Racial Misdirection: How Anti–Affirmative Action Crusaders Use Racial Resentment and Incomplete Conceptions of Merit to Perpetuate Racial Inequality

• In Event: Perpetuating Inequalities: The Role of Political Distraction in Education Policy Making

Abstract

Objectives/Purposes
Legal battles centering on affirmative action policies are hardly a new phenomenon. From Bakke (1978) to Fisher (2016), anti-affirmative action crusaders have centered the stories of white plaintiffs in their attempt to dismantle race-conscious admissions policies on college campuses. Although these efforts have had some marginal success in paring back the use of race in college admissions practices (Moses, Yun, & Marin, 2009), affirmative action has remained largely in-tact as a tool to promote diversity on college campuses. But what might happen if “diversity”—the very thing that heretofore has protected affirmative action—was used instead as proof of its supposed unfairness? In this paper, focusing on the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case, we analyze the strategies and tactics used by anti-affirmative action groups to distract from their real aims, as well as to distract from a focus on mitigating structural inequality.

Theoretical Perspectives
We draw primarily from Political Spectacle Theory (Edelman, 1998) to explain the ways that Students for Fair Admissions and the public discourse generated from right-wing media have constructed problems, leaders and enemies to distract from both the systemic oppression of people of color and continued white supremacy in higher education. We also employ Critical Race Theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Jones & Vagle, 2013) to examine the ways that Students for Fair Admissions’ fierce defense of traditional conceptions of “merit” is perhaps instead aimed at protecting university places for white students.

Modes of Inquiry and Evidence
Through this research, we attempted to explore the following questions: 1) What are the real aims of Students for Fair Admissions?; and 2) In what ways are anti-affirmative action crusaders using policy distractions and pointed language to obscure their underlying objectives? To answer these questions, we rely on philosophical inquiry, engaging in conceptual analysis into the nature of the concept of merit and the justifications put forward to challenge admissions policies at Harvard and other institutions targeted by Students for Fair Admissions. Specifically, we analyze federal legislation, court decisions, and current scholarly and popular articles, as well as news coverage, press releases, court documents, and arguments. For example, federal documents include the Civil Rights Act and Executive Orders related to affirmative action; court decisions and documents include Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Fisher v. University of Texas, Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger; and recent scholarly and popular articles taken from academic journals and news media.

Conclusions & Significance
Ultimately, we argue that the way Students for Fair Admissions characterizes race-conscious policies and constructs Asian-American students as the victims and leaders of this suit distracts from a more complex and accurate conception of merit that supports the social missions of selective colleges and universities. In the current sociopolitical moment, education scholars need to provide nuanced policy analyses that support democratic conceptions of diversity and equity. This paper attempts to do just that.

Authors

• Malerie Beth Barnes, University of Colorado - Boulder

• Michele S. Moses, University of Colorado - Boulder