Eight years have passed since Abigail Fisher introduced her case against the University of Texas at Austin’s admission policies, and yet, we are all still waiting to hear the latest verdict from the Supreme Court regarding affirmative action. Though UT Austin’s policies have previously been found to be consistent with the guidelines set out in Grutter v. Bollinger — essentially, that race-conscious admissions policies are legal — the Fisher case still has supporters of race-based affirmative action biting their nails.
Even if the Supreme Court rules in Fisher’s favor later this year, her victory does not spell disaster for effective affirmative action. If administrators in higher education are looking to increase meaningful diversity on their campuses, they should look to socioeconomic status as the main factor in affirmative-action admissions policies, rather than race.
Racial diversity is important, but differences in life experiences do not always boil down only to race. There are many facets of life that do — for example, the disproportionate amount of people of color incarcerated for crimes committed equally among racial and ethnic demographics or the tragedy of police brutality seen in the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Freddie Grey, Michael Brown and countless other individuals.
In many other ways, however, socioeconomic diversity affects the daily lives and opportunities of individuals more so than their race. Wealth and status affect the kinds of primary and secondary education available to students, the safety of the neighborhoods in which one can live, the books and technology and resources to which one has access and the kinds of vacations one can afford.
For example, on any form that asks for my demographic information, I mark “Hispanic/Latino” because that is what my birth certificate says — whether I look like it or not, I am a Latina in the eyes of Dartmouth’s admissions office. Yet, I have very little affiliation or visceral identification with my Mexican heritage, outside of broken Spanglish and a holiday tradition of eating tamales on Christmas Eve. I come from an upper-middle class family, went to good schools throughout my life and have quite honestly wanted for very little. I sincerely believe that I do not meaningfully add to the “diversity” of the Class of 2016 — but, on paper, I could be used as an example of racial diversity at the College. In my experience, I have more in common with those from a similar socioeconomic background as mine than I do with those from a similar ethnic background.
For meaningful cross-cultural interaction and exposure in higher education, socioeconomic status should be the central factor in crafting meaningful diversity, instead of race. Race should still be considered, but it is not the end-all, be-all of affirmative action. Moreover, it is worth noting that socioeconomic status correlates strongly with race: for example, African-American children are roughly three times more likely to live under the poverty line than Caucasian children.
Several states have already banned race-conscious affirmative action, and still manage to promote both racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses through other effective means. The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, found that out of 11 universities who use race-neutral affirmative action, seven promoted racial diversity as effectively as racially-based methods. In addition, two schools’ policies were found to be as effective for Latinos, though not for African-Americans. Instead of racially-based affirmative action, these campuses use methods such as funding new financial aid programs, improving low-income recruitment, dropping legacy preferences and creating percent plans whereby the top 10 or 15 percent of students from all public high schools gain admission, thus equalizing the playing field for under-resourced schools. This final percent policy is in place in my home state of Texas.
Exposure creates understanding and breaks down stereotypes — and, as author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie reminds us in a 2009 TED Talk, “The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete.” If Dartmouth and other universities want to promote exposure and create effective, meaningful and lasting diversity on our campus, they should look to socioeconomic factors. Doing so will work toward deconstructing stereotypes more than racially-based affirmative action alone would.
