America’s Universities Are Living a Diversity Lie
| More news stories on Racial Preferences in Education |
|---|
Peter Schmidt, Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2008
Thirty years ago this past week, Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. condemned our nation’s selective colleges and universities to live a lie. Writing the deciding opinion in the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, he prompted these institutions to justify their use of racial preferences in admissions with a rationale most had never considered and still do not believe—a desire to offer a better education to all students.
To this day, few colleges have even tried to establish that their race-conscious admissions policies yield broad educational benefits. The research is so fuzzy and methodologically weak that some strident proponents of affirmative action admit that social science is not on their side.
In reality, colleges profess a deep belief in the educational benefits of their affirmative-action policies mainly to save their necks. They know that, if the truth came out, courts could find them guilty of illegal discrimination against white and Asian Americans.
{snip}
Academe got a rude awakening in 1996. Californians passed a ballot measure in that year barring public colleges from considering race and ethnicity in admissions. And a federal appeals court rejected Justice Powell’s diversity rationale in a lawsuit, Hopwood v. Texas, involving the University of Texas law school. In his book, “Diversity Challenged,” Gary Orfield, a staunch advocate of affirmative action, says people in higher education looked around and suddenly realized “no consensus existed on the benefits of diversity” and “the research had not been done to prove the academic benefits.”
Over the next several years, education researchers scrambled to find such proof and repeatedly met with college leaders to discuss their progress. Their work took on a sense of urgency, on the expectation the Supreme Court would soon be revisiting Bakke. Yet again and again, their studies were shown to have gaping holes and deemed too weak to hold up in the courts.
Fortunately for affirmative-action advocates, the Center for Individual Rights, which coordinated the legal assault on race-conscious admissions, made a tactical decision not to seriously challenge such research—out of a belief it could win on legal principle. When the Supreme Court waded back into the controversy, it reaffirmed Justice Powell’s diversity rationale in a 2003 decision, Grutter v. Bollinger, involving the University of Michigan law school. The opinions revealed that the majority of justices had been swayed by a barrage of friend-of-the-court briefs spinning and exaggerating what the research said about the alleged educational benefits of diversity.
Proponents of race-conscious admissions policies have yet to produce a study of their educational benefits without some limitation or flaw. Many focus only on benefits to minority students. Others define benefits in nakedly ideological terms, declaring the policies successful if they seem correlated with the adoption of liberal views. A large share relies on survey data that substitute subjective opinions for an objective measurement of learning. The University of Michigan’s star witness, Patricia Gurin, a professor of psychology and women’s studies, presented studies showing the educational benefits of classes and campus programs that promote interracial understanding. Those may exist at colleges that don’t consider an applicant’s race.
Affirmative action advocates argue that it is unreasonable to expect more of the research, because no education policy has incontrovertible proof of effectiveness. But affirmative-action preferences are not just any education policy; they require some students to suffer racial discrimination for the sake of a perceived common good. In grounding his definition of that good in the shifting sands of social science, Justice Powell may have left colleges legally vulnerable for decades to come. The courts, after all, are known for diverse opinions.
(Posted on July 1, 2008)
Comments
If Affirmative Action slows the education of the brightest students, then the US will continue to sink below the nations which assist and encourage the brightest.
A nation which values sports over intelligence will grow atheletes who cannot build a modern society.
Even average students learn less if they must wait for the slowest in the class.
Posted by Oldman at 5:01 PM on July 1
The results of diversity studies have been published regularly the past few years and they aren’t good. Diversity training doesn’t seem to be helping the situation either. Perhaps we could simply return to what works and abandon trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Posted by Unemployed WASP at 5:29 PM on July 1
“Suffer for the common good”? Who is suffering? The lie is that whites are not being discriminated against anywhere, let alone by affirmative action. In fact, it’s said that it is those being aided by preferences that are being discriminated against, and they are normally angry about it. It’s said repeatedly. They benefit from affirmative action, and are very angry about it. Where ever affirmative action is in place they also have seminars and policy statements also saying that it is whites who are discriminating. With enough double talk perhaps we’ll even learn to enjoy our suffering.
Posted by had enough at 6:16 PM on July 1
“Selective colleges began lowering the bar for minority applicants back in the late 1960s to promote social justice and help keep the peace.”
“Social justice” wasn’t even on their radar screens, nor was it a motivating factor to the politicians. The one and only reason blacks have been given privileges and catered to over any other segment of the population is that if they do not get what they want they will run through the streets burning everything in sight, and they threaten to do just that quite often.
So, it is a desire to keep the peace that motivates all but the radical left who are still out to lunch on every social issue known to man.
How can any other racial group obtain extra privileges and freebies from government entities? They have to do the same as blacks and create many riots, arsons, mayhem and murders, all under the excuse of wanting justice. They rightly see it as a shortcut to success that isn’t achievable by way of their own abilities.
There has been very few policies that have been enacted by the politicians due to overwhelming support by the populace. Illegal immigration is a good example. 80% of the country wants it halted, yet the amnesty scheme is still being promoted by both political candidates for president, and many in the Congress.
The only thing that will dissuade them from forcing the policy on us is mass riots. Politicians will ignore everything but physical violence, because it puts their positions of power and wealth at risk.
Posted by Ranger at 6:17 PM on July 1
What I noticed at my local community college was a great deal of language concerning “protected groups.” Rather than list all the protected groups, it is easier to list the one “unprotected group,” - white males. This is true when it comes not only to education, but employment. It seems that the entire AA issue is being sidestepped by the “protected groups” acoording to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Add to that the Immigration Act of 1965 and you have a “Trifecta.” Anyway, what we have is a tri-partite anti-white and specifically anti-white male set of laws in place since the 1960s. Is it any wonder the U.S. has been going downhill since then?
Posted by Whiteplight at 6:38 PM on July 1
Of course there is no educational benefit in “diversity” to Whites - what benefit could there be? Is the presence of non-whites going to magically make Physics easier to comprehend, or the philosophy of Aristotle more easily absorbed? The very idea itself is so dumb, it should shock a sensible person.
Posted by HH at 6:56 PM on July 1
So the WSJ only now discovered that there was no proof of benefits to eduatiom from diversity. Did it occur to Mr. Schmidt to wonder whether there was any proof of diversity to society at large, or whether “diversity is our strength” is nothing but an empty slogan? And did it occur to him to wonder if, perhaps, there was any reaching demonstrating the opposite, that diversity is, far from being a strength, a source of conflict, confusion and distrust? Because such research certainly exists.
But what I am talking about? There I go again assuming the WSJ is a serious publication and that it’s reporters are serious people, rather than careerist clowns. How silly of me.
Posted by Michael T at 7:21 PM on July 1
Well, one result of this discriminatory college admissions policy seems at least to be “good for the economy”. After all, it is said that domestic social policies that eventually lower the worth of the US Dollar facilitate US exports, supposedly a good thing.
Ronald
Posted by Ronald at 7:28 PM on July 1
Whenever I point out that, if racial diversity is so good, sub-Saharan Africa could surely use some of it - all I get is stony silence from leftists. They refuse to respond to such observations except maybe to shake their heads as if to say, “how racist to bring up such things” or as if to say that I’m missing something obvious. What am I missing? The fact that blacks have diversity amongst themselves? Well guess what? So do whites! We can only guess what their response might be - because they won’t give one. Actually I did have one leftist reply to this point. He stated that African colleges/universities do have diversity programs. I followed up by writing a few of them asking about their diversity goals. I got no response. I checked their websites and could find no information indicating that African schools value diversity - in the sense of bringing in non-blacks. So it seems that only whites deserve the “benefits” of diversity while “people of color” must do without. Sounds like racism to me!
Posted by jewamongyou at 10:08 PM on July 1
The real victims of affirmative action are white gentiles.AT the elite universities,medical and law schools the most unrepresented racial or ethnic group relative to their percentage of the population are whites.It is unlikely that more than 1% of the people realise it.
Posted by irish john at 11:14 PM on July 1
Did the Center for Individual Rights “make a tactical decision” not to challenge the paltry research on diversity’s benefits, or did they steer clear of the real landmine in their case—native racial differences in ability?
Posted by PBL at 6:49 AM on July 2
In the 1990s, I attended a larege, semi-prestigious public law school that had a very competitive admissions program. Almost everyone in my class personally knew someone who had been denied admission. Nevertheless, we had our FedGov/ABA mandated cadre of black students - around 20 or so - who sat at the front of each class, were never called upon to stand for questioning in the feared Socratic classroom method, and who floated about the building silently and generally despised by the real students. They never spoke to the real students, and they were never outwardly acknowledged by us. They never contributed anything to the academic or social fabric of the school. All they did was was deny more-deserving White students of a place at the school. How could any thinking person even attempt to argue that this sham benefitted ANYONE but the blacks themselves?
And could someone please explain how I, as a taxpayer, am benefitted by having my tax dollars used to subsidize legal education for blacks who will go on to fail the bar exam at a 70% rate?
Posted by at 8:24 AM on July 2
Colleges are doing the diversity dance as a complex way of INCOME TRANSFER from Whites to non-Whites.
Preference in admissions.
Race-norming exam scores.
Race-based financial aid.
Race-based scholarships.
Race-based grade inflation.
The left is obsessed with inequality of income and does everything it can to take money from the haves and give it to the have-nots.
Posted by at 8:31 AM on July 2
Even with all the noise about AA it is instructive to understand that real scientific performance will never be affected by it. In other words I doubt AA results in black over-representation in science and maths classes that truly require high IQ. Little or no financial rewards and profound subject matter eliminate charlatanry. Legal firms or government employers in Law can survive with overpaid AA hires, although the unqualifieds holding down these jobs may never have the careers or standing promised by campus recruiters. Medical schools are much more wary I would presume; I would be surprised if they let non-qualified types to graduate and undo the schools’ reputations. All in all, most AA types self select into departments such as Education where intellectual demands are minor, and where networking and other chicanery can keep careers afloat.
Posted by mark at 9:20 AM on July 2
“Diversity” could not withstand even a semi-rigorous inquiry into what is meant by it. This author has a start but like any other respectable conservative he will shy away and go back to approved sloganeering.
Posted by Simmons at 2:15 PM on July 2
I was exposed to two asians in college. They were not all that smart and ate disgusting food.
I was exposed to a black kid in college. He become homeless and tried to move into our dormroom. I was a liberal and would have allowed it, but my more mature roommate said no. I’m sure it would have been a case of the guest who never left if he had in fact moved in.
The point of these little anecdotes is that I gained nothing from my minor brushes with minorities in college. The bottom line is that college works best for white kids—-others are usually a net drain on the campus.
Posted by at 2:38 PM on July 2
“The left is obsessed with inequality of income and does everything it can to take money from the haves and give it to the have-nots.”
There’s also the problem of How they check income inequality, who is doing the checking, and who reports their ‘findings’. Of course, they do more than just ‘check’ for income inequality. There’s a whole focus on tangible assets now too.
Posted by at 3:20 PM on July 2
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
A great confusion is caused by the use of the term “protected groups” when discussing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What is created by that law and its amendments is “protected classifications” known as “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Every person reading this is eligible for claims to discrimination based on his or her race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Those are known as “protected classes,” not “protected groups.” In fact, at colleges, at police training seminars, in print and electronic media, and elsewhere we are educated to believe that diverse white American peoples are not included through the use of the term “protected groups,” but in fact we are.
The notable exception is in the area of languages which does have “protected groups” and in the area of affirmaive action which has carved out a niche for itself in direct contradiction to the US Constitution and to the protected classifications in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that still doesn’t rise to the level of “protected groups” in Title VI, and it is a grave error to use that term in these discussions because, first, it claims more exclusion from legal protections than is the fact thus discouraging victims of discrimination from even checking into claims under Title VII and, second, it fails to promote the knowledge that could encourage jury nullification by members of a jury in this area on the silent ground that the exceptions to the US Constitution and Title VII are illegal applications of the law and may, therefore, be silently nullified when possible.
Posted by Bo at 3:40 PM on July 2
The elephant (well, the two elephants) in this argument are, as stated in the WSJ article, appeasement of black activists who were, in the late sixties and early seventies, clamoring for a violent change of governmental policy, reparations, and anything vague or trivial that would promote their cause; secondly, the knowledge by public administrators and politicians that white guilt—the culpability factor fanned by religious leaders and media pundits—would permit racial favoritism towards the blacks with no concurrent resistance from the white majority: you have sinned (very few at the time in actuality) and you shall atone for these grievous acts which have oppressed millions of innocent minorities (blacks and women [a minority?]), logic be damned. The ideal of egalitarianism then overtook social reality; innocent white students, whose hands were not sullied by racist intentions or acts, found themselves refused entry into a number of prestigious (and less so) institutions based on the need for “collective sacrifice” to right the wrongs of the past, etc. Inasmuch as the advantages to white students of enforced diversity cannot be quantified, the ideal must have subtle, immeasurable consequences for the common good since the initial premise of proximity engenders greater tolerance is sacrosanct. We are studying together, walking the campus together, and cheering for the same team, therefore we are more accepting of each ethnic group’s needs and peculiar traits. In a word, white students must forgo any claim to equity during this “transitional” phase of social readjustment. In due time (never specified), the playing fields will be leveled and the need for affirmative action will disappear and become a historical artifact. The thought police are everywhere making certain that this travesty is enforced; hate crime status is attached to all acts that reflect negatively upon blacks or Latinos and other minority groups, even though these references are oftentimes founded in scientific truth.
Possibly the third elephant emerging from the woods is white indignation; how long will social and religious guilt relegate the white majority to a passive status? How many birthrights have to be sold to pacify an insatiable quest for egalitarian mediocrity at the expense of society itself. The political establishment needs to put an ear to the ground and hear the rumble of dissatisfaction and wrath emitted by millions of white citizens whose children are paying the price for a failed social experiment. As Pat Buchanan repeatedly affirms, we are in the midst of a cultural war, a conflict that major media outlets will not acknowledge.
Posted by Jussi at 4:37 PM on July 2
“In fact, at colleges, at police training seminars, in print and electronic media, and elsewhere we are educated to believe that diverse white American peoples are not included through the use of the term “protected groups,” but in fact we are.” Bo
For all practical purposes they aren’t, white males get no benefit from the AA system. Most colleges and universiites have diversity goals (quotas) that only include blacks and Hispanics—whites, even poor whites, are generally excluded.
Posted by Sardonicus at 8:00 AM on July 3
Now, now. We all know that our colored cousins are going to take care of us when they run the country. They are not like whites. They are all loving and benevolent. They are incapable of the evil wrought on the earth by the white man.
We just need to live with and around them and we will see how worthy of our respect and admiration they are. They are intelligent and industrious wise and prudent.
If we could all just be more black it would be a better world. Right?
Posted by Gregory Wright at 5:44 PM on July 3