Чтобы использовать цитирование, отправку по электронной почте, сохранение и экспорт, сначала выберите элементы результатов.
У вас может быть доступ к полной статье.
Попробуйте войти через свое учреждение и проверьте, есть ли у него доступ к полному тексту.
The discourse in America about segregation is dishonest. On the surface, we pretend that the values of Brown v. Board of Education have been met, although most of us know in our hearts that the current system of public education betrays those values. Residual, de facto segregation and the stratified architecture of opportunity in our nation contribute to the achievement gap that has made racebased affirmative action necessary. Despite the Supreme Court's compromise decision in Fisher v. Texas, affirmative action is on life support. In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Supreme Court upheld the ability of Michigan voters to ban affirmative action. [But see Justice Sotomayor's dissent, excerpted on p. 7 of this issue of P&R] Conservative opponents will continue to attack the policy in courts and through politics. There will always be another Abigail Fisher. Eight states have banned affirmative action programs, six through ballot measures (California (1996), Washington (1998), Michigan (2006), Nebraska (2008), Arizona (2010), and Oklahoma (2012)); one by executive order (Florida (1999); and another by legislative act (New Hampshire (2011).
One important response to the demise of race-based affirmative action should be to incorporate the experience of segregation into diversity strategies. A college applicant who has thrived despite exposure to poverty at his school or neighborhood deserves special consideration. Those blessed to come of age in poverty-free havens do not. I argue that use of place, rather than race, in diversity programming will better approximate the structural disadvantages many children of color actually endure, while enhancing the possibility that we might one day move past the racial resentment affirmative action engenders.
While I propose substituting place for race in university admissions, I am not suggesting that American society has become post-racial. In fact, much social science research supports the continued salience of race, especially in the subconscious of most Americans. My proposal accounts for the racial architecture of opportunity in this country through the race-neutral means of place. Ultimately, I conclude that the social costs of racial preferences outweigh any marginal benefits when race-neutral alternatives are available that will create racial diversity by expanding opportunity to those most disadvantaged by structural barriers. The truly disadvantaged-black and brown children trapped in highpoverty environs-are not getting the quality of schooling.