead to lower standards at universities, since some candidates with lower academic qualifications will be admitted as a result of accepting more minority students. The argument is that by exclusively using general standards such as SAT scores and grades, a colorblind application process is more equitable.
The latest ruling by a panel of appeals-court judges affirms, for a second time, the 2009 summary judgement by a U.S. District Court judge that dismissed a lawsuit brought by Abigail Noel Fisher, a white applicant who had accused the Austin campus of illegal discrimination after being denied admission as a freshman the previous year.
Judge Emilio Garza, the dissenting member of the circuit court panel, appeared to lay some of the groundwork for an appeal with an opinion arguing that the majority had again failed to treat the university’s assertions with sufficient skepticism.
“By holding that the university’s use of racial classifications is narrowly tailored, the majority continues to defer impermissibly to the university’s claims,” he wrote, adding that such deference “is squarely at odds with the central lesson” of last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the case.
In that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, 6-2, that Michigan voters have a right to amend their state Constitution to ban racial preferences in admissions at public universities. In the case Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a widely acclaimed dissent, in which she challenged Chief Justice John Roberts’ colorblind approach to college admissions as “out of touch with reality.”
Sotomayor wrote that affirmative action policies provide the only realistic path to racial inclusion in higher education, correctly noting that race-neutral alternatives have failed to produce adequate diversity at three high-profile institutions: the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, UC Berkeley and UCLA.
The ethics of affirmative action policies based on racial differences, whether motivated by a desire to right past wrongs, create a more diverse campus learning environment or by socio-economic considerations, is a complicated matter.
In virtue ethics, motivations are an integral part of the ethical analysis. If we can say the motivation for race-based decisions is the inherent goodness of such policies, the University of Texas ruling is ethically supportable. On the other hand, the argument could be made that candidates such as Fisher have an ethical right to be given preference if their academic achievements surpass those of lesser-qualified candidates.
Each argument has merits. As a college professor, I have seen first-hand how having a diverse population in my ethics class adds value to the learning experience of all students. On the other hand, I can understand the position of a student denied admission because other considerations allowed another student to be given preference for whatever reason.
• Steve Mintz is a professor in the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. He writes an ethics blog at www.ethicssage.com.
It’s nice to read such an evenhanded analysis. In a close case, though, I would think that the decision should be made not to engage in racial discrimination. Or, to put it another way, unless the benefits of racial discrimination overwhelmingly outweigh the costs, we should treat people without regard to race.
The benefits of racial preferences are debatable and relatively slight, while the costs are numerous, heavy, and undeniable: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it mismatches African Americans and Latinos with institutions, setting them up for failure; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school and encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership – an untenable legal regime as America becomes an increasingly multiracial, multiethnic society and as individual Americans are themselves more and more likely to be multiracial and multiethnic (starting with our president).