Doing Affirmative Action

Stephen Clowney

University of Kentucky - College of Law

April 2, 2013

Michigan Law Review First Impressions, Vol. 111, p. 27, 2013

Based on the two years I worked in the Admissions Office at Princeton University, I argue that many opponents of racial preferences misunderstand how selective universities evaluate applicants and, as a result, their policy arguments are weaker than generally believed. More specifically, I rebut three major critiques put forth by skeptics of affirmative action. First, I claim that racial preferences are less robust than most critics imagine. Second, I argue that affirmative action imposes fewer costs on both whites and blacks than critics indicate. Finally, I show that racial preferences have less weighty moral consequences than critics believe. In fact, an attack on affirmative action — divorced from a larger project of increasing fairness in college admissions — amounts to an attack on black social mobility.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 10

Keywords: Affirmative Action, Equal Protection, Fairness, Athletics, Admissions Preferences, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Accepted Paper Series

Download This Paper

Date posted: April 4, 2013 ; Last revised: May 21, 2013

Suggested Citation

Clowney, Stephen, Doing Affirmative Action (April 2, 2013). Michigan Law Review First Impressions, Vol. 111, p. 27, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2243778

Contact Information

Stephen Clowney (Contact Author)
University of Kentucky - College of Law ( email )
620 S. Limestone Street
Lexington, KY 40506-0048
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 411
Downloads: 103
Download Rank: 148,214

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.328 seconds