Affirmative discrimination

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the right of states to ban the incorporation of racial preference in the admission process of state universities.
In a vote of 6-2, a precedent has been set that allows the dismantlement of affirmative action across states that wish to do so.

My first encounter with “reverse discrimination”, which some allege is the essence of affirmative action, happened in an introductory business law class.
While discrimination is by and large illegal — surprise, surprise — in the context of hiring there are instances where discrimination is permissible if it corrects or aims to correct a historical, material underrepresentation.

A better word would probably be favoring, since discrimination carries so many overt connotations.To my understanding, such an action requires a great deal of compelling
evidence.

If you want to be ironic you can think of it as discrimination to solve
discrimination.

The premise of affirmative action is worrisome to me, but not so worrisome that I doubt its necessity.

Bad things have happened in the past and sometimes less than perfect and partially complete remedies need to be
imposed.

In my view the practice only covers up the real problem.
I think of practices like affirmative action as societal cough drops — they are incapable of healing the problem but they offer momentary relief.

Interestingly enough, IU has its own department dedicated to the propagation of affirmative action. The underrepresentation of certain demographics, minorities, etc. has been a blight on the University, at least in the eyes of some, for years.
Roughly two years ago, during the beginning of my freshman year, there were several demonstrations calling for the University to take recognizable steps to increase enrollment of students belonging to racial minorities. They cited past failed promises by the administration to double the percentage of black students at IU.

The argument generally advances as follows:
certain segments of our society inhabit socioeconomic circumstances that constrain their access to equal
education, opportunity and employment, among other things.

A professor described it as a track race where the underprivileged are forced to start 100 meters further back and jump hurdles. Yes, we all run the same race, but we don’t always start on the same mark.

I am simplifying the argument. My intention is not to provide an exhaustive study of the current admission practices or philosophies but rather, to the best of my ability, depict the situation and encourage a discourse.

This initial claim would be difficult if not impossible to argue against.
There can be no denying the varied situations we are all faced with. However, then the argument flows into the next stage, where a demand is made for preferential admission treatment which states can now, in part, ban. That could be through diminished entrance standards, increased financial awards or above-average academic support.

I feel affirmative action does not solve the problem but offers a brief remedy. Solutions need to be implemented long before a student prepares to enter higher education.

I am of course not the first to suggest this, but I feel more often than not we lose sight that solutions must be implemented in close proximity to where the problem originates.

This is why I push for education reform and school choice, namely the proliferation of charter schools as I mentioned in my last column.

Increasing school choice and competition in distressed areas could serve as the potential first step in rebuilding communities that have long been starting the race well behind the start line.

We should not aim to end preferential admission treatment but to end the need for it.

cgerst@indiana.edu
@CameronGerst