Die Neue Zeit
25th April 2010, 23:12
Class-Based Affirmative Action
“Many college students have bills that mom and dad don't pay. They have groceries to buy, kids to take care of, and cars to keep running. And they drop out because they have to work – more than any other reason […] part-time students – who account for close to 40 percent of undergraduates in the [United States] – and those who have to work generally fare worse than do their full-time counterparts.” (Elyse Ashburn)
In December 2009, the Chronicle for Higher Education asked various education experts whether it was time to implement affirmative action policies based on some sort of socioeconomic status. Richard Kahlenberg of the Century Foundation responded by saying that “the enormous under-representation of low-socioeconomic students at selective institutions, always an embarrassment to higher education, is getting worse” and that affirmative action based on socioeconomic status should increase graduation rates. Professor Walter Benn Michaels of the University of Illinois remarked that “it makes complete sense to support economic affirmative action (every little bit helps) while, on the other, it makes no sense whatsoever to think it could be put into effect in a way that would make a real difference.” Jamie Merisotis of the Lumina Foundation for Education cited two statistical findings while mentioning rising college costs: that only 20 percent of those who begin college at two-year institutions graduate within three years, and that only a little more than half of first-time students graduate at four-year institutions within six years.
Of course, the majority of the liberal-progressive discourse surrounding such affirmative action policies ends up mislabelling them “class-based affirmative action,” defining “class” based on an empirical mix of income levels, education, wealth levels, and culture rather than on analysis proper. How does this reform facilitate the issuance of either intermediate or threshold demands? The same Chronicle for Higher Education asked this question:
Are the selective institutions that could provide enough financial aid to needy students, so they could work less, doing enough to recruit them?
That this has been asked illustrates that the subject of financial aid is both immediate and intermediate, to say the least.
Now, what about such policies in the sphere of employment? The subject of financial aid is irrelevant, but the problems of cronyism and nepotism – in the milder form of “networking” – are quite relevant. Also, it could be argued here that a mix of income levels, education, wealth levels, and culture is a better basis for such policies than class proper, but such an argument would be applicable only to lower-level jobs. For higher-level jobs such as in public-sector management, class proper would be a better basis, since among the candidates are outright bourgeois elements like corporate executives.
Does this reform enable the basic principles to be “kept consciously in view”? While the institution of affirmative action policies based on a mix of income levels, education, wealth levels, and culture would be a major step forward, a similar institution based exclusively on class – undoubtedly evoking the Soviet-style disenfranchisement of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie as one of the likely but not set-in-stone political measures of worker-class rule – would go further towards shattering myths about class mobility and abolishing class hierarchy, as noted by Joanne Passaro:
Ironically, given that class-based affirmative action is on the platform of the extreme right in this country, this approach would certainly be, in traditional Marxist terms, the most radical approach, since it would heighten the contradictions and inequalities of capitalism in the United States, the nation which is now the most economically stratified in the industrialized world.
REFERENCES
Why Do Students Drop Out? Because They Must Work at Jobs Too by Elyse Ashburn [http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Do-Students-Drop-Out-/49417/]
Reactions: Is It Time for Class-Based Affirmative Action? by The Chronicle of Higher Education [http://chronicle.com/article/Reactions-Is-It-Time-for/62615/]
Is It Networking or Nepotism 2.0? by Mike Perras [http://www.mikeperras.com/nn2009.htm]
The Unequal Homeless: Men on the Streets, Women in their Place by Joanne Passaro [http://books.google.com/books?id=vt0nJTbapAwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0]
“Many college students have bills that mom and dad don't pay. They have groceries to buy, kids to take care of, and cars to keep running. And they drop out because they have to work – more than any other reason […] part-time students – who account for close to 40 percent of undergraduates in the [United States] – and those who have to work generally fare worse than do their full-time counterparts.” (Elyse Ashburn)
In December 2009, the Chronicle for Higher Education asked various education experts whether it was time to implement affirmative action policies based on some sort of socioeconomic status. Richard Kahlenberg of the Century Foundation responded by saying that “the enormous under-representation of low-socioeconomic students at selective institutions, always an embarrassment to higher education, is getting worse” and that affirmative action based on socioeconomic status should increase graduation rates. Professor Walter Benn Michaels of the University of Illinois remarked that “it makes complete sense to support economic affirmative action (every little bit helps) while, on the other, it makes no sense whatsoever to think it could be put into effect in a way that would make a real difference.” Jamie Merisotis of the Lumina Foundation for Education cited two statistical findings while mentioning rising college costs: that only 20 percent of those who begin college at two-year institutions graduate within three years, and that only a little more than half of first-time students graduate at four-year institutions within six years.
Of course, the majority of the liberal-progressive discourse surrounding such affirmative action policies ends up mislabelling them “class-based affirmative action,” defining “class” based on an empirical mix of income levels, education, wealth levels, and culture rather than on analysis proper. How does this reform facilitate the issuance of either intermediate or threshold demands? The same Chronicle for Higher Education asked this question:
Are the selective institutions that could provide enough financial aid to needy students, so they could work less, doing enough to recruit them?
That this has been asked illustrates that the subject of financial aid is both immediate and intermediate, to say the least.
Now, what about such policies in the sphere of employment? The subject of financial aid is irrelevant, but the problems of cronyism and nepotism – in the milder form of “networking” – are quite relevant. Also, it could be argued here that a mix of income levels, education, wealth levels, and culture is a better basis for such policies than class proper, but such an argument would be applicable only to lower-level jobs. For higher-level jobs such as in public-sector management, class proper would be a better basis, since among the candidates are outright bourgeois elements like corporate executives.
Does this reform enable the basic principles to be “kept consciously in view”? While the institution of affirmative action policies based on a mix of income levels, education, wealth levels, and culture would be a major step forward, a similar institution based exclusively on class – undoubtedly evoking the Soviet-style disenfranchisement of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie as one of the likely but not set-in-stone political measures of worker-class rule – would go further towards shattering myths about class mobility and abolishing class hierarchy, as noted by Joanne Passaro:
Ironically, given that class-based affirmative action is on the platform of the extreme right in this country, this approach would certainly be, in traditional Marxist terms, the most radical approach, since it would heighten the contradictions and inequalities of capitalism in the United States, the nation which is now the most economically stratified in the industrialized world.
REFERENCES
Why Do Students Drop Out? Because They Must Work at Jobs Too by Elyse Ashburn [http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Do-Students-Drop-Out-/49417/]
Reactions: Is It Time for Class-Based Affirmative Action? by The Chronicle of Higher Education [http://chronicle.com/article/Reactions-Is-It-Time-for/62615/]
Is It Networking or Nepotism 2.0? by Mike Perras [http://www.mikeperras.com/nn2009.htm]
The Unequal Homeless: Men on the Streets, Women in their Place by Joanne Passaro [http://books.google.com/books?id=vt0nJTbapAwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0]