OPINION:
Affirmative action in university admissions began in the 1960s as a noble but unconstitutional effort to accelerate racial integration and foster equal opportunity.
Over time, affirmative action evolved into a system of deeply entrenched racial preferences at almost all selective universities. As it became politically unpopular, university administrators worked hard to conceal the realities of affirmative action. Affirmative action’s initial goal of remedying past wrongs subsequently morphed into achieving a “compelling state interest” in “diversity” — a rationale fraught with logical contradictions and dubious empirical support.
This shift to “diversity” set the stage in the 2000s for the emergence of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, further eroding the principles of meritocracy and equality of opportunity.
The legal turning point for affirmative action was the 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Allan Bakke, a White applicant, had been twice rejected from the University of California, Davis, medical school, which reserved 16 places in its entering class for minority students. In a fractured decision, the court struck down the university’s quota system as an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause.
Writing the controlling opinion, Justice Lewis Powell introduced the concept defining the legal and political battleground for decades to come: “diversity.” Powell argued that a university could legitimately use race as a “plus factor” in admissions decisions to achieve the compelling interest of a diverse student body. This rationale, rooted in the notion that a diverse student body provides educational benefits for all, shifted the focus away from past wrongs to the supposed value of different viewpoints and experiences.
This shift to “diversity” did little to quell public opposition to race-based preferences. Voters in California and Michigan passed a referendum banning affirmative action in their public universities. This public and bipartisan backlash coincided with the growing influence in the universities of social identity theory, an academic concept arguing that individuals’ viewpoints and experiences are shaped and even determined by the social groups they identify with.
By linking viewpoints to identity groups, proponents of affirmative action found a clever way to circumvent legal restrictions. They argued that identity group-based preferences were necessary to achieve viewpoint diversity, thereby continuing to admit students based on race under the guise of a supposedly race-neutral goal.
The merging of identity theory and affirmative action under the banner of “diversity” set the stage for the modern DEI movement. “Diversity,” embedded in university admissions practices, provided the initial foundation. But as universities employed increasingly large racial preferences and beneficiaries’ academic performance lagged, the need to address the social and psychological consequences of academic “mismatch” emerged. “Equity” and “inclusion” emerged as added components of the left’s race-based agenda aimed at achieving equal outcomes for all identity groups and creating a sense of belonging for those struggling to succeed in highly competitive academic environments.
The concept of “equity,” emerging from critical race theory, shifts the focus from equal opportunities to outcomes. Critical race theory posits that disparities in outcomes between racial groups result from systemic racism and implicit bias. Rather than addressing root causes, DEI efforts have led to policies that disadvantage White and Asian students in the pursuit of statistical parity across racial categories. “Equity,” in essence, has become a justification for inverting past discrimination and creating another system of racial bias favoring groups deemed to have been historically disadvantaged.
“Inclusion” emerged as a necessary component of DEI to manage the social and psychological consequences of academic potential mismatch. As selective universities admitted larger numbers of students with wide disparities in academic preparedness, many minority students found themselves struggling to compete and feeling isolated and alienated in predominantly White, highly competitive academic environments.
“Inclusion” initiatives made up of identity centers, workshops, safe spaces and anti-bias training aim to address these adverse effects and create a sense of belonging for those who, absent preferences, would not have been admitted. “Inclusion” initiatives, however, typically exacerbate racial tensions and promote a sense of victimhood.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard marked a watershed moment. The court ruled that race-conscious admissions policies are unconstitutional and effectively ended the use of affirmative action in college admissions. It remains to be seen whether universities and other institutions will respect the court’s ruling or seek to circumvent it through alternative means.
The “diversity” rationale, based on the dubious claim that racial and ethnic groups represent inherently distinct viewpoints, has become a stalking horse for policies that perpetuate racial preferences. “Equity,” driven by an ideology of victimhood and systemic racism, has justified policies that discriminate against high-achieving individuals. “Inclusion” serves to paper over the tensions and conflicts arising from the inherent contradictions of DEI.
Ultimately, the DEI movement, despite its stated goals of achieving a more just and equitable society, exacerbates racial tensions and hinders the very groups it claims to help.
• Allan C. Stam is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Virginia.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.