Page 45 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 45
Livin’ the Meritocratic Dream!
Or Why it Makes Sense that Percent Plans in College
and University Admissions Represent the Future
of Affirmative Action
Cyril Ghosh
Introduction
In the summer of 2017 the Donald Trump administration was repor-
ted to be preparing for investigations and possible litigation over affir-
mative action policies at selected universities and colleges for discrimi-
nating against white applicants (Savage, 2017). This gesture is in keeping
with the Republican Party’s and many Americans’ – including, primarily,
American conservatives’ – general opposition to affirmative action polici-
es. Affirmative action has been controversial ever since it was first imple-
mented in the mid-1960s. Especially in the case of university admissions,
supporters point out that these policies enable the establishment of a level
playing field – a central tenet of the American Dream. Adversaries, on the
other hand, point out that the policy constitutes impermissible discrimi-
nation, especially against white men.
Others argue for a reformed version of affirmative action that takes
socioeconomic background into account and does not rely solely on race
in admissions decisions. Yet others claim that if affirmative action is to
be eradicated, the same should be done with legacy admits: the policy at
some elite institutions of admitting relatives of alumni. Finally, there are
those that advocate for replacing affirmative action as we know it with
Percent Plans – which are race-neutral plans that nonetheless have the
consequence of ensuring racially and socioeconomically diverse class-
rooms at state-run institutions of higher education.
In this essay, I suggest that of all these proposals, Percent Plans rep-
resent the best alternative to affirmative action policies, in major part be-
43
Or Why it Makes Sense that Percent Plans in College
and University Admissions Represent the Future
of Affirmative Action
Cyril Ghosh
Introduction
In the summer of 2017 the Donald Trump administration was repor-
ted to be preparing for investigations and possible litigation over affir-
mative action policies at selected universities and colleges for discrimi-
nating against white applicants (Savage, 2017). This gesture is in keeping
with the Republican Party’s and many Americans’ – including, primarily,
American conservatives’ – general opposition to affirmative action polici-
es. Affirmative action has been controversial ever since it was first imple-
mented in the mid-1960s. Especially in the case of university admissions,
supporters point out that these policies enable the establishment of a level
playing field – a central tenet of the American Dream. Adversaries, on the
other hand, point out that the policy constitutes impermissible discrimi-
nation, especially against white men.
Others argue for a reformed version of affirmative action that takes
socioeconomic background into account and does not rely solely on race
in admissions decisions. Yet others claim that if affirmative action is to
be eradicated, the same should be done with legacy admits: the policy at
some elite institutions of admitting relatives of alumni. Finally, there are
those that advocate for replacing affirmative action as we know it with
Percent Plans – which are race-neutral plans that nonetheless have the
consequence of ensuring racially and socioeconomically diverse class-
rooms at state-run institutions of higher education.
In this essay, I suggest that of all these proposals, Percent Plans rep-
resent the best alternative to affirmative action policies, in major part be-
43
