Much of the debate around affirmative action in America has been around its legality – in large part due to the rich judicial history (both at the federal and state level) on the matter since the years following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Understanding the legality of particular existing practices that fall under the umbrella of affirmative action is an important endeavor, no doubt – it is, after all, the mechanism by which the courts operate. Court precedent alone, though, is not enough to make a decisive normative judgment on a type of practice. First, legality is by no means a proxy for normative judgment. Laws are simply rules passed by legislatures and only exist in any relevant way if there is an executive willing and able to enforce them. A statement’s existence in the law is not grounds for a favorable normative judgment, it simply shows that people in power found it desirable and possible to enforce. American law has mandated segregation and slavery, denied all but propertied white men the right to vote, permitted child labor, and denied women autonomy, all of which any morally right-headed person would object to.
Second, assessments of particular practices can lead to erroneous judgements on the type of practice as a whole. Generalizing normative assessment of the sorts of affirmative action in place today to form a normative assessment of affirmative action as a whole would be mistaken – even if one comes to the conclusion that current practices are immoral, that does not rule out the possibility of moral ones.
Therein lies the importance of a philosophical account of affirmative action. Here, my scope will be limited to just the affirmative action practices of admissions at not-for-profit universities. This is, in part, an effort to introduce a new approach to a body of arguments that have been particularly prone to the two aforementioned flaws (particularly the second,) but also due to the disproportionate social importance of these institutions. Instead of beginning with existing practices and normatively evaluating them, I will (with a focus on the empirical realities of America as a whole and higher education in that picture) provide an account that begins with normative assessment of their purpose and from it derives proposed practices.
The purpose of higher education in America
The purpose of higher education is contentious. Some hold that the university or college is a pre-professional training center: its purpose is to train its students in skills they will use once employed. At the other end of a spectrum is what could be construed as an Arisotleian viewpoint, which from its emphasis on the cultivation of human virtues positions the university or college as a place to develop the intellect. Of course, different approaches to the question of the purpose of higher education can lead to similar conclusions. The framework of Nicomachean Ethics might encourage a liberal arts education, but a utilitarian framework could conceivably be used to justify the same. One could make the argument that a liberal arts education creates the greatest happiness of the greatest number because it creates a citizenry sensitive to the questions of what a just life and society may look like; one could make the argument that, no, in fact, a strictly skill-based pre-professional education creates the greatest happiness of the greatest number because a society of skilled experts in their domain is most likely to run smoothly and progress. All this is to say that, while an interesting endeavor, deducing the role of higher education from first principles is not going to reflect some syllogistically-derivable truth, but an individual disposition on what human life and society ought to look like.
The indeterminate outcome of this purely a priori approach might prompt some empirical exploration. To help us answer “what is the purpose of higher education?”, it might be useful to ask “what outcomes do higher education create?” While this may seem at odds with the approach of this paper – which is to come to a moral judgment first – the reasoning for the approach lies in the propensity to focus too narrowly on particular affirmative action practices and mistakenly universalize from there. If this paper were a philosophical approach to the purpose of higher education, an excessively empirical approach might fall victim to a similar flaw. The goal here, though, is not to imagine the ideal higher education, it is to imagine the ideal affirmative action practices (if there are any) given the existence of higher education as it is. This is why an empirical examination of contemporary universities and colleges is methodologically relevant.
That said, here are some outcomes of higher education. In the 118th congress*, while 38 percent of American ages 25 and older have a bachelor’s degree or higher, all but 1 senator and 94 percent of house representatives do; while 14 percent of Americans of the same age have a graduate degree, 64 percent of house representatives and 78 percent of senators do (US Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment”; Schaeffer). Of the 114 justices appointed to the Supreme Court, 7 lacked a college education, and none have since 1942, when just 5.5 percent of men had completed four years of college (US Census Bureau, “Percentage of the US”). In Fortune 500 company boards, only 2 percent of members had no degree (Heidrick & Struggles), a figure around 4 percent (Zippia Research Team) for boards in general. 88 percent of millionaires graduated from college, and 52 percent have a graduate degree (Ramsey Solutions), The lawmakers, the law interpreters, the directors of American business, the wealthy – all those in positions of power overwhelmingly (in some places, near-ubiquitously) and disproportionately receive a higher education. Beyond all these statistics, there is a wide body of studies and sociological theory explaining the causal mechanisms underlying these statistics: a higher education doesn’t just provide skills, but intangible cultural capital and access to closed networks that make access to positions of power easier (Biancani & McFarland; Bourdieu; Kezar). Higher education, in most cases, is a precondition for power.
Universities and colleges, finding themselves in this role as the precondition for wielding societal power, ought to behave accordingly. Whether or not this should be the case – perhaps such positions should be more open to those without a university education, perhaps postsecondary institutions shouldn’t find themselves in a position in which they have an obligation to overarching societal projects – they have nevertheless found themselves in this position. However the reality of that role is normatively evaluated, it is still a reality.
While some might object to the universality of this conception of the place of postsecondary institutions and argue that, given how they are structured, for-profit institutions have a more pressing obligation to their shareholders. However, only about 5 percent of America’s postsecondary students are actually enrolled in for-profit institutions (Hansen). While questions on the place of extractive practices in education are worth addressing, the broadness of the scope of philosophical and normative questions engaging with them elicits and their simultaneously limited relevance in the American higher education system puts them outside of the purview of my mission here.
This prompts the question: given colleges’ and universities’ aforementioned role, and given the present state of American societal structure, are there any affirmative action practices that might serve to improve problems with those structures?
America as racially segregated and economically unequal
Racial segregation. From 2014 to 2018, the neighborhood of an average white resident in America’s metropolitan areas was 71 percent white and 8 percent black; the neighborhood of an average black resident was 45 percent black; the neighborhood of an average Latino resident was 47 percent Latino, 32 percent white, and 11 percent black. The median dissimilarity index between black and white people in urban areas with a population of 1 million or more in 2020 was 52.8, meaning that in a given area, 52.8 percent of black people would have to move to establish a black-white ratio that would be reflective of the general demographics of the city (Cortright).
Whereas 80 percent of low-income black people live in low-income communities, only 50 percent low-income white people do (Hadden Loh et al.). White adults over twenty five are almost double as likely to have a college degree (Juhn & Potter). The median net worth for non-Latino white people in 2022 was $285,000, whereas the median net worth for non-Latino black people was $44,000 (Federal Reserve, “Board Publication”). From 1970 (just 6 years since the end of legal segregation) to 2010, the percent of white students in a typical black student’s school decreased by 3 percent (Orfield et. al). One third of black children are poor, compared to 10 percent of white children (Fass & Cauthen); fewer than 1 in 10 of those white children experience poverty for ten or more years, whereas nearly all of those black children do (Corcoran). 45 percent of black children born in the middle income quintile fall into the bottom as adults, whereas only 16 percent of white children do (Isaacs). For decades, the white unemployment rate has been half of the white unemployment rate (Williams & Collins). Increasingly punitive criminal justice laws and disproportionate police presence in predominantly black neighborhoods have led to the mass incarceration of black men, to the point where black men are disenfranchised at a rate of almost one in eight in 2008 (King). A long history of systematically unequal lending practices –through a combination of discrimination in banking and racially biased federal policy (Jackson)– meant that white Americans have been able to buy homes and accrue generational wealth while black Americans found themselves in under-resourced and “redlined” urban neighborhoods (Katznelson).
In America, races are physically separate and suffer unequal outcomes. This is a paradigm that is and has been supported by both the law (particularly zoning and carceral laws) and the private sector.
Economic Inequality. Economic Inequality. Whereas real GDP per capita has increased by a factor of 2.58 (St Louis Federal Reserve), the benefits of this growth have been reaped unequally. In the second quarter of 2023, the top 10 percent wealthiest Americans possessed 69 percent of the nation’s wealth; the top 1 percent possessed 31.4 percent (Federal Reserve, “Wealth Distribution”). Whereas in 1985, the middle 40 percent accounted for 35.6 percent of net personal wealth and the top 1 percent for 24.4 percent, by 2021 the middle 40 percent had just a 28.2 percent share and the top 1 percent a 35.3 percent share (Congressional Budget Office). From 1948 to 1973, typical workers’ compensation (adjusted for inflation) changed by 91.3 percent, corresponding to a 96.7 percent increase in worker productivity; from 1973 to 2013, compensation has increased a mere 9.2 percent compared to a 74.4 percent increase in productivity. Since Moody’s began tracking rent prices in 1999, rents have increased by 135 percent but incomes have only increased by 77 percent (not adjusted for inflation,) drastically increasing the burden of rent. The real wages of workers in the 10th percentile have decreased since 1979; employer provided health insurance has decreased from 61 percent to 31 percent for college graduates and 24 percent to 7 percent for high school graduates. While CEOs made 20 times their typical workers’ earnings in 1965 and 59 times as much in 1990, they made 296 times more in 2013 (Mishel et al.)and 399 times more in 2021 (Visram). A mathematical model based on rising income inequality alone is sufficient to explain the rising segregation by income of American metropolitan areas 1970.
In America, the typical individual today is in many ways worse off and absolutely more segregated from the ultra-wealthy than the typical individual a generation ago, whereas the ultra-rich owners of the lion’s share of wealth are far better off than they have ever been.
Types of solutions relevant to postsecondary institutions
Returning to the question: given colleges’ and universities’ aforementioned role, and given the present state of American societal structure, are there any affirmative action practices that might serve to improve problems with those structures? I propose a type of solution for each sort of aforementioned injustice.
For racial segregation. Integration. As Elizabeth Anderson points out, if segregation consists of structures of “spatial and social separation to prevent contact between members of different groups” (Anderson, 112) with one dominant group experiencing privilege and enjoying better access while the subordinate group experiences discrimination and exclusion, then the intuitive way to combat it is through its negation: creating a society of “intergroup association on terms of equality… especially in the main institution of society that define its opportunities for recognition, educational and economic advancement, access to public goods, and political influence” (Anderson, 112-113). Empirically, this holds water. 7,100 poor black families benefiting from a court-ordered housing integration project in Chicago and its suburbs (known as the Gautreaux program) were 50 percent more likely to obtain a job than those who stayed in the segregated city; their children were 2.5 times more likely to go to college, twice as likely to have a job, and five times more likely to have a job that paid more than $6.50 per hour (Rosenbaum). Black people who attend integrated schools are more likely to graduate from high school (Guryan) and less likely to end up in prison (LaFree & Arnum) than their segregated counterparts. Integration makes sense a priori and is effective empirically.
On top of that, the theory of intergroup contact is supported by a meta-analytic review of hundreds of papers (Meissner and Brigham). It holds that face-to-face interactions on terms of equality are one of the central mechanisms for integration, as they trigger shared reality bias – particularly in a context in which individuals are working towards common ends, as shown by studies on labor unions (Estlund) and the army (Moskos & Butler).
In the context of the university, students experience face-to-face interactions on terms of equality all the time and work towards common ends frequently. If postsecondary institutions are to be conceived of as the trainers of the future leaders (both in the private sector and in government) of the nation, then it would follow that integrated postsecondary institutions would mean spaces of power would also be more integrated. If the very people who once suffered the effects of oppression were in positions of power and seen as peers and equals by those who didn’t suffer from that oppression (which would be definitionally true if integration were to be successful,) then the sorts of mechanisms that currently (and have historically) oppressed people of color – the passage of laws that bring about mass incarceration, redlining practices, state-sanctioned and privately carried out mortgage discrimination, etc. – would be far less likely to happen.
For economic inequality. Expanding access to capital. Applying a straightforward integration framework to wealth inequality seems mistaken: putting people who possess different amounts of wealth in the same spaces and on equal footing doesn’t seem like a practice that would fundamentally allow for the less wealthy to accrue wealth. A new account seems necessary. Thomas Piketty explains the force underlying American wealth inequality with the inequality r > g, where return on capital – consisting of rents, profits, interest, dividends, and other income is r and economic growth is g. Short of miraculously fast economic growth unseen in recent generations, the rate at which income can be generated from the possession of capital will be far higher than the rate of economic growth (Piketty). Thus, those with capital from which to extract income can increase their wealth far faster than those dependent on wages, bringing about inequality. Following Piketty’s inequality, there appear to be two solutions: redistribution of income from capital to those who do not possess capital, or expanding access to capital. While the first of these options is contentious and outside of the purview of postsecondary institutions’ abilities, the second is well within it. The median income of those with a bachelor’s degree is $108,800, whereas the median income for high school graduates is $51,470 (US Census Bureau, “Median household income”). Combined with the fact that extra dollars on top of the income that covers basic needs will be open to other purposes, like investment in capital and combined with the previously mentioned network benefits that higher education might provide when it comes to access to capital, postsecondary institutions certainly have a say in who has access to capital in the future.
If postsecondary institutions made an effort to educate students who might not otherwise have had access to capital, they could – though perhaps in a less fundamental way than in the case of racial segregation – ease the problem of income inequality.
Types of solutions relevant to postsecondary institutions
In many cases, the sorts of measures postsecondary universities can take in working towards integration are also helpful for expanding access to capital, so the following brief list of potential practices is combined.
1. Outreach programs to high schools in less wealthy or redlined areas, potentially with a financial aid component. Encouraging students to apply to postsecondary institutions (and providing them with the means to do so) can allow postsecondary institutions to educate a more integrated set of individuals, and give individuals access to the capital that comes with that education.
2. For selective institutions: not looking at standardized test scores. The disproportionate access to private tutoring and better resources provided by schools attended by more wealthy (and typically, whiter) students mean that SAT scores, for example, are more predictive of family income than anything else (Dixon-Roman, et. al). Removing them as an admissions criterion can allow less wealthy students or students from less well-resourced schools to have access to postsecondary education.
3. For selective institutions: preferential treatment for qualified applicants from less wealthy families, attending less well-resourced school districts, and from redlined areas. Favoring qualified applicants who suffer from the injustices detailed earlier is another way to create more integrated university environments and give access to capital to those who might not otherwise have it.
4. For selective institutions: Pre-college educational programs for less qualified applicants from less wealthy families, attending less well-resourced school districts, and from redlined areas. The difficult conditions of life for these applicants, combined with the fact that they might need to begin working from a younger age (a program for working applicants is also conceivable) might make it harder for such applicants to reach the same level of attainment as their more privileged counterparts. Putting resources into a pre-college program that brings them to the same level of qualification as their peers (and helping them financially to allow them to attend) is another way to expand access to postsecondary education, integrating it more widely than any of the previous endeavors above might allow.
Practices 3 and 4 are both examples of affirmative action. Given postsecondary institutions’ empirical role as the precondition for wielding power and the access they provide to capital, these types of affirmative action seem like reasonable steps those institutions can take in addressing the societal problems they find themselves in a position to address.
Concluding remarks: situating this argument in the discourse
In a more sylogistic form, my argument goes as follows.
1. Postsecondary institutions are institutions that train the next generation of leadership and provide those they educate with access to capital they likely would not otherwise have
2. Two of the deepest problems in American society are wealth inequality and racial segregation
3. Integration of leadership and expanded access to capital are solutions to these issues
4. Universities are in prime position to contribute to both of these things, one way they can do this is through affirmative action
5. Therefore, affirmative action – if it works towards solving these issues – can be just
I find this argument – which is more focused on righting the wrongs in American society – can provide a useful alternative to much of the affirmative action discourse around diversity. In Carl Cohen’s objection to affirmative action, he points out that “[i]n universities and where information or argument is reported or discussed, intellectual diversity is indeed a value worthy of pursuit…Colleges and universities that could greatly enrich their intellectual diversity do not work very hard at that…Diversity of religion, diversity of life-style, diversity along any one of many other dimensions that really could provide more genuine enrichment is commonly ignored” (38). For Cohen, this creates a system where people are treated unequally on non “critical” grounds, which contradict the maxim that equals should be treated equally. While Cohen’s statements may seem hyperbolic to the truth – college and university admissions teams certainly attempt to at least have the appearance of admitting students of diverse walks of life – it is true that if the end of affirmative action were truly to maximize diversity, its racial focus would seem strange.
The argument provided here does not fall to this objection. In this case, the grounds are critical. The people are not equal. Segregation and wealth inequality are some of the most morally relevant issues in American society, and postsecondary universities, in their unique position to address them, ought to do so.
*The current one at time of writing.
Bibliography
Anderson, Elizabeth. The imperative of integration. Princeton University Press, 2010.
Biancani, Susan, and Daniel A. McFarland. "Social networks research in higher education." Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 28. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2013. 151-215.
Bourdieu, Pierre. "Cultural reproduction and social reproduction." Knowledge, education, and cultural change. Routledge, 2018. 71-112.
Butler, John Sibley, and Charles C. Moskos. All that we can be: Black leadership and racial integration the Army way. New York, NY: Perseus Book Group (1996).
Corcoran, Mary. "Mobility, Persistence, and the Consequences of Poverty for Children: Child and Adult Outcomes." Understanding Poverty, edited by Sheldon Danziger and Robert Haveman, Russell Sage, 2001, pp. 127-161.
Congressional Budget Office. “using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances and the Financial Accounts of the United States.” Congressional Budget Office, 2 March 2023, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58533&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1702524970133953&usg=AOvVaw1BiET3AnMTfOtjJETS8rcM. Accessed 14 December 2023.
Cortright, Joe. “America's least (and most) segregated metro areas: 2020.” City Observatory, 20 October 2021, https://cityobservatory.org/most_segregated2020/. Accessed 14 December 2023.
Dixon-Román, Ezekiel J., Howard T. Everson, and John J. McArdle. "Race, Poverty and SAT Scores: Modeling the Influences of Family Income on Black and White High School Students’ SAT Performance." Teachers College Record, vol. 115, no. 4, 2013, pp. 1-33.
Estlund, Cynthia. Working together: How workplace bonds strengthen a diverse democracy. Oxford University Press, 2003.
Fass, Sarah and Nancy Cauthen. Who Are America’s Poor Children? National Center for Children in Poverty, 2008, p. 2, http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_843.pdf.
Federal Reserve. “Federal Reserve Board Publication.” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 21 October 2023, https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf23.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2023.
Federal Reserve. "Wealth Distribution in The United States in The Second Quarter of 2023." Statista, Statista Inc., 22 Sep 2023, https://www.statista.com/statistics/203961/wealth-distribution-for-the-us/
Hadden Loh, Tracy, et al. “Separate and unequal: Persistent residential segregation is sustaining racial and economic injustice in the U.S | Brookings.” Brookings Institution, 16 December 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trend-1-separate-and-unequal-neighborhoods-are-sustaining-racial-and-economic-injustice-in-the-us/. Accessed 14 December 2023.
Guryan, Jonathan. "Desegregation and Black Dropout Rates." American Economic Review, vol. 94, no. 4, 2004, pp. 919-943.
Hanson, Melanie. “College Enrollment & Student Demographic Statistics” EducationData.org, October 1, 2023, https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics
Heidrick & Struggles. “Board Monitor US 2023: Progress toward greater diversity slows this year on Fortune 500 boards.” CEO & Board of Directors Practice.
Isaacs, Julia. "Economic Mobility of Black and White Families." Getting Ahead or Losing Ground: Economic Mobility in America, edited by Ron Haskins, Julia Isaacs, and Isabel Sawhill, Brookings Institution, 2008, pp. 74-76, http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/02_economic_mobility_sawhill/02_economic_mobility_sawhill.pdf.
Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of the United States. Oxford University Press, 1987.
Juhn, Chinhui and Simon Potter. "Changes in Labor Force Participation in the United States." Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 20, no. 3, 2006, pp. 39.
Katznelson, Ira. When affirmative action was white: An untold history of racial inequality in twentieth-century America. WW Norton & Company, 2005.
Kezar, Adrianna. "Higher education change and social networks: A review of research." The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 85, no. 1, 2014, pp. 91-125.
King, Ryan. Expanding the Vote: State Felony Disenfranchisement Reform, 1997–2008, The Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch, 2008, p. 3, http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/fd_statedisenfranchisement.pdf.
LaFree, Gary, and Richard Arum. "The Impact of Racially Inclusive Schooling on Adult Incarceration Rates among U.S. Cohorts of African Americans and Whites since 1930." Criminology, vol. 44, no. 1, 2006, pp. 73-103.
Meissner, Christian, and John Brigham. "Thirty Years of Investigating the Own-Race Bias in Memory for Faces: A Meta-Analytic Review." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 7, no. 1, 2001, pp. 3-35.
Mishel, Lawrence, et al. “Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts.” Economic Policy Institute, 6 January 2015, https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/. Accessed 14 December 2023.
Orfield, Gary, John Kucsera, and Genevieve Siegel-Hawley. "E pluribus... separation: Deepening double segregation for more students." (2012).
Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer, Harvard University Press, 2017.
Ramsey Solutions. “The National Study of Millionaires - Ramsey.” Ramsey Solutions, 12 April 2023, https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-national-study-of-millionaires-research. Accessed 14 December 2023.
Rosenbaum, James. "Black Pioneers—Do Their Moves to the Suburbs Increase Economic Opportunity for Mothers and Children?" Housing Policy Debate, vol. 2, no. 4, 1991, p. 1188.
Schaeffer, Katherine. “Nearly all members of the 118th Congress have a bachelor's degree – and most have a graduate degree, too.” Pew Research Center, 2 February 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/nearly-all-members-of-the-118th-congress-have-a-bachelors-degree-and-most-have-a-graduate-degree-too/. Accessed 14 December 2023.
St Louis Federal Reserve. “Real gross domestic product per capita (A939RX0Q048SBEA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed.” FRED Economic Data, 23 July 2021, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA. Accessed 14 December 2023.
US Census Bureau. “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2021.” Census Bureau, 24 February 2022, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2021/demo/educational-attainment/cps-detailed-tables.html. Accessed 14 December 2023.
US Census Bureau. "Median Household Income in The United States in 2022, by Educational Attainment of Householder (in U.S. Dollars)." Statista, Statista Inc., 12 Sep 2022, https://www.statista.com/statistics/233301/median-household-income-in-the-united-states-by-education/
US Census Bureau. "Percentage of The U.S. Population Who Have Completed Four Years of College or More from 1940 to 2022, by Gender." Statista, Statista Inc., 9 Feb 2023, https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/
Visram, Talib. “CEOs now make 399 times more than the average worker.” Fast Company, 5 October 2022, https://www.fastcompany.com/90793041/ceos-now-make-399-times-more-than-the-average-worker. Accessed 14 December 2023.
Williams, David, and Chiquita Collins. "Racial Residential Segregation: A Fundamental Cause of Racial Disparities in Health." Public Health Reports, vol. 116, no. 5, 2001, pp. 40.
Zippia Research Team. “Board Member Demographics and Statistics in the US.” Zippia, Zippia, 2 March 2023, https://www.zippia.com/board-member-jobs/demographics/&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1702455554972388&usg=AOvVaw0OdM9y2Ja3CC4WM1NpykUN. Accessed 14 December 2023.