Summary
We support:
- Public policies that expand opportunity and mobility, particularly in education, healthcare, and economic advancement
- Race-neutral programs that disproportionately benefit disadvantaged communities, including many African Americans
We oppose:
- Racial discrimination in all forms, whether public or private
- The use of race-based preferences or eligibility requirements in admissions, employment, contracting, or government benefits
We believe:
- The legacy of slavery and discrimination continues to affect outcomes in the United States
- Public policy should address these effects in ways that are consistent with constitutional principles of equal treatment
If you have already made up your mind, then scroll to the bottom of the page and take the poll to let us know how you feel. If you need to hear more, please read the background section below.
Curious how your views compare? Early input has a meaningful impact—vote below (scroll down) to see the current results.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.
Background
Affirmative Action
We understand and support the original intent of affirmative action, which was to expand opportunity by ensuring that qualified minority candidates were included in applicant pools and not excluded by legacy networks or informal barriers.
We continue to support efforts to broaden access to opportunity in this way.
However, we do not support the use of race-based preferences in admissions, hiring, contracting, or eligibility for government programs.
While such policies are often well-intentioned, they raise concerns about fairness, legal consistency, and long-term effectiveness. In some cases, they may also have unintended consequences, including placing students or employees in environments where they are less likely to succeed or creating perceptions that can undermine confidence in individual achievement.
For these reasons, we believe that policies should focus on expanding opportunity without relying on explicit racial preferences.
We do not believe race-based preferences are consistent with the principles of equal treatment under the law.
Race-Neutral Policy Alternatives
We recognize that the history of slavery and racial discrimination has had lasting effects on economic and social outcomes in the United States.
We believe the most effective and equitable way to address these effects is through policies that improve access to opportunity based on need rather than race.
These include:
- Strengthening elementary and secondary education
- Providing financial support for low-income students seeking post-secondary education
- Expanding access to affordable healthcare
- Supporting early childhood development programs
Such policies can disproportionately benefit African Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups while remaining consistent with principles of equal treatment under the law.
We are cautious about replacing race-based policies with purely income-based preferences in areas such as admissions. While these approaches aim to expand opportunity, they may introduce new challenges. In some cases, individuals may feel pressure to conceal aspects of their socioeconomic background to avoid being perceived as having benefited from preferential treatment.
In addition, there is value in ensuring that success is widely understood to reflect individual merit. For students from lower-income backgrounds, seeing others with similar circumstances succeed without the perception of preferential treatment can be an important source of motivation and confidence.
For these reasons, policies should focus on strengthening preparation and expanding opportunity—particularly through education and early support—rather than relying heavily on preferences at the point of selection.
Reparations
Some have proposed programs of reparations for the descendants of enslaved people.
We believe that policies focused on expanding access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity are more likely to produce sustained improvements in income and wealth over time than one-time financial transfers.
These approaches also have the advantage of addressing disadvantage more broadly, while still disproportionately benefiting communities that have been most affected by historical discrimination.
Historical Context and Social Frameworks
There is no question that slavery and decades of legally enforced segregation imposed significant and lasting burdens on African Americans. These effects did not end with the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s and continue to influence economic and social outcomes today.
At the same time, we do not believe that public policy should assign collective responsibility for past injustices to individuals based on race. Policies based on collective responsibility risk undermining principles of individual accountability and equal treatment under the law.
We are also cautious about frameworks that categorize individuals primarily as members of opposing groups defined by power or disadvantage. These approaches can oversimplify complex realities and make it more difficult to build broad-based support for effective policy solutions.
We believe that progress is more likely when policies focus on expanding opportunity, strengthening institutions, and encouraging cooperation across different groups within society.
Go to the Table of Contents or to the Next Policy Position
Ready to weigh in? At this stage, each vote has a meaningful impact—see the current results after voting.
Your input helps us refine these policy positions.