Gibson Goodrich

My “why Tufts” essay:

Tufts’  “IR herd,” and particularly the program’s emphasis on interdisciplinary learning, embodies my interest in politics, economics, language, and history. With a co-major in Civic Studies, I would have the additional opportunity to study the nature of social change through ethical thinking and analysis of current events. Beyond these exciting programs and courses, I also want to attend Tufts for the distinctive personality type of the student body, which is intellectually curious and informed. This was palpable during my campus visit. For example, I have never found more copies of a newspaper than The Tufts Daily, which seemed to be at nearly every table in Carmichael. By studying IR and civics, I can engage with content that connects me to the world at large; and by studying at Tufts, I can challenge myself to think deeper on issues with classmates eager to engage with new perspectives.

Because I was admitted early decision to Tufts, I had to withdraw my application from BU. However, I wrote this essay for the honors college (called Kilichand), and given recent events, it seemed relevant. 

 If you could create a new Kilachand course, what would it be? How would your imagined course align with the core values of Kilachand? (600 words):

“Affirmative Action and the Supreme Court.” While Kilachand already offers a number of freshman seminars that study race, such as KHC EH103: Race in America: Understanding the Present by Exploring the Past and KHC PH103: Seeing Poverty: Understanding and Addressing Poverty in America, in my opinion, the topic of affirmative action is a near-perfect vehicle for understanding the racial politics of America and analyzing a number of ethical questions. While I am generally more interested in economic issues such as climate change and healthcare, affirmative action is a fascinating case study on the American judicial system, the fourteenth amendment, higher education, and where we choose to prioritize efforts to uplift historically marginalized groups of Americans.

In light of the Harvard and UNC cases, affirmative action has taken the forefront of “the culture war” and is often misunderstood by both sides of the political spectrum. By analyzing the cases of Bakke V. University of California (1978), Grutter V. Bollinger (2003), and Fisher V. University of Texas (2013 and 2016), a class can understand the changing nature of the Supreme Court, critically reflect on current admissions policies as university students, and discuss the means in which America should or should not remedy past discrimination. 

Beginning with Bakke, which involved a qualified white candidate for the UC Davis medical school being denied as 16 out of 100 seats were reserved for “racial minorities,” students can analyze the origins of affirmative action and the court’s decision to allow race to be considered among other factors for the purpose of diversity in the classroom. Later, Grutter, which involved another qualified white applicant to the University of Michigan Law School, would uphold Bakke. However, Justice O’Connor mentioned in her majority opinion that the remedial measures allowed by the court would be unnecessary in 25 years. By 2016, the court would narrowly uphold Grutter with Fisher, a case involving the rejection of a lesser-qualified white applicant to UT Austin, but it was clear the precedent would be the target of social conservatives over the next six years. 

From these cases, a number of questions can be raised. “Was UC Davis right to implement a racial quota?” “When will affirmative action become unnecessary?” “Was it necessary to begin with?” “Are the claims of ‘reverse racism’ from Fisher valid?” While these questions are difficult and can be sensitive (perhaps even the admissions officer reading this essay has their own views), they are better discussed in a small class with the values of Kilachand to consider opposing viewpoints, collaborate, and occasionally bring practical solutions. 

Furthermore, the issue of affirmative action in educational settings can be studied from multiple academic fields. From a legal perspective, one must understand the changing meaning of the fourteenth amendment and the application of “strict scrutiny.” From a political perspective, the issue has fueled debate throughout the media and is one of the most discussed issues on college campuses. And from a sociological perspective, it demonstrates how diversity in a classroom can or cannot serve as a compelling state interest. At Kilachand, classes embrace an interdisciplinary approach to learning, which can allow students to tackle issues from new perspectives. While my hypothetical course may never come to fruition, I am thrilled by the idea of expanding the scope in which I can analyze the world’s issues at Kilachand.