D.E.I. is not Affirmative Action

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is under fire as an affront to Constitutional Rights. The poster child for this movement is a policy of many colleges to "down-rank" applications from Asian Americans because they are over-represented in top scores. In the name of "Diversity," the schools make sure that their student bodies are not overwhelmed with Asians, that, in short, enough white people get in.

 

 "Diversity" became the justification for race-conscious admissions with a 1978 Supreme Court case, reaffirmed in 2003. The idea was that there is educational benefit to a diverse student body. Which may be true. But that's completely different from the original intent of Affirmative Action.

 

The principles of Affirmative Action are simple and reasonable:

1. Racial discrimination in the past has caused real harm to people.
2. That harm is not corrected by simply avoiding to cause further harm.
3. Correction of harm requires deliberate, affirmative action.
4. Including more candidates from racial minorities in hiring and college admissions can be part of this affirmative action.

Following these principles, given two otherwise equal students, one black, one white, the school would admit the black student, under the reasoning that, given the effects of racism, the black student had worked harder and accomplished more to achieve a profile that appeared equal. This race-based preference was just one reason for choosing among equal students. The other reasons--filling a gap on a sports team, or in the orchestra, or in an obscure academic department, or simply being the child of an alumnus--are rarely seen as giving a student an "unfair advantage." 

Under Affirmative Action, no college would down-rank an Asian applicant. Asian Americans are subject to racial prejudice. If the effect of this prejudice does not show up in college admissions, then there is no need to give them any admissions preference, but that does not mean that white students are somehow disadvantaged.

 

The turn from Affirmative Action to Diversity as the reason for admissions preferences was subtle, and seemingly accomplished the same goals under a new label. But it robbed the movement of its moral weight, and set up the circumstances that resulted in the Supreme Court's 2023 evisceration. I have heard it asked, "How long do we have to keep atoning for slavery?" Which is a fair question. But the answer is: "Until we have fixed the harm." With the ugly resurgence of "Great Replacement" theory demonstrates, we are far from that happy day. The loss of Affirmative Action is a sad case of back-sliding.