Discuss affirmative action productively

The recent uproar over affirmative action exposes the need to rethink how we talk about race and ethnicity in college admissions.

Critics of affirmative action have many strong arguments at their disposal. But when they choose primarily to argue that beneficiaries of the policy are undeserving of admission, they unfairly target individuals and inhibit civil dialogue. Indicting the beneficiaries of affirmative action implicates students who have no control over the admissions process, incites backlash and obscures the compendium of rational arguments critics can deploy.

Moreover, this rhetoric incorrectly frames college admissions as a process that selects for the most deserving applicants. Admissions at Duke—as at most universities—evaluates candidates based on what they promise to contribute to the university, not their worthiness. If we understand this, we can abandon dangerous conversations about whether or not an individual’s skin color makes her more deserving of a college education. In its place, we can substitute a more productive discussion about whether and to what extent a student’s race or ethnicity contributes to the set of unique experiences he or she brings to the university.

Sometimes, anti-affirmative action arguments draw unintentionally from racist mythologies that characterize racial and ethnic minorities as lazy. Individuals whose language evinces racist narratives are not necessarily racist. On the contrary, most critics of affirmative action actively support racial equality. However, because opposition to affirmative action is bound up with a tradition of racism, individuals who argue against it must interrogate their assumptions and exercise particular caution to craft well-reasoned arguments against specific policies.

Both sides must deploy language carefully, and proponents of affirmative action have as much responsibility as critics to challenge their assumptions and avoid personal attacks. Often, when people either feel singled out by an argument or sense racist traditions lying beneath its surface, they react quickly and emotionally. Emotions can cloud judgment, and proponents of affirmative action exacerbate conflict when they trade reason for vitriol and succumb to knee-jerk reactions against perceived racism. Acerbic ad hominem attacks, especially those that denounce opponents as racist, unjustly persecute individuals for speaking their mind, ignore legitimate arguments made by critics and drown out healthy discussions that might yield a better understanding of how different people think about the issue.

Productive conversations about affirmative action encourage people to examine and evaluate its justifications. Typically, these justifications invoke the need to either promote diversity or correct for structural inequalities. Debating the diversity argument requires considering what diversity means and how race and ethnicity contribute to a diverse student body. Debating arguments about structural inequality necessitate thorough examinations of social structures and their differential effects on racial and ethnic groups.

Affirmative action emerged during a time when racial minorities faced clear barriers to educational and professional advancement. Today, our task is to determine whether or not those barriers still exist and affirmative action remains necessary.

Affirmative action debates always risk igniting conflict. But, if we focus on policy and not people, our conversations promise to become more productive.