Deep Dive Episode 191 – Talks with Authors: A Dubious Expediency
Regulatory Transparency Project's Fourth Branch Podcast
“A Dubious Expediency: How Race Preferences Damage Higher Education” is a collection of eight essays written by experts in the field examining and analyzing the impact of racial diversity preferences and identity politics in American colleges and universities. The book’s title comes from a 1976 California Supreme Court opinion in Bakke v. UC Regents authored by Justice Stanley Mosk, who wrote: “To uphold the [argument for race-preferential admissions] would call for the sacrifice of principle for the sake of dubious expediency and would represent a retreat in the struggle to assure that each man and woman shall be judged on the basis of individual merit alone, a struggle which has only lately achieved success in removing legal barriers to racial equality.” In the book, the authors take up the question of race-based preferences in higher education, arguing that mounting empirical evidence shows race-based solutions cause long term harm both to intended beneficiaries and to society as a whole.
Featuring:
- Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
- Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
