Race-based affirmative action has run its course. Time for class-based affirmative action
I highly recommend reading this piece by Richard Kahlenberg. He is a scholar at Georgetown’s school of public policy and has long written about the need for class-based affirmative action. The New York Times had a great profile of him recently. Sometime soon, probably next week, the Supreme Court is almost certainly going to get rid of what’s left of race-based affirmative action. What comes next could be even worse if nothing is done to replace it. Kahlenberg has some great ideas about what should be done, which he thinks can achieve the goals of what race-based affirmative action has tried to do and will be much more enduring and popular.
It is important to understand the history of race-based affirmative action and how different things were when it was created. As originally envisioned, race-based affirmative action wasn’t meant to promote diversity per se. Some of its architects during the 1960s, such as Lyndon Johnson, saw it as essentially a form of reparations. Black Americans had been subject to centuries of oppression from slavery to segregation. Many different long-term initiatives were needed to fully address that, but for the immediate and succeeding generation it was too late. Because of that those two generations needed a leg up not just in college admissions, but in hiring and contracting, too. Race-based affirmative action was never meant to be permanent.
When race-based affirmative action was first implemented, the country’s demographics were very different from what they are today. During the 1960s, the country was almost entirely black or white. Back then it was much easier to justify race-based affirmative action as it benefited the group it was designed for. With the country becoming more diverse, it has benefitted groups it was not meant to apply to.
Historically, plaintiffs against race-based affirmative action were white, most notably in Regents of the University of California v Bakke. In the current case at the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs are Asian. What was designed to help blacks has sometimes been used to hinder Asians. That is not how it was meant to be. Race-based affirmative action as it was originally envisioned worked for a society that was white dominant with a black minority. With the demographics of today, race-based affirmative action is all but unworkable and can lead to unintended outcomes.
For example, those who are descendants of slaves are often the most disadvantaged in terms of education and wealth. However, immigrants from Africa tend to do much better. Under race-based affirmative action, those disparities are not taken into account. Race-based affirmative action doesn’t take into account class, wealth, neighborhood, history or any other factor. Rather than reducing income disparities, it can have the effect of cementing them.
As Kahlenberg points out in his piece, race-based affirmative action works out great for elite universities such as Harvard. That is because they would rather not have to admit more people who are lower-income because it would cost them money. It is much cheaper to have a class that is racially diverse, but economically well off.
I don’t want to spend too much time talking about elite universities, but there are some things that need to be pointed out. For clarity, by elite universities, I’m referring to places like the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Duke and Rice. That is not an exhaustive list by any means. I don’t begrudge any of those places. I’m very glad they’re located in the US and not China. They produce many talented people and conduct important research in all kinds of areas. They serve a vital purpose and are very good at it.
However, such places have limits. It has driven me off the wall how much of the discussion not just about race-based affirmative action, but about college and its merits in general has focused so heavily on elite universities. There are more than 10 million people attending some form of higher education in the US. Only the tiniest fraction of 1% of them go to elite universities.
College is not for everyone nor should it be, but it can be a great tool for mass upward mobility. By definition, elite universities are not that. They’re elite because they take in very few people. If MIT accepted everyone it wouldn’t be MIT. There are universities that serve as tools of mass upward mobility, but elite universities are not among them. In Houston, for example, the university producing mass upward mobility is the University of Houston, not Rice.
Focus on class, not race
The thrust of Kahlenberg’s piece and what he has long advocated for is that admissions policies centered around class are better than those centered around race. I think that is right for a whole host of reasons. For starters, race-based affirmative action barely even exists anymore. It has been prohibited in many states, including blue states such as California and Washington. It is very unpopular and fighting for it is a losing battle.
Unlike abortion, the Supreme Court ruling against race-based affirmative action won’t produce a backlash. It is very important for Democrats and those on the left to understand that they’re fighting a battle they won’t win, including with many of their own voters. What happened in California in 2020 is instructive.
There was a ballot initiative that would’ve reinstated racial preferences in public college admissions, state hiring and contracting. It was supported by every single major Democrat in the state. Proponents vastly outspent opponents. Even sports teams endorsed it. The measure failed 57-43 despite Biden winning by nearly 30 points. When an idea pushed for by Democrats and the left can’t make it in California, it can’t make it anywhere. The problem isn’t messaging, it’s substance. People don’t like race-based policies.
There are many issues where Republican leaders are on the wrong side of public opinion, including with their own voters. That is the case on virtually every economic issue as they continue to push for an agenda of tax cuts for their donors. Democratic leaders tend to be better aligned with their voters and public opinion. However, they aren’t immune from supporting unpopular positions and race-based affirmative action is a case in point. Virtually every elected Democrat supports race-based affirmative action. Voters, including many Democrats, feel very differently.
That difference in opinion needs to be kept in mind. A problem Democrats and the left often have is treating professional activists as if they speak for everyone in their group. That has been particularly problematic on issues related to race. Many left-wing groups made a huge mistake in 2020 by supporting defunding the police based on the false belief that black activists demanding it spoke for black voters. The same mistake has been made by treating Hispanic immigration activists demanding open borders as if they speak for all Hispanic voters.
There will be calls by activists to defy the Supreme Court and/or to find ways around the ruling while continuing support for race-based policies. Kahlenberg says Biden must resist doing that and he’s absolutely right. Adhering to those groups’ demands is a great way to elevate an unpopular stance in pursuit of a lost cause, which can only damage the prospects of Democratic candidates. That happened in 2020 to Trump’s benefit. Let’s not do it again.
The reality is there are many non-white people who are opposed to or ambivalent about race-based affirmative action. The group that is the most enthusiastic about race-based policies in general isn’t blacks, Hispanics or any non-white group. It is highly educated white liberals. That can never be emphasized enough.
One of many problems with race-based affirmative action is that it excludes lower-income white people. That is bad policy and even worse politics.[i] There are millions of people who are struggling who are white. They want to do better in life like everyone else. For some of them that means having their kids go to college so they can go on to bigger and better things. Race-based affirmative action specifically excludes them, but class-based affirmative action does not.
Unlike race, class isn’t a constitutionally protected category so it’s much less vulnerable to legal challenges. Such challenges have been a problem for race-based policies in a whole host of areas. For example, the Biden Administration prioritized pandemic aid to farmers based on race. The goal was to help black farmers who have historically been disadvantaged. A lawsuit was filed claiming such prioritization was unconstitutional and a judge agreed and halted the program, meaning no farmers were helped.[ii]
Another problem with race-based affirmative action and race-based policies in general is their tendency to sometimes emphasize the performative over the substantive. For example, San Francisco has been looking at giving out reparations in the hope of luring back former black residents. San Francisco makes it extremely difficult to build housing, which makes housing prices unaffordable for nearly everyone. How would giving out reparations address that? The answer is it wouldn’t. Reparations won’t lure people back because they can’t afford housing. Giving people cash to pay for the limited amount of housing there will only make things even more expensive and less affordable.
If San Francisco officials really wanted to lure back former residents of all groups and welcome new arrivals, they would be moving heaven and earth to cut down on zoning laws that make building housing illegal. But that would require fighting NIMBYs, which would be difficult and require a lot of work to overcome. Why bother with that when you can just pat yourself on the back and push for a feel good measure?
When it comes to the politics of it, class-based affirmative action is much more likely to be a winner. By giving everyone something to gain, that is how you build a broad and durable coalition. Kahlenberg points out that Republicans and those on the right have used racial resentment among lower-income whites as a way to get them to oppose things that are very much in their best interest. Policies that are race-based have made that task much easier.
With race-based policies no longer an option, Republicans and those on the right will be disarmed of a very effective weapon. Class-based affirmative action gives every group a stake in it. There are not just working-class blacks, whites and Hispanics, but Asians, too. The latter group is also disadvantaged by race-based affirmative action, but class-based affirmative action helps them out. Republicans, Kahlenberg says, will be playing defense with class as the focus.
Historically, Republicans have been hostile towards doing things that help working-class people. Their emphasis has been on tax cuts, selective deregulation and singing the praises of business owners and founders. Lately, Republicans have moved away from that and have made inroads with white and non-white working-class voters. Hostility towards class-based affirmative action would remind those voters why they didn’t support Republicans before.
As always, I can’t predict the future, but I think that scenario is entirely plausible. It would certainly be better for Democrats’ electoral prospects to emphasize things that everyone gains from. Well-intentioned as they are, race-based policies don’t do that. There are many great policies Democrats support that would help working-class people of all groups. Emphasizing race gives many people the impression that there is nothing for them. That is wrong and if the elimination of race-based affirmative action forces Democrats to abandon racial rhetoric and framing it will be for the better.
In addition, race-based affirmative action, along with all other race-based policies, represents a failure of imagination. Advocates of such policies correctly point out that simply ending legal segregation and outlawing discrimination aren’t enough. Despite progress made, large disparities still exist in a whole host of areas. That is a legitimate problem that should be addressed.
Where advocates of race-based policies go wrong is in their belief that only race-based policies can address past injustices. In fact, class-based approaches can do that as well as help out others who are struggling who aren’t part of a historically disadvantaged group. Often times, class-based policies will achieve similar outcomes to what race-based policies aim for. Virtually all class-based policies will disproportionately help members of non-white groups as they are overrepresented among lower-income people.
In the case of housing, for example, the best solution isn’t race-based policies to subsidize demand. It is to cut back on zoning laws that make housing hard to build and more expensive. That isn’t race-based, but it will likely help out non-white groups disproportionately. It will also help out white people who are struggling, which race-based policies leave out. Expanding Medicaid is another example of an inclusive, class-based policy as is raising the minimum wage, expanding the child tax credit and increasing the Affordable Care Act’s premium subsidies.
Regarding college admissions, criteria can include not just parental income, but other measures as well. Examples include wealth (family and neighborhood) and the area poverty rate. That’s not a complete list, but considering such factors is highly likely to achieve the diversity goals that race-based affirmative action intends to accomplish.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about race-based affirmative action, it’s on its way out. That is the reality of it. Acknowledging that is hard for those who believe it’s been good policy, but that fact has to be faced. The sooner that happens, the better.
I hope Biden and other Democrats take Kahlenberg’s advice. There are many things they could push for that would be both good policy and very popular. For example, Kahlenberg says the Biden Administration could push for legislation that requires all universities receiving federal funding to end legacy admissions. That would be a great idea. Few things irritate me more than hearing places like Harvard and Yale talk about the need for diversity while they still admit tons of legacy students.
If class-based affirmative action is pursued, it will be a test for almost everyone involved. For universities, it has been easier and cheaper to push for racial over economic diversity. How they respond to the new era will say a lot about what truly matters to them. For Democrats, it will be a good barometer of whether they can get past their bad tendency to sometimes obsess over race above all else and frame everything accordingly. For Republicans, it will help determine whether they really are becoming more of a working-class party or if it was all talk.
I would love to see a bipartisan coalition in favor of class-based affirmative action. The cynic in me thinks most opponents of race-based affirmative action will oppose it when it's class-based. Kahlenberg worries about that, too, but I hope he and I are wrong.
[i] In a democracy, it’s not tenable to maintain a policy that, by definition, excludes a large majority of people. Most Americans are white and many swing states are even whiter than the nation as a whole. Excluding everyone white from any policy puts a low ceiling on its support.
[ii] The program was redesigned to be race neutral when it was passed again as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.