Class-Based Affirmative Action Could Increase Campus Viewpoint Diversity

What Richard Kahlenberg, author of the book “Class Matters” has to say about how selective college admissions should change

The concept of “viewpoint diversity” has been central in higher education discussions this year. This is in part due to the focus of the idea from the political right in reaction to the leftward tilt of universities. And this fall especially has seen a flurry of opinion pieces flying back and forth on the issue within the higher ed media outlets.

Viewpoint diversity has been a focus for HxA, however, since before Trump entered office the first time. Ours was never a political rallying cry, but instead a scholarly one; about a condition that is an essential means to the pursuit of truth and knowledge within our universities.

But the question is how to achieve this kind of diversity. Universities have been focusing on building “diverse student bodies” for decades. A growing movement of faculty has been expressing the need for viewpoint diversity among scholars for a decade now (part of why HxA was originally founded!)

There are certainly a number of changes in academia that could broaden viewpoint diversity on campus, but one less often discussed policy path is class-based affirmative action in (selective) university admissions. And I recently spoke with Richard Kahlenberg about his book, Class Matters: The Fight to Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity At America’s Colleges, to understand the potential benefits of class-based affirmative action for broadening viewpoint diversity on campus.

Kahlenberg has been advocating for class-based affirmative action and against race-based affirmative action for decades. A self-classified liberal, Kahlenberg argues that class-based preferences are a more fair route to admissions than what was being used prior to the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Students for Fair Admissions that ended race preferences in 2023. “Universities are famous for saying they ‘follow the science,’ but in affirmative action, they weren’t,” he explained. “They were giving large preferences based on race and very little consideration to economic disadvantage — even though mounds of research show class is the most salient predictor of opportunity [in America].”

“If you’re looking for a measure of true merit, you’d want to look at a student’s academic record, extracurriculars, leadership — all in light of what obstacles they had to overcome in life,” he continued. “So most reasonable people will agree that if a student scores 1300 on the SAT and has a 3.9 GPA, that means something different if they went to a private school with every privilege than if they grew up poor and went to a lousy public school and still did well.”

The goal with such a policy, from Kahlenberg’s perspective, is greater fairness in admissions, and rewarding students who did the best they could while overcoming obstacles. Currently, selective universities largely draw from the very upper economic classes of society, even when touting “diversity” via race preferences. “If you tell working-class white people that President Obama’s kids deserve a preference over your kids, that makes zero sense to them, and it divides us,” he quipped. “Using class instead unites rather than divides.” Former President Obama even said so himself back in 2008 before he was elected for his first term.

As the diploma divide of higher education continues to widen, class-based affirmative action holds promise in broadening representation of students from lower socioeconomic class, politically conservative viewpoints, and students from rural backgrounds. “Class-based affirmative action would bring in more students who are from working-class backgrounds, which tend, on average, to be more culturally conservative,” Kahlenberg explained. “It would strengthen higher education politically.”

Not only will having people who come from different walks of life “enrich the discussions on campus” such policies could have downstream effects on the academy, and the broader public.

Such admissions policies are often disregarded as a problem of a small number of schools that educate a small number of the total college student population. But, these selective universities disproportionately churn out leaders in powerful roles across many sectors of society, including elected officials, journalists, and corporate executives. “In a society where the leadership class comes from a fairly small number of institutions, it matters who goes. You’d want some students who grew up in working-class families and know what it’s like to struggle.”

And the faculty across the academy are also disproportionately drawn from these selective universities. A 2022 analysis showed that 80% of PhD-trained faculty come from 20% of universities. If we don’t make a clear effort to diversify the student body of these institutions starting at the undergraduate level, we’ll continue to see the downstream effects percolate through to the faculty level.

Such a policy effort widely adopted throughout the academy where selective admissions have an impact on who gets in the door would be a significant step toward a long-term change. But it’s not a quick fix many might hope for. The lack of viewpoint diversity was a long march over decades; it’s not something that will be changed overnight. Smart policies like class-based affirmative action can play a role in turning the tide.

If colleges carefully consider class in admissions and begin to close the diploma divide at selective institutions, we could begin turning public trust around by showing these types of universities are places for everyone — rural kids, conservative kids, and average middle- and lower-class Americans — not just (rich) liberals. Our campuses and scholarship will be better for it.