By Apeh Chioma, Mi Yujin, and Ogbuji Elvis

In 2015, Vijay Chokalingam, an Indian man, pretended to be Black in his medical school application. He changed his appearance and claimed to be Black to take advantage of affirmative action policies. According to Diaz (2015), Chokalingam said his goal was to reveal flaws in the admissions system, but his actions sparked debates about whether what he did was ethical and how fair affirmative action policies really are. This case brings up tricky questions about racial identity, the purpose of affirmative action, and fairness in admissions. While this topic is sensitive and controversial, we decided to analyze it because it shows a complex ethical dilemma. This case study is not meant to decide who or what was right or wrong but to explore the logic and challenges behind these issues. We hope it helps others better understand the situation and approach it more calmly and rationally.

Policy Background

Affirmative action policies in higher education aim to improve equity and give more opportunities to underrepresented groups. Many schools, like Saint Louis University School of Medicine, use these policies to help students from marginalized communities access quality education. Gutierrez and Green (2004) argued that these policies are essential for reducing systemic racism and promoting equality. Stulberg and Chen (2014) also pointed out that diversity in schools can encourage better cross-cultural understanding and reduce prejudice.

However, affirmative action is controversial. Critics argue that it conflicts with merit-based admissions and is not always fair. Arcidiacono and Lovenheim (2016) discussed how these policies, while promoting diversity, sometimes lead to mismatches between students and institutions. Chokalingam’s case shows how policies like this can be misused and harm the reputation of diversity actions. Even if affirmative action was not a factor in his admission, his actions cast doubt on these policies. Universities may need stricter rules to prevent this kind of misuse and protect marginalized groups from more harm.

Case Details

Chokalingam said that he shaved his head and pretended to be Black because he thought it would help him get accepted. This directly challenges affirmative action policies. Marcotte (2015) and Diaz (2015) reported that Chokalingam explained his actions by saying he wanted to show problems in the admissions process.

His actions caused a lot of debates. People who support diversity policies said Chokalingam hurt the fairness of affirmative action and harmed real minority applicants. On the other hand, some people thought his actions were a way to question whether these policies let people use their identity for personal benefit. Jaggar (1997) also talks about the conflict between focusing on individuals and group-based policies, which relates to this case. Some people even said that what Chokalingam did might have just been a publicity stunt, and affirmative action might not have affected his admission at all.

In addition, the media played an important role in how people viewed this case. Liblik and Govindasamy (2016) wrote in The Queen’s Journal that affirmative action is meant to create equal opportunities, but sometimes people see it as unfair, especially those who feel they are left out. However, many also believed that Chokalingam’s actions made affirmative action look bad and strengthened stereotypes about race-based admissions.

Chokalingam himself added to these debates. In an interview with The Pitt News (Montgomery, 2016), he called affirmative action “racist” and said he wanted to show the flaws in the system. But many people criticized him, saying his actions seemed selfish and not a real attempt to improve anything.

This case also brings up bigger questions about how universities check identity in applications. Racial identity is different from academic records because it is often self-reported, which makes it easier for people to lie. Ahmed (2016) wrote about “reverse passing” and said cases like this make it hard to define racial identity and for schools to apply these policies fairly. Without better rules, cases like Chokalingam’s might make people lose trust in affirmative action. This could hurt the groups these policies are meant to help.

Value of this Case

This case shows how difficult it is to balance fairness and diversity in race-conscious admissions policies. Affirmative action is supposed to help underrepresented groups. However, cases like Chokalingam’s, where someone fakes their racial identity, goes against this goal. Actions like his take opportunities away from people who need them. They also make it harder for others to trust these policies. This shows that schools need better rules to stop this kind of behavior.

At the same time, this case brings up ethical questions about racial identity and honesty. Chokalingam mixed up the idea of identity as a personal experience with identity as a tool to get into school. This makes it harder for schools to decide who has a “real” racial identity and how to check it. Sturm (2020) suggests that if affirmative action focused more on helping a wider range of people and supporting mobility, it might solve some of these problems. Even though Chokalingam said his goal was to criticize affirmative action, it seems like he did this more for his own benefit than to help others. This case shows that admissions policies need to be fair and stop people from misusing them while also encouraging honesty and good behavior.

Analysis of Leadership Decision

The hard part about this case is that there isn’t enough information from the university’s side to know whether Chokalingam was admitted because of his fake racial identity. The university said his admission was based on his grades in standardized exams (Marcotte, 2015), but it’s fair to wonder if those grades were good enough in such a competitive process. Medical schools are tough to get into, and even great grades don’t always guarantee admission. Because of this, it’s hard to say if university leaders should be blamed. However, we can think about their roles in two possible scenarios.

Possible Scenario 1: Affirmative Action Influenced Admission

If the university considered Chokalingam’s racial identity when admitting him, then affirmative action played a role. This would mean the policy was misused, and leaders made a mistake by not doing a thorough background check. While their goal was to promote diversity and inclusiveness, which is commendable (Gutierrez & Green, 2004), they still had a responsibility to verify information carefully. Without proper checks, such manipulations can happen.

Possible Scenario 2: Admission Based Solely on Academic Merit

If the university admitted Chokalingam based on his academic performance alone and didn’t consider race, then his admission was deserved. In this case, the controversy around his racial manipulation wouldn’t reflect the university’s decision-making or affirmative action policies. However, the university should still verify all applicant information, even if it doesn’t affect the final decision. For example, Stulberg & Chen (2014) highlight the importance of maintaining fairness and transparency in race-conscious admissions policies, suggesting that inadequate verification processes can hurt the admissions process’s integrity and lead to unnecessary controversies.

Application of Ethical Lenses

The most appropriate ethical lenses to explain the ethical dilemma concerning Vijay Chokalingam’s case study are the Ethic of Care, the Ethic of Justice, and the Ethic of Critique. To begin with, the Ethic of care influences critique based on how decisions made directly influence interpersonal relationships (Hoare et al., 2024). Its main focus in decision-making is enhancing empathy, compassion, and sympathy at all times. According to the case study, Chokalingam showcases a high disregard for the requirements of this ethical lens. This is because he does not consider his impact on the affected individuals in the admission process (Pearson, 2015). It further means that individuals who rely on affirmative action when it comes to the college admission process may experience unintended treatment (Timoney & Shatsoff, 2022). This perspective of critique of this case study aligns with that of the Ethics of Justice, which greatly emphasizes matters of fairness (Hoare et al., 2024). According to this critique, there is a need to always promote trust and honesty to ensure our decisions do not influence others in society negatively. Therefore, the racial manipulation done by Chokalingam to easily enter the medical school undermines the ethic of care since it reduces the chances of genuine admission of other students into the college.

Secondly, the ethics of justice is an ethical theory suitable for critiquing decision-making policies regarding distributive justice. Generally, ethics of Justice primarily focuses on fairness, equity, and impartiality (Hoare et al., 2024). Affirmative action here is centered on promoting Justice to combat inequities among marginalized individuals. According to the case study, Vijay Chokalingam poses as a Black-American man determined to enter medical school (CBS News, 2019). He believed that affirmative action favored underrepresented groups like Black- Americans. He altered his appearance and joined a black student organization. This gained him an acceptance letter. However, he faced racial discrimination. Posing as a black man presents a critique undermining the ethic of justice objectives that primarily focus on fairness, equity and impartiality. Chokalingam claims that affirmative action harms other racial groups’ opportunities causing misunderstanding on its role in equity. By altering identity, he distorted fairness in the admission process at St. Louis University. Based on the case study, the ethic of justice critique greatly aligns with an ethic of care that emphasizes empathy and compassion when making decisions (Hoare et al., 2024). Hence the actions of Chokalingam represent an ethical dilemma through critiquing ethics of justice intended to ensure equity and fairness.

Lastly, the Ethic of Critique plays a key role in describing the college admission system based on affirmative action. This is because this ethical lens determines the level of equity, equality, and justice within the specific system based on how they are directly influenced by social class, gender, and race (Hoare et al., 2024). Specifically, the ethic of critique boldly discourages systems that use power to showcase inequality and injustice. Even though Chokalingam’s deception on racial identity had a personal gain, it on the other hand raises concerns about affirmative action’s authenticity since it highly promotes racial identity manipulation (Darr & Doss, 2022). This reveals that the college’s admission system, which could be considered one in power, does not embrace fairness. The ethical lens also shows strong backing of the Ethic of Justice that promotes equality and equity in the allocation of resources (Hoare et al., 2024). In this regard, the Ethic of Critique exposes the negative impact of diversity-driven university admissions practices as they have little concern about the influence on other students. This is because the manipulation shows that other students are given more chances than others, which also challenges the competency of the admitted students in medical school.

Author’s Positionality

Our cultural backgrounds, academic training, and personal experience significantly influence our perspective and critique of this case study. We have been believers in fairness, equity, and impartiality based on what our culture states. Specifically, these three cultural beliefs are believed to be the roots of legitimate success in life. Besides, this perspective has been backed up by the ethical standards we have learned in our academic training. This is because of the ethical theories learned in class that require people to align their actions with social ethics. In this regard, academic training has nurtured our minds to always engage in critical thinking before making decisions. This is because it offers us the most appropriate environment to evaluate the impact of our decisions based on the demands of ethics. It further means that if we were in the state of Chokalingam, we would have considered fairness, equity, and impartiality and maintained our racial identity to guarantee us equity in the admission process. Generally, Chokalingham’s actions compromise with the objectives of affirmative action, fairness, and impartiality yielding negative stereotypes among black communities.

Additionally, we have always had a positive experience whenever we enhance justice, which requires the admission process to adopt the same for very competent students. Lastly, each team member greatly contributed to the solid understanding of this ethical dilemma. This is based on how well each member articulated the three ethical lenses to inform the decisions made by Chokalingam perfectly. I contributed to the understanding based on the ethics of justice, while Elvis Ogbuji articulated the ethics of care and Yujin Mi the ethics of critique.

Alternative Solution to the Ethical Dilemma

The case of Vijay Chokalingam reveals the complexity of racial identity and affirmative action in admissions processes. As a team, we propose a multifaceted and inclusive alternative solution that prioritizes integrity, fairness, and the original intent of affirmative action. Drawing from our diverse backgrounds; African and Asian, we bring unique cultural, academic, and ethical perspectives to address this challenge. To achieve this, we draw from three ethical lenses which our work has been grounded upon thus far, namely; Ethics of care, Ethics of Justice, and Ethics of critique.

To start with, we propose two alternative solutions on the grounds of Ethics of Justice, which focuses on structural equity, thereby ensuring fairness and impartiality in policy implementation (Gutierrez & Green, 2004). Thus, we propose the following;

Revised Affirmative Action Framework

This not only goes for the Ethics of Justice, but also for the Ethics of Critique, and the reason we tag this solution as somewhat of a “two-edged sword” is that on the part of Justice, maintaining the integrity of the affirmative action is primary, hence, achieving this involves broadening its criteria to include socio-economic, first-generation college status, and geographical disadvantage, with regards to racial identity. This revision goes in support of Sturm’s (2020) call for affirmative action policies to focus on mobility and participation rather than solely racial identity. This approach reduces incentives for individuals like Chokalingam to manipulate their racial identity while still addressing systemic inequities that exist across various demographics. On the part of Critique, expanding the framework is also primary as it critiques the traditional race-focused approach, which can unintentionally reinforce stereotypes or exclusions. By including additional factors, as depicted in the approach to the Ethics of Justice, this solution challenges and redefines the institutional structures shaping admissions policies.

Enhanced Identity Verification

This is another key alternative solution to the Ethics of Justice. We say this because, verification ensures fairness by preventing individuals from exploiting the system, thereby upholding equity for genuine applicants. While respecting privacy and individual dignity, institutions should implement robust but non-invasive verification processes. This can include affidavits confirming the applicant’s self-reported identity, supported by non-coercive evidence, such as cultural affiliations or community references, and background checks. Ahmed (2016) highlights the pitfalls of unchecked self-reporting in identity-based admissions, suggesting that better mechanisms can enhance trust in affirmative action policies.

For Ethics of Care, we propose two alternative solutions thus:

• Comprehensive Training for Admissions Committees: Drawing from Hoare et al. (2024), we propose mandatory training for admissions officers to address biases and increase their understanding of diversity beyond superficial markers. As diverse members of our team, we see this as a crucial step toward combating stereotypes and ensuring that committee members assess candidates holistically. The Ethics of Care supports this initiative by emphasizing empathy and the ethical consideration of all applicants’ lived experiences.
• Community Engagement Initiatives: This solution is strategic because, if implemented appropriately, it will yield excellent results. The community will be receptive to proposals that benefit the community, thus encouraging dialogue about affirmative action fosters a sense of collective care and understanding, reducing alienation and biases. These forums allow stakeholders (community members, students, faculty, and others) to voice their concerns and build trust, enhancing the relational dynamics the Ethics of Care champions.

Lastly, we propose one alternative solution for the Ethics of Critique alongside the revised affirmative action framework plan previously explained.

• Regular Outcome Assessments: Regular evaluation of affirmative action outcomes is necessary to ensure the policy’s goals are met without unintended consequences. Metrics like graduation rates, student satisfaction, and post-graduate success can help identify areas for improvement. Gutierrez and Green (2004) advocate for transparency and accountability in higher education policies, which align with the Ethics of Critique.

Potential Outcomes to the Alternative Solutions

Before suggesting our proposed solutions, we were able to analyze futuristic outcomes that implementation of our solutions would lead to, thus: There will be increased inclusivity. By expanding criteria, diverse groups facing systemic barriers beyond racial identity will benefit, thereby promoting wider participation in higher education. The credibility of affirmative action as a tool for equity will be greatly restored because implementing enhanced verification protocols will not only discourage fraud and identity manipulation, it will also build trust in the process (Monaro et al., 2021, p.2475). Training admission committees will reduce unconscious biases, and lead to true and fair admission evaluations. As previously explained, an open dialogue with stakeholders builds understanding, makes community members receptive to positive changes, and reduces controversies around affirmative action policies. Conducting regular audits provides data to refine policies and address gaps, ensuring the original goals of affirmative action are met effectively.

Ethical Trade-Offs and Challenges

History has been our guide in this discussion as implementing changes, more often than not, leads to transformative shifts in societal norms, addressing systemic inequities whilst facing resistance and challenges that test the resilience of such reforms. Therefore, we provided three potential trade-offs and challenges:

• Implementation cost: Adding verification layers and training programs may increase operational costs, but the long-term benefits of trust and fairness outweigh this expense.
• Complexity in Application: Broader criteria might complicate the admissions process, but clear guidelines and stakeholder involvement can mitigate confusion.
• Resistance to Change: Traditionalists might resist expanded affirmative action criteria, but ongoing dialogue can address their concerns.

Table 1: Comparing Current and Proposed Approaches

References

Ahmed, M. (2016, July 19). Reverse passing: From Rachel Dolezal to Vijay Chokalingam. The History of Black Writing. https://hbw.ku.edu/blog/reverse-passing-rachel-dolezal-vijay-chokalingam

Arcidiacono, P., & Lovenheim, M. (2016). Affirmative action and the quality-fit trade-off in higher education. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(1), 3–51. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.1.3

CBS News. (2019, July 11). BBC reporter creates social media accounts for fake Americans to show “how we’re being targeted” with disinformation. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bbc-reporter-fake-social-media-accounts- americans-us-politics-disinformation/

Darr, C. R., & Doss, E. F. (2022). The fake one is the real one: Finstas, authenticity, and context collapse in teen friend groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(4).

Diaz, E. (2015, April 6). Mindy Kaling’s brother: I said I was Black to get into med school. BET. https://www.bet.com/article/b1gpbj/mindy-kaling-s-bro-said-he- was-black-to-get-into-med-school

Gutierrez, K. J., & Green III, P. C. (2004). Re‐examining race‐based admissions processes of American institutions of higher education using multi‐dimensional ethical perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410525621

Hoare, A., Osuntade, O. B., & Patel, R. (2024). Ethical educational leadership: Untangling ethical dilemmas and imagining alternative futures. TRU Open Press. https://leadershipethics.pressbooks.tru.ca

Jaggar, A. M. (1997). Gender, race, and difference: Individual consideration versus group-based affirmative action in admission to higher education. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 35(S1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041- 6962.1997.tb02206.x

Liblik, K., & Govindasamy, M. (2016, January 12). Affirmative action: Helping hand or harmful measure? The Queen’s Journal. https://www.queensjournal.ca/story/affirmative-action-helping-hand-or-harmful- measure

Marcotte, A. (2015, April 6). Mindy Kaling’s brother is a bad spokesman for merit. Salon. https://www.salon.com/2015/04/06/mindy_kalings_brother_is_a_bad_spokesman_ for_merit

Monaro, M., Zampieri, I., Sartori, G., Pietrini, P., & Orrù, G. (2021). The detection of faked identity using unexpected questions and choice reaction times. Psychological Research, 85.

Montgomery, A. (2016, November 4). Q&A with Vijay Chokalingam: “Affirmative action is racist.” The Pitt News. https://pittnews.com/article/113150/opinions/columns/qa-vijay-chokal-ingam- affirmative-action-racist

Pearson, M. (2015). Mindy Kaling’s brother poses as a black man to get into med school. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/living/feat-mindy-kaling-brother-affirmative-action/index.html

Stulberg, L. M., & Chen, A. S. (2014). The origins of race-conscious affirmative action in undergraduate admissions: A comparative analysis of institutional change in higher education. Sociology of Education, 87(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040713514063

Sturm, S. P. (2020). Reframing affirmative action: From diversity to mobility and full participation. University of Chicago Law Review Online, 59. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/reframing-affirmative-action- diversity-mobility-and-full-participation

Timoney, M., & Shatsoff, S. (2022, July/August). Fighting fake identities: How the U.S. Federal Reserve’s synthetic identity fraud resources protect the financial
sector. Fraud Magazine. https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4295019499