The day simply has to be coming when the issue of race in college admissions or faculty hiring generates no new litigation “diversity” policies, because everyone is finally one the same page: we all agree that this is what the law says, and this is what we’ll do in shaping our institutional policies. It hasn’t come yet. In the latest judicial round, described in today’s CHE, a three-judge federal panel rejected a challenge by white students to the University of Texas at Austin’s race-conscious undergraduate admissions policies. The students argued that the policy was unconstitutional, since the state legislature had developed a viable race-neutral alternative; the university triumphantly tut-tutted that its admissions practices were consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Grutter v Bollinger, allowing the consideration of race among numerous other factors in the admissions process for achieving “diversity” in the student body; the three-judge panel concurred in the result but actually diverged sharply in their respective reasoning. You don’t have to be a Constitutional lawyer to think that this case sheds little light on an endlessly contentious issue.
What I found striking, however, was this observation posted anonymously by an admissions officer in the comments thread, on the reality of “diversity” admissions policies in actual practice:
As a university director of admissions, I am confronted by this issue every day, and I admit to feeling ambivalent about implementing my college’s policies. Although we say we may use race as only factor in a holistic review, the dirty little secret is that of COURSE it is the main factor when evaluating otherwise non-admissible candidates. We may dance around it or talk about socio-economic status, but it is race. Pure and simple. The downside is that I then see the ramifications on students who want to earn their admission, not have it given to them based on skin color. What message does that send? We don’t think you can achieve on your own, so we Whiteys are giving this to you? It’s liberal guilt.
Then again, we have the other exceptions for athletics, children of alumni or donors, etc. They all think THEY deserve special consideration, but of course, would disagree with race as a consideration.
Can you tell I’m ambivalent??
Yes, as a matter of fact, I can. But if this description is accurate, how about testifying to that effect in court, if the plaintiffs in this case pursue an appeal?
In today’s Pope Center Clarion Call, John Rosenberg reviews a recent book that purports to show how terrible it was for California to have adopted Proposition 209, thereby dropping racial preferences. Alas, it’s just the same, tired, often-refuted claims, stated over and over. You might think that scholars writing a book on the alleged need for “diversity” would try to deal with the counter-arguments that it does not in fact produce a “better” student body or improved learning environment and can in fact damage its supposed beneficiaries. But no — the book is mere cheerleading for racial preferences rather than a serious examination of it.
At Minding the Campus, Russ Nieli has written a splendid essay on a great university that eschews preferences for racial diversity, for athletic competence, and for “legacy” students.
If I were a college admissions officer, I would be thinking, “This Cal Tech place must be terribly dull! The admissions office doesn’t do anything to try to build an interesting and diverse student body. How do the Cal Tech students ever learn about students who are different from themselves? How do they ever manage to overcome their biases and learn to celebrate diversity?”
Peter Wood has published a new article at the Chronicle of Higher Education‘s Innovations Blog, “Racism at Wesleyan?” In it he reviews the recent controversy over an affirmative action bake sale at Wesleyan University, where Ward Connerly will be speaking today at 4:00.
Peter argues against censoring the term “racist” but points out that the word can be abused as a label “to intimidate and to polarize,” as was the case at Wesleyan University. He writes that eliminating racial preferences in college admissions will help diminish racism:
We would as a society be better off if we jettisoned race from our consideration of how public goods such as college admissions are distributed. Getting rid of race, like getting rid of racism, is far from easy, but that doesn’t mean we can’t take the preliminary steps. One of those is de-institutionalizing racial categories.
His essay comes at a timely moment, when some politicians are making an effort to erase the words “racist” and “socialist” from our vocabulary.
We are excited to announce that Arizonans have approved Prop. 107, a ballot initiative that prohibits racial preferences in the state’s public institutions, including public colleges and universities.
This is a great victory for racial equality and merit-based higher education, and NAS is proud to have played a part.
Read NAS’s argument in favor of Prop. 107.
Next week Arizona citizens have the historic opportunity to reject racial preferences in state institutions, including public universities, by voting YES on Proposition 107.
Learn more:
NAS’s argument in favor of Prop. 107
A letter from NAS member Stuart Hurlbert to Arizonans
Articles on Prop. 107
Thanks to a tip from our CUNY affiliate, NAS published an article exposing the gaffe of a Brooklyn College faculty member, Jocelyn Wills, who wrote in an email, “Please spread the word among your colleagues and friends on Faculty Council, that we need to correct the lily-white imbalances of the Dean’s Search Committees, all four of them.”
NAS pointed out 4 problems with such a statement:
1. It is blatantly racist against white faculty members.
2. It assumes that racial balance should be the norm.
3. It calls on colleagues to discriminate based on race.
4. It disrespects the non-racial merits of the people Wills wants to help.
The day after this article was published, the New York Post covered the story in “Lily-White Prof-Panel Slam,” which notes that Wills resigned after she was elected to the search committee.
In today’s Pope Center piece, I respond to a recent NYT article by Richard Kahlenberg in which he argues against legacy preferences in college admissions. I think the case against legacy preferences is sound. I part company with him, however, on how to remedy the situation (I don’t favor either legislation or litigation) and argue that his attempt at distinguishing legacy preferences from racial preferences (which he doesn’t criticize, I suspect because to do so would cost him powerful allies) is a failure.
I could be wrong, but in the wake of all the mudwrestling that’s followed the NAACP’s recent branding of Tea Partiers as racists, I think that the ideological fulcrum of the “diversity” debate has significantly shifted ground. For once, the response by public figures has been direct and emphatic, instead of the usual backpedaling after some vague, apologetic mumbling about the need to “include” all groups, the value of a diverse work force or the wish to avoid offending anyone, etc., etc., etc. The public rejection of the NAACP’s allegations, moreover, has been bi-partisan, including prominent Republicans such as Sarah Palin and no less than Vice President Biden and President Obama on the Democratic side of the aisle. Hopefully, this means that absurd or silly allegations of racism will no longer compel politicans and bureaucrats to jump through the hoop as they’ve done so frequently in the past.
Especially encouraging, though, is this piece by Virgina Democrat James Webb in today’s Wall Street Journal. Webb argues that although “diversity” policies had their origins in the laudable and necessary efforts to redress the unique injustices suffered by black Americans, they have long since become obsessed with skin color or ethnic background, often with unconcealed hostility toward whites. Thus, newly arrived immigrants often benefit from these policies, even though their own experiences don’t remotely resemble those of blacks. It doesn’t stop there either, since in many academic institutions, “diversity” and “inclusiveness” now extend to ever -expanding categories of sexuality, life experiences or those with physical disabilities. A particularly hard sell for me has always been affirmative action for “women” within the diversity rubric, as though the largely white, middle-class feminist movement could claim grievances comparable to those suffered historically by blacks. Yet many academic job postings routinely specify that “women and ethnic or racial minorities are especially encouraged to apply.” That doesn’t compute.
Anyway, Webb says it’s now time to end racial preferences, stop discriminating against whites, and simply treat everyone equally under the law. Amen.
Of interest to law professors, lawyers, and curious individuals, NAS has recently published three articles about law schools:
“Conferring Privilege: DOJ, Law Schools, and the New Politics of Race” examines the Association of American Law Schools’ efforts to prevent racial colorblindness.
“’They So Despise Her Politics’ – Do Conservative Faculty Candidates Get a Fair Shake?” presents documents in the lawsuit of an unsuccessful faculty candidate for a position at the University of Iowa College of Law who believes she was denied the appointment because of her politics.
“Potemkin Admissions: Law Professors Propose to Hide LSAT Data” exposes a movement to persuade law schools to withhold LSAT scores from U.S. News and World Report. The idea is to make it harder for the public to see how much the pursuit of racial preferences drags down the quality of admissions.
“They So Despise Her Politics” has received attention from the Daily Iowan, Instapundit, TaxProf Blog, and One Minute Lawyer.
Recent Comments