University of Chicago Violates Kalven Neutrality on Affirmative Action

by an anonymous graduate student

On June 29, the Supreme Court of the United States issued rulings on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina which effectively struck down the use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

Later that day, a statement was issued by the President and Provost of the University of Chicago, where I am a graduate student. Particularly odious is the pride taken in the filing of amicus briefs in support of continuing the practice of racial discrimination that has plagued the admissions process, most recently against Asian Americans.

This is a clear violation of the Kalven report, which affirms the university’s role in harboring people with differing perspectives on social issues, but not taking an administrative position on said issues. The statement is qualified with the sentence “The University is committed to upholding an environment where such perspectives can be freely expressed and debated, with deep support for people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs”, but this is merely a platitude - the administration is putting its thumb on the scale and choosing sides.

One might argue that the statement is allowed by the following clause in the Kalven report,

From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.

Such an argument would be weak. There is no evidence that affirmative action contributes to the university's mission of generating and disseminating knowledge, nor that it is important for upholding its values of free inquiry. Claiming that the fact that the university uses affirmative action is evidence that affirmative action is central to its mission is circular logic, and cannot be taken as a good faith argument. The burden of proof is on the university to demonstrate how the loss of affirmative action would threaten its core mission in order to take a public position on this social issue, and this clearly has not been done.

Furthermore, the position the administration is advocating is disgraceful. Slavery and discriminatory laws caused horrible suffering to people of African descent in the United States, and that historic legal discrimination likely has some role in explaining why African Americans still have worse outcomes on average than other ancestry groups in the US. The response to these group-level inequalities, however, cannot be discrimination in favor of the disadvantaged group, regardless of how well-intentioned it may be.

This becomes even murkier when affirmative action is extended to other groups, such as Hispanics. While almost every minority group in every society in history can bring up past discrimination, redressing each and every one of these issues goes far beyond the original goal envisioned for affirmative action, has even less justification, and quickly becomes impractical to execute justly.

Justice Roberts correctly states in the majority opinion (page 4, page 23) that “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” Said discrimination is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and so long that it exists, we will not be able to reach a place where people’s immutable characteristics do not put them at a disadvantage. It also serves to create resentment among groups, and devalues the achievements of individuals of favored groups who could have succeeded perfectly well without racial preferences, putting their bona fides in doubt.

Justice Thomas goes one step further in his concurring opinion (page 99):

Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.

This individualist view is critical for allowing the environment of free expression that the University of Chicago claims to cherish so dearly.

The merits of individualism are what brought me to the United States, and to the University of Chicago in particular. I grew up in an ethnostate where a large chunk of the political discussion is centered around the supremacy of the majority ethnic group, either Archie Bunker-style (by the right), or by the racism of low expectations (by the left). That experience led me to desperately seek the individualism and diversity, in all walks of life, that I could find here. Sadly, the current working view of diversity is rather shallow, and only takes into account one’s ancestry, rather than the much more interesting and relevant individual characteristics. Forceful efforts at producing this sort of diversity tend to create environments with people who might all look different, but have had very similar life experiences and hold mostly similar opinions.

This misses the true merits of diversity, supposedly the focal point of affirmative action since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978. The introduction to other experiences and perspectives is critical to one’s intellectual flourishing, and allows each of us to be better members of an ever expanding society with more and more individuals, each with their own needs and desires.

It is regrettable that achieving true diversity is not easy, but rather a long and slow process. Letting the process play out at its own pace, however, is critical to its success. I quote a recent piece by Coleman Hughes:

My personal view is that diversity is like love. When it happens naturally, it’s the most beautiful thing in the world. But the moment it’s arranged, legislated, or mandated, you’ve somewhat missed the point.

My greatest desire is to be treated as an individual and to be judged on my own merits and failings, rather than by my ethnic background or any other immutable characteristic. I believe, perhaps naively, that many others on campus and around the world wish the same for themselves. The recent rulings are a step in the right direction, and it is saddening to see the University of Chicago continuing to fight against them.

The University of Chicago also holds a distinctive role in this ideological conflict - despite its shortcomings, it is still the flagship example of an American academic institution committed to free expression and open inquiry. Losing this battle on home soil would not bode well for the future of these ideals in academia, and it is critical that we continue to defend them.