Subject: Affirmative Action From: Andrew Yu Message-Id: Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2023 14:14:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Mailer: aerc 0.14.0 X-Article-ID: 21 (Slightly modified for "publication") Here is my attempt at the Harvard/UNC affirmative action question, though I can't guarantee it's comprehensive, objective or developed, and the language here is deadly plain. Be aware that there's a fair bit of ethics, political philosophy and (minimal but still) US politics ahead. Also, since I'm Asian myself (of course, disadvantaged under the AA policies), perhaps I'm biased. Firstly, let me declare my unconventional "stance". I believe that affirmative action based on race is generally useless and may backfire; however if I were a supreme court justice, I would vote with the Liberals, to not interfere with the affirmative action policies of the universities. I'll start with why I believe that the court shouldn't interfere with the universities' policies. Harvard and UNC are private universities. They have their own ideals, and as long as they're not causing active harm to society (in my opinion, that'd be violating other people's negative liberty in the traditional interpretation by Isaiah Berlin—I am aware that there are paradoxes but it's the closest to a consistent theory of political philosophy that I can reach for now). Simply speaking, the students they admit is irrelevant to the government/state. If we consider public universities on the other hand, then sure. The government funds them, is supposed to set their goals and policies, and is responsible for their admissions and could rightfully implement policies that they see fit, but for private educational institutions, my "small government" mindset comes in. However, there are interesting arguments surrounding how "elite" universities such as Harvard, and to some extent UNC, have substantial social impact on society, as they are more or less a standard in defining tertiary education in the US and globally. Other educational institutions may follow their policies in attempts to bring themselves to the prestigious "standard" that elite institutions set, these elite universities are crucial in educational mobility, there might be potential public investment, etc. However I still intuitively think that the government shouldn't intervene, perhaps because of how in the US, court cases set precedents, and a precedent of such intervention would "allow" for government expansion and potential for the government to dip their feet into more private business. Now I'll briefly argue why I believe that affirmative action based on race is generally useless and may backfire. There are three main reasons that I could think of for affirmative action, I'll describe my opinion on each, one by one. First, that affirmative action promotes diversity. I (personally) think that diversity is an insufficient reason to be potentially racially discriminating (people with the same academic capability may be rejected/admitted based on racial quotas, which may be considered a form of discrimination based on factors that they couldn't control). Second, that affirmative action adjusts for educational inequality. I haven't fact-checked this, but perhaps it's true that African-Americans, on average, live in poorer communities and have lesser access to good secondary education. Therefore their grades cannot fully reflect their academic potential, and universities admissions should compensate for that. Now aside from how this feels patronizing, race is no longer a good measure of "lack of educational resources due to financial situations/etc", with the existence of quite affluent African-American families. Affirmative action (if any) for educational-inequality-adjustment could be better implemented by looking at education and financial situations themselves, not race. Third, that affirmative action compensates for past wrongs. Having what people's ancestors do affect them negatively present-day feels awkward, although arguably people benefitting from the achievements of their ancestors means that they also need to take relevant responsibilities. Anyways, here are my thoughts… a bit incomplete but might be interesting. Cheers!