Last Wednesday, University of Wisconsin philosophy professor Dan Hausman gave a talk on
the fairness and justification for preferential admissions. The talk was prompted by a report
released last October by the Center for Equal Opportunity, which found that “studies
show … a black or Hispanic undergraduate applicant was more than 500 times likelier to be
admitted to [UW] than a similarly qualified white or Asian applicant.”

Hausman engaged the question of preferential admissions on the basis of race and concluded
the policy is justified because it attempts to alleviate differences in lifetime opportunity for
minority groups.
If that is the best justification for policies like the one implemented here at Madison,
as seems plausible, then the university should be instituting similar guidelines for all groups
that are disadvantaged, not allowing preferential admissions for those minority applicants
who have had equal opportunity.

There is little solid ground for why a minority student from a
middle-class family in suburban America should have a greater chance of acceptance than his
or her white or Asian counterpart, except as restitution for past wrongs. Yet restitution would be
best served by targeting those minority individuals whose hardships are current and limiting.
Similarly, there is little reason why any applicant, regardless of race or ethnicity, from a family
below the poverty line should not get comparable assistance.

This is not to say that the current iteration of the policy is anything close to what some
call “reverse discrimination.” Reverse discrimination is at best a misnomer and more likely a
cynical attempt to tie well-intentioned policies to the worst of American history. Discrimination
against minority groups has almost always been predicated upon the degradation and
humiliation of a group of people. In contrast, the premise of “reverse discrimination” is the
elevation of these same historically disadvantaged groups.
However, disadvantaged groups are not restricted to minority races or ethnicities.

Race
and ethnicity are strong predictors of unequal opportunity, but the ultimate cause of unequal
opportunity is low socioeconomic status. Policymakers should not be content with attacking
an effect instead of aiming at the cause. Minorities do face obstacles to success that are
essentially racial, but in all, these obstacles have a much smaller total effect than the pervasive
socioeconomic inequalities.

If one posits a world in which the minority populations have achieved parity of prosperity
with that of the white population, that is, minorities fall along the same bell curve of income
and education on which the white population resides, then the problem of the disadvantaged
remains. Society would still find it necessary to ameliorate the barriers to education of the
economically and socially downtrodden. A policy that sought to give preferential admissions
to those who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds would be more effective than the
current policy.

Because of minorities’ disproportionate representation in the lower orders of
socioeconomic status, they would benefit at a proportional level from such a policy, while also
helping other individuals prone to privation.
A preferential admission policy using this criterion would simultaneously quell any
allegations of “reverse discrimination” and also better accomplish the university’s quest to
provide more help to the nation’s disadvantaged. Even the CEO, whose mission statement
declares, “it [is] imperative that our national policies not divide our people according to skin color
and national origin,” would be satisfied with that.

Vincent Dumas ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and philosophy.