The Great Debate: Affirmative Action in St Andrews and Beyond
The University of St Andrews is unique among Scottish universities in its lack of Scots: 72% of students come from outside Scotland, and 45% are from outside the United Kingdom. The absence of Scottish people is visible in many settings across student life, including this club.
Despite our namesake, the Carnegie Club of St Andrews currently has no Scottish members. Many would not consider this surprising, illustrating how normalised the absence of Scottish students is at St Andrews. Increasing the representation of Scottish students entails a cultural shift with economic considerations since the University administration has a financial incentive to admit fee-paying international students, which increases their budget. This, in turn, creates a perception of St Andrews as a “posh” and wealthy town, further disincentivizing Scottish applicants. However, efforts to correct this status quo are controversial because they imply a departure from meritocratic admissions.
Measures meant to correct for imbalances in the demographics of universities, social institutions, and places of employment are collectively called “Affirmative Action”, and they have been the subject of much controversy in many places far afield from St Andrews. While well-intentioned, there are numerous instances in which these policies have been blamed for contributing to new injustices while failing to fix old ones.
An anonymous group of Asian-American students recently filed a lawsuit against Harvard University, claiming that Harvard imposes a soft racial quota. In the legal proceedings that followed, a Harvard admissions officer admitted that, with normalised academic entry requirements such as high-school grades and standardised test scores, the acceptance rate for Asian, white, Hispanic, or black applicants was 25%, 36%, 77%, and 95%, respectively.
Some minority scholars, like the very controversial Thomas Sowell, argue that affirmative action is also unfair to those positively impacted because merit cannot be fully credited to the individual. Sowell argues that these policies create friction between those positively and negatively affected, which is harder to overcome while the policies are in place. Moreover, many attempts to desegregate African American communities have failed. These criticisms might help explain why most white people and over a third of black people in the US say they are opposed to affirmative action
However, the reality is that without any form of affirmative action, prestigious institutions of all kinds are likely to remain ethnically and socioeconomically homogenous for the foreseeable future. While there are valid criticisms of affirmative action, it is reasonable to assume that some of the pushback results from xenophobia; the groups occupying elite roles in society are naturally inclined to safeguard these positions of power. Perhaps the issues with affirmative action are best thought of as growing pains which are inevitable as we correct societal inequities. There is evidence that these programs have boosted the socio-economic conditions of disenfranchised groups, hopefully leading us to a future without the need for them. Beyond correcting inequality, there is also a solid argument to be made for diversity for its own sake: a diverse environment encourages diverse opinions and ways of thinking, which make for a higher quality of education or a more efficient business.
If we acknowledge the legitimate utility of affirmative action, we must consider which identities it should focus on to ensure equitable opportunities and outcomes. In light of the class-based critique of affirmative action, it is argued that underrepresented groups are often excluded from elite institutions not solely based on their race or national origin but due to the intersectionality of class, race, and national origin. For instance, in St Andrews’ case, the class-based critique contends that disadvantaged groups are underrepresented because of the association between class and race/national origin. In addition, it is important to highlight that the cycle of poverty is perpetuated by the fact that certain groups of people who experience poverty often face significant barriers to academic achievement. The critique calls for a class-based affirmative action, where any lower-class individual, whether White, Black, Scottish, or other, should be prioritised in admissions. However, this critique has drawbacks, with critics claiming that it ignores the true importance of non-class-based identities, which they argue can still limit one’s achievement even if the individual is born into a privilege. To discuss affirmative action, we must also discuss which identities should benefit from it and why.
Is affirmative action a good practice for achieving a more fair society?
Disregarding the broader social issues at play, does diversity have merit on its own?
Does Affirmative action hurt the communities that it is meant to help? If so, is there any way to mitigate these ill effects while still addressing the issues that the policies mean to solve?
Should Affirmative action be based on ethnic/racial/national signifiers, or should it be based on class?
If you presided over St Andrews and had unlimited power over its administration, what would you do, if anything, to address the lack of Scottish students?