On Tuesday, federal judge Allison Burroughs upheld Harvard University’s “race-conscious” admissions policy, temporarily keeping the idea of affirmative action on life support. A group called Students for Fair Admissions, or SFFA, challenged Harvard’s policy, claiming that the policy unfairly denies admission to better-qualified Asian American applicants thereby violating their rights under the Civil Rights Act. The case will likely be appealed and end up on the Supreme Court docket, where life support is likely to be removed.
SFFA is the latest effort by Edward Blum to end the consideration of race in admissions. He has also worked tirelessly to eviscerate voting rights. Blum was the impetus for the dual cases heard by the Supreme Court, known as Fisher I and Fisher II. These cases, Fisher v. the University of Texas, claimed that Abigail Fisher was the victim of racial discrimination when rejected by the University of Texas allegedly in favor of “less-qualified” applicants of color. Blum and Fisher lost both Fisher I and Fisher II, but Blum’s zeal was undeterred. He cast about for Asian Americans who had been denied admission in order to diversify his portfolio of so-called victims. Thus SFFA was born. Blum, Abigail Fisher and her father are the only “leaders” of the organization.
Fisher II was decided by a 5-4 majority and any future case will be judged by a very different court now that Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are seated.
Burroughs upheld the Harvard policy primarily on the grounds of the benefits of diversity as first expressed in Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion in University of California v. Bakke (1978), when he claimed that a “farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer.” In 2003, the Grutter v. Bollinger case reaffirmed the legality of race-conscious admission for purposes of educational diversity.
Initially, affirmative action was crafted as a necessary response to systemic racism and the underrepresentation of black Americans due to the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. When that argument lost jurisprudential steam, the educational benefits of diversity became the philosophical surrogate. That justification is losing steam, too.
The most crucial issue is never addressed.
Higher education is being hoist on its own petard. The Asian Americans in the most recent case argue that they merited admission by virtue of their superior credentials — grade-point averages and SAT scores. Opponents of affirmative action have always cited the inviolability of meritocracy, although they are oddly blind to athletic preference, legacy admissions and the influence of donors. Of course, in contemporary society, athletic prowess, pedigree and money are indicators of de-facto merit. Being black is a de-facto demerit.
It is this false understanding of merit that will be the undoing of affirmative action. Our culture stipulates that merit is accurately assessed through standardized exams and quantified performance in school. Colleges affirm this not only by admitting students primarily on these criteria but by publishing and boasting about their superior metrics.
Thereby, colleges are explicitly or implicitly conceding that applicants who are admitted under diversity or affirmative action programs are somehow “lesser.”
They may be lovely people, good additions to the campus community to be sure, and have valuable contributions to make — but fundamentally “lesser.”
But true human merit is more complex. It includes the ability to create and recognize beauty; the capacity for eccentric thought that sees beyond conventional wisdom; the interpersonal intelligence to understand human nature and be filled with empathy; the life experiences a person can bring to examinations of history and literature; a passion for justice; a deep and powerful inclination to love.
In my book, First Do No Harm: Progressive Education in a Time of Existential Risk, I argue that the processes that produce high grades and test scores actually erode critical capacities, curiosity and passion. Many college professors, including many I’ve spoken with at Dartmouth College and other Ivies, bemoan the highly stressed, incurious, unhappy students spit out by the vicious chase for perfection. Colleges that use standardized scores and grade-point averages as gatekeeping criteria are actually limiting the overall vibrancy of their institutions.
Admission of students of color as belated recompense for America’s original, ongoing sin is important, and educational institutions do benefit from a diverse community. But until and unless universities and society recalibrate the idea of merit, race-conscious admission policies will be challenged in the courts and the court of public opinion.
The school I led for 19 years did not require admission tests. We didn’t have grade-point averages or valedictorians. Thirty percent of our students were of color. They weren’t lucky to be admitted. We were lucky they came.
Steve Nelson lives in Boulder, Colo., and Sharon. He can be reached at stevehutnelson@gmail.com.