Ambivalent Advocates

Key Question Being Explored in This Insight:

Jonathan Feingold discusses how common institutional dynamics disincentivize elite universities from marshalling the most compelling case for their own policies.

View the page of: Jonathan Feingold

Institution: Boston University

Explore more insights in:

Law Professional Socio-legal Studies

Media Literacy Toolkit

Faculti's Media Literacy Toolkit helps viewers critically engage with academic insights by analyzing the research context, identifying perspectives, and encouraging thoughtful evaluation.

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

What assumptions does the research make?
Are there alternative perspectives not explored?
What are the limitations of the research method?

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

This research comes from Boston University . Reflect on how the institution's academic focus and research partnerships may shape the questions being explored.

Further Reading ▼

Read the Study

Jonathan Feingold discusses how common institutional dynamics disincentivize elite universities from marshalling the most compelling case for their own policies.

Image courtesy of interviewee. May 1, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the political and legal precariousness of affirmative action policies in the United States, particularly in relation to elite universities like Harvard and UNC. It highlights that despite being defenders of affirmative action in recent Supreme Court cases, these institutions have displayed ambivalence towards such policies, primarily due to a combination of commitment gaps, conflicting institutional interests, and risk aversion.

There is recognition that these universities enjoy societal prestige and that access to them is seen as a way to mitigate socioeconomic disparities. Nonetheless, the universities have faced criticism for not robustly defending affirmative action, particularly when they have been implicated in controversies regarding the treatment of scholars of color.

This video video also explores the role of civil rights organizations and students of color in advocating for affirmative action, emphasizing their challenges in intervening in legal cases. It argues for the importance of effective advocacy by institutions, framing affirmative action as a necessary countermeasure against systemic racial inequalities.

Three main reasons for universities' ambivalence are identified:
1. **Commitment Gaps:** Schools have a history of failing to fully embrace inclusive policies, which has resulted in weak legal defenses.
2. **Conflicting Interests:** Universities may prioritize their elitism and prestige over a strong commitment to diversity.
3. **Risk Aversion:** Institutions may fear liability if they examine their own admissions processes closely, leading to a reluctance to address potential biases.

This video video concludes with a call for more introspection within universities to better articulate the necessity for affirmative action, especially in light of broader societal issues of inequality and racism. It also touches on ongoing campus tensions surrounding other social justice issues, indicating a complex environment where institutional commitments may conflict with various social pressures.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.035 --> 00:02.205
There's a, a broad insight, which is

00:02.205 --> 00:05.885
that affirmative action policies have long been politically

00:05.885 --> 00:07.565
fragile and legally vulnerable.

00:07.985 --> 00:09.125
And one story is

00:09.125 --> 00:11.245
that this precarity is just something inherent

00:11.265 --> 00:13.645
to any redistributive or remedial policy.

00:14.265 --> 00:15.565
And there, there's a truth to that.

00:15.705 --> 00:17.805
But that story misses a distinct source

00:17.805 --> 00:20.805
of affirmative action's, longstanding precarity,

00:20.805 --> 00:22.205
at least in the United States context,

00:22.745 --> 00:24.605
and is that some of the affirmative action's,

00:24.605 --> 00:27.445
most powerful ad advocates have always been

00:27.445 --> 00:28.965
ambivalent about affirmative action.

00:29.305 --> 00:32.165
And that includes institutions like Harvard and UNC.

00:32.665 --> 00:35.285
And what that means is that over decades of failure,

00:35.475 --> 00:36.725
both in the court of law

00:36.865 --> 00:39.845
and the court of public opinion for elite universities

00:39.865 --> 00:41.485
to marshal the most compelling case

00:41.485 --> 00:45.205
for affirmative action means that these policies are,

00:45.695 --> 00:47.725
again, politically, precarious.

00:47.785 --> 00:51.525
And so specifically, how do Harvard and UNC come in?

00:51.585 --> 00:53.165
Why are they, why do I suggest they're members

00:53.165 --> 00:54.565
of this exclusive club?

00:55.435 --> 00:56.645
Well, part of it is

00:56.645 --> 00:59.445
that they were the two defendants in recent litigation

00:59.445 --> 01:00.645
that reached the Supreme Court

01:00.955 --> 01:03.525
regarding their respective affirmative action policies.

01:03.985 --> 01:07.725
And in that context, they were formally, as a matter of law,

01:07.915 --> 01:09.605
affirmative actions defenders.

01:10.305 --> 01:12.885
And one might therefore think, therefore think that Harvard

01:12.945 --> 01:16.485
and UNC would zealously defend affirmative action

01:16.485 --> 01:19.485
because it was after all their own policies.

01:20.395 --> 01:23.805
That assumption is one that we should actually be, be

01:23.805 --> 01:25.125
with a little bit of skepticism.

01:25.585 --> 01:28.125
And one reason why is that in the same period

01:28.125 --> 01:30.245
that the litigation was ongoing, both

01:30.245 --> 01:32.285
of those schools made national headlines

01:32.745 --> 01:34.485
for mistreating scholars of color.

01:34.785 --> 01:37.205
The UNC example, I think got most of the,

01:37.265 --> 01:39.085
or comparably more attention

01:39.155 --> 01:41.805
with a huge debacle in which the board of trustees,

01:42.295 --> 01:44.485
which is, sort of behind the scenes entity

01:44.485 --> 01:46.005
that governs the UNC system,

01:46.195 --> 01:48.445
effectively organized against granting tenure

01:48.505 --> 01:50.885
to Nicole Hannah Jones, in part

01:50.885 --> 01:53.005
because you had conservative activists

01:53.005 --> 01:54.765
and donors in the state and some on the board

01:54.985 --> 01:58.125
who didn't like her ground ba breaking 1619 project.

01:58.985 --> 02:01.325
Yet at the same time, that same institution with

02:01.325 --> 02:04.165
that same board of trustees is in the spotlight

02:05.165 --> 02:07.405
representing affirmative action, this inclusionary policy

02:07.465 --> 02:08.565
before the Supreme Court.

02:09.115 --> 02:10.925
With respect to cultural norms,

02:10.925 --> 02:14.415
elite universities in the United States remain objects

02:14.415 --> 02:15.455
of public obsession.

02:15.645 --> 02:16.975
It's probably not a great thing,

02:16.975 --> 02:18.575
but I think it's descriptively true.

02:19.235 --> 02:22.215
Um, and part of it is that these institutions continue

02:22.215 --> 02:26.055
to enjoy societal prestige, even if they're also targets

02:26.055 --> 02:28.455
of attack by different, political,

02:28.595 --> 02:30.335
entities in the United States.

02:30.435 --> 02:32.695
But they are, they do enjoy that prestige.

02:33.075 --> 02:35.215
And there's also, I think, real recognition

02:35.475 --> 02:37.975
by most Americans that we have become a society

02:37.975 --> 02:40.615
that is deeply divided socioeconomically.

02:40.905 --> 02:42.815
There are massive wealth disparities.

02:42.835 --> 02:44.735
And so if you're a family, if you're parents,

02:45.235 --> 02:48.335
you view access to these institutions as something

02:48.335 --> 02:49.615
that can buffer your kids

02:49.755 --> 02:52.095
and yourself against all the precarious

02:52.095 --> 02:53.695
that come from living in a society

02:53.805 --> 02:55.695
that really does not support its people.

02:56.595 --> 02:59.645
And due to those factors, elite universities,

02:59.875 --> 03:02.925
that they do capture the public's attention, which means

03:02.925 --> 03:04.965
that they really do enjoy a special status

03:05.545 --> 03:09.485
to influence public debate on issues of pressing concern.

03:09.665 --> 03:10.885
So that's the cultural side.

03:11.395 --> 03:12.805
With respect to legal doctrine,

03:14.045 --> 03:17.325
whatever a university is sued, legally challenged for one

03:17.405 --> 03:19.965
of its policies, whether it's affirmative action policy or

03:19.965 --> 03:22.845
otherwise, the university becomes the formal defendant

03:22.855 --> 03:26.605
throughout the litigation that enables the university

03:26.605 --> 03:29.245
to frame the issue, to produce evidence,

03:29.665 --> 03:33.045
and to decide how to respond to its opponent's arguments.

03:33.825 --> 03:36.285
But the reality is, when it comes to affirmative action,

03:36.325 --> 03:38.725
universities are not the only entity

03:38.785 --> 03:41.045
or individual with a stake in this fight.

03:41.925 --> 03:44.245
Specifically, students of color, communities of color

03:44.465 --> 03:46.845
and civil rights organizations have always been deeply

03:47.445 --> 03:49.245
invested, not just in affirmative action,

03:49.305 --> 03:52.645
but broadly in any sort of inclusionary effort or policy.

03:53.625 --> 03:56.485
But as a matter of law, there are procedural rules

03:56.955 --> 04:00.365
that make it hard for these third parties to,

04:00.555 --> 04:02.885
what we would call intervene into the lawsuit.

04:02.995 --> 04:05.445
They have to overcome formal, barriers.

04:06.305 --> 04:08.085
Now that doesn't stop them from trying.

04:08.105 --> 04:09.165
And so both in the Harvard

04:09.225 --> 04:12.045
and UNC litigation, civil rights law firms

04:12.645 --> 04:15.085
represented students who attempted to intervene

04:15.425 --> 04:17.365
and achieved varying degrees of success.

04:17.505 --> 04:18.565
But as I explained,

04:18.865 --> 04:22.725
the interveners played an a crucial role in adding new

04:23.005 --> 04:25.365
evidence and new arguments to the litigation that Harvard

04:25.385 --> 04:27.205
and UNC would not have brought by themselves.

04:27.785 --> 04:32.005
Before I turn to the dynamics that drive this ambivalence,

04:32.165 --> 04:34.805
I think it's worth, asking,

04:35.155 --> 04:36.445
what would be the best argument

04:36.445 --> 04:38.445
for affirmative action and why does it matter?

04:38.905 --> 04:40.725
So part of the reason why it matters is

04:40.725 --> 04:43.645
because legal battles over affirmative action like the one

04:43.645 --> 04:46.805
that recently reached the Supreme Court, are often,

04:47.255 --> 04:50.845
sites where the public is actually litigating broader

04:51.365 --> 04:54.445
questions and competing theories about why equality

04:54.845 --> 04:56.125
continues to exist in the United States.

04:56.555 --> 04:58.805
What is the ongoing relevance of race and racism?

04:59.625 --> 05:02.725
Has United States the society, have individual institutions

05:03.285 --> 05:05.005
actually overcome our collective

05:05.225 --> 05:07.725
or individual legacies of racial exclusion?

05:08.545 --> 05:11.925
Um, and arguments against affirmative action tend

05:11.925 --> 05:13.845
to assume sometimes implicitly,

05:13.845 --> 05:16.725
sometimes it's quite explicit that race is not relevant,

05:16.755 --> 05:19.805
that racism does not exist until the moment in a,

05:20.005 --> 05:21.565
a university, an institution

05:22.045 --> 05:23.365
formally considers racial identity.

05:23.795 --> 05:24.965
It's a common claim.

05:25.155 --> 05:27.445
It's not empirically supportive, but it's common.

05:28.245 --> 05:29.365
A compelling response

05:29.505 --> 05:30.525
or a joinder would be

05:30.525 --> 05:33.645
that race remains a powerful determinant in United States

05:33.675 --> 05:36.645
society in ways that probabilistically benefit

05:37.305 --> 05:38.405
in the admissions context.

05:39.125 --> 05:42.045
A white and often wealthy applicants affirmative action

05:42.625 --> 05:46.045
in turn is best understood as a countermeasure, a form

05:46.045 --> 05:47.325
of anti-discrimination

05:47.675 --> 05:50.205
that buffers against this unearned racial preference

05:50.205 --> 05:52.925
that white applicants, would otherwise enjoy.

05:53.355 --> 05:57.325
Neither Harvard nor UNC talked about affirmative action

05:57.325 --> 05:59.045
as a countermeasure, as a way

05:59.045 --> 06:01.325
to actually promote not just a more inclusive,

06:01.425 --> 06:02.525
but also a more fair,

06:02.835 --> 06:05.645
more meritocratic process in which race

06:05.645 --> 06:06.765
is actually less relevant.

06:06.905 --> 06:08.005
So the question is why,

06:08.825 --> 06:12.845
and there's at least three reasons, that I look to.

06:13.185 --> 06:14.765
The first is commitment gaps.

06:15.465 --> 06:18.685
So if you just think about the United States in the mid 20th

06:18.685 --> 06:21.405
century after Brown, how did

06:21.925 --> 06:26.645
institutions like UNC who at the time had dejure policies

06:26.645 --> 06:28.365
of segregation, they were formally

06:28.435 --> 06:29.725
excluding non-white students.

06:30.345 --> 06:34.165
The response to Brown was to organize against Brown

06:34.625 --> 06:37.485
to call Brown v Board of Education, illegitimate use

06:37.485 --> 06:39.365
of patient empowered by the Supreme Court,

06:39.785 --> 06:41.925
and essentially say, no.

06:42.395 --> 06:45.885
It's why UNC as an example, did not desegregate

06:45.885 --> 06:47.805
as a formal matter it's undergrad institution

06:47.805 --> 06:49.205
until litigation after Brown,

06:49.515 --> 06:53.365
because the university said, we are not gonna comply.

06:53.365 --> 06:54.605
We don't think it applies to us,

06:54.625 --> 06:57.885
or We have a commitment to our preexisting racial order.

06:58.625 --> 07:00.245
Now, that's a really sort

07:00.245 --> 07:02.845
of vast difference from the way in which your sort

07:02.845 --> 07:05.805
of standard historically white institution like Harvard

07:05.805 --> 07:07.925
and UNC today is committed

07:07.925 --> 07:09.525
to policies like affirmative action.

07:09.945 --> 07:12.565
And it's not just that they don't bring the strongest case

07:12.565 --> 07:16.285
in litigation, but what we have seen is since SFFA,

07:16.305 --> 07:17.885
the litigation involving Harvard

07:17.885 --> 07:20.485
and UNC universities across the country

07:20.995 --> 07:24.085
have been jettisoning all sorts of inclusionary practices,

07:24.275 --> 07:26.125
even ones that have nothing to do with admissions

07:26.345 --> 07:29.765
and ones that are not facially race conscious, meaning

07:29.885 --> 07:32.685
that they were not within the scope of SFFA.

07:32.985 --> 07:34.805
So the first explanation is

07:34.805 --> 07:37.445
that there's actually differences with respect to commitment

07:37.515 --> 07:39.005
between institutions that are

07:39.605 --> 07:41.285
formally committed to exclusion.

07:41.465 --> 07:43.645
And those, committed to inclusion.

07:44.605 --> 07:47.455
Another explanation as to why universities like Harvard

07:47.595 --> 07:51.015
and C and UNC are ambivalent in their

07:51.295 --> 07:52.495
advocacy for affirmative action.

07:53.005 --> 07:55.615
They actually perceive that advocacy

07:56.115 --> 07:57.935
as in conflict with other interests.

07:58.355 --> 08:00.615
And so you can think about this in part that,

08:00.615 --> 08:03.375
with brand goals, just how these institutions want

08:03.375 --> 08:07.215
to be perceived societally, one desire is

08:07.215 --> 08:08.975
that they actually care about their elitism,

08:09.125 --> 08:10.895
they care about their prestige.

08:11.395 --> 08:14.455
And one thing that that does is it incentivizes universities

08:14.455 --> 08:17.415
to play different games, including how to climb the ladder

08:17.515 --> 08:19.975
of the US News and World Report rankings.

08:20.475 --> 08:21.895
Now, one thing that's commonly known is

08:21.895 --> 08:24.975
that those rankings overvalue certain metrics like

08:25.495 --> 08:29.975
standardized test scores, which as is well known,

08:30.245 --> 08:32.335
tend to understate the existing talent

08:32.355 --> 08:34.375
of students from negatively stereotyped groups

08:34.595 --> 08:38.695
and actually inflate the ostensible, merit of

08:39.295 --> 08:41.655
privileged students, including wealthy white applicant.

08:42.275 --> 08:45.655
So there's this conflict, if you're an elite university

08:45.655 --> 08:48.255
and you want to climb the rankings, you want students

08:48.255 --> 08:50.215
that are doing performing well in these metrics

08:50.765 --> 08:54.415
that are actually undermining your goal of inclusion,

08:54.715 --> 08:56.125
and, merit.

08:56.705 --> 09:00.285
But it's also that brand goals, particularly for a lot

09:00.285 --> 09:03.365
of the elite institutions, is wanting to project the image

09:03.385 --> 09:06.365
of being on the side of racial justice, wanting

09:06.365 --> 09:09.405
to be seen publicly as a site of racial inclusion,

09:09.845 --> 09:11.445
actually caring about diversity.

09:12.755 --> 09:14.575
But if you wanna make the strongest case

09:14.575 --> 09:16.815
for affirmative action, you have to really grapple

09:16.815 --> 09:19.535
with all the ways in which the structural dimensions

09:19.535 --> 09:21.975
of racism don't just manifest societally,

09:22.195 --> 09:24.455
but also continue to manifest in your institution.

09:24.925 --> 09:27.135
That requires the sort of work and introspection

09:27.355 --> 09:29.335
and republic accountability that a lot

09:29.335 --> 09:32.095
of these institutions do not want to engage in.

09:32.555 --> 09:35.135
And it's why we continue to see them fail

09:35.155 --> 09:38.335
to marshal the most robust case for their own policies.

09:38.765 --> 09:42.575
When it comes to another reason why universities tend to

09:43.955 --> 09:45.215
not make the strongest case work,

09:45.215 --> 09:48.815
affirmative action is risk aversion, at least in the context

09:48.875 --> 09:52.455
of policies where they're already ambivalent about it.

09:52.835 --> 09:54.815
And so again, if you're asking the question, well,

09:54.815 --> 09:57.215
how could you as a university make the strongest case

09:57.275 --> 10:00.135
for taking race to into account during admissions?

10:00.485 --> 10:01.815
Well, one thing that you might want

10:01.815 --> 10:04.135
to look at really interrogate are

10:04.135 --> 10:07.935
what are the precise ways in which all the other aspects

10:07.935 --> 10:11.975
of your admissions process are systematically excluding

10:12.615 --> 10:13.855
talented students who aren't white?

10:14.435 --> 10:17.055
But when you do that, when you actually, obtain

10:17.205 --> 10:19.815
that evidence, it could expose you to litigation

10:20.595 --> 10:22.135
for employing practices

10:22.135 --> 10:24.215
that have a racially disparate impact against students

10:24.235 --> 10:27.735
of color and are not justifiable from an educational

10:27.935 --> 10:32.055
or pedagogical, perspective.

10:32.715 --> 10:35.375
And that then is going to expose you

10:35.375 --> 10:39.455
to liability under Title vi not through, direct cause

10:39.455 --> 10:41.535
of action from a a Grieve student,

10:41.755 --> 10:45.815
but from, the Department of Education, the Office

10:45.815 --> 10:48.255
of Civil Rights, if they see evidence

10:48.255 --> 10:51.535
that you are employing admissions processes that again,

10:51.795 --> 10:54.935
are unjustifiably leading to a disparate impact.

10:55.395 --> 10:58.535
Um, and that, calls all sorts of things into question

10:59.555 --> 11:02.175
one, implication for future research.

11:02.315 --> 11:06.095
And another, sort of conclusion that the question

11:06.095 --> 11:10.415
for future research is just not to take for granted the fact

11:10.415 --> 11:13.695
that inclusionary redistributive policies just inherently,

11:15.085 --> 11:17.465
precarious politically

11:17.465 --> 11:20.105
otherwise that the American public just happen, happens

11:20.125 --> 11:21.825
to be ambivalent about these practices.

11:22.605 --> 11:25.025
One of the reasons that I think deserves a lot more

11:25.025 --> 11:27.225
attention is that many of the advocates

11:27.225 --> 11:31.225
of affirmative action continue to unwittingly, I think,

11:31.665 --> 11:33.385
reproduce the same talking points

11:33.385 --> 11:35.505
that affirmative action advocates actually

11:35.535 --> 11:36.825
strategically deploy.

11:37.205 --> 11:38.385
And so part of the question is

11:38.385 --> 11:42.665
how can researchers further surface the ways that defenders

11:42.745 --> 11:46.825
of inclusionary practices are unknowingly,

11:47.185 --> 11:49.825
reifying frames that undermine those very practices?

11:50.445 --> 11:53.025
And then just when it comes to institutional

11:53.085 --> 11:54.085
Commitments. So right

11:54.085 --> 11:56.485
now in the United States, as we are talking

11:57.525 --> 12:02.285
campuses are, not literally in flames,

12:02.305 --> 12:07.205
but figuratively in flames as students are protesting,

12:07.485 --> 12:10.245
Israel's ongoing military campaign in Gaza.

12:10.625 --> 12:15.165
And what we have seen is, a swift seeming,

12:15.845 --> 12:19.565
reflexive, response from many university leaders

12:19.565 --> 12:23.405
that are quite, nakedly,

12:23.755 --> 12:26.085
violating all sorts of free speech principles,

12:26.085 --> 12:29.245
if not laws in ways that don't apply another context.

12:29.505 --> 12:32.725
And so just another site in which we see differing,

12:32.835 --> 12:34.725
institutional priorities coming

12:34.745 --> 12:37.005
to a head in which we're seeing the fact

12:37.005 --> 12:40.885
that inclusionary practices, and policies,

12:40.905 --> 12:43.645
and commitments are just one of a number of commitments

12:43.645 --> 12:46.325
that, anime and inform institutional governance.

Affirmative Action's Political Fragility Explained

00:00:00 - There's a, a broad insight, which is that affirmative action policies have long been politically fragile and legally vulnerable. And one story is that this precarity is just something inherent to any redistributive or remedial policy. And there, there's a truth to that. But that story misses a distinct source of affirmative action's, longstanding precarity, at least in the United States context, and is that some of the affirmative action's, most powerful ad advocates have always been ambivalent about affirmative action. And that includes institutions like Harvard and UNC.
00:00:35 - both in the court of law and the court of public opinion for elite universities to marshal the most compelling case for affirmative action means that these policies are, again, politically, precarious. And so specifically, how do Harvard and UNC come in? Why are they, why do I suggest they're members of this exclusive club? Well, part of it is that they were the two defendants in recent litigation that reached the Supreme Court regarding their respective affirmative action policies.
00:01:07 - affirmative actions defenders. And one might therefore think, therefore think that Harvard and UNC would zealously defend affirmative action because it was after all their own policies. That assumption is one that we should actually be, be with a little bit of skepticism. And one reason why is that in the same period that the litigation was ongoing, both of those schools made national headlines for mistreating scholars of color.
00:01:37 - or comparably more attention with a huge debacle in which the board of trustees, which is, sort of behind the scenes entity that governs the UNC system, effectively organized against granting tenure to Nicole Hannah Jones, in part because you had conservative activists and donors in the state and some on the board who didn't like her ground ba breaking 1619 project. Yet at the same time, that same institution with that same board of trustees is in the spotlight
00:02:07 - before the Supreme Court. With respect to cultural norms, elite universities in the United States remain objects of public obsession. It's probably not a great thing, but I think it's descriptively true. and part of it is that these institutions continue to enjoy societal prestige, even if they're also targets of attack by different, political, entities in the United States. But they are, they do enjoy that prestige. And there's also, I think, real recognition
00:02:37 - that is deeply divided socioeconomically. There are massive wealth disparities. And so if you're a family, if you're parents, you view access to these institutions as something that can buffer your kids and yourself against all the precarious that come from living in a society that really does not support its people. And due to those factors, elite universities, that they do capture the public's attention, which means that they really do enjoy a special status

Affirmative Action: Legal Challenges and Cultural Dynamics

00:03:09 - So that's the cultural side. With respect to legal doctrine, whatever a university is sued, legally challenged for one of its policies, whether it's affirmative action policy or otherwise, the university becomes the formal defendant throughout the litigation that enables the university to frame the issue, to produce evidence, and to decide how to respond to its opponent's arguments. But the reality is, when it comes to affirmative action,
00:03:38 - or individual with a stake in this fight. Specifically, students of color, communities of color and civil rights organizations have always been deeply invested, not just in affirmative action, but broadly in any sort of inclusionary effort or policy. But as a matter of law, there are procedural rules that make it hard for these third parties to, what we would call intervene into the lawsuit. They have to overcome formal, barriers. Now that doesn't stop them from trying.
00:04:09 - and UNC litigation, civil rights law firms represented students who attempted to intervene and achieved varying degrees of success. But as I explained, the interveners played an a crucial role in adding new evidence and new arguments to the litigation that Harvard and UNC would not have brought by themselves. Before I turn to the dynamics that drive this ambivalence, I think it's worth, asking, what would be the best argument for affirmative action and why does it matter?
00:04:40 - because legal battles over affirmative action like the one that recently reached the Supreme Court, are often, sites where the public is actually litigating broader questions and competing theories about why equality continues to exist in the United States. What is the ongoing relevance of race and racism? Has United States the society, have individual institutions actually overcome our collective or individual legacies of racial exclusion? and arguments against affirmative action tend
00:05:13 - sometimes it's quite explicit that race is not relevant, that racism does not exist until the moment in a, a university, an institution formally considers racial identity. It's a common claim. It's not empirically supportive, but it's common. A compelling response or a joinder would be that race remains a powerful determinant in United States society in ways that probabilistically benefit in the admissions context. A white and often wealthy applicants affirmative action
00:05:46 - of anti-discrimination that buffers against this unearned racial preference that white applicants, would otherwise enjoy. Neither Harvard nor UNC talked about affirmative action as a countermeasure, as a way to actually promote not just a more inclusive, but also a more fair, more meritocratic process in which race is actually less relevant. So the question is why, and there's at least three reasons, that I look to.

UNC's Historical Resistance to Racial Inclusion

00:06:15 - So if you just think about the United States in the mid 20th century after Brown, how did institutions like UNC who at the time had dejure policies of segregation, they were formally excluding non-white students. The response to Brown was to organize against Brown to call Brown v Board of Education, illegitimate use of patient empowered by the Supreme Court, and essentially say, no. It's why UNC as an example, did not desegregate
00:06:47 - until litigation after Brown, because the university said, we are not gonna comply. We don't think it applies to us, or We have a commitment to our preexisting racial order. Now, that's a really sort of vast difference from the way in which your sort of standard historically white institution like Harvard and UNC today is committed to policies like affirmative action. And it's not just that they don't bring the strongest case in litigation, but what we have seen is since SFFA,
00:07:17 - and UNC universities across the country have been jettisoning all sorts of inclusionary practices, even ones that have nothing to do with admissions and ones that are not facially race conscious, meaning that they were not within the scope of SFFA. So the first explanation is that there's actually differences with respect to commitment between institutions that are formally committed to exclusion. And those, committed to inclusion. Another explanation as to why universities like Harvard
00:07:51 - advocacy for affirmative action. They actually perceive that advocacy as in conflict with other interests. And so you can think about this in part that, with brand goals, just how these institutions want to be perceived societally, one desire is that they actually care about their elitism, they care about their prestige. And one thing that that does is it incentivizes universities to play different games, including how to climb the ladder of the US News and World Report rankings.
00:08:21 - that those rankings overvalue certain metrics like standardized test scores, which as is well known, tend to understate the existing talent of students from negatively stereotyped groups and actually inflate the ostensible, merit of privileged students, including wealthy white applicant. So there's this conflict, if you're an elite university and you want to climb the rankings, you want students that are doing performing well in these metrics
00:08:54 - and, merit. But it's also that brand goals, particularly for a lot of the elite institutions, is wanting to project the image of being on the side of racial justice, wanting to be seen publicly as a site of racial inclusion, actually caring about diversity. But if you wanna make the strongest case for affirmative action, you have to really grapple with all the ways in which the structural dimensions of racism don't just manifest societally,

Universities' Dilemma: Risk and Accountability in Admissions

00:09:24 - That requires the sort of work and introspection and republic accountability that a lot of these institutions do not want to engage in. And it's why we continue to see them fail to marshal the most robust case for their own policies. When it comes to another reason why universities tend to not make the strongest case work, affirmative action is risk aversion, at least in the context of policies where they're already ambivalent about it.
00:09:54 - how could you as a university make the strongest case for taking race to into account during admissions? Well, one thing that you might want to look at really interrogate are what are the precise ways in which all the other aspects of your admissions process are systematically excluding talented students who aren't white? But when you do that, when you actually, obtain that evidence, it could expose you to litigation for employing practices that have a racially disparate impact against students
00:10:27 - or pedagogical, perspective. And that then is going to expose you to liability under Title vi not through, direct cause of action from a a Grieve student, but from, the Department of Education, the Office of Civil Rights, if they see evidence that you are employing admissions processes that again, are unjustifiably leading to a disparate impact.
00:10:59 - one, implication for future research. And another, sort of conclusion that the question for future research is just not to take for granted the fact that inclusionary redistributive policies just inherently, precarious politically otherwise that the American public just happen, happens to be ambivalent about these practices. One of the reasons that I think deserves a lot more attention is that many of the advocates
00:11:31 - reproduce the same talking points that affirmative action advocates actually strategically deploy. And so part of the question is how can researchers further surface the ways that defenders of inclusionary practices are unknowingly, reifying frames that undermine those very practices? And then just when it comes to institutional Commitments. So right now in the United States, as we are talking
00:12:02 - but figuratively in flames as students are protesting, Israel's ongoing military campaign in Gaza. And what we have seen is, a swift seeming, reflexive, response from many university leaders that are quite, nakedly, violating all sorts of free speech principles, if not laws in ways that don't apply another context.

Conflicting Commitments in Institutional Governance

00:12:43 - institutional priorities coming to a head in which we're seeing the fact that inclusionary practices, and policies, and commitments are just one of a number of commitments that, anime and inform institutional governance.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis

Data

Originals

Explainers

Podcasts

Faculti

New on Faculti

Idea Explorer

Definition

News Context

Critical Questions and Answers

Research Summaries

Ambivalent Advocates

Media Literacy Toolkit

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

Further Reading ▼