Why not Class-Based affirmative action?
Specifically for college admissions, I think classed-based affirmative action is better than raced-based affirmative action. Class-based affirmative action is still an equalizing treatment, rather than simply formal equality.
I imagine that Harris’s biggest hesitation with adopting class-based affirmative action is the lack of direct recognition of the existing and lasting implications of racism in the U.S. However, poverty is often the result of historical injustice and racism. For example, in 2022, the official poverty rate of the U.S. Black population was 17.1%, while the official poverty rate of the U.S. population as a whole was only 11.1%. Class-based affirmative action better targets those most impacted by historical injustice and racism and thus will still grant corrective and distributive justice towards communities of color.
Harris highlights how “failing to [implement affirmative action] will reinforce the existing regime of race and class domination that leaves lower class whites more vulnerable to class exploitation” (1786). However, class-based affirmative action specifically targets class exploitation and instead of simply “level[ing] the racial privilege” will level privilege at large (1786). In other words, instead of simply challenging the privilege of being white, class-based affirmative action challenges the privilege of privilege at large.
Harris may similarly categorize this altered form of affirmative action as a concession to white people. However, I think class-based affirmative action better highlights the systemic issues within the U.S. and encourages discussions about equity more largely.
Race-based affirmative action may encourage a modern-day ‘passing.’ While race-based affirmative action has increased the racial diversity of schools, colleges and universities have largely been dominated by people with higher-income backgrounds. From this, it appears that race-based affirmative action more greatly benefits minorities from wealthy backgrounds (where they can dip into spheres of privilege i.e. ‘passing’). If this is the case, then race-based affirmative action empowers certain minorities to simply possess the property of whiteness (or ‘pass’) rather than challenge the system at large.
I was going to post about this as well! I mostly agree with you, and to expand further on your point about encouraging 'passing', I think that race-based affirmative action definitely overlooks deeper class stratifications that exist within communities of color. As you said, focusing primarily on race tends to benefit higher-income individuals who belong to marginalized racial groups. These students are more likely to access resources and opportunities that allow them to blend into environments where privilege is often linked to socioeconomic status. In this sense, race-based affirmative action may inadvertently perpetuate the existing inequities by favoring those who are already closer to the privilege of whiteness, rather than addressing the structural issues that impact lower-income individuals. Furthermore, the assumption of racial uniformity within marginalized communities overlooks the complexity and range of experiences that exist based on class. While it is undeniable that systemic barriers have disproportionately impacted Black and Native American communities, class plays a critical role in determining the severity of those impacts, creating a gradient that (in my opinion) race-based affirmative action fails to address.
ReplyDeleteA critique I would offer to your post, however, is the assumption that class-based affirmative action inherently offers a more nuanced approach to addressing inequality. Class alone doesn’t capture the full scope of systemic barriers that racial minorities face, particularly when it comes to the long history of exclusion, discrimination, and disenfranchisement. For example, a lower-income Black student and a lower-income white student may face some of the same economic challenges, but the Black student is further subject to racial prejudice that can affect their academic/professional experiences, opportunities, and even their mental health in ways that the white student might not encounter. So, by focusing only on class, we're downplaying some of the specific challenges that are uniquely tied to race (which limits the effectiveness of the policy in addressing racial disparities). It’s not just about economic need; it’s also about the compounded effects of racism that affect people's access to resources and opportunities. I don't know that race-based affirmative action is the solution to this, but it does mean that class-based affirmative action is not without its flaws.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete(Couldn't find a way to edit the post, but I wanted to add: Harris talks about how "in the majority's view, whites cannot be burdened with rectifying inequities that are the product of history" (1773) during her discussion of Croson. In general, there is this sentiment that 'set-asides' for minority groups, diversity quotas, affirmative action, etc. are all inappropriate burdens on white interest, and Harris argues that because of this, the scrutiny with which certain cases are tried under is much higher. If we take class into account, where the parallel argument is that wealthy/higher-income individuals 'bear the burden' of inequity (examples are financial aid, higher taxes in some taxation systems, unemployment benefits, etc.), I see class-based affirmative action causing a racial issue even within lower-income communities. If all lower-income individuals are treated the same, the only form of 'burden-bearing' is by higher-income individuals (which includes Black and Native American people), and no acknowledgement of the systemic barriers that make their position different to higher-income whites. This is especially true in communities where racial privilege is less visible or perceived as less significant than class privilege.
DeleteHi Bika! I think your argument in favor of class-based affirmative action raises some really important points about equity, but I’d say Harris’s central arguments still hold up against your critiques of race-based affirmative action.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Harris’s idea of how whiteness operates feels especially relevant here. Since whiteness is not only an identity but a structural advantage that’s been historically AND legally constructed to benefit white people while excluding others, it isn’t something that just disappears in systems that seem race-neutral (like that which class-based affirmative action posits). While poverty is absolutely tied to historical injustices like racism as you mentioned, Harris would argue that focusing only on class would ignore the specific ways whiteness functions as property interest, reputation, and self-identity (1725). For example, low-income white individuals would continue benefiting from the value of their whiteness (as property), like implicit biases in areas like hiring and policing. Without confronting these structural advantages directly, class-based affirmative action could very well end up reinforcing the inequity it means to fix.
Extending this idea, I also think your point about class-based affirmative action “leveling privilege at large” rather than focusing on racial privilege disregards Harris’s claim of how deeply connected race and class are in our systems. Specifically, Harris talks about how a pattern of integrated “white racial domination and economic exploitation” has been built into our history (1713). Even if policies were created to increase opportunities for low-income individuals across racial groups, they wouldn’t necessarily address how whiteness continues to function as a privilege that systematically excludes non-whites (1714), especially when it comes to our discussion of spaces of the “elite” like universities. Admissions policies that focus only on socioeconomic status hide how racial hierarchies still shape access to education and social mobility. For example, what happens when a low-income white student and a low-income Black student apply to the same university? While both face economic challenges, the Black student is much more likely (historically speaking) to have experienced additional obstacles like attending an underfunded school due to redlining or facing implicit bias in standardized tests. A class-based policy would treat them as equally disadvantaged, ignoring the racial barriers that uniquely impact the Black student’s chances of success. As Harris argues, when we fail to explicitly address race, we allow whiteness to stay invisible and unchallenged, which just reinforces its dominance, even within the frameworks that are designed to promote equity.
This also connects to your argument that “class-based affirmative action better targets those most impacted by historical injustice and racism and thus will still grant corrective and distributive justice towards communities of color.” I think you’re right that class-based affirmative action would help with distributive justice in terms of ensuring opportunity is shared more equitably, but I don’t see how class-based affirmative action could acknowledge and repair the damages caused by things like racial oppression. To me, I don’t see how class-based policies alone would ever be able to address the legacies of slavery, segregation, and systemic racism that have shaped educational disparities for Black Americans for example. While increasing socioeconomic diversity is definitely important, it doesn’t directly tackle the exclusionary practices and systemic barriers tied to whiteness as property. Although the idea of race-conscious policies do seem a bit overwhelming initially, I’m becoming more convinced that they may very well be necessary in dismantling entrenched privilege and moving toward REAL equity.
A few points:
ReplyDeleteFirst, isn't Harris' most fundamental point not about class vs race based affirmative action, but that the Constitution is harnessed by the courts to rule out race based affirmative action as a possibility?
Second, I take one implication of Harris' argument to be that if whiteness is property, even those who are not white but are comparatively well off are being denied the entitlements that come with whiteness, hence they too have legitimate grounds for grievance.
Third, it is interesting to consider the history of affirmative action efforts for women, in which focusing on class would seem not to get at the fundamental problem with discrimination against women. How is race different?
Cool set of posts; cudos to Sam for grounding the debate more in Harris' arguments