Page 46 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 46
šolsko polje, letnik xxviii, številka 3–4
cause they are the most aligned with the widely popular ideology of the
American Dream and, therefore, has the potential to have the broadest
possible support from Americans across the ideological spectrum. These
plans, thus, represent the least politically problematic way to resolve a con-
troversial set of disputes about how to ensure diverse classrooms at insti-
tutions of higher education as well as about how to spread out educational
opportunities widely throughout American society. I suggest in the re-
mainder of this paper that these Percent Plans are much better suited to
instituting the American Dream’s promise of a level playing field because
they factor in socioeconomic class and ensure racial diversity, especially
of historically underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and
they do so in a way that does not accord “preferential” treatment to any
particular group of people, which in turn makes them more likely to en-
joy widespread support in the American population, and also makes them
more likely to reduce the stigma that sometimes accompanies affirmative
action policies.
Equal Opportunity and the American Dream
There are many visions of what constitutes the American Dream. The
phrase is notoriously hard to define. But there are three central constitu-
tive elements of the American Dream: individualism, equal opportuni-
ty, and success (Ghosh, 2013). The Dream promises a life of success for all
those who work hard for it, have the talent or merit for it, or who achieve
this success purely on the basis of luck. The dream’s widespread emotion-
al resonance leads it to be routinely invoked by political leaders in con-
temporary American political culture – and the language and rhetoric of
the Dream is regularly used to refer to a range of things from homeowner-
ship to immigration. It is not a surprise, therefore, that especially since the
mid-1960s political leaders have dramatically increased the use of Amer-
ican Dream rhetoric (Ghosh, 2013). In part, this is because post-War era
economic prosperity reconfirmed the promise of the Dream and in part
because the Dream’s promise of social and racial justice, codified famously
in Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, canonized
the American Dream’s promise of democratic inclusion for all.
Central to the ideology of the Dream is a belief in meritocracy that
makes Americans likely to tolerate pervasive inequality principally be-
cause inequality indicates, for many, the presence of social and political
structures that reward the hard-working and punish those who are lazy.1
Survey after survey in the last 25 years or so reveal that most Americans
1 On the concept of meritocracy in the United States, see Samuelson (1997), Arrow, Bowles,
and Durlauf (eds.) (2000); also see Lipset (1996).
44
cause they are the most aligned with the widely popular ideology of the
American Dream and, therefore, has the potential to have the broadest
possible support from Americans across the ideological spectrum. These
plans, thus, represent the least politically problematic way to resolve a con-
troversial set of disputes about how to ensure diverse classrooms at insti-
tutions of higher education as well as about how to spread out educational
opportunities widely throughout American society. I suggest in the re-
mainder of this paper that these Percent Plans are much better suited to
instituting the American Dream’s promise of a level playing field because
they factor in socioeconomic class and ensure racial diversity, especially
of historically underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and
they do so in a way that does not accord “preferential” treatment to any
particular group of people, which in turn makes them more likely to en-
joy widespread support in the American population, and also makes them
more likely to reduce the stigma that sometimes accompanies affirmative
action policies.
Equal Opportunity and the American Dream
There are many visions of what constitutes the American Dream. The
phrase is notoriously hard to define. But there are three central constitu-
tive elements of the American Dream: individualism, equal opportuni-
ty, and success (Ghosh, 2013). The Dream promises a life of success for all
those who work hard for it, have the talent or merit for it, or who achieve
this success purely on the basis of luck. The dream’s widespread emotion-
al resonance leads it to be routinely invoked by political leaders in con-
temporary American political culture – and the language and rhetoric of
the Dream is regularly used to refer to a range of things from homeowner-
ship to immigration. It is not a surprise, therefore, that especially since the
mid-1960s political leaders have dramatically increased the use of Amer-
ican Dream rhetoric (Ghosh, 2013). In part, this is because post-War era
economic prosperity reconfirmed the promise of the Dream and in part
because the Dream’s promise of social and racial justice, codified famously
in Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, canonized
the American Dream’s promise of democratic inclusion for all.
Central to the ideology of the Dream is a belief in meritocracy that
makes Americans likely to tolerate pervasive inequality principally be-
cause inequality indicates, for many, the presence of social and political
structures that reward the hard-working and punish those who are lazy.1
Survey after survey in the last 25 years or so reveal that most Americans
1 On the concept of meritocracy in the United States, see Samuelson (1997), Arrow, Bowles,
and Durlauf (eds.) (2000); also see Lipset (1996).
44
