Universities should put more emphasis on socioeconomic status than race

Affirmative action for colleges and universities has two main purposes: to ensure a diversity of experiences and races on campus, and to give a boost to those who might not otherwise get a good education because of matters outside of their control.

The current policy of primarily considering race, with socioeconomics as an afterthought and pleasant bonus, does less to achieve both goals than would considering only socioeconomics.

We don’t live in a post-racial society. Anyone who has read the news since the end of Reconstruction up to the Trayvon Martin case knows that.

But while race remains a serious national issue, it is no longer the biggest obstacle to attaining a quality education in the U.S.

Poverty is.

Public schools are largely funded by property taxes, which gives rich neighborhoods and counties better-funded schools and the means to attract the best teachers.

Plus, politicians and bureaucrats might allocate money to the schools their kids and their friends’ kids go to, or to the schools with parents who show up and speak at school board meetings.

In most cases, these institutional biases favor schools in more affluent neighborhoods.

The problem compounds itself, too. High-poverty high schools, according to the U.S. Department of Education, only graduated 68 percent of their students in 2007-08. Only 28 percent of those graduates went to college.

In poor, poorly educated communities, many residents subsist on low-income jobs, which begets a low quality of life and thus low property values and tax revenue. It’s a vicious cycle.

But if colleges were to reach out specifically to these communities, young people could, over time, return to and improve their towns.

There would still be a cycle, but in the opposite direction — toward education and wealth.

The other goal of affirmative action, to increase the diversity of experiences and races on campus, is also better served by looking only at socioeconomics.

In my own high school experience, I often had more in common with affluent minority students than with poor white students. I’m sure that pattern is true all around the country.

If we want to expose rich white students, like myself, to people, views and stories they might never encounter otherwise, we shouldn’t focus only on getting them in touch with minorities.

We need to get people from all social classes in the same space. A rich minority family has greater access to quality education than a poor white family, and policies should reflect that fact.

This will by no means result in a downturn in minority enrollment, though. For many historical, institutional and sociological reasons, high-poverty high schools enroll mainly minorities.

By advocating for people based on their socioeconomic status rather than their ethnic status ­— in simpler terms, their community instead of their family — we can increase the diversity of experiences on campus, maintain the racial balance, and ultimately help those — and only those — who need help the most.