The Racial Preferences Dead Weight on Democratic Politics

The Democratic Party’s continued promotion of racial preferences in college admissions and government contracting is a self-inflicted wound that threatens to undermine their chances of recapturing the White House and reclaiming the Senate. Many well-intentioned Democrats push for policies that explicitly favor underrepresented groups, but they are out of touch with both the law and public opinion.

The Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard declared racial preferences unlawful, yet some Democratic lawmakers and officials have studiously ignored this decision. In California, despite widespread unpopularity of racial preferences, the state Assembly passed a measure to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot allowing their use in K-12 education and higher education scholarships. New York City’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani has reaffirmed the city’s intent to steer contracts to minority-owned businesses, while Maryland lawmakers have overridden Governor Wes Moore’s veto of legislation studying reparations for descendants of enslaved people.

The Democrats’ continued support for racial preferences is a significant liability in their efforts to appeal to working-class voters. Research indicates that economic disadvantage, rather than racial disparities, is the primary concern for many students. Focusing on economic need instead of race would be a more inclusive and equitable approach.

A study by David Broockman of UC Berkeley and Joshua Kalla of Yale found that moving away from racial preferences in college admissions has significant electoral benefits for Democrats, followed closely by doing so in government contracting. This is surprising, given the relatively low profile of affirmative action issues compared to pressing concerns like inflation, the economy, jobs, and healthcare.

The findings raise questions about the symbolic value some voters attribute to racial preferences. To proponents, it signals a commitment to advancing underrepresented groups; to others, it suggests favoritism towards certain groups at the expense of equal treatment for all Americans. The issue has become a litmus test for Democrats, with President Trump and other Republicans eager to exploit their stance on “discriminatory DEI” programs.

However, public opinion may be shifting. In 2020, California voters supported Joe Biden over Trump by a significant margin while rejecting an effort to reinstate racial preferences. Even among Black respondents, a Gallup poll found that 52% believed striking down racial preferences was “mostly a good thing.” This ambivalence towards racial preferences is not unique to this group; many Democrats have long understood the need for a more nuanced approach.

Former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both publicly questioned racial preferences during their tenures. Clinton sought to shift affirmative-action programs to economic need, while Obama expressed reservations about racial preferences in college admissions. Yet neither president fully followed through on their instincts, leaving Democratic politics with a lingering stain.

The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down racial preferences has provided Democrats with an opportunity to reassess their priorities and move towards a more inclusive approach. Recent evidence suggests that universities are beginning to transition from racial to economic affirmative action, which could provide a crucial lifeline for the party in its efforts to appeal to working-class voters.

As the Democratic Party seeks to recapture the White House and reclaim the Senate, they must acknowledge that their stance on racial preferences is out of touch with both public opinion and the law. By embracing a more inclusive approach that focuses on economic need rather than race, Democrats may yet find a way to revitalize their brand and attract the support of working-class voters who have been fleeing them in droves.

It is time for Democrats to take their own advice and move beyond racial preferences. As Bill Clinton once said, “We should shift the basis of affirmative-action programs to economic need, because they work better and have a bigger impact and generate broader support.”