Only empirically grounded analysis can separate broad racial beliefs from program judgments.

Evidence

Academic research does not fit very clearly anywhere in this picture, which may explain why there has been so little of it compared with argumentation that is not empirically based. That is unfortunate for at least two reasons. First, some fascinating research questions are so far left untouched. Second, in my view only reasonably dispassionate analyses could provide the possibility of intellectual space for people to separate their broad beliefs about the role of race in America from their particular judgments about the efficacy of affirmative action compared with other possible routes to racial equality. Only if there is a cohort of people who can persuasively say, “it works in this regard but not in that one…” or “it works better than X but not as well as Y to achieve goal Z…” have we as a nation any chance to get past the shouting. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 2006

Categorization

• SEED: An essay angle: why the affirmative action debate remains empirically starved, and what precise research questions would actually settle parts of it.