ABSTRACT
Natasha Warikoo’s study of how students at Harvard, Brown, and Oxford Universities view race and fairness highlights the vast differences between the U.S. and Britain with respect to perceptions of meritocracy by these winners in the competition for places in elite institutions. The strict enforcement of uniform standards for admission is seen as critical and legitimate at Oxford, whereas a more holistic approach in the U.S. – one that sees racial diversity as an important and desirable part of the institution’s culture and identity – is seen as critical to a “diversity bargain”. I question the sources of students’ ideas about race and the diversity bargain, suggesting that they may be rooted more in their pre-college experiences than in their life at university. I also raise questions about whether and how an admissions lottery would work to address some of Warikoo’s concerns.
Acknowledgements
I’d like to thank Jerry Karabel, Joshua Klugman, Katherine McClelland, and David Swartz for their comments on a previous draft.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 At Harvard, there were nine Black and Latino students in the sample and six Asian-Americans. At Brown, there were eight Black and Latino students and seven Asian-American. In Appendix A, Warikoo provides individual-level data about each respondent. It is sometimes difficult to discern the race/ethnicity of each sample member, as the self-reported race/ethnicity of the interviewee differs somewhat from Warikoo's usage. For example, there were two “Chinese” students in the Harvard sample; the reader must assume that they are Asian-American.
2 Warikoo suggests a kind of layering on page 60.
3 Calculated from the tables in Appendix A (203–209).
4 I might ask in addition, are there other non-race-based types of diversity the students would be willing to bargain for?