When the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, the news cycle was full of headlines: “Asian American Students Win.” “Harvard Discriminated Against White Applicants.” Suddenly, people who had never thought about Equal Protection were talking about fairness and harm.
I think the question of "Is fairness about identical treatment for individuals, or about expanding opportunity for groups historically excluded?" is a great one. The consensus amongst a group that both values diversity for diversity's sake and that understands how systemic harm and the law can interact would likely be "both". The point is opening the other side of the double door, not shutting the one already wide open to non-marginalized applicants. I think this also gets to the notion that some day in the future, affirmative action will disadvantage white applicants in a tangible way, not just in a way that they surmise is/has been happening. Were that to be the case, this is where I think it's important to explicitly say, "We value diversity for the sake of diversity" and not JUST "We value affirmative action as a remedial measure". When you add this first assertion, you also soothe the fear of non-marginalized groups who envision a future where they see an education ban with their name on it. When it's made clear that measures will forever be taken to ensure diversity BECAUSE of the value of diversity for everyone, you effectively promise that SHOULD that feared day come where the racism is (literally) reversed, then affirmative action will benefit currently non-marginalized populations too. Understandably, this creates the potential for a body of scholarship to ignite revealing that reverse-racism is real and affirmative action is harming white students. I welcome that. I welcome a credible study that demonstrates that affirmative action is tangibly harming white students. And should that be the case, I welcome a dialogue that gets to the core of the systemic harm facing minority communities in this country and actions that should and could be taken in the name of equity AND equality. The idea that it should be an aim for students to be treated the same (equality) and that students who have been placed at a disadvantage should benefit from a remedy (equity) are not mutually exclusive. I think the potential harm that we want to avoid is in treating these aims as such.
I think the question of "Is fairness about identical treatment for individuals, or about expanding opportunity for groups historically excluded?" is a great one. The consensus amongst a group that both values diversity for diversity's sake and that understands how systemic harm and the law can interact would likely be "both". The point is opening the other side of the double door, not shutting the one already wide open to non-marginalized applicants. I think this also gets to the notion that some day in the future, affirmative action will disadvantage white applicants in a tangible way, not just in a way that they surmise is/has been happening. Were that to be the case, this is where I think it's important to explicitly say, "We value diversity for the sake of diversity" and not JUST "We value affirmative action as a remedial measure". When you add this first assertion, you also soothe the fear of non-marginalized groups who envision a future where they see an education ban with their name on it. When it's made clear that measures will forever be taken to ensure diversity BECAUSE of the value of diversity for everyone, you effectively promise that SHOULD that feared day come where the racism is (literally) reversed, then affirmative action will benefit currently non-marginalized populations too. Understandably, this creates the potential for a body of scholarship to ignite revealing that reverse-racism is real and affirmative action is harming white students. I welcome that. I welcome a credible study that demonstrates that affirmative action is tangibly harming white students. And should that be the case, I welcome a dialogue that gets to the core of the systemic harm facing minority communities in this country and actions that should and could be taken in the name of equity AND equality. The idea that it should be an aim for students to be treated the same (equality) and that students who have been placed at a disadvantage should benefit from a remedy (equity) are not mutually exclusive. I think the potential harm that we want to avoid is in treating these aims as such.