Death of Diversity: Reforming Quotas to Achieve Equity and Opportunity
In October 2019, the U.S. District Court in Boston ruled against Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), arguing that Harvard University complies with the Supreme Court standards of not discriminating by race in admissions. In 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the same ruling despite SFFA appealing the initial decision. This coming January, SCOTUS announced that it would reconsider the SFFA case against Harvard University alongside a new case against the University of North Carolina for the final say (Pazzanese). In recent decades, the ethics of diversity quotas (DQs) — particularly affirmative action — have been vehemently debated; SFFA accused Harvard of “illegally discriminat[ing] against Asian Americans… engineer[ing] the demographics of incoming classes to meet certain predetermined goals through ‘racial balancing’” (Anderson & Svrluga). Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas shared their skepticism about affirmative action providing “quantifiable educational benefits” to justify the consideration of race in admissions (Schukar). DQs have a ubiquitous influence on admissions processes in higher education, beyond just Harvard or the University of North Carolina. More or less, DQs have been recognized as an instrument in fostering a “healthy, diverse” student body. While DQs can be complicated and handled in a precarious manner, DQ precedents carry a positive ideology in enriching education with indisputable, widely recognized benefits. The current issue at hand with DQs remains the perceived penalization or ostracization of specific groups and communities in trying to appraise others. In order to garner more diverse student bodies and more fair admission processes, universities should focus more on socioeconomic factors for applicants in mitigating inequalities in wealth and opportunity — the crux ideology of implementing DQs. Higher education organizations can adopt what I call socioeconomic diversity quotas (SeDQs). Specific races should not be advantaged or disadvantaged on basis of race, rather individuals in economic need should be specifically helped.
Historically, DQs were implemented in the mid-20th century to ensure applicants are assessed equally without discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, or religion according to the American Association for Access Equity and Diversity. Naturally, this encompasses rectifying racial representation in higher education institutes with aims of diversity and social equity. Beyond social reasons, SAP and McKinsey & Company were able to identify five clear benefits of implementing diversity — increasing profitability, productivity, recruitment and retention, role satisfaction and performance, and innovation and creativity. The research, originally designed for measuring DQs’ benefits on firms, extends to the realms of education. In aiming to accomplish these honorable social and performance agendas, higher education institutions, such as Harvard University, inadvertently navigated DQs as a “checkbox” (Omagbitse). This occurrence aligns with social psychologist Donald Campbell’s rule — Campbell’s Law — in which “the more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor” (Hess). Organizations look to exploit the system by capturing “ideal” DQ data that depicts a “healthy” and “diverse” employee body. This can lead to negative externalities such as the stigma of acquiring employment solely through DQs and narrowing stereotypes associated with specific diversity candidates. Consequently, this often incites differences in expectations and work pressures for diverse candidates, opposing the very sentiment of DQs.
There is hope. Fortunately, an intersectional relationship between race, higher education, and poverty exist, and solving this long debate of DQs begins with addressing the root driver of this relationship: poverty. The American Psychological Association shares that “39 percent of African-American children and adolescents and 33 percent of Latino children and adolescents are living in poverty, which is more than double the 14 percent poverty rate for non-Latino, White, and Asian children and adolescents.” The relationship between race and poverty also includes education: “African-Americans and Latinos are more likely to attend high-poverty schools than Asian-Americans and Caucasians… African American students may be exposed to less rigorous curriculums, attend schools with fewer resources, and have teachers who expect less of them academically than they expect of similarly situated.” The question now becomes identifying which of the three aspects — between race, education, and poverty — best drive marginalized and unequal societal outputs. DQs attempt to remedy race in education. This reality unwittingly results in the ostracization of other race groups as aforementioned. In turn, navigating SeDQs through a socioeconomic lens instead of trying to “game the race checkbox” will not only address all the three-way relationships but also increase America’s welfare in pursuing equity and opportunity. Failing to adjust racially discriminating practices in admissions will results in the exploitation of DQs through diversity and wealthy candidates and in lieu transfer the lower socioeconomic burden to other groups.
This past summer, I had the opportunity to attend KPMG Rise Leadership Institute — a multi-day leadership conference that focuses on inclusive leadership development and provides a snapshot into KPMG’s financial services in tax, audit, and advisory. Applicants were eligible to apply if deemed a “high-performing college freshman or sophomore who identifies as a person of color, veteran, a person with a disability, LGBTQ+, and/or first-generation college student.” Being the first in my family to attend college, I was lucky enough to slip into the program after two round interviews during my sophomore year. What I found were amazing individuals, many of whom I have befriended, but their backgrounds were different than what I had expected. Many participants came from very academically competitive and educated backgrounds. Many participants were upper class in terms of socioeconomic income and upbringing. Many applicants were positioned well for career readiness and had already utilized many diversity programs, continuing to cycle through various programs to bolster their resume.
The wealthier, more educated candidates leveraged these diversity programs to perpetuate their status through education and opportunities in the upper class. Contrary to reality, I expected to meet “diversity” candidates that were from lower-incomes, more diverse backgrounds, and in more need of these programs. So, I began to reflect on my experiences and slowly formulated different perspectives on the negative externalities of the current standing of DQs. Firstly, DQs may unintentionally penalize individuals that do not have any say in their situation. Conversely, it can help parties that may have experienced minimal to no friction or discrimination themselves. Many of these diversity candidates were brought up in wealthy families and private schools that most likely shielded the hardship and differing experiences of other diversity candidates, say inner-city Los Angelenos. Secondly, by setting a finite number of spots for these candidates, DQs can create images of varying competencies in the workplace and school. With separate application processes and programs created for these diversity candidates, many of these candidates have expedited recruiting processes and often have to exhibit fewer technical competencies than other candidates. Needlessly to say, the implications of “special” recruitment also influence continued higher education. Thirdly, the idea of fixing, say, racial discrimination and creating equitable environments through further racial segmentation can be ironic. Many of these educated, wealthy diversity attendees were already well on their way to success. This raises the idea of the remaining, neglected diversity population that may be equally competent — and even more diverse in perspective — but unaware or even beaten out by the wealthier, more educated diversity candidate counterparts. The current status quo for DQs marginalizes the same diversity candidates that they seek. Hence, the alternative approach to weighing DQs with reallocated emphasis on socioeconomic standing can remedy all three issues raised by DQs today.
In response to the first problem of the current DQ status quo, SeDQs specifically focus on aiding groups that undergo some of the greatest financial frictions and discrimination. Given the social climate today, this looks like aiding minority, low-income populations rather than the minority, high-income populations. The former group will not only benefit greatly from SeDQs but are also presented with greater income and opportunities in America. Secondly, SeDQs also directly respond to the varying images of competency in school. Since the beneficiaries of SeDQs underwent some of the greatest academic and situational hurdles, their perceived competence and potential become more impressive having accomplished their accolades under additional stresses. Lastly, SeDQs, unlike current DQs, will no longer filter solely based on race. SeDQs very simply and blindly provide value to those in most financial need of opportunity given a threshold of competence in admissions.
It is true that race can contribute to difficulties in life. Components of DQs’ genesis were established from this fact. We can still recognize this today. The COVID-19 pandemic quarantine is proof. America witnessed the baseless, violent altercations deriving from race in the Black Lives Matter and Stop Asian Hate movements, in which marginalized populations were discriminated against and hurt simply because of race. It is also true that SeDQs may influence admissions demographics and race profiles for admissions in higher education institutions. Regardless, SeDQs, in response, make more sense in amending equal opportunities for everyone. Poverty and low income, drivers for lack of opportunity and steroids for resentment, suggest a strong metric for livelihood in America. What implications can SeDQs have in the future? Today, that looks like providing more opportunities to Hispanics and Blacks in higher education. In the future, that looks like providing SeDQs to different marginalized, low-income populations. Whatever the situation may become, SeDQs adapt to populations in need with all the benefits of diversity. In the end, socioeconomic disadvantage will always trump racial disadvantage through SeDQs.
Today, higher education institutions and wealthier diversity candidates alike exploit the DQ system. On paper, DQs are a tool to assemble a healthy, diverse student body. In actuality, DQs perpetuate opportunity and power for wealthy people of color, create perceptions of varying competence, and continually discriminate against different races as the SCOTUS case suggests. Universities, such as Harvard, loftily comply with DQ data and practices but do not fully reap the benefits of diversity due to discrimination against certain parties while accepting, instead, racially diverse, yet higher-income, students. They also ostracize other racial populations such as Asian Americans in the process as suggested in the upcoming SCOTUS case. SeDQs offer the solution. SeDQs reform these flaws by offering opportunities to marginalized and lower-income populations, utilizing income and competence as instruments in providing all the true benefits of diversity as detailed by SAP and McKinsey & Company. The SCOTUS ruling, regardless of the outcome, demonstrates the sentiment of many in pursuit of higher education. SeDQs, at worst, will skew demographic profiles for universities such as Harvard, and at best, give opportunities for all marginalized groups regardless of race, increasing Americans’ welfare and opportunities.
Works Cited
“Affirmative Action Policies throughout History.” AAAED, https://www.aaaed.org/aaaed/History_of_Affirmative_Action.asp.
Anderson, Nick, and Susan Svrluga. “How Do Colleges Use Race in Admissions Decisions?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 Jan. 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/01/24/college-admissions-affirmative-action-race/.
“Diversity & Inclusion Workplace Survey — Glassdoor for Employers.” https://www.glassdoor.com/employers/blog/diversity-inclusion-workplace-survey/.
Dixon-Fyle, Sundiatu, et al. “Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters.” McKinsey & Company, McKinsey & Company, 6 Apr. 2022, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters.
“Global Diversity and Inclusion Fostering Innovation through a …” Forbes. https://images.forbes.com/forbesinsights/StudyPDFs/Innovation_Through_Diversity.pdf.
Hess, Rick. “Education Reforms Should Obey Campbell’s Law (Opinion).” Education Week, Education Week, 8 Dec. 2020, https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-education-reforms-should-obey-campbells-law/2018/06.
Larson, Erik. “New Research: Diversity + Inclusion = Better Decision Making at Work.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 10 Dec. 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriklarson/2017/09/21/new-research-diversity-inclusion-better-decision-making-at-work/?sh=6385058c4cbf.
Mag, Wake. “Diversity Quotas: A Solution or a Problem?” The Wake, The Wake, 25 Oct. 2018, https://www.wakemag.org/voices/2018/10/12/diversity-quotas-a-solution-or-a-problem.
Mitzon Learning. “Top KPMG RISE Leadership Institute.” Mitzon Learning, 1 Dec. 2021, https://www.mitzon.com/online-programmes/top-kpmg-rise-leadership-institute/.
Omagbitse, Misan. “The Dark Side of Diversity Quotas.” LinkedIn, 8 June 2020, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dark-side-diversity-quotas-misan-omagbitse-acipm/.
Pazzanese, Christina. “What to Know about Harvard’s Case in the Supreme Court.” Harvard Gazette, Harvard Gazette, 31 Oct. 2022, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/10/what-to-know-about-harvards-case-in-supreme-court/.
“The Supreme Court. Printable Page: PBS.” The Supreme Court. Printable Page | PBS, https://
www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/print/landmark_regents.html.
Tynan, Katy. “The Business of Belonging.” Forrester,https://www.forrester.com/report/the-business-of-belonging/RES161444.
“Why Quotas Are Unlikely to Be the Most Effective Way of Diversifying the Boardroom.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 25 Jan. 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lbsbusinessstrategyreview/2022/01/24/why-quotas-are-unlikely-to-be-the-most-effective-way-of-diversifying-the-boardroom/?sh=6a0798d5507d.Workplace Diversity: The Statistics Are in: Sap Insights.” SAP, https://www.sap.com/insights/workplace-diversity-statistics.html.
