Affirmative Action, Meritocracy, and the Future of Higher Education

In November 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the latest challenge to the constitutionality of affirmative action policies at colleges and universities. Nearly 50 years after the first challenge by a medical school student in California, colleges, students, and the courts nationwide are still struggling with questions surrounding both affirmative action’s legality and its actual impact on upward mobility.
The cases before the Court, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina, raise many questions about the legacy of affirmative action, the administrative intent of affirmative action policies at Harvard and other institutions, and the potential impact of race-neutrality on student evaluations and admissions. What do impacted communities, such as Asian Americans, think about the affirmative action issue? What is the current state of race relations in higher education and how has affirmative action fostered or hindered civility between students of different backgrounds?
This conference is on the history of affirmative action and its uncertain future. We will discuss whether affirmative action has led to more or less racial tension on college campuses; assess the current state of higher education admissions practices; and attempt to read the tea leaves on the forthcoming Supreme Court rulings and what they mean for colleges and universities. Hosted by MI Senior Fellow Jason L. Riley, this morning conference will feature a wide range of voices from academia, law, and the policymaking community.
00:00 - Welcome and Introductory Remarks by Jason Riley
05:00 - Panel I: Affirmative Action’s Impact and What to Expect from the Supreme Court
Richard Banks, Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Anthony Bradley, Director, Center for the Study of Human Flourishing, The King’s College
Moderator: James R. Copland, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
01:09:55 - Panel II: Origins and Effectiveness of 50 Years of Racial Preferences
David Bernstein, University Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia School of Law: George Mason University
Renu Mukherjee, Paulson Policy Analyst, Manhattan Institute
Wen Fa, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Mene Ukueberuwa, Editorial Board member, The Wall Street Journal
02:10:10 - Closing Interview with Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity

[@psychicspy]

Discussing all the ways to get around a ruling simply highlights the need for meritocracy. Have students take a standardized test. Admit those who score above some threshold. That's it. Now, let people aspire to meet those requirements.

[@kmlund42]

Ugh. The cougher is so distracting and right by mic. I am so tired of the elites and those in power weaponizing race, sex, age, etc. I love the Manhattan Institute because it talks about solving issues not exciting hate, paranoia, and misinformation. I hope we find our way since we as humans do have some redeeming qualities and need to fight our more primitive brains that social media and AI will only continue to exploit. No one asked our permission but we are now being manipulated every time we engage social media and get on our computer.

[@Alkelly-hh6rv]

Race is real in America. All the wrongs done to blacks is real. 120 plus all black towns being looted and burned down then having their land stolen by the state and given to their white friends. All these wrongs must at some point be righted. What would the USA economy look like today if so much was never taken from blacks. A group of people who the government still owes funds that was never paid. Blacks should never be lumped in with Asians or Latinos because it’s a totally separate issue.

[@joanr3189]

Unique, because….? Good question.

[@michaeln.2383]

We've had affirmative action ever since I can remember. You can have affirmative action along with merit and still maintain the integrity of outcomes. The woke is something completely different than affirmative action that I've never seen before.

[@tha1ne]

affirmative action needs to die. sorry not sorry.

[@michaeln.2383]

@@tha1ne The ones with money need to fight back. Send white males to trade schools instead of college. Don't donate money to alumni associations. Start defunding colleges instead of the police.

[@dnifty1]

"Affirmative action" is a meaningless catchphrase that has been abused and misused since the civil rights era in order to promote liberal leftist neo liberal policies that almost always fail to address inequality. In its broadest sense, affirmative action only means to take actions and measures to affirm or support the beliefs and ideals of the individual or group and nothing else. And in that sense, segregation and colonization are affirmative action for Europeans.

[@michaeln.2383]

@@dnifty1 Up until now, affirmative action was just an annoyance that wasn't going to bring down the whole nation. Now, there's going to be a low-skilled force attempting to perform high-skilled work. The high-skilled workers will be living in tents with their talents completely wasted.

[@psychicspy]

Online learning is going to increase competition and allow students to select institutions that most closely align with their core values, instead of students conforming to the values of the institution. In the future, higher education will closely match the emergent ideals of society.

[@smallscreentv1204]

Where’s the discussion around high achieving, hard working students who don’t get into a good university because of race based quotas? For example, it was mentioned here that only 10% of whites are selected due to higher black quotas. What about the waste of higher achieving students being forced out of the best universities to satisfy a race quota? That seems to me to be unfair and inefficient

[@lokimsjrrd3451]

A better question is why isn't the discussion also including the 43 percent of white students who are admitted by legacy admissions?

[@michaeln.2383]

Thirty years ago, there was war on inefficiency. One of the issues discussed as an argument against affirmative action was that it was inefficient, as well as discrimination being inefficient. Now, inefficiency is the goal with a war on merit. Eliminating high achievers while advancing low achievers is what it's all about.

[@smallscreentv1204]

@@michaeln.2383 agreed. And the irony is that it’s destroyed the country. Just look around.

[@jacktran7024]

@@lokimsjrrd3451 Get rid of legacy admissions and might as well getting rid of 'athletic admissions' also. Most legacies are dumb and athletes are even dumber.

[@lokimsjrrd3451]

@@jacktran7024 I agree, get rid of all of them. What I find interesting is the demographic of varsity athlete population, please check it, 😉.