Should Universities be Colored Blind?

Link to Opinion Article

Response: 

I read this op-ed with great interest because it addresses a very important issue concerning equality in America, mainly: whether universities should accept candidates taking into account their ethnicity, or if race should not be a criteria since only academic performance should determine their admission to the university. The deans of two of the most important law schools of the United States share the same position: ethnicity should not be excluded as a factor for the admission of the applicants to higher education. 

Ethnicity will promote diversity in the class of students, and the role of a dean is "to assemble the best possible class"(Paragraph 3). For them, "the character of our students is relevant to the quality of our leaders. Character is most often revealed in the life circumstances of our applicants."(Paragraph 4). They add, “not infrequently, these qualities have a racial dimension", (Paragraph 5). This argument is more sophisticated than the usual one based on diversity as a value in itself. Commonly these arguments highlight diversity, because it would lead to a reflection of a pluralist society. The two deans argue instead, that diversity is useful for a better education, since a diverse class of students, will help each member of this class to achieve a better understanding and develop useful skills for their future role as leaders of society. 

The deans also put foreword an argument based on dignity. For them: "While we agree that it is inconsistent with the dignity of persons to consider only race, we firmly believe that it is equally inconsistent with their dignity to refuse to hear what applicants have to tell us about the role that race has played in their lives.”(Paragraph 5).

Thirdly, they advance a practical argument based on freedom of speech, since students essays and letters of recommendation are taking into account in the admission process, it would be impossible to avoid considering race as a factor, but also contrary to the freedom of students and their recommenders to prohibit them to mention race in their writings. The deans ask: “ Would those advocating race-blind admissions have us censor the statements of applicants and their recommenders? How could we carry out such a task, even if we were inclined to do so?”(Paragraph 6).

In my view, these three arguments are good ones in the United States context, since race has become a sensible issue. The deans do not defend affirmative action as such that is, they do not argue in favor of specific policies to benefit exclusively Afro, Americans or Latinos. Instead, they put arguments based on good education, dignity, and freedom of expression. These rights are less divisive, and both liberal and conservative Justices of the Supreme Court may find “common ground,”  the need to protect this right.

Nevertheless, these kind of arguments leave out two fundamental questions. First, will this approach limit unjustly the possibilities of admission of excellent students that cannot “invoke” race as a critical factor in the formation of their character? In my view, it would be unjust to prefer a student exclusively based on his or her race since race depends on chance. Individuals have a race not because they want it, but simply because they were born with the race inherited from their parents. For example, it would be unjust to diminish the possibilities of admission of a woman that did have to face challenges associated with her gender, but not with her race.

Second, isn’t this vision of diversity forgetting differences in income? I believe that poverty leads people to face challenges that form character, and that education is critical to have access to a higher income. The two deans do not include arguments that give enough importance to character formed in this situation, in the United States, as well as all over the world.

Although the two deans rightly support a holistic approach to the evaluation of student applications, they should underline that gender and poverty are also critical factors to promote diversity, to value dignity and to understand the importance of freedom of speech.