Independently of the legal issues at stake in the Supreme Court's affirmative action case, we must examine the benefits that Brown gains from race-based affirmative action. Brown is a private university, and so it will always have more freedom to implement race-based admissions policies than do public universities
All universities reap significant educational rewards from race-based admissions policies. These policies allow for a wider range of perspectives in class discussions, thus instilling in all students a more complete understanding of the relevant issues at stake. If Brown were to make admissions decisions solely on the basis of narrowly defined academic merit - GPA and SAT scores - then the quality of classroom discussion would decline significantly. Even if Brown were to consider socioeconomic status but not race, classroom diversity and education outcomes would still suffer.
Research validates what most educators intuitively know - that racial diversity in the classroom benefits all students. A report by the American Association of University Professors states that "racial and ethnic diversity has a direct positive influence on student outcomes and students' beliefs about the quality of education they received. Empirical evidence from both faculty and student reports of their experiences also indicates that an institution's racial and ethnic diversity has positive educational benefits for all students."
I believe in the value of ethnically diverse classrooms because most of my classrooms have lacked any semblance of this diversity. I would have gained a more complete understanding of certain issues if my classes had been more ethnically diverse. In certain instances, I can identify ways in which my white classmates and I overlooked relevant considerations that students from different backgrounds may have discussed. More importantly, there have perhaps been many instances in which I was completely unaware of the negative effects of such a limited range of perspectives.
Many critics of current affirmative action policies argue that socioeconomic factors should be considered in place of race. I agree that enhancing economic diversity is an admirable goal and that race should not be the only factor considered. But to ignore race and focus solely on economic background is to deny that race forms a key part of personal identity in America, regardless of socioeconomic status.
Social science research indicates that people of different racial backgrounds have profoundly different experiences in America, even if they have similar levels of wealth. Colleges that want classrooms full of diverse perspectives should therefore consider racial identity in the admissions process.
As one of many possible examples of the effect of race on personal experience, research shows that African Americans receive harsher treatment in the criminal justice system than whites who commit similar offenses. In his study of the causes of incarceration rates, Kevin Smith, a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, wrote, "Poverty and unemployment variables never gain statistical significance. Percent black, however, is a positive and significant predictor. This suggests that (it) is the race rather than class elements of the underclass hypothesis that really (explains) incarceration rates."
This prejudice is not confined to the sentencing procedure. It also manifests itself in the form of racial profiling of completely innocent minorities, even wealthy ones. Admissions policies that control for socioeconomic status but ignore race overlook the fact that race, on its own, affects personal experience.
Unequal treatment by the legal system is just one of many ways in which students of different racial backgrounds, regardless of economic status, bring different perspectives to the classroom. The presence of diverse perspectives improves educational outcomes for all students, and considering race in admissions decisions is one way to enhance this beneficial diversity.
It is a sad truth that skin color still affects how Americans are treated, regardless of education level, occupational accomplishments or economic status. A color-blind affirmative action policy focused solely on economic status seems noble, yet it ignores this reality. Moreover it tackles the issue of increasing diversity by focusing on something that is only correlated with race.
Proponents of the socioeconomic argument must also confront the real-world implications of their policies. Eliminating racial preferences in admission would almost surely decrease the amount of ethnic diversity at universities. Elite universities already struggle to compose student bodies whose ethnic makeup resembles that of society at large. Taking away racial preferences would only exacerbate this problem.
At an elite university like Brown, every student must possess a baseline level of objective academic merit. At some point, however, more subjective personal characteristics, including race, may enable that student to bring more to the classroom than a student with higher test scores. Race is clearly only one of many relevant subjective personal characteristics, but it should be considered on its own, independent of socioeconomic status.
Perhaps in an ideal world, racial preferences in admission would not be necessary to ensure classroom diversity. But in the America in which we live, race still profoundly impacts personal experience. It should therefore be one of many factors considered in the admissions process.
Oliver Rosenbloom '13 is a history and public policy concentrator from Mill Valley, Calif. He can be reached at oliver_rosenbloom@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
