درباره این اپیزود
In 2023 the US Supreme Court issued its landmark – and highly controversial – ruling striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, a decision that has had major repercussions far beyond the confines of college campuses. It was a victory for conservative activist Edward Blum and his anti-affirmative action group, Students for Fair Admissions, who had filed lawsuits challenging admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
Assisting Blum in his quest to dismantle the racial leg up policies long championed by progressives as necessary to promoting campus diversity was an unlikely ally: Richard Kahlenberg, a liberal who draws inspiration from the 1960s idealism of Bobby Kennedy, but who nonetheless testified as a key expert witness on behalf of Students for Fair Admissions. Dubbed a “liberal maverick” by the New York Times, Kahlenberg has long advocated class-based affirmative action, but also has long argued that traditional race-based affirmative action heightens racial animus and allows elite universities to perpetuate themselves as bastions of wealth and privilege.
We were curious why an ardent liberal like Kahlenberg so prominently opposes one of the central planks of progressive orthodoxy, so we invited him on BCB to explain his belief that only by dismantling the race-based affirmative action regimes that were entrenched within elite campuses can we get these institutions to meaningfully address the class privilege that they reinforce.
Richard says that admitting affluent students of different races helped elite universities like Harvard appear inclusive while preserving class barriers and protecting unfair preferences for alumni children and wealthy families. A truly fair admissions system, he contends, would assess achievement in light of obstacles, including parents’ education, family income and wealth, neighborhood poverty, and family circumstances, while removing legacy preferences and other advantages that disproportionately benefit affluent applicants. This would produce nearly as much racial diversity as race-conscious admissions while maintaining strong academic preparation.
As for the aftermath of the 2023 ruling, Richard describes a mixed picture. Some schools have experienced substantial declines in Black enrollment, while others have maintained more racial diversity. But as a political question, Kahlenberg distinguishes between public support for diversity as a goal and public opposition to racial preferences as a means. Helping disadvantaged people of all races, on the other hand, has popular support, he points out. Although he collaborated with Blum in the litigation, he tells us he opposes conservatives who now characterize economic affirmative action as an unlawful substitute for racial preferences.
“Broad majorities support the end goal of diversity and recognize it’s a strength, as I do. Broad majorities hate the idea of racial preferences. They hate the idea of skin color counting in deciding who gets ahead,” Richard says, arguing that the Supreme Court striking down race-based affirmative action now actually opens the door to MLK’s vision of cross-racial class solidarity: ““It’s kind of picking up a lost thread that Dr. King left with us many decades ago, and now we’re finally returning to the wisdom of his approach of a bill of rights for the disadvantaged of all races.”
OUTSIDE SOURCES:
Anemona Hartocollis, "The Liberal Maverick Fighting Race-Based Affirmative Action," New York Times, March 29, 2023.
Richard Kahlenberg, "How to Fix College Admissions Now: Focus on Class, Not Race," New York Times, July 5, 2023.
