Causation Fallacy 2.0: Revisiting the Myth and Math of Affirmative Action

Sherick Hughes, Dana N. Thompson Dorsey, Juan F. Carrillo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Justice Goodwin Liu reexamined seminal affirmative action in higher education legal cases beginning with the landmark 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Gratz v. Bollinger. Liu argued that the Bakke and Gratz lawsuits were grounded in an underlying causation fallacy, largely because neither case involved enough applicants of color to change the likelihood of Bakke’s and Gratz’s admittance. Recent lawsuits from self-identified White and Asian, rejected applicants have emerged against top-ranked universities. This article revisits Liu’s assertions by applying his critical approach to those cases. Data indicate too few applicants of color to change the likelihood of recent plaintiffs’ admittance. Concluding arguments name Causation Fallacy 2.0 as a useful tool for explaining the cultural politics of race surrounding affirmative action admissions cases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)63-93
Number of pages31
JournalEducational Policy
Volume30
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

affirmative action
applicant
myth
lawsuit
court decision
Supreme Court
justice
politics
university
education

Keywords

  • affirmative action
  • college admissions
  • cultural politics of race
  • diversity
  • equity
  • racial/ethnic data

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

Causation Fallacy 2.0 : Revisiting the Myth and Math of Affirmative Action. / Hughes, Sherick; Thompson Dorsey, Dana N.; Carrillo, Juan F.

In: Educational Policy, Vol. 30, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 63-93.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hughes, Sherick ; Thompson Dorsey, Dana N. ; Carrillo, Juan F. / Causation Fallacy 2.0 : Revisiting the Myth and Math of Affirmative Action. In: Educational Policy. 2016 ; Vol. 30, No. 1. pp. 63-93.
@article{bb4653de74fb480eb047b07fd4454b40,
title = "Causation Fallacy 2.0: Revisiting the Myth and Math of Affirmative Action",
abstract = "Justice Goodwin Liu reexamined seminal affirmative action in higher education legal cases beginning with the landmark 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Gratz v. Bollinger. Liu argued that the Bakke and Gratz lawsuits were grounded in an underlying causation fallacy, largely because neither case involved enough applicants of color to change the likelihood of Bakke’s and Gratz’s admittance. Recent lawsuits from self-identified White and Asian, rejected applicants have emerged against top-ranked universities. This article revisits Liu’s assertions by applying his critical approach to those cases. Data indicate too few applicants of color to change the likelihood of recent plaintiffs’ admittance. Concluding arguments name Causation Fallacy 2.0 as a useful tool for explaining the cultural politics of race surrounding affirmative action admissions cases.",
keywords = "affirmative action, college admissions, cultural politics of race, diversity, equity, racial/ethnic data",
author = "Sherick Hughes and {Thompson Dorsey}, {Dana N.} and Carrillo, {Juan F.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0895904815616484",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "63--93",
journal = "Educational Policy",
issn = "0895-9048",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Causation Fallacy 2.0

T2 - Revisiting the Myth and Math of Affirmative Action

AU - Hughes, Sherick

AU - Thompson Dorsey, Dana N.

AU - Carrillo, Juan F.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Justice Goodwin Liu reexamined seminal affirmative action in higher education legal cases beginning with the landmark 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Gratz v. Bollinger. Liu argued that the Bakke and Gratz lawsuits were grounded in an underlying causation fallacy, largely because neither case involved enough applicants of color to change the likelihood of Bakke’s and Gratz’s admittance. Recent lawsuits from self-identified White and Asian, rejected applicants have emerged against top-ranked universities. This article revisits Liu’s assertions by applying his critical approach to those cases. Data indicate too few applicants of color to change the likelihood of recent plaintiffs’ admittance. Concluding arguments name Causation Fallacy 2.0 as a useful tool for explaining the cultural politics of race surrounding affirmative action admissions cases.

AB - Justice Goodwin Liu reexamined seminal affirmative action in higher education legal cases beginning with the landmark 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Gratz v. Bollinger. Liu argued that the Bakke and Gratz lawsuits were grounded in an underlying causation fallacy, largely because neither case involved enough applicants of color to change the likelihood of Bakke’s and Gratz’s admittance. Recent lawsuits from self-identified White and Asian, rejected applicants have emerged against top-ranked universities. This article revisits Liu’s assertions by applying his critical approach to those cases. Data indicate too few applicants of color to change the likelihood of recent plaintiffs’ admittance. Concluding arguments name Causation Fallacy 2.0 as a useful tool for explaining the cultural politics of race surrounding affirmative action admissions cases.

KW - affirmative action

KW - college admissions

KW - cultural politics of race

KW - diversity

KW - equity

KW - racial/ethnic data

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84950104541&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84950104541&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0895904815616484

DO - 10.1177/0895904815616484

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84950104541

VL - 30

SP - 63

EP - 93

JO - Educational Policy

JF - Educational Policy

SN - 0895-9048

IS - 1

ER -