My problem with the diversity argument

While a column like Oliver Rosenbloom‘s is well-intentioned, the fundamental flaw in it, for me, is that it creates a situation in which classrooms are constructed for the betterment of white students in need of some “color.” This argument makes minority students a spice that makes classroom discussions more palatable, instead of regular students who are equally entitled to having their horizons broadened. Does only one group benefit from being exposed to another? Is the “other” in “another” always the minority student? This, by default, makes being white the norm or “normal” and everything else a variation of that.

I also resent the argument that race plays more of a role in forming opinions and outlook than class and common experience. This implies that people are fundamentally different based on race and I’m not sure how to climb out of that dangerous hole. Of course “race affects personal experience,” I’d be the last person to deny that, but so does being adopted or surviving abuse. Let’s not use the argument that built the house to tear it down; race is a social construct, not a biological reality.

And yes “It is a sad truth that skin color still affects how Americans are treated, regardless of education level, occupational accomplishments or economic status,” so let’s give this thought more than one sentence before moving back to a flawed diversity argument. The bottom line is everyone deserves a quality education and affirmative action isn’t a fluffy policy to make college more entertaining for some, it was (briefly anyway) a policy put into place to right hundreds of years of wrongs and inaccessibility. Let’s get back to having that conversation.

News Update

via UCLA

 

Sixth Circuit Finds Michigan Ban on Affirmative Action Unconstitutional

November 15, 2012 — An en banc review in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has found Michigan’s ban on affirmative action to be unconstitutional.  Please click HERE to read the full decision.  Depending on what happens in the Fisher v Texas case currently being considered by the Supreme Court, this victory could greatly advance efforts to overturn Proposition 209 in California.

This is an unexpected step in the direction of keeping affirmative action programs intact, for the time being …

Opinions gallore

Quick recap of online debate

Part of what makes this debate so interesting is the fact that most people are arguing about different things. Is affirmative action about diversity or reparations? What qualifies as “diversity” and is that something worth fighting for? Should diversity be sought in race, sex, religion, social class … opinions? Do people even understand what reparations are and why some people still see them as necessary (slavery was kind of a big deal and there’s no denying its effects to this day)? Are reparations even possible at this point, especially with the current (various) affirmative action programs in place?

Important outlets covering Fisher v. University of Texas and affirmative action

The National Law Journal provides news from a strictly legal standpoint on the Fisher v. University of Texas case. NLJ breaks down briefs and transcripts in a very straightforward way without commentary or societal noise.

The Education Life section of the NYTimes.com covers university life from the inside chronicling the various trends and opinions of students. It’s a useful way to tap into campus noise.

Mission Statement

This blog will focus on the Fisher v. Texas case (a case that centers on questions of whether and how race may be used in college-admissions decisions), its implications and the arguments surrounding ending affirmative action in higher education.

Abigail Fisher is a Texas native who, in 2008, was denied admission as an undergraduate to the University of Texas at Austin. Although Fisher recently graduated from Louisiana State University she is suing the University of Texas for allegedly discriminating against her in giving preference to Black and Hispanic applicants. Fisher’s lawsuit argues that the University of Texas was in violation of 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger case (at the University of Michigan law school), in which the Supreme Court held that colleges must give “serious, good-faith consideration” to race-neutral alternatives to affirmative-action preferences. And while Fisher did not qualify for automatic entry to the University of Texas at Austin under the state’s “Top 10 Percent Plan,” her lawsuit argues that that program, by nature, does enough to encourage diversity.

This case is important because it could open the door for the court to strike down all race-conscious admission policies at the nation’s colleges. Even the language used in the Grutter v. Bollinger case, which was a victory for affirmative action, sent an ominous message about its future. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, said that: “The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” But whose interest was approved? The interests of the universities? Minority students? Black students?

I find this case fascinating because it says a lot about the current state of race relations in America. Are we in a post-racial society? Is that possible? Will it ever be? Was O’Connor right and will 25 years be enough time? And even if we were all in agreement that racism still exists, is our current affirmative action system the way to remedy that? Does affirmative action even help the people it is meant to? Who IS it meant to help and how?

I want to cover everything from disgruntled white students who write, jokingly or not, about affirmative action on blogs like Thought Catalog to how universities are reacting to the situation. Since its a news story there’s coverage everywhere but one of my main sources of aggregated stories will be Huff Post College.