Affirmative Action: A Thought Experiment

To understand the long-term effects of affirmative action, imagine that the beneficiaries were randomly selected.

Imagine for a moment that beneficiaries of affirmative action were randomly selected. Suppose instead of applying affirmative action by race, we randomly assigned every person a number between one and five. Colleges would reserve portions of enrollments so that people with a “one” would only compete against other ones for a reserved number of slots. Likewise, those with a “two” would compete against each other for slots reserved for twos. And so on.

The pattern stops at group five, which does not benefit from affirmative action. Group five can only compete for slots that are open to all five groups. Thus, for example, somebody from group one would be eligible to compete for a slot reserved for group one or an open slot for which those in group five must also compete. Each of the groups would be made up of people with a broad spectrum of talents and qualifications. Because the numbers were assigned randomly, the groups all have an identical distribution of talents.

Under such a system, paradoxically, the people in group five would enjoy a reputation as the most qualified and talented. Because everyone in group five must compete against an open playing field, only the best make it through. Conversely, the other four groups would soon develop a reputation for mediocrity.

One day, the university’s equity chancellor produces employment statistics of the alumni graduates. The numbers would show a shocking bias towards group five who consistently claim the best jobs with the highest salaries. The equity chancellor demands that the university cut the quota of slots for which group five is allowed to compete. Surprisingly, the group five students already enrolled in the university advocate the same policy, apologizing for their group’s privilege. Nobody speaks for the excluded members of group five. They’re simply not in the room when the conversation happens.

The university dutifully cuts its “open” quota by another eight percent while adding an additional two percent to the quotas for groups one through four.

But this just accelerates the effects. As the university filters out more and more members of group five with increasingly higher standards, the quality of the survivors continues to climb. The group five graduates continue to get richer and richer as elite employers seek out the increasingly more scarce group five graduates.

Now rich group five alumni donate to the university on the condition that it addresses group five’s privilege. When members of group five begin to assume positions of power within government and industry, they begin to implement hiring quotas similar to the university quotas. Similar to the university-based affirmative action, groups one-four now enjoy quotas in hiring but can also compete for the slots open to group five.

More