By Noah Fram, Vanderbilt Political Review

This is the last in a six-part ACE Forum on affirmative action.

All of the essays so far have maintained, in some way, that identity-based affirmative action, however well-intentioned, has failed to work in its four decades of existence (Connie Wu’s discussion of the relationship between affirmative action and the Asian-American population is especially interesting in this regard; unfortunately, I do not have space to address it in this post). Therefore, we are obligated to seek out an alternate solution. The most comprehensive plan since offered was Jeremy Pilaar’s idea of funding an expanded public school system in an effort to increase the availability of high-quality education. As he says, the specifics of such a solution are complex, and I think they would be heavily influenced by the partisan political environment which has pervaded Washington. But, I will try to present a set of policies that could be the foundation of a solution.

While identity politics continues to play a dominant role in many people’s experiences, and is a topic of public fascination, social researchers tend to focus more on other socioeconomic variables such as income, educational attainment, and various environmental factors. Many studies do show effects attributable to race, but I find the argument that race is not a causal factor (that its influence is due to the influence of so-called “lurking” variables rather than race itself) to be more convincing. And in either case, since the days of racial sciences are thankfully dead and gone, whatever policy is enacted should attempt to address the cause of outcome disparity independent of ethnicity. Mr. Gee’s point about the difference between “opportunity” and “outcome” can serve to dismiss the efficacy of palliatives aimed at improving short-term circumstances. Our goal is to ease structural inequities, not mask them. Easier said than done.

Affirmative action, for all its faults, did accurately select the primary inequity faced across racial or class lines today – education. The most obvious example lies in the prohibitive cost of upper-tier college and graduate education (the Harvard admissions debate), but similar problems turn up in public schools as well. My home state of South Carolina, for example, allocates school funding based on property taxes on the rationale that higher property taxes indicate a larger demand for public schools. But when the districts which receive the most funding under this rule are simply the wealthier areas with higher home values, the disadvantaged neighborhoods are left with the educational dregs. So this would be my first policy change: public education should be funded based on better metrics of need than tax revenue. If our goal is to eliminate inequity, it should be funded based on population; rather, if we intend to level the playing field (under the admittedly flawed liberal argument for affirmative action), metrics such as median income, unemployment rate, and demand for free and reduced lunch should be considered.

Then, we have the problem of how to use funding once it is properly distributed. Increasingly, all social sciences are claiming that the primary indicator of adult outcomes is early-childhood environment and education. Investigators like the University of Chicago’s James Heckman and Arthur Reynolds at University of Wisconsin–Madison have shown that the return on investment in early-childhood education is enormous. Given how much money we sink into “rescuing” struggling public schools, one would expect deficit-conscious budget hawks to welcome any more efficient way to improve overall education. Perhaps a broader federally subsidized childcare and pre-adolescence education program would do the trick (the federal tie is simply because the national government has more funds to work with than do the state governments).

Another reason for South Carolina’s abysmal showing in national educational rankings is the so-called “Corridor of Shame.” This is a rather large area lying along I-95 that has almost no infrastructure, incredibly high food insecurity, and a surprisingly large number of school-age children. Now, I know that throwing money at the school problem is a popular but ineffective way of addressing disparities in educational attainment, but when the school in question cannot purchase textbooks for their students, perhaps a little more funding would be useful. But such funding is not forthcoming in my state, for one very simple reason: it is not politically feasible. And this is the primary issue with any attempt at solving the basic structural inequity in the American socioeconomic system. However much analysts and commentators may preach the doctrine of social consciousness, there is simply not the political will to enact the sweeping policy changes that are necessary. Not one of my ideas is particularly original. Every single statement I made has been made, in some permutation at least, by somebody else; every step in reforming the education system has been documented somewhere. And yet, we cling to our flawed standardized tests and falsely meritocratic process. Why?

Perhaps I’m just a political cynic, but I agree with Mark Hay’s analysis that affirmative action is a talking point because it is quick and easy sound bite. But I would add that affirmative action is an evasion, that not only can politicians benefit from discussing it, but that the debate has been driven into such a stultifying realm of absolutes to avoid the overhaul our system needs. Left unsaid in every one of my propositions was the need to throw out standardized tests with the bathwater and find some other way of measuring achievement. Otherwise, all we can discuss is how to get around the obvious differences in test scores, a vein which leads quite predictably to doomed ideas like affirmative action.

I have not mentioned the more radical aspects of my solution (replacing welfare with a comprehensive negative income tax comes easily to mind, but since it is not directly related to the realm of academics, I have left it out), but the disparity in education, while difficult to fix for next year, could be eased significantly over the next twenty with a simple change in emphasis. We must focus on laying a strong foundation through various early-childhood programs – not just in education, either. Pollution reduction; easier access to healty, affordable food; expanded public utilities like electricity and running water; better public transportation systems; and increased funding to mixed-income housing developments like the HOPE VI program all have helped improve outcomes across the board. None of them is enough by themselves, but all together, with a commitment to quality early education and improved availability of quality schools at all levels…that could well make a difference.

So, that was my response to a somewhat brash challenge. I apologize if it was not as complete as it could have been; I’m already over 1000 words as it is.