Discussions about “affirmative action” tend to revolve around the same scenario: two applicants to a single position, identical down to the last detail except that one is black and the other is white. They tend not to go beyond the answer to the question, “Is it fair for the black applicant to be admitted over the white one?” Nor does the scenario ever seem to involve a white and an Asian student, or a black and Hispanic pair. In fact the participants seem to ignore altogether that the only “fair” outcome — if one concedes that race should not be taken into account — would be to admit neither candidate and find a more qualified applicant to break the intractable deadlock. Or to hire or admit both.

The issue at heart is about demographics. While 12 percent of the U.S. population is black, there is a single African-American senator, Barack Obama (there should be six). There are 435 representatives in the House and 24 are Hispanic, far below the nearly 70 representatives one would expect. The premise of “affirmative action” programs is that it is in the interest of universities to educate members of under-represented groups (and thereby direct them into the ranks of government and business) in a number commensurate to their composition of the population. While many academics subscribe to the notion that education’s purpose is to enlighten, in practical terms it grants access to power and money.

The issue is also about demographic change. While discussions about access to education rightfully address the disparity between the percentage of blacks in the population and their representation in higher education, the representation of Hispanics in higher education is less frequently mentioned, although the gap is much more pronounced. It is especially unsettling that the Hispanic population is increasing rapidly while universities educate Hispanics at a slightly lower rate than blacks. Blacks account for 12 percent of the population, Hispanics 16 percent. In 40 years, 13 percent of the population is projected to be black (a one-percent increase), but the percentage of Hispanics is predicted to nearly double to 30 percent.

At Cornell, the 2011 entering class is 5.6 percent African-American; there are under half as many African-American students in the class as there should be. But there are about a third as many Hispanics. By and large, Hispanics are the most under-represented major minority group.

By saying that Hispanics have gotten the short shrift, I in no way mean to downplay the importance of focusing on the representation of blacks in higher education. For a poor black child, access to education is as important as it is for a Hispanic child. But universities should take into account and prepare for the monumental demographic shift that is expected in the U.S. population. Namely, universities should be preparing Hispanic students for positions of leadership in government and society in anticipation of the boom. At Cornell, 5.2 percent of the class of 2011 is Hispanic, which is approximately the national rate of Hispanic enrollment.

Universities have always been heralded as great equalizers, providing upward mobility and inducting immigrants and the poor into the middle class. While in practice they often fall short of this goal, the repercussions for their failure to educate Hispanics are more immediately pressing.

There are many reasons why Hispanics have been set aside in the affirmative action debate. The disproportionate number of poor black Americans and their limited access to higher education is in part the legacy of slavery, an enduring reminder of the contradictions in our national self-conception. Discussions of affirmative action thinly conceal national guilt (though for some they often inspire feelings of indignant non-culpability). While the immigrant narrative is one more amenable to the American story, the thought of educating immigrants inspires protectionism in some and makes it easier to exclude Hispanics from discussions about educating “Americans.”

One’s opinion on affirmative action tends to depend on what one thinks affirmative action is. Many people who oppose the practice, for instance, are unaware that quotas are illegal or that rarely (if ever) is it the case that two students are pitted against each other. What it typically involves is taking race — and one’s experience of race — into account in the overall impression of an applicant in the same way that athletic ability or residence in a foreign country is; it is part of the story of who an applicant is. The biggest problem is not that admissions departments are turning away minorities, but that fewer minorities apply. The Cornell admissions department should make more of a concerted effort to recruit in minority communities, with an eye toward both creating a diverse student body and educating the next generation’s leaders.

Gabriel Arana is a graduate student in linguistics. He can be reached at garana@cornellsun.com. The Red Line appears alternate Wednesdays this semester.