Article
Doing Affirmative Action
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
(2013)
Abstract
Based on the two years I worked in the Admissions Office at Princeton University, I argue that many opponents of racial preferences misunderstand how selective universities evaluate applicants and, as a result, their policy arguments are weaker than generally believed. More specifically, I rebut three major critiques put forth by skeptics of affirmative action. First, I claim that racial preferences are less robust than most critics imagine. Second, I argue that affirmative action imposes fewer costs on both whites and blacks than critics indicate. Finally, I show that racial preferences have less weighty moral consequences than critics believe. In fact, an attack on affirmative action — divorced from a larger project of increasing fairness in college admissions — amounts to an attack on black social mobility.
Keywords
- Affirmative Action,
- Equal Protection,
- Fairness,
- Athletics,
- Admissions Preferences,
- Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
Disciplines
Publication Date
2013
Citation Information
Stephen Clowney. "Doing Affirmative Action" Michigan Law Review First Impressions Vol. 111 (2013) p. 27 Available at: http://works.bepress.com/stephen-clowney/7/