Centering Whiteness and Entrenching the Myth of Race-Neutral Alternatives to Affirmative Action

Abstract

In recent decades, White plaintiffs have begun pushing back against schools’ attempts to rectify abysmal levels of campus diversity through race-based affirmative action policies. Students who did not stand to benefit from affirmative action began to seek legal relief against schools implementing such policies, alleging that race-based affirmative action violated federal constitutional rights to equal protection. In addressing these disputes, courts have required schools to first consider race-neutral alternatives to race-based admissions policies to achieve their diversity goals—in recent years, the standard has evolved into a requirement that no workable race-neutral alternative exist for a school to maintain a race-based affirmative action program. Such a requirement appears inconsistent with the overall goals of race-based affirmative action plans—how can a school which hopes to increase racial diversity achieve such diversity through non-racial means? In this Comment, I argue that the current jurisprudence on affirmative action in institutions of higher education rests on the continued centering of Whiteness, ultimately creating a doctrine which attempts to achieve a “painless” solution to racial injustice through prioritizing the need to ensure no race-neutral alternatives exist. Ultimately, this “painless” cure places a substantial roadblock on the path to true racial equity in higher education. By White centering, I refer to the ways in which Whiteness is prioritized and acts as the focal point for any discussion of diversity and racial equity—and, in this instance, affirmative action—with non-White interests fashioned as a lesser priority.