As of June of 2023, race-based affirmative action is no longer permissible, and even when it was practiced, it failed to achieve its goals. When former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell authored his 1978 opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke — which determined whether affirmative action violated the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment — he justified race-based admissions as a means to achieve diversity that fosters a “robust exchange of ideas.” The deference that universities were granted when selecting their incoming classes was thus carefully predicated on achieving the educational benefits that flow from “viewpoint diversity,” a point that is almost entirely overlooked in the modern discourse surrounding this issue.
By reducing students’ lived experiences to a “racial box” on the Common App, universities have overlooked the original intent of Justice Powell’s opinion. To truly fulfill Powell’s vision, colleges across the country — not just Dartmouth — must do more to cultivate a genuine diversity of thought. This can be achieved through institutional reforms to ensure that a broad spectrum of viewpoints feels welcome and is represented on campus.
Any educational benefits that are strictly predicated on the basis of racial identity are grounded in the assumption that color influences one’s views more than geographical upbringing, cultural attitudes, or religious beliefs. While there is certainly evidence that racial discrimination shapes viewpoints, why do we not see affirmative action policies that are more explicit in their attempt to garner diverse views, beyond just race? Political diversity is lacking on campus; why do we not see attempts to recruit more conservatives, communists or libertarians?
A university’s purpose is to sharpen students’ minds by having them clash with ideologies with which they are unfamiliar, disagree and even, at times, may find offensive. However, racial diversity does not empirically advance this end. In the decades that affirmative action was practiced, colleges and universities throughout the country became hubs of homogenous thought that are not conducive to discourse. According to The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a quarter of students censor themselves “very” or “fairly” often for fear of social or professional exclusion.
On the aggregate, college students are generally more progressive, but how are students expected to be global leaders and affect genuine policy changes if they have not been conditioned to work with those who think fundamentally differently than they do? This is a problem across the board, but particularly at elite universities. According to a recent survey conducted by The Dartmouth, 74% of Dartmouth’s student body planned on voting for Kamala Harris prior to this past election cycle. This gap is far larger than the national average for 18- to 29-year-olds, which is 6%. At Harvard University, it is evident by the strikingly small number of conservatives — around 13%, according to The Harvard Crimson — that the university’s student body is, in fact, not representative of the “pluralistic society” their graduates hope to lead.
According to The Foundation For Individual Rights and Expression, conservative students feel less comfortable than their liberal counterparts expressing their beliefs in class or in conversation with other students. While I didn’t vote for President Donald Trump, it saddened me that some of my friends at Dartmouth who were excited about his victory felt unable to express their views on Nov. 6. “Brave Spaces,” a recent College initiative, “emphasizes the courage needed to engage in difficult conversations and establishes community-elected ground rules to ensure respectful interactions.” In order for Dartmouth to be a “Brave Space,” students should be able to share their thoughts about the election without fear of immense social retribution or unfair grading practices.
At elite institutions, this is not just a problem among the student body — it plagues administrators and faculty alike. The culture of “robust” exchange that Powell envisioned in his decision is now disfavored as an impediment to the goal of equity. Some administrators at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have gone as far as urging their colleagues to “revisit” the goal of viewpoint diversity due to the fundamental conflict between “efforts to promote racial equity” and “efforts to promote diversity of thought.” This past election cycle, 99.14% of political donations of at least $200 made by employees of the College — namely professors and administrators — went to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets. More than 99%. With the extreme ideological homogeneity present in both the employees of the College and the student body, how should we expect members of the community to engage with ideas with which they disagree if they don’t confront them in the classroom or on the campus Green?
While race-based affirmative action was ruled unconstitutional, the evolution of diversity efforts at universities in recent years — in the admissions process and in the recruitment of faculty and staff — is an aberration of Powell’s original opinion. A “robust exchange of ideas,” particularly outside of the classroom, requires a more concerted effort for viewpoint diversity on campus. Progress has been made in this regard, with more student groups and centers platforming a wide range of speakers. Notably, the Rockefeller Center’s Path to the Presidency speaker series and the 2024 election series featured viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum. However, a “robust” exchange of ideas requires addressing the 99% of Dartmouth employee political donations of at least $200 going to Democrats and the meager 20% of the student body supporting the Republican candidate. While I think any type of “affirmative action” for non-majoritarian viewpoints would present logistical challenges, establishing an institutional center dedicated to promoting discourse for heterodox beliefs could significantly enhance the campus environment for politically diverse students. Yale University’s Buckley Program and Princeton University’s James Madison Program, both institutional efforts to host speakers and offer classes, have attracted conservative students. Dartmouth could implement a similar program, though it need not be exclusively for conservative viewpoints. Any marginalized political perspective could benefit from institutional support to foster a more inclusive and intellectually diverse campus discourse.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
