Page 57 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 57
c. ghosh ■ livin’ the meritocratic dream!
It is hardly in doubt that widespread and more equitable education-
al opportunities are desperately needed in the US. The system is obvious-
ly in need of reform and institutional change. As described above, both
supporters and adversaries of affirmative action recognize that students
from black and Latino families are disproportionately more likely to at-
tend underperforming schools and, as a result, they are typically less pre-
pared than their white peers to do well on standardized tests. Under these
circumstances, how can we ensure that the American dream’s promise of
widespread and equal opportunity remains real for underrepresented ra-
cial minorities in college education? We could continue to support affirm-
ative action as it is currently practiced. Or we could try to reform affirm-
ative action to make it more inclusive of students who have experienced
socioeconomic hardship? We might also move all the way toward free uni-
versal college education. Finally, we may all support a move toward Per-
cent Plans across the nation.
Of all these strategies, the Percent Plans are the most strongly in
conformity with the ideology of the American Dream. They appear sol-
idly meritocratic and avoid preferential treatment of any kind, whether
they are racial preferences or legacies. These Percent Plans focus on merit
but they also assess merit in terms of one’s accomplishments within a spe-
cific institutional setting and these accomplishments are measured with
one’s peer group as a point of comparison. This practice is not only a more
reasonable measure of how much effort a student has put into her work
when controlling (roughly) for the resources she has been given, it also has
the added advantage of circumventing the problem of cultural bias that
is common in standardized tests. Moreover, as the Supreme Court of the
US has held there is a compelling state interest in diversity and Percent
Plans actually do, in fact, as illustrated above, ensure racial and socioeco-
nomic diversity in university settings.
Three other reasons make Percent Plans the most attractive of all
these strategies. First, Percent Plans are able to avoid some of the most
controversial consequences of race-based affirmative action policies. So,
for example, as indicated above, many have talked about the stigma asso-
ciated with being a person of color at an elite institution, especially if they
are black, Latino, or Native American. These complainants report that
they often face, from their peers, an automatic assumption that they must
be attending these institutions not because of their merit but because of
race-based affirmative action policies. Justice Clarence Thomas’s com-
ments, cited above, is just one case in point. Some even claim that these
feelings of stigma and negative stereotyping often leads a non-trivial num-
55
It is hardly in doubt that widespread and more equitable education-
al opportunities are desperately needed in the US. The system is obvious-
ly in need of reform and institutional change. As described above, both
supporters and adversaries of affirmative action recognize that students
from black and Latino families are disproportionately more likely to at-
tend underperforming schools and, as a result, they are typically less pre-
pared than their white peers to do well on standardized tests. Under these
circumstances, how can we ensure that the American dream’s promise of
widespread and equal opportunity remains real for underrepresented ra-
cial minorities in college education? We could continue to support affirm-
ative action as it is currently practiced. Or we could try to reform affirm-
ative action to make it more inclusive of students who have experienced
socioeconomic hardship? We might also move all the way toward free uni-
versal college education. Finally, we may all support a move toward Per-
cent Plans across the nation.
Of all these strategies, the Percent Plans are the most strongly in
conformity with the ideology of the American Dream. They appear sol-
idly meritocratic and avoid preferential treatment of any kind, whether
they are racial preferences or legacies. These Percent Plans focus on merit
but they also assess merit in terms of one’s accomplishments within a spe-
cific institutional setting and these accomplishments are measured with
one’s peer group as a point of comparison. This practice is not only a more
reasonable measure of how much effort a student has put into her work
when controlling (roughly) for the resources she has been given, it also has
the added advantage of circumventing the problem of cultural bias that
is common in standardized tests. Moreover, as the Supreme Court of the
US has held there is a compelling state interest in diversity and Percent
Plans actually do, in fact, as illustrated above, ensure racial and socioeco-
nomic diversity in university settings.
Three other reasons make Percent Plans the most attractive of all
these strategies. First, Percent Plans are able to avoid some of the most
controversial consequences of race-based affirmative action policies. So,
for example, as indicated above, many have talked about the stigma asso-
ciated with being a person of color at an elite institution, especially if they
are black, Latino, or Native American. These complainants report that
they often face, from their peers, an automatic assumption that they must
be attending these institutions not because of their merit but because of
race-based affirmative action policies. Justice Clarence Thomas’s com-
ments, cited above, is just one case in point. Some even claim that these
feelings of stigma and negative stereotyping often leads a non-trivial num-
55
