There was a story in Sunday’s New York Times highlighting the increased use of economic affirmative action in college admissions. The story plays up economic affirmative action sympathetically, featuring the story of Tony Jack, a student from a relatively lower-class family who succeeded at Amherst College, despite not necessarily meeting the rigorous admissions qualifications of Amherst.

The article comes up at an important time: after the passage of the MCRI, the impending “super Tuesday” of similar initiatives in 2008, and a new Supreme Court that is likely more hostile to racial preferences, the use of affirmative action may be waning. Consequently, though, alternative schemes of college admissions will come into play. These schemes are varied, but economic-based affirmative action is almost always a common suggestion.

Of course, the use of economic affirmative action has some positives.

First, it eschews the messy constitutional argument that racial preferences face—socioeconomic status is not a suspect class, after all.

Second, it helps students who are trying their hardest despite harsh circumstances. It’s almost impossible to expect an inner-city youth to achieve the same SAT scores as a prep student in Greenwich, Connecticut—especially if the former student may have to work a part time job to support his or her family, while the latter is taking Kaplan prep courses. Contrary to racial preferences, which still affect middle and upper-class minorities, economic affirmative action might actually target those who need help, and assist them in an effective manner.

But is economic affirmative action not still in discord with the broader arguments advanced by conservatives against race-based affirmative action? If we advocate meritocracy in college admissions, how can we tolerate—still—the use of external factors in determining admissions?

Tony Jack’s case is a cause for celebration, but one would presume that the findings showing students admitted using affirmative action subsequently struggle would still apply. Furthermore, if we were advancing an argument saying racial affirmative action is reverse racism, wouldn’t economic affirmative action also be reverse discrimination, based this time on class? Conservatives who embrace economic affirmative action would then, I assume, become de-facto class-warriors.

Personally, I’m torn. I don’t know how to feel. The idea of lending a helping hand to boost social mobility is certainly alluring. It seems as though conservatives who argue against racial preferences almost always offer an encomium of economic affirmative action to progressives who might otherwise side against them. On the other hand, doesn’t supporting this policy still (at least to a degree) run contrary to our policies.

Like I said, I don’t know what I think about this. I’ve been studying affirmative action for some time now, and still feel uncomfortable with either position.

I’m very curious to know what my fellow Phi Beta Cons contributors think about this topic.