With the Primary Source controversy finally blowing over, some members of the student body feel that one key issue has not been addressed—the use of affirmative action in Bendetson. Some feel that the administration has not done enough to quell rumors that the “52 black freshmen” (now a token phrase) did not get accepted entirely on their own merits; others think the administration needs to stop avoiding the issue and flat-out admit that race is a significant factor in the application process.
Personally, I feel that Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Lee Coffin provided a compelling reevaluation of affirmative action during the December 16 Unity Rally. In his speech, he stated:
In a competitive admission environment like Tufts' -- where 12 students apply for each seat in our freshman class -- every admission decision is an affirmative action. Perhaps I parse words. But as we construct this intentional community of scholarship, the invitation to join it -- and it is an invitation, not a birthright -- is very much an affirmative action.
“Every admission decision is an affirmative action.” That to me is a powerful statement, but also an innovative one. It takes us out of our archaic, 1970s way of thinking about affirmative action as a tool to bring in the under-qualified, and instead offers the idea that every admission decision is an affirmation of diversity. It shines a new light on an old concept, recontextualizing it in a way that is appropriate for the 21st century.
Take another example. We know that the admissions committee will respond more favorably towards an average oboe player than a star pianist. Similarly, an intermediate gymnast will likely beat out a tennis champion. Would anyone object to affirmative action in the case of musicianship or athletics? Maybe, but students on the whole seem more willing to accept this form of affirmative action as simply part of the process of forming a class that isn’t homogenous. I can’t complain. The Dean probably affirmed my application because of my religious preferences. I did, after all, write my college essay on Buddhism and meditation. The Dean also affirmed the assistant editor of the Primary Source, who is from Nebraska, a geographically desirable location—but I don’t see anybody questioning his merits.
Despite this evidence, people still see race as a special category. Perhaps this is because affirmative action is often construed as an unfair tool used to give one group of people a “helping hand” over another. That may be the premise under which affirmative action originated, but that’s old-school, 20th century thinking. When the Tufts admissions officers see a latina from the inner-city, they aren’t thinking, “Oh no, she needs our sympathy and support!” Instead, they see another gymnast or oboe player, another Nebraskan or Buddhist (or Pantheist). They see another gleaming tile to be added to the mosaic that is Tufts. And isn’t that a beautiful thing?
Comments (4)
Great analysis of the word "affirmative. Insightful stuff.
--Paula
Posted by: paula kaufman at February 9, 2007 10:50 AM
You say that Dean Coffin's remarks take "us out of our archaic, 1970s way of thinking about affirmative action as a tool to bring in the under-qualified"
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "“Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded."
So, as an extension of this definition, "affirmative action" neccesarily entails increasing representation of these groups, even if they are in fact "under-qualified." So the real question to be examined is: are more individuals from these groups entering these institutions less-qualified than the general pool of applicants?
This is, in fact, the debate the Primary Source attempted to start, albeit poorly and with no tact. So if a person receives preferential treatment based on the color of their skin, holding all other variables constant (hailing from a geographically desirable region, adopting certain religious/philosophical beliefs, etc.), is this not an inherently unfair practice in a nation that values meritocracy? And we must not forget that while institutions like Tufts value "diversity" and "mosaics," they still maintain a cold dividing threshold for what they deem to be the unworthies (GPA, SAT cutoffs).
And if, as a recent expose by the Primary Source demonstrates, these groups benefitting from "affirmative action" are performing far below this commonly excepted threshhold, (while those Buddhists and Nebraskans are not) should there not be a further inquiry into this practice? The danger, of course, is the tecndency for this policy to morph into a quota system. We shouldn't fear this word just because it smacks of Stalinism and other attempts by large governing structures to limit the freedom of the individual, we should fear it because it represents, as you decribed it, an "archaic" policy that should be discarded.
Posted by: Ian at February 22, 2007 12:02 AM
Yeah, I think there are two scenarios here we need to consider:
1) A school like Tufts, where persons of color are not receiving a "helping hand" in any way whatsoever. Tufts, Washington U., and other top schools receive so many qualified applicants that there is not a single person accepted who is not qualified to succeed. It's true that students are accepted in part because of their ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and background; it's a myth that there are students in our schools who are here without meeting the standard threshold.
2) A bigger state school, where some persons of color do receive a "helping hand" by the admissions office. In this situation I completely understand what the Primary Source is thinking. They believe such a pratice is unfair, an attack on the meritocracy, and even demeaning to persons of color. To this I can only say that affirmative action exists to make up not for past discrimination, but for PRESENT discrimination--present forces in our society that intrinsically run contrary to this idea of meritocracy.
I know we're all thinking, "Well, I'm not racist." I think most Americans are well-intentioned and wish not to be racist. However, there are objective psychological studies, some of which I have participated in myself, that illustrate that human beings have subconscious biases. In other words, we have biases that we don't even REALIZE exist! After all, it is perfectly natural for the brain to categorize ideas and objects in a way that provides for easy mental accessibility. For example, if I say the word "Native American," a series of images and judgments arise instantaneously, right? Same with "Indian" or "South Asian." These images and judgments may be good or bad. This was a nice little evolutionary skill 50,000 years ago, when a cave man saw a lion and needed to have a set of judgments and concepts within easy reach--but today, it's a meaningless skill.
So we're interacting with people--not just people of color, but the stranger walking down the street, or the girl speaking up in class--and making implicit judgments about them all the time, based simply on categorizations we've created about appearances, voice, word-choice, movements, etc. Even if we don't know it. That's what affirmative action attempts to compensate for.
Posted by: Mike Snyder at February 22, 2007 1:16 PM
did i mention how much i appreciate the fact you read my blog? :D thanks.
Posted by: Mike at February 22, 2007 1:26 PM