Discriminations

OK-now I'm really confused. Whether or not one agrees with the affirmative action remedy, it can hardly be disputed that some minority groups have suffered some harsh discrimination in the past, and some vestiges of that past remain in view. But this "remedial" justification for affirmative action hasn't lasted--in large part because the programs have been vastly expanded to benefit groups that have not suffered such harsh discrimination (and who perhaps aren't even US citizens), and the programs have been implemented pretty uniformly regardless of the nature and extent of those past wrongs. There are other reasons for the demise of the "remedial" justification, which have been discussed on this blog at length in the past few years.

So we now have "diversity," thanks to the Bakke court and other forces. And again, while we can agree to disagree on whether and to what extent any such "diversity" justification could possibly trump an individual's constitutional right to be treated by the state without regard to race, we must admit that there is some common sense appeal to educational and business environments that reflect the diversity of our nation and thus dispel stereotypes and strengthen the fabric of our society.

So far, so good. But how does "class" (whatever that means) fit into this matrix? Certainly there is no "remedial" justification for "expanding" affirmative action into "class." What about "diversity"? I just don't see it.

Race and ethnicity are ever more fluid concepts in our nation. But there is an immutable nature to it. "Class," on the other hand, is downright transient. If you get rejected at UCLA, then your mom loses her job, can you reapply? If you get in on a class-based preference and your dad gets a raise (or wins the lottery), should you get booted out? What if you're rich, but not that "classy"? What if you have a low household income, but your parents are academics, authors, artists, judges, etc. Do these applicants get preferences? Do we really think that "lower class" individuals really have an identifiable unique perspective on things that cannot be duplicated simply by admitting students that happen to have good grades, high test scores, good recommendations, etc.?

And, finally, don't conventional college scholarships already provide a class-based assistance program?

What is it that I'm missing? Have traditional affirmative action supporters really considered the ramifications of this type of "expansion"? If not, I wonder how they will respond when they learn that the great majority of "lower class" citizens in this country (and thus the new preference recipients) are white.

James - Excellent comment! I completely agree that “expanding” affirmative action to include class makes no sense insofar as the rationale for affirmative action remains “diversity.” As you say, there is enough social mobility in this society, both up and down, to make one’s current economic circumstances a poor proxy for anything resembling “class.” Perhaps if applicants writing their “holistic” autobiographies of hardships overcome could demonstrate not only current poverty but poverty that has lasted over a generation or two (“I’m not only poor; I’m a member in good standing of the Underclass!”), then something approaching a “diversity” argument could be made for counting it. Short of that, “expanding” AA to include class just reveals that even AA supporters recognize the “diversity” rationale for the sham it is. (While it may make some sense, as a rationale, in universities, it makes less than none in fire departments.)

“Expanding” AA to include class along with race also reveals, I think, that the overriding, underlying goal of AA advocates is neither “diversity” nor compensation; it is to redistribute “advantages” from the “advantaged” to the “disadvantaged.”

One minor quibble. You write:

Race and ethnicity are ever more fluid concepts in our nation. But there is an immutable nature to it. “Class,” on the other hand, is downright transient.