Page 54 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 54
šolsko polje, letnik xxviii, številka 3–4
had” (Katel, Clark and Jost, 2013: p. 132). For Kahlenberg, there are le-
gal, moral, and political problems associated with relying exclusively on
race (Katel, Clark and Jost, 2013: p. 132). For supporters of affirmative ac-
tion, however, it should also be noted that the policies contribute to var-
ious other causes that have little to do with race. So, for example, accord-
ing to one view, affirmative action “helps to ensure a democratic political
culture” (Katel, Clark and Jost, 2013: p. 131).
Yet, while this may be the case, affirmative action policies and even
the phrase “affirmative action” is politically tainted as emblematic of a
fundamental cultural dispute between liberals and conservatives in the
US. The term is also routinely associated with the idea of preferential
treatment. Even those who, in principle, favor some form of affirmative
action to correct for historical injustices often shy away from any mention
of preferential treatment when affirmative action is characterized using
these terms.13 For many Americans, this is a knee-jerk, ideologicaly mo-
tivated reaction. The granting of preferential treatment reeks of an aban-
donment of the American Dream of individual effort, talent, and luck as
a pathway to success. There is, as a result, overwhelming public hesitation
about anything that reeks of “preference” even though a form of prefer-
ential treatment might, at first blush, seem like the right thing to do giv-
en the history of discrimination against blacks and Latinos in the US. In
this context, a race-neutral policy, such as Percent Plans has a much bet-
ter chance at being politically popular and at ensuring racial and socioec-
onomic diversity in the classroom. It is to this discussion that I now turn.
Race-neutral Percent Plans
Percent Plans are race-neutral plans adopted by various states that make
sure a genuine form of racial and socioeconomic diversity is maintained
in their state-run institutions of higher education. In fact, there is some
evidence that these Percent Plans might, in fact, be more successful at re-
cruiting underrepresented racial minority students than a formal affirm-
ative action plan, according to Richard Kahlenberg at the Century Foun-
dation. This is exactly what happened at the University of Texas at Austin.
UT Austin had a race-based affirmative action policy in the mid-
1990s. As a result of this method, in Fall 1996, UT Austin’s incoming class
was 4.1 percent African-American and 14.5 percent Hispanic. That year’s
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hopwood v. Texas, however,
prohibited the University of Texas from using race in its admissions de-
13 See, for example, Pew Research Center, “US Politics & Policy: Conflicted Views of
Affirmative Action,” May 14, 2003, http://www.people-press.org/2003/05/14/conflict-
ed-views-of-affirmative-action/.
52
had” (Katel, Clark and Jost, 2013: p. 132). For Kahlenberg, there are le-
gal, moral, and political problems associated with relying exclusively on
race (Katel, Clark and Jost, 2013: p. 132). For supporters of affirmative ac-
tion, however, it should also be noted that the policies contribute to var-
ious other causes that have little to do with race. So, for example, accord-
ing to one view, affirmative action “helps to ensure a democratic political
culture” (Katel, Clark and Jost, 2013: p. 131).
Yet, while this may be the case, affirmative action policies and even
the phrase “affirmative action” is politically tainted as emblematic of a
fundamental cultural dispute between liberals and conservatives in the
US. The term is also routinely associated with the idea of preferential
treatment. Even those who, in principle, favor some form of affirmative
action to correct for historical injustices often shy away from any mention
of preferential treatment when affirmative action is characterized using
these terms.13 For many Americans, this is a knee-jerk, ideologicaly mo-
tivated reaction. The granting of preferential treatment reeks of an aban-
donment of the American Dream of individual effort, talent, and luck as
a pathway to success. There is, as a result, overwhelming public hesitation
about anything that reeks of “preference” even though a form of prefer-
ential treatment might, at first blush, seem like the right thing to do giv-
en the history of discrimination against blacks and Latinos in the US. In
this context, a race-neutral policy, such as Percent Plans has a much bet-
ter chance at being politically popular and at ensuring racial and socioec-
onomic diversity in the classroom. It is to this discussion that I now turn.
Race-neutral Percent Plans
Percent Plans are race-neutral plans adopted by various states that make
sure a genuine form of racial and socioeconomic diversity is maintained
in their state-run institutions of higher education. In fact, there is some
evidence that these Percent Plans might, in fact, be more successful at re-
cruiting underrepresented racial minority students than a formal affirm-
ative action plan, according to Richard Kahlenberg at the Century Foun-
dation. This is exactly what happened at the University of Texas at Austin.
UT Austin had a race-based affirmative action policy in the mid-
1990s. As a result of this method, in Fall 1996, UT Austin’s incoming class
was 4.1 percent African-American and 14.5 percent Hispanic. That year’s
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hopwood v. Texas, however,
prohibited the University of Texas from using race in its admissions de-
13 See, for example, Pew Research Center, “US Politics & Policy: Conflicted Views of
Affirmative Action,” May 14, 2003, http://www.people-press.org/2003/05/14/conflict-
ed-views-of-affirmative-action/.
52
