A Call to [Affirmative] Action

With the recent articles pertaining to the African-American role in higher education, Phillip Kurian’s column, “Shades of Black,” and then the Feb. 24 article, “BSA forum explores recruiting, diversity,” the subject of affirmative action has once again crashed the Duke party in its proverbial elephant suit. Although not totally ignored in years past, all sides surrounding this controversial policy should agree that its treatment remains incomplete.

Over the course of the four years that I have attended this school, affirmative action has garnered attention in a variety of forms, from guest lecturers to the myriad back-and-forths within the editorial pages. Sadly, each dialogue has failed to address the vital questions that surround this issue. In turn, the undeveloped rhetoric regarding affirmative action has rendered the discussion blatantly unsatisfied, while the policy itself trudges ahead without specific direction or adequate defense.

This is not to say that the opponents of affirmative action are winning the debate (see Grutter v. Bollinger, case no. 02-0241); however, the concerns expressed by both Kurian and in the BSA article reveal that opposition to the current state of this admissions policy is not exclusive to people of races that have not benefited from its application. Hopefully, this revelation is not new to the majority of our Duke community, as this affair not only transcends the black and white paradigm (racially speaking), but also includes more stances than simply “yay” or “boo.”

Luckily, Kurian is able to reacquaint us with this unresolved matter, as he aptly poses some of the most important questions at the crux of the affirmative action debate. To paraphrase Kurian, Duke—as a community and a University—needs to ask itself: What are the goals of affirmative action? By what means should Duke achieve these goals? To what groups should these means be applied? In short: What exactly is affirmative action?

As a glimpse into the future of this debate, we should revisit the BSA article. The mention of a shared opinion that emerged from the BSA meeting—Duke has lowered its “emphasis on targeting lower-income [black] students”—offers another component to this discussion, socio-economics. Challenges to the dynamic which creates disparities along the financial lines within the black demographic tacitly invite consideration for lower-income non-minorities as well. Once race and gender discrimination no longer hold almost exclusive rights to affirmative action, then this issue has the potential to become unbearably complicated. Thus, in preparation for this collision of interests, Duke, as a University, a student body and an overall community, should feel compelled to answer the aforementioned questions in specific language within the policy of affirmative action.

Chris Quirk

Trinity ’05