The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that race cannot legally be a factor in college admission. But would race-based preferences be ethical even if they were legal?
To comment on this dilemma, leave a response. For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.
Ethical Decisions 
First, a warning: what I say here will disappoint anyone who wants to hear a straight “yes” or “no” answer to this question. The issue is complicated, and any adequate conclusion must be complicated.
Useless arguments
Let’s first dispense with two popular arguments that are useless for resolving the issue. One is that race-based preferences are “unfair.” The problem is that fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Suppose a university admits certain minority applicants instead of majority applicants with higher test scores. This seems “unfair” to the majority applicants because their scores are higher. It seems “fair” to the minority applicants because they had to overcome significant barriers to make their scores. We can argue all day about this and get nowhere.
A second useless argument is that college admission should be “meritocratic.” The problem here is that we don’t agree on what merit is. Does overcoming obstacles count as merit, or do only such things as test scores and grades count? Even if we agree on what is meritorious, the very question at issue is whether college admission should be based solely on merit. Merely to claim that it should is not an argument and gets us nowhere.
The objective of admission decisions
Our next task is to correct a popular misunderstanding about college admissions. I have taught in universities worldwide for nearly four decades and know something about this. The media typically picture college admission as a competitive game played by applicants to Harvard or Yale, in which the winners get to make connections with the right people and achieve fame and fortune as a result. Yet the purpose of admission decisions is not to identify winners and losers. It is to place students in a school where they can best benefit from what the school has to offer.
We professors want everyone to receive an education that develops their potential to the fullest, no exceptions. We want everyone to be an intellectual and do their own thinking. We want to equip everyone with the skills they need to make a positive contribution to the world. No school can enroll everybody, and so each school must do the best it can in service of these goals, in view of its limited resources and unique characteristics.
In particular, schools must meet students where they are. If they would struggle in a given university, it must determine whether they would benefit from this struggle, or would be overcome by it and are better suited for a different type of school. This is sometimes a hard decision, one that cannot be reduced to simplistic ideological solutions.
Universities are acutely aware that some students are held back by racial injustice and economic inequality. While the problem is best addressed long before college age, universities can do a few things about it. They can (and do) offer remedial help to matriculates with disadvantaged backgrounds. They can (and do) offer financial aid to students who need it, although not nearly enough, given the ridiculously high cost of higher education in the U.S.
And yes, universities can admit minority students who are less qualified academically than majority students, to the extent that doing so is legal. This is useful when carefully selected minority admits would maximize the school’s contribution to student development and social welfare. It is a fact that disadvantaged youth sometimes gain much more from a particular college experience than those with stronger academic backgrounds, and society gains more as a result.
From this perspective, college admission is not a matter of what is “fair” or what applicants “deserve.” It is a matter of how best to benefit students and society. Yet in the real world, admission serves a gatekeeping function whether we like it or not, and many will view it as unfair. We must therefore determine what is an ethical admissions policy in this complicated environment.
Ethical analysis: The role of academic qualifications
Let’s first look at the argument that applicants who work hard and earn high grades “deserve” admission. This is related to the generalization principle, as follows. If I make the best score in a tennis match, I indeed deserve to be recognized as the winner, because there is an implied agreement: if I play by the rules, game officials will determine the winner by the rules. The generalization principle implies that people should normally honor their agreements. However, educational achievement is not a game with agreed-upon rules. Colleges rarely agree in advance to admit students who meet certain criteria.
However, one might argue that there is an implied agreement when someone applies for admission. The applicant divulges scholastic information (grades, etc.) on the understanding that this information will play a significant role in the admission decision. This is a convincing argument, but it does not show that the colleges must use scholastic achievement as the only criterion. There is no agreement, express or implied, that nothing else will count. Everyone knows that many factors go into admission decisions, such as the makeup of the class, financial constraints, recruitment of athletes, and “legacy” and “donor” preferences for children of alumni and big donors.
We can conclude that the generalization principle requires colleges to use academic qualifications as a major factor, perhaps the most important factor, in admission decisions. But this does not rule out the use of other factors, such as race.
Ethical analysis: The benefits of racial preferences
The utilitarian principle tends to argue in favor of judicious consideration of race, because it requires us to maximize benefit while observing other ethical principles. Universities, in an effort to comply with anti-discrimination laws, justify minority admissions on the ground that they promote diversity on campus, and diversity leads to a better educational experience. It does, but this is a relatively minor factor in the utilitarian calculation. By far the dominant factor is whether the very costly slots in a college class are being put to the best use, as measured by benefit to the student and society.
As I noted earlier, benefit may be increased by admitting certain applicants on the basis of race. In addition, an affirmative action policy at a large state university or “elite” private school could have a direct effect on progress toward racial justice, in part by propelling minority role models into leadership positions, and racial justice arguably promotes overall utility. A race-based policy satisfies the utilitarian principle if we can reasonably believe that no race-neutral policy would create greater benefit.
Ethical analysis: Backlash against racial preferences
A popular argument against a widespread policy of race-based admission is that it would create backlash. It would place a stigma on minority graduates, because people would say that African Americans or Latinos get into universities only because they receive special treatment. Their degrees therefore wouldn’t mean anything, and they would be denied the jobs they want. So, a general practice of race-based admission defeats itself.
This doesn’t refute the utilitarian argument just presented, because the utilitarian principle considers only the effects of a single university’s policy. But it may show that race-based admission violates the generalization principle. The principle requires that the reasons for adopting a policy must be consistent with the assumption that everyone to whom the reasons apply adopts the policy. That is, it requires that the policy be generalizable without defeating its purpose. Yet I just said that the purpose of adopting a race-based policy is to maximize benefit. So, if the policy were generalized, it would allegedly defeat its own purpose, because backlash would prevent it from maximizing benefit.
I don’t have the expertise to assess this empirical claim. However, I can clarify what must be shown to establish generalizability. First, it doesn’t matter whether people would say that minority degrees are meaningless (some people already say this, of course). The relevant question is whether the degrees would, in the end, actually benefit minorities and society as a whole, irrespective of what people would say along the way.
Second, it is enough to be rational in believing that a generalized policy would benefit minorities and society. This means that the university must first thoroughly research the issue, since much is at stake (this is one thing universities can do quite well, after all). If it is still reasonable to believe minorities would benefit, in view of all available evidence, then the generalization principle is satisfied. In particular, it is satisfied if the evidence is too sketchy to resolve the issue, and reasonable people can differ on it.
Conclusion
A legal race-based admissions policy is ethical if (a) academic qualifications are still a major factor, and perhaps the most important factor, in admission decisions; (b) it is reasonable to believe that no race-neutral policy would deliver greater benefit to students and society, given the school’s resources; and (c) one can reasonably believe, in view of all available evidence, that the policy would continue to benefit minorities and society if it were generally adopted by universities where (b) is satisfied. A race-based policy is obligatory if it satisfies these conditions, and one cannot reasonably believe that some race-neutral policy would deliver as much benefit.
LikeLike