With the 6–3 decision from SCOTUS to effectively ban affirmative action, it is time for me to finally finish this essay.
Academia is not as progressive as it is reputed to be. The demographic makeup of academia is as old and white and male-dominated as the US government, and just like every other sector where supposed meritocracy and institutionalized wisdom persist, academia is plagued by the same injustice that cannot be rooted out by policies that simply treat everyone the same.
Equality-oriented policies cannot offset pre-existing inequity.
Despite having the public image of being overly progressive, I consider academia to be among the least progressive enterprises in its structure and hierarchy — in terms of what they do, and not what they say.
The emphasis on merit is but a mask for preserving the existing inequity. If two individuals work equally hard but one of them is given more resources, that person will pull ahead. While a single individual can, in theory, work harder to compensate for the disadvantage, as a system, the inequity would be maintained or, as is the case for all sectors, grows over time. In the past, equity-driven policies, e.g. financial aid, affirmative actions, etc., have not done a fraction of what is needed to stop the growing inequity, never mind correcting it.
It is also disingenuous to ban affirmative action for ivy league universities without bringing up the legality of, say, legacy admission at those same schools. Should these universities be allowed to consider donations for admissions? Or take into account if their parents were alumni? Perhaps the latest SCOTUS decision is good in the sense that these other “unfair” criteria for admission are being brought to light by activists, although I am not one for having an accelerationist mindset. Accelerationists are just nihilists trying to cope without surrendering to being labeled as realists.
The argument isn’t whether meritocracy is good or bad in practice — because it is not being practiced in practice. But, even in a vacuum, we need to ask ourselves: How much are we willing to trade meritocracy for equity?
However, because of the rigidity of meritocracy being a matter of principle for many in academia, there is usually very little wiggle room for this trade-off, and academia and education continue to be the guard dog between classes.
I do concede that, because American liberals largely ignore classes, the identity-driven politics they push for are at best only skin deep and at worst distract society from its true problems.
The checkbox nature of diversity and inclusion goals can distract from the most dominant force driving inequity and inequality, which is generational class division. If the goal is to correct the systemic injustice done to groups and communities, it is lazy and insulting to reward individuals because of the color of their skin and call that progress. Skin-deep DEI goals leave such a bad taste in my mouth, that I can’t help but think that if slavery is still around, DEI advocates would just find a few rich black individuals, make them slave owners, and pop the champagne to celebrate.
Because of the worship of merit and credentials in academia, perhaps more so than any other industry, academia makes for a very vertical ecosystem emphasizing rank and prestige. It is a system that values medals and awards, which at every opportunity amplifies pre-existing inequity via feedback. There is little difference in its hierarchy compared to, say, showbiz or politics, except the hypocritical posturing of touting meritocracy and equality, or at least the misconception from the public perspective.
The promise of “prestige” to publish in journals where the authors see none of the profit, has become a meme in the ongoing call for open access and open science. While that is a different topic where I do have some perspectives, the emphasis on prestige for academia is perhaps the root of many of its systemic and structural problems. Workers at the bottom, i.e. unpaid interns and underpaid Ph.D. students and postdocs, are forced to tolerate hardship to help uphold the system, where the currency of prestige and passion, and fulfillment are supposed to make up for their low wages.
This makes academia suffer from the same pitfalls that are more well-known in showbiz and politics — it is filled with rich kids who are allowed the financial freedom to follow their passion.
Except for the immigrants.
No other industry brain-drains poor countries quite like academia. Be smart enough (or have your parents be rich enough, that rule still applies), and you too can become an American and bask in all its material glory.
I do not blame any individual for wanting to better their lives by studying hard and being in the top 0.0000001% of their class and getting into Harvard or Cambridge, but this is no excuse for what the system does.
Lotteries are not an effective way to combat poverty — not because it is random, but because it only helps 0.0000001% of the people at a time. Neither do ivy league schools provide any meaningful social mobility.
Because of this, feel-good stories coming out of these traditionally elitist schools often leave a bad taste, and their policies only seem to serve the goal of appearing progressive, while turning a blind eye to their de facto neo-colonialist exploitation from the perspective of poorer countries, often using immigrant students as poster children for showing their skin-deep diversity.
If you tax everyone at the same rate, which can be argued as “fair,” wealth inequity will grow to such heights that society will cease to function. The latest SCOTUS decision takes away one of the very few secular tools universities are using (or at least pretending to be using) to combat inequity. It may be ideologically correct in that affirmative action is unconstitutional, but in reality, it blocks one of the very few efforts made by what is otherwise a very conservative enterprise to try to undo the inequity it helped create and uphold.
