In this paper I will offer my reasoning on how universities and colleges should promote racial equality. I will discuss why institutions should not use racially conscious admissions and speech codes if they want to promote racial equality and diversity, using the consequentialist approach. I will propose alternatives, proposing first an outreach program to low-income individuals as an alternative to racially conscious admissions and second, the Devine program as an alternative to speech codes.
I will explain my reasoning of how universities and colleges should promote racial equality by using the consequentialist theory in order to justify what’s morally correct. Consequentialism holds that the consequences or outcomes matter the most. The goal is to maximize happiness. If one can prove that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of a particular moral issue (maximizes happiness) then that outcome would be consequentially just or morally right.
I will begin the introduction of this paper by highlighting that both racially conscious admissions and speech codes are not morally right because they do not maximize happiness for the whole. They have disadvantages that outweigh the benefits.
In the following, I will explain what I do agree with in terms of racially conscious admissions and my turn on the debate through a consequentialist view.
In agreement with Sterba on racially conscious admissions, I believe that we should try to make up for past discrimination and aim to create a truly equal opportunity environment. In addition to his argument I agree that we should aim to “create an equal playing ground for the disadvantaged minorities” (Sterba, 1) and to end present discrimination. However, I have a point of disagreement with Sterba, I do not believe that
using racial preferences in admissions is the only way to promote diversity or equality. In fact in the following I will propose alternatives, alternatives against racially conscious admissions and speech codes in which colleges and universities could use to promote both successful racial diversity and equality, where it will maximize happiness and the outcome would be morally correct.
In response to racially conscious admissions, in this section I will discuss a race neutral alternative that outreaches to minorities and discuss its advantages and disadvantages. Particularly, this program will outreach to low-income communities and give them resources needed for success (Lenz, 2). Due to the fact that minorities are the fastest-growing sectors in the country and they make up a “disproportionately large segment of the economically poor population” (“Low Income”), it only makes sense that we can use this to achieve diversity in a race neutral way. This program will educate minorities in low-income communities about the steps needed to get into college and help them in the process to make these steps (Iasevoli, 2). It gives specific supports these students need, such as “numeracy and literacy coaching, classrooms that utilize blended learning, SAT prep, and project- and performance-based learning” (Lenz, 2-4). It also provides adequate number of staff to assure individualized attention to students and adequate facilities and equipment.
Despite the benefits, I do observe that this program may not be able to reach such high levels of diversity and it may no be able to attain the minority mix that universities have reached while using racial preferences. I argue that despite this program not being able to reach such idealistic numbers, its advantages still outweigh its disadvantages than
that of using racial conscious admissions. In contrary to using racial preferences, on its face the program is absolutely clear with its method and goal, it will