PHOTOS COURTESY OF DEAN OF STUDENTS TERRY MARTINEZ
On Wednesday, Jan. 29, five distinguished experts came to the Hill to discuss the issue of affirmative action. The panel discussion, titled “Affirmative Action: Support, Critiques, and What’s Lost in the Discussion,” included four main speakers: Rick Banks, Stanford Law School Professor and author of
Is Marriage for White People? How the African American Marriage Decline Affects Everyone
; Julie Park, associate professor of education at the University of Maryland and author of
Race on Campus: Debunking Myths with Data
; Jason Riley, member of the
Wall Street Journal
editorial board and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute; and Genevieve Bonadies Torres, counsel for the Educational Opportunities Project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. Julie Vultaggio, associate dean for strategic academic initiatives at Harvard University, served as the moderator for the discussion.
Most of the main seats in the Chapel were occupied by attendees, made up of students, faculty, staff, and visitors from off the Hill. President Wippman opened the event at 7 p.m. by briefly introducing the speakers and moderator. Vultaggio then began the program by asking for audience input, encouraging attendees — as well as those watching the live stream — to anonymously submit the words that they associated with the concept of affirmative action. Using the service Poll Everywhere, Vultaggio then displayed a word cloud comprised of the submitted terms. The largest (i.e. most submitted) words were race, equality, and opportunity; however, the word cloud also featured words like “controversy” and “flawed.” Vultaggio used this to demonstrate the wide-ranging perceptions and opinions of affirmative action, as well as to set the tone of the program as educational and informative as opposed to inflammatory or promoting just one viewpoint.
The panelists then presented one-by-one on their own opinions of affirmative action, outlining their experience and research conducted on the subject. Banks expanded on the historical context that Vultaggio had provided in her introduction. He also provided greater legal context for the discussion, noting that the concept of “diversity” came about as a compromise. Essentially, Banks purported, “diversity” was a way to stay neutral in the argument over whether it was more egalitarian to acknowledge race or act “colorblind.” Ultimately, Banks spoke in favor of affirmative action and stated that acknowledging race empowered institutions of higher education to combat inequality instead of promoting it.
Park and Torres also spoke in favor of affirmative action policies. Park, who served as a consultant to Harvard University in the recent
SFFA v. Harvard
court case, emphasized the importance of ensuring a diversity of voices and racial backgrounds on college campuses and argued that much of the controversy surrounding affirmative action programs stemmed from misinformation perpetuated by the media and misunderstandings about how such policies worked.
Torres, agreeing with the preceding two panelists, emphasized that the college application process was inherently an “uneven playing field” and that affirmative action policies helped even this competition. Additionally, she argued that an applicant’s racial background constitutes an integral part of their identity and is necessary when making a holistic decision about whom to admit. She presented some of the admissions profiles of Harvard students who had testified on behalf of the university, explaining that removing these students’ stories about their racial heritage would provide an incomplete picture.
Riley, the last panelist to present, disagreed with the arguments that had been previously put forth. Citing Gallup polls that indicated the perceived favorability of race-blind admissions among all racial groups, Riley asserted that affirmative action policies were not only increasingly unpopular in the public eye but also particularly harmful to Asian-American applicants.
When all the speakers had presented, Vultaggio then prompted discussion by challenging the panelists to think about the implications of affirmative action and some of the arguments both for and against such policies.
Though Banks had spoken in favor of affirmative action policies, he acknowledged in the discussion that affirmative action policies had significant flaws, arguing that these policies unintentionally benefitted racial minorities in the upper tiers of the socioeconomic hierarchy. Riley agreed and added that he believed affirmative action actually disadvantaged racial minorities from low socioeconomic backgrounds by placing them at institutions with workloads or academic expectations that they could not meet. He cited the University of California system as an example of the pros of race-blind admissions.
Park, a graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles, rebutted that she felt her academic experience was made significantly less valuable by the lack of diversity in the classrooms. Both Park and Torres argued that the solution was not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” by getting rid of affirmative action policies but rather to improve other aspects of the admissions process.
Arguably the most heated moment of the discussion came when panelists talked about whether or not affirmative action policies hurt Asian applicants to selective institutions. Park commented on the apparently sudden interest in assisting the Asian-American community. She further argued that the recent Harvard lawsuit was politically motivated, citing litigant Edward Blum’s history of pursuing lawsuits related to race and ethnicity.
Riley called Park’s comment “insulting” and stated that it implied that Asian-Americans were “bamboozled” into the lawsuit and were unable to think for themselves.
Though panelists continued to disagree with each other at various points in the discussion, the conversation remained consistently civil throughout.
After the discussion, Vultaggio and the panelists fielded a few questions from the audience, which ranged from further questions about the effectiveness of affirmative action policies as they related to socioeconomic status and the potential problems presented by the concept of colorblind admissions. Vultaggio concluded the event at 9 p.m., after which many attendees moved to the stage to speak with the panelists and moderator.
The event was positively received by a number of the students in attendance, who believed that the night’s discussion was both informative and topical.
Student Assembly President Tommy Keith ’22 particularly enjoyed the panel discussion and stated afterwards: “I think the school did a good job facilitating a productive discussion on an important issue facing the college.” Keith also praised the questions asked by the students in attendance, adding that “students brought up an important issue that a lack of economic diversity often underlies a lack of racial diversity and that affirmative action alone is not enough to reduce social mobility in higher education.”
AlMahdi Mahil ’20, who also had the opportunity to ask the panelists two questions during the Question and Answer session, agreed with Keith.
“I thought it was excellent!” Mahil commented. “I think this [panel] format is vastly superior to its predecessors and allowed for more meaningful engagement. I particularly enjoyed the fact that they took questions from students, which made the event look less choreographed and allowed for genuine academic engagement,” Mahil added.
Wednesday night’s program was the first of this spring’s Common Ground Speaker Series. Two other Common Ground programs are scheduled for this semester.
Another panel discussion is scheduled for Feb. 11 at 7 p.m. in the Chapel. Titled “Impeachment Pro and Con” will feature Philip Klinkner, James S. Sherman Professor of Government at Hamilton College and John Vecchione ’86, senior litigation counsel for the non-profit New Civil Liberties Alliance.
On March 12, Greg Mankiw, professor of economics at Harvard University and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the George W. Bush administration, and Christina Romer, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration, will discuss “Income Inequality: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Responses.” The panel will be moderated by Henry Platt Bristol Professor of Economics at Hamilton College and former economist for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors Ann Owen, and will be held in Wellin Hall at 7 p.m.
Previous speakers in the Common Ground series have included David Axelrod and Karl Rove, Jim Messina and Reince Priebus, Condoleezza Rice and Susan Rice, and Marc Elias ’90 and Mike Dubke ’92 P’19.
All Common Ground programs are free and open to the public.
