Place, Not Race – Law prof shares her approach to affirmative action
We have recounted the many failings of race-based affirmative action policies and measures seeking to overturn race-based college admissions preferences.
A law professor offers a new approach to affirmative action in admissions that she says could help the disadvantaged without some of the legal and political issues that challenge current approaches. Inside Higher Ed’s Scott Jaschik has an interview.
… A new book, Place, Not Race: A New Vision of Opportunity in America (Beacon Press) argues that place-based affirmative action in college admissions is the best path to help the disadvantaged and promote diversity. The author is Sheryll Cashin, professor of law at Georgetown University. In her book, Cashing also argues for other changes in college admissions policies — such as an end to non-need-based aid — that she says favor those who don’t need the help. Cashin responded via email to questions about her new book.
Q: Is “place, not race” a different way of saying “class-based affirmative action” or is it a different concept?
A: Place is different! Only 42 percent of Americans live in a middle-class neighborhood. Only 30 percent of black and Latino families do. Those blessed to come of age in poverty-free havens have access to highly selective K-12 education that sets them up well to enter selective higher education. Those who live outside of advantaged neighborhoods and networks must overcome serious structural disadvantages, including under-resourced schools with less experienced teachers, fewer high-achieving peers that raise expectations and model the habits of success, and exposure to violence. Class-based affirmative action that focuses only on family income does not capture the structural disadvantages that cause opportunity hoarding in American society. If universities pursue diversity only by focusing on class, they will not have met their ethical obligation to consider high-achieving students from under-resourced places.
Q: Could the places designated for affirmative action include those where the disadvantaged people are white? Could a college, for example, specify rural poor people (of any race) who live in low-income areas as people on whom to focus?
A: Absolutely, assuming the college does not focus only on the rural poor. There are deserving strivers in cities and struggling suburbs, too. A high-achieving student from a low-opportunity place (e.g., where more than 20 percent of their peers are poor) is deserving of special consideration, regardless of his or her skin color. No one deserves affirmative action simply because they have dark skin or because her parent is an alumnus of her dream school. In addition to helping high-achieving students who are actually disadvantaged, place-based affirmative action has the benefit of encouraging rather than discouraging cross-racial alliances among the majority of Americans who are locked out of resource-rich environs.
Author discusses book proposing a new approach to affirmative action (Inside Higher Ed | News)
Comments
How about performance based college admissions? Forget all this nonsense about social action. Let kids know that if they want to go to college they have to study hard and earn a place. Watch attitude to education change.
Why do we have to help the disadvantaged? Who made up that rule? At least why do we have to help the disadvantaged, societally, get into post-grad schools to the detriment of everyone else? Bullshit.
If universities pursue diversity only by focusing on class, they will not have met their ethical obligation to consider high-achieving students from under-resourced places.
There’s a great deal of very confused thinking crammed into that sentence.