Tami: So...1) Need-based
admissions, 2) Consideration for students from under-performing school
systems, and 3) diverse admissions panels.
Mikhail: And of course we need to reform how secondary and primary education are funded. The property taxes that we rely on now are also inherently racist (note: I am referring to outcomes, not intent) in that they reinforce current racial inequities.
Tami: Yes! There will be a need for affirmative action in college admissions until we fix the inequities in K-12 education.
Mikhail: Absolutely, but I see the educational system as one big system, such that it is possible to intervene at any point in the system and create ripples that affect the rest of the system. The notion of having to wait for K-12 reform before doing something is depressing. So, would you support the system you described (1-3) over the current race-based affirmative action practices?
Tami: Yep. Agreed. My point
is that it is the K-12 inequity, in large part, that helps create the
inequity in who is prepared for college. I think I could accept the
1-2-3 practice if I could be assured that it would lead to more people
have access to higher education and more diverse student bodies.
Mikhail: That's part of it. There are other factors. I'm sure you agree. I don't think assurances are possible, but it would certainly be possible to track the data and evaluate the strategy.
Tami: Yes, data. That's what I would want.
Mikhail: ...and I bet we'd see higher [racial minority] graduation rates too!
Tami: This whole thing is like dominoes. The reality is that college graduates make more and have a much better shot at maintaining a good standard of living and passing that on to their children. Making higher education available to only a privileged few is a recipe for continued inequality and poverty.
Mikhail: I like your dominoes metaphor. And I haven't even had the chance to mention the costs to society of our current race-based policies --white resentment, which manifests itself in tea parties, "white-only" scholarships like the kind we started to discuss, and general distrust/prejudice directed at the beneficiaries and the "liberals" who support them. This is basically what I understand the "white" scholarships to be about. I see them as a symptom that what we're doing isn't working the way we want. And while I would prioritize policies that work for marginalized groups over those that are privileged, as I mentioned, I have long been suspecting that they're not working for those groups either, at least not as well as alternatives might. As an aside, I'm not saying that the race-based policies shouldn't have been implemented. I think we needed them at the time...and I think that we need something different now.
Tami: Privilege is a hard thing to fix. And I think it is at the heart of this whites-only scholarships. I suspect the young men interviewed in Colorlines see it as their right to have access to higher education, and they see their right being subverted by unworthy POCs. Thus, resentment.
Mikhail: Agreed! But surely the race-based scholarships are exacerbating the privilege, not challenging it.
Tami: I agree. The educational landscape is infinitely more complicated than it was in the mid-20th century. We need to evolve to reflect this--not because some folks are upset about their loss of privilege, but because evolution is necessary to meet our goals effectively.
Mikhail: And of course we need to reform how secondary and primary education are funded. The property taxes that we rely on now are also inherently racist (note: I am referring to outcomes, not intent) in that they reinforce current racial inequities.
Tami: Yes! There will be a need for affirmative action in college admissions until we fix the inequities in K-12 education.
Mikhail: Absolutely, but I see the educational system as one big system, such that it is possible to intervene at any point in the system and create ripples that affect the rest of the system. The notion of having to wait for K-12 reform before doing something is depressing. So, would you support the system you described (1-3) over the current race-based affirmative action practices?
Mikhail: That's part of it. There are other factors. I'm sure you agree. I don't think assurances are possible, but it would certainly be possible to track the data and evaluate the strategy.
Tami: Yes, data. That's what I would want.
Mikhail: ...and I bet we'd see higher [racial minority] graduation rates too!
Tami: This whole thing is like dominoes. The reality is that college graduates make more and have a much better shot at maintaining a good standard of living and passing that on to their children. Making higher education available to only a privileged few is a recipe for continued inequality and poverty.
Mikhail: I like your dominoes metaphor. And I haven't even had the chance to mention the costs to society of our current race-based policies --white resentment, which manifests itself in tea parties, "white-only" scholarships like the kind we started to discuss, and general distrust/prejudice directed at the beneficiaries and the "liberals" who support them. This is basically what I understand the "white" scholarships to be about. I see them as a symptom that what we're doing isn't working the way we want. And while I would prioritize policies that work for marginalized groups over those that are privileged, as I mentioned, I have long been suspecting that they're not working for those groups either, at least not as well as alternatives might. As an aside, I'm not saying that the race-based policies shouldn't have been implemented. I think we needed them at the time...and I think that we need something different now.
Tami: Privilege is a hard thing to fix. And I think it is at the heart of this whites-only scholarships. I suspect the young men interviewed in Colorlines see it as their right to have access to higher education, and they see their right being subverted by unworthy POCs. Thus, resentment.
Mikhail: Agreed! But surely the race-based scholarships are exacerbating the privilege, not challenging it.
Tami: I agree. The educational landscape is infinitely more complicated than it was in the mid-20th century. We need to evolve to reflect this--not because some folks are upset about their loss of privilege, but because evolution is necessary to meet our goals effectively.
Mikhail: Yes!
Readers,
what do you think about the Former Majority's "whites-only"
scholarship? Are race-based scholarships and admissions policies still
the best way to ensure diverse student bodies and equal access to
higher education? What are the pros and cons of the alternate approach
that Tami and I discussed?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
