Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Impact of a Ban on Affirmative Action

January 14, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Even with the U.S. Supreme Court having upheld the right of colleges to consider race in admissions decisions, researchers continue to consider what would happen to college demographics if affirmative action vanished.

A new study says that the results would be dramatic -- a 35 percent drop in the enrollment of students from underrepresented minority groups at the most competitive colleges. The study was conducted by business school professors, using economic as much as educational analysis, and suggests that the drop might not have all of the results desired by critics of affirmative action.

The study -- financed by the MacArthur Foundation and the National Science Foundation -- has been published in the Journal of Public Economic Theory. The authors are Dennis Epple, the Thomas Lord Professor of Economics at the Tepper School of Business of Carnegie Mellon University; Richard Romano, the Gerald L. Gunter Professor of Economics at the University of Florida; and Holger Sieg, professor of economics at the Tepper School.

Their approach was based on examining patterns in the admission of students nationally by colleges of different levels of competitiveness, past behavior of colleges when faced with difficulties attracting minority students, and the paper qualifications of minority high school students who could apply to college. While the study acknowledges the flaws inherent in dependence on standardized test scores, it uses SAT and ACT scores (and colleges' patterns of admissions offers) as a measure of students' academic competitiveness.

The researchers traced enrollment patterns not only by race and ethnicity, but by SAT score. If affirmative action is eliminated, the study found, there would be an increase in minority average SAT scores among less competitive colleges because some students who would otherwise have gained admission to competitive colleges would enroll elsewhere.

Perhaps more surprisingly, the researchers predict that the end of affirmative action would lead to a net decrease in average SAT scores among all student groups in the most competitive colleges. The reason for this prediction is that the researchers' analysis of the past behavior of colleges suggests that they would not abandon their quest for a critical mass of minority students, and would seek other ways to preserve what education leaders see as the educational benefits of diversity. As a result, the researchers say, colleges would turn to other measures -- such as zip code analysis, with preference for those from low income neighborhoods -- to try to admit more minority students.

These "inefficient approaches" to replacing affirmative action, the authors write, would result in the admission of more students of all races with lower SAT scores. As a result, the elite colleges would end up losing minority students with higher SAT scores than those that might be admitted in the future, the study says.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Impact of a Ban on Affirmative Action

  • Posted by Common Sense , The Problem with Making Assumptions on January 14, 2009 at 8:40am EST
  • Affirmative Action is about giving preference to groups based on skin color or gender, which happen to be two things someone is born with, and are not easily changed. You see, Title VII rightfully recognizes that it’s wrong (and illegal) to give preference based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Giving preference to a group physically categorized as ‘white males’ at one point in our history was wrong. It’s EQUALLY wrong to give preference to a group categorized as ‘black female’ or ‘baptist egyptian’ or any combination of protected classes. Affirmative action just substitutes one WRONG for another WRONG. Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

    Besides, if affirmative action supporters were serious, they'd be pushing for affirmative action in other things like sports. Instead of recruiting solely on talent, athleticism, agilty, speed, and power, we could just throw all that out the window and substitute an underrepresented player. I mean, how many 5 foot 350 pound players are there? Shouldn't they get a chance too? Of course this is silly and you would just end up with a losing team that got smashed by a team of all talented players, regardless of what color skin they were.

    Affirmative action supporters enjoy stereotyping and throwing people into groups, so they can get more entitlements, perpetuate racism, and brainwash the masses into a victim mentality by comparing groups against one another instead of looking at the character of an individual. The problem with throwing people into groups is that you are, in fact, stereotyping them. Stereotyping is about making assumptions, and you know what happens when you assume, don’t you?

    Some affirmative action supporters would have you believe 'white males' are inherently privileged. They'd have you believe that Jews have never been oppressed and have enjoyed ‘privilege’ because they are white. As you can see, that’s an erroneous assumption. The right, and proper thing to do is to treat everyone as an individual and NOT by a group you stereotype them to.

    Wake up people! We are ALL already diverse from one another. In fact, I don't know of ONE SINGLE other person on this earth who is exactly the same as me....and NO, I'm not the same as someone from Chile, Austrailia, France, Russia, or South Africa even though my skin color may be similar.

    I don’t buy into the white privilege idea, at least not during my generation. It’s another ASSUMPTION. To say that whites enjoy a natural born privilege is ridiculous. The CEO’s of American Express, Merryl Lynch, Symantec, and Time Warner are all black. How did white privilege help them? How about the undispute fact, that by number, there are more poor 'whites' than any other group? How did their privilege help them? Just because all Cardinals are red birds doesn’t mean all red birds are Cardinals. Similarly, people like affirmative action supporters would have you believe that “All people of privilege are white, therefore all white people are privileged". This kind of double talk just doesn’t make sense.

  • Posted by End it now on January 14, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • “inefficient approaches” to replacing affirmative action."

    So efficiency trumps equality and the 14th Amendment? Let's see how this might play out. For all kinds of reasons women on average spend less time in the work force over their lifetimes than men. Education of men for the work force is thus more efficient, and women should be discriminated against in admissions, particularly in education for the professions. Just as fair as the argument in favor of racial discrimination; if one type of discrimination is allowed in the name of efficiency why can't all be allowed?

    The lame excuses people make to justify their desire to discriminate boggle the mind...

  • Posted by Unapologetically Tedious , Math teacher on January 14, 2009 at 9:20am EST
  • "the drop might not have all of the results desired by critics of affirmative action."

    It's disgusting that supporters of AA think we critics want anything other than race neutral policies. Let the chips fall where they may, but stop using race as a proxy for anything.

  • Graduation Rates?
  • Posted by Jerry in LA on January 14, 2009 at 9:35am EST
  • Did these professors think (or care) to include in their study the affects on Graduation Rates of minorities? Or is that not important?

    "If affirmative action is eliminated, the study found, there would be an increase in minority average SAT scores among less competitive colleges because some students who would otherwise have gained admission to competitive colleges would enroll elsewhere."....and maybe thrive?
    I don't know. Just asking.

  • Posted by Greg on January 14, 2009 at 9:50am EST
  • Here is a novel idea, how about simply dropping the SAT/ACT as an admissions requirement? Every article about AA and admissions starts and stops with these two tests. Every article relates as to how minorities score lower. So if we know this, why do we condone it! The colleges who have dared to do this seem to be happy with the outcomes in regards to their positive minority population.

    Greg

  • Put the Shoe on the Other Foot
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on January 14, 2009 at 10:20am EST
  • Two comments. First, the study seems to support the “cascade”/systematic-mismatch effect that critics of preferences have long noted: That is, the result of eliminating preferences is that the African American and Latino students would still get into college, but now it would be colleges where their academic credentials are on par with the rest of the student body’s. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

    Second, the study predicts that, if told they cannot use overt racial preferences, then many colleges will instead use covert preferences--that is, they will try to find proxies for race (zip codes and the like). But as a legal mater and practical matter, this is still racial discrimination. And it seems very odd to suggest that, if the reaction of a school to a ban on discrimination is to lower admission requirements across the board, then we maybe we ought to give up and let the school discriminate.

    It’s always useful to put the shoe on the other foot. When Mississippi’s reaction to an order to desegregate its public schools was to close them, was that seen as a good reason to back off the demand for desegregation?

  • Posted by Jack Olson on January 14, 2009 at 10:55am EST
  • Why is it more just to discriminate against an applicant because he lives in the wrong ZIP code than because he was born into the wrong race? Because he can relocate into the right ZIP code?

  • Affirmative Action
  • Posted by Pamela on January 14, 2009 at 10:55am EST
  • The demographics show an increase in the number of multi-ethnic and multi-racial families. When my children mention a new friend, they never mention race. Isn't it time to eliminate race, gender and ethnicity from the hiring and admission process? I welcome the day when my accomplishments are praised without being accompanied by the phrase "for a woman".

  • Truth and Consequences
  • Posted by The Chosen One on January 14, 2009 at 12:15pm EST
  • Truth be told, if you truly eliminate affirmative action the impact for whites, African Americans and Hispanics would be catastrophic. I attended one of the premier Universities in the country and the highest performing class members were Asians, not whites. Let's not discriminate against them because of where they were born. If they can afford to attend our instituions, let them in and get rid of quotas. Millions of whites will get displaced along with African Americans and Hispanics, but that's real free market principles at work. We should also get rid of legacy preferences. Who cares if your parent attended, it has nothing to do with your capabilities. It's time to stop discriminating against Asians.

  • I Have a Dream
  • Posted by Edmond Dantes on January 14, 2009 at 12:25pm EST
  • I think MLK said it best, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." How does affirmative action help achieve that dream?

  • Not as simple as "common sense"
  • Posted by Bruce on January 14, 2009 at 12:50pm EST
  • A quick note to our friend Common Sense (above) and others like this poster. Affirmative action is not simply about giving preferences to folks who from protected classes or groups. Affirmative action instead is about finding talent in places that have been historically overlooked. Your analogy with sport is telling because you use the concept of talent. The analogy displays your presumption that people benefitting from affirmative action programs are necessarily less talented than, to use the group you discuss White males. This presumption has become internalized within the fabric of our society, and it is this presumption that causes the need for affirmative action programs – too many people fail to realize that talented, motivated people exits beyond the usual spaces.

  • Check the Numbers from California
  • Posted by Shawna Williamson on January 14, 2009 at 2:10pm EST
  • The predictions made by the authors of the study bear little resemblance to what actually happened in California over the past ten years, since racial and gender preferences were banned by a voter initiative (Proposition 209).

    From 1999 to 2007, the combined numbers of black students who earned bachelors degrees from the University of California and the California State University system, jumped by 21%, from 3800 to over 4700.

    The numbers of Hispanic students earning bachelor degrees from those same two systems over that same period of time, rose from 14,000 to over 20,000 or a nearly 40% increase!!

    The authors of the study, like nearly all university administrators across the country, retain a strong vested interest in maintaining and justifying racial and gender double standards regardless of what actually happens when they are formally banned.

  • Wow,
  • Posted by Confounded on January 14, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • The (what seems like) willful, proud ignorance of some people on this board is astounding. Affirmative action, in theory, should take - out of equal candidates - the minority. And for those who believe white men are not privileged, come out from under your rock, dinosaurs. Just because a couple of blacks are CEOs doesn't mean that all who want to can be. Come out from your ivory tower and have a look at reality.

    Look at a country like France, which is legally race-blind. However, there is still enormous discrimination - and it's much more blatant than here in the US. Legislators there are floating the idea of implementing affirmative action there because even though race technically doesn't exist, employers and universities still manage to discriminate. For example, many employers request photos from their job applicants. Is that where we want to go?

  • Affirmative Action
  • Posted by Jay Rosner , Executive Director at The Princeton Review Foundation on January 14, 2009 at 3:20pm EST
  • "Race matters" is the compelling two-word defense of affirmative action from the conservative, recently-retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (in her Grutter opinion).

    While affirmative action is a less-than-perfect method to fairly take race into account, opponents of affirmative action need to convince those of us with eyes and ears why race doesn't matter in the US today. Not why race shouldn't matter - most folks agree with that. Why race doesn't matter. And please, try to do better than Ward Connerly's lame assertion that Obama's election resolves this issue once and for all.

    To Shawna Williamson's statistics - the most serious damage caused by ending affirmative action occurs at the more selective graduate and professional programs and undergrad schools. Please post numbers from the UC medical and law schools, and from UCLA and UC Berkeley undergrad. I'll give just one example: in 2006 UCLA had 99 black freshmen out of 4800, a thirty year low, and even worse than the dire study above would have predicted.

    Jay Rosner, Executive Director
    The Princeton Review Foundation

  • Must Evaluate the Whole Picture
  • Posted by Shawna Williamson on January 14, 2009 at 4:50pm EST
  • What Jay Rosner cannot or will not recognize is that when elite campuses like UCLA and Berkeley were no longer permitted to use their heretofore appalling double standards in admissions that, given the fact of their heavy reliance on such racial preferences, when those preferences were disallowed or banned, guess what? The numbers dropped severely. But only at the most elitist campuses.

    Unless Rosner wants to say disparaging things about other UC campuses or about the CSU system, then he should come to realize that the actual numbers of blacks and Hispanics who graduated – graduated! – from California’s universities sharply increased in the state.

    And that is very good news indeed!

  • To Jay Rosner
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on January 14, 2009 at 4:50pm EST
  • He wrote:

    “While affirmative action is a less-than-perfect method to fairly take race into account, opponents of affirmative action need to convince those of us with eyes and ears why race doesn’t matter in the US today. Not why race shouldn’t matter — most folks agree with that. Why race doesn’t matter. And please, try to do better than Ward Connerly’s lame assertion that Obama’s election resolves this issue once and for all.”

    Yes, giving preferential treatment on the basis of skin color and what country your ancestors came from is “less-than-perfect,” all right. Do you really think that, in an increasingly multiethnic and multiracial society--and where individuals are increasingly multiethnic and multiracial--we can long tolerate a legal regime that does that?

    Your straw man to the contrary notwithstanding, no one believes that racial discrimination has vanished, that race does not matter. But there are better ways to fight it than giving preferential treatment to individuals who are more privileged than those being discriminating against (as President-elect Obama acknowledged), and it is not so systemic that it justifies institutionalized discrimination in the other direction. The playing field is not level, but there are plenty of folks of all colors at both ends. Enforce the civil rights laws; provide scholarship and other aid for those of all colors.

    As a lawyer, I have to point out that your argument is based on the “societal discrimination” rationale--a justification that the Supreme Court (including Justice O’Connor) has long rejected. So even if there were something to it as a policy matter, it is unavailable as a justification to schools that believe in following the law.

    Finally, even if there are some dubious benefits to the use of racial preferences, they are overwhelmed by the costs: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school; it encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it mismatches students and institutions, guaranteeing failure for many of the former; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership.

  • King's Dream and Affirmative Action?
  • Posted by Dr. R.Birt on January 14, 2009 at 4:50pm EST
  • It is interesting that Edmond Dantes alludes to words from Dr. Martin Luther King's famous "I have a Dream" speech in order to argue against Affirmative Action.
    For Dr. King himself ADVOCATED affirmative action in his 1964 book WHY WE CAN'T WAIT. He may well have been the first person of national stature to use the expression "affirmative action."
    I recommend persons read Chapter 8 ("The Days to Come") of King's WHY WE CAN'T WAIT.
    In fact, he begins by advocating such measures on behalf of blacks, and ends up extending that proposal to the poor and disadvantaged as whole.
    This is even more clear in his last book,WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE: CHAOS OR COMMUNITY (1967)
    Many people (especially conservatives, black and white)who so loosely quote Dr. King, would be surprised at how progressive Dr. King's social thought was.
    Perhaps they shouldn't quote him unless they do so in the context of his ENTIRE vision, and if they happen to share his progrssive social vision.

  • To Attorney Roger Clegg
  • Posted by Jay Rosner , Executive Director at The Princeton Review Foundation on January 14, 2009 at 9:50pm EST
  • Let's spare readers a reargument of the Grutter case, which your friends lost before a conservative Supreme Court. Further, you and your colleagues couldn't even convince Bush hires like Colin Powell and Condi Rice of the merits of your position.

    I am fascinated by one point you raise: your urging that we "enforce the civil rights laws." This is a very timely remark, since just today we learned that the corruption of the Justice Department under the Bush Administration extended beyond the firing of eight Republican US attorneys for political reasons and into the Civil Rights Division itself. A Justice Deptartment report details how Bush's Civil Rights Division featured an appalling crony hiring scheme.

    I just wonder how many of the 63 "considered Republican or conservative" Civil Rights Division hires (out of 65) of Bradley Schlozman opposed affirmative action AND were actually seeking jobs in the Civil Rights Division in order to try to constrain, not uphold, civil rights law enforcement. In fairness, I should note here that a lot of moderate Republicans support affirmative action, though it doesn't appear that those were the kind of folks Scholzman was looking for.

    My point is that when affirmative action opponents make arguments like "enforce the civil rights laws," their credibility is severely undercut not only by their allies on the right who don't believe there's even a need for vigorous civil rights enforcement, but also by information as fresh as today's news about the Civil Rights Division of an administration whose Solicitor General opposed affirmative action in the Supreme Court.

  • Posted by James Cavenaugh on January 15, 2009 at 9:25am EST
  • Affirmative action is a euphemism for hypocrisy, plain and simple.

  • Jay Rosner
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tedious , Math teacher on January 15, 2009 at 10:50am EST
  • Mr. Rosner,

    It's acutally defenders of AA that must do a better job than the "lame" way you defend/guilt people into continuing to support racial discrimination. Something other than disparate impact theory. Something other than "all whites are privileged". Something other than "all minorities have it hard and always will and must have government help in order to live at all in these racist United States".

    Defenders of AA are losing this battle and the critics' momentum is undoubtedly gaining. Even on an academic blog your friends are few and far between. You're no doubt self-righteous in your defense of AA so how does it feel knowing you're losing so horribly in the debate?

  • To Bruce
  • Posted by Common Sense on January 15, 2009 at 3:05pm EST
  • Bruce, I understand your point. But comparing outreach initiatives are completely different than the purposeful discrimination that stems from preferential hiring and admissions with affirmative action. I'm not opposed to opening doors wider during the application process--through creative advertising designed to target a whole audience, not a protected class--or by casting the net farther and wider, but never at the expense of someone else, especially more qualified.

  • Affirmative Action
  • Posted by DFS on January 15, 2009 at 4:15pm EST
  • As long as the doors are not open to everyone due to space limitations, then achieved merit should be the only fair way for entrance -- this is the contrary position towards affirmative action.

    As long as the doors are not open to some people due to something other than space limitations, then achieved merit should not be the only fair way for entrance -- this is the affirmative position towards affirmative action.

    We should investigate and finally state, only by true statistics, whether or not we are still suffering from the required hypothesis assumed by the affirmative position before affirmative action can be -- and should be -- retired. (Not before -- but definitely after. Else, discrimination continues. For statistical and societal consideration, I would invoke the requirement of a 99% confidence interval -- I have sufficient faith that we can achieve this.)

    Until then, we are kept in limbo. We must come together and accept such true results.

    Can anyone formulate such statistical parameters? Or, must we slug this out forever?

  • Posted by Lindsey , Admissions Counselor on January 15, 2009 at 4:30pm EST
  • Wow, look at the white privileged elite pour out of the woodwork to claim how everything should be "equal" and "blind" so as to let their own preferred method of discrimination--the kind that favors their own status quo--win out.

  • Clegg vs. Rosner
  • Posted by BenjaminL on January 15, 2009 at 6:35pm EST
  • I note that Jay Rosner responds to Roger Clegg (9:50pm 1/14/09) by completely changing the subject.

    Still, it is worth noting that on what Rosner calls Grutter's "conservative Supreme Court," the swing vote and author of the opinion was Sandra Day O'Connor. Anthony Kennedy dissented, along with the genuine conservatives.

    Because O'Connor has since been replaced by Samuel Alito, Kennedy would today be the swing vote. Kennedy's interesting dissent, available online(*), complains that the court neglected to apply the test of strict scrutiny to Michigan's scheme.

    * http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZD1.html

    It's hard to imagine that, when the issue next comes up, Kennedy will look favorably on the shameless and squalid quota-mongering that affirmative action amounts to in practice.

    In the meantime children as privileged as those of the Powells or the Obamas will still be entitled to admission at the most competitive colleges, even if their records would place them among the least qualified of entering students. Asian-Americans of all backgrounds will be able to complain with justifiable bitterness that the deck is stacked against them. Black and Hispanic students will be able to continue to defer the consequences of massive underachievement, and disregard the fact that SAT scores for the wealthiest black students are worse than those of the poorest white students.

    http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/56_income-based_action.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Income2.png

  • Posted by objective observer on January 15, 2009 at 7:15pm EST
  • Lindsey - ok - you have the requisite name calling out of the way, and you have made sure you have labeled anyone with differing opinions a privileged elite, with, of course, knowing nothing about the backgrounds of the contributors here.

    The real issue is whether affirmative action - meaning the granting of significant preferences based on skin pigmentation - is working. And by working I mean does its considerable costs outstrip its benefits.

    What you are hearing in many of these contributions is that the perception is that the costs are outweighing the benefits.

    And frankly, although my experience at a highly competitive Tier One law school may be a bit narrow, the affirmative action being practiced there (and still practiced there) made me, being I think a fundamentally kind and decent person, incredibly sad. Most all of the relevant students did poorly - not surprising given the rapacious and incredibly well prepared intellectual wolves against which they were competing - their drop out rate was much higher, and the programs for them just caused all sorts of unhappy stigmatization, even to those of us most inclined to be tolerant (e.g., remedial reading and writing sessions in the first year which if anything put more doom and fear into them - I know - as a law review editor, I was asked to teach a few of these classes with the assigned professors, and I could tell it was not helping). And the placement office was not so secretly enraged, because the bar pass rate, even at this very well regarded school, was really dismal. (Michigan's recent bar pass rate played a part in the quick dismissal of the MCRI challenge in the 6th Circuit - if one party could introduce evidence of how getting rid of affirmative action would harm minorities, the counterparties then were free to introduce evidence as to how the program actually harmed them - and that was the last thing the liberally inclined judge or the University wanted to come out). And the quality of the job placements was poor. To top it all off the debt load at this private school was staggering, and I wondered whether, at the price of having people with the right skin color attend the school, the school was even being remotely honest with these young people in terms of the risks of the debt load and the prospects for non-transitory well paid employment. You can cast me and my lot as a privileged elite (I am from a poor single mother home, for whatever that is worth), but really, being from the circumstances I am from, and on a person to person basis, I rather liked most of my fellow minority students, and notwithstanding the well intentioned goals behind the program, felt they were being manipulated for politically correct ends. Little wonder most walked away thinking the "system" did them in again - heck - I agreed with them. And finally, the whole process, which I believe hurts more than it helps (how could what I observed lead me to any other conclusion?) was done in secret - the only way affirmative action can work.

    I know this reflects just one experience - that at a competitive law school. But the debate has to move beyond name calling - having seen this in action up close, it is simply not working very well, and I mean, it is working so badly that a mend it but not end it approach just doesn't pass muster. We can't solve massive K-12 educational and cultural problems with preferential admissions to competitive schools. It is akin to throwing a pebble in Lake Superior. Please re-consider your comments - the other side does have some important points to make.

  • To Objective Observer
  • Posted by Common Sense on January 16, 2009 at 11:50am EST
  • Thank you for sharing your experience. It is also what I experience as a human resources professional in a large educational institution. I am glad that you and Roger Clegg are able to gracefully point out the flaws in Affirmative Action much more eloquently than myself. However, be prepared for Lindsey--and others like her, to play "hot potato" with the "you must be a racist" card now that they've been inundated with your common sense approach to exposing the inherent moral and legal unfairness of AA.

  • Posted by objective observer on January 16, 2009 at 4:30pm EST
  • Common sense - your moniker actually says it all. When it comes to AA, in many respects we have abandoned common sense. Can you imagine any of us excited by the gains of the civil rights era in the 70's, dedicated as were to the principle of non-discrimination, would have, as the California University system now does, deemed it permissible to blatantly discriminate against first generation Asian immigrants, who came here with nothing? We would have been horrified.

    So this is what the civil rights gains have wrought? The tribes that lobby institutions better than others now get the spoils? So much for treating people as individuals - and that means frankly, above all else, treating them fairly. And so much for hewing to the concept that civil rights groups would succeed if they consistently were principled. And what kind of promise is there for young people when one large avenue to success is to accentuate one's victim status? It is a short-cut which ultimately helps only a few. I was a highly competitive collegiate athlete in a mostly black sport - I can assure you that my competitors (and friends) were not burdened or motivated by any notion that they were victims while on the athletic field.

    The problem is that promise of the civil rights era has been extremely disappointing in terms of academic achievement. After some gains early on, the minority achievement gaps remain and to some extent have widened. This of course makes no sensible person anything but distressed, and when it comes to elite institutions, they know, as the authors of this newest piece point out, that unless they significantly relax their otherwise meritocratic practices, there won't be many minorities on campus, and in particular, African Americans. I think, and in this sense I am heartened by President Obama's election (although I disagree with him on a number of points), that a significant cultural problem, and not a paucity of Great Society programs, is the root of all our angst, and I hope that that cultural problem can be addressed and we can jettison AA soon - not in any sense of meanness or spite, but rather because it just doesn't work.

    My guess is that far more people on campus who have seen AA up close privately share my views. In fact, if everyone was subjected to a truth serum, the numbers might really surprise (in the bluest of blue states, Michigan, MCRI nevertheless passed with a significant margin). People may still disagree, but the name calling and frustration of debate should stop.

  • Posted by Ian on January 17, 2009 at 10:20am EST
  • I cannot help but think AA serves some purpose in transforming society by helping more minorities to reach middle class or beyond. Universities know how large a pool is necessary to fill their spots while leaving some room for outside attributes, perhaps 4x the number of spots. Any minority within the academic range of the top 4x pool would get in. This would shrink the number of minorities but guarantee that they would be competitive, unlike the huge academic deficits that many face right now. This would also shift the emphasis to individual merit from racial affiliation and quotas (however they may be described).

  • Be ashamed to accept Affirmative action.
  • Posted by tim on February 6, 2009 at 5:15am EST
  • I would be humiliated to be accepted into a school or a corporste position because of affirmative action.

    " Im sorry honey, you really dont have a snow balls chance in hell of making it to this university, however because your black, we will lower the standards for you to give you a fighting chance."

    or

    " I realize your family only makes $40,000.00 a year and your GPA is pretty decent; we cant give you the scholarship...- Are you sure theres no black blood in your family? If so I can get you a complete scholarship!"

    I havent researched it but I suspect an A student at Howard University would probaby bag a C at any other university!

  • to tim
  • Posted by Hugh , Professor/Business on July 30, 2009 at 11:30pm EDT
  • Don't feel ashamed if you benefit because of your race, sex, national origin, or hair color. I have been in the university racket for 75 years. Moved into a GaTech dormitory in 1934 -- nothing but white folks, like me. Most of them terribly poor, like me. Went to very nice public schools (had to walk 2 miles each day to escape the white mill village. (My parents got me a district exception. )) I was a sensationally smart, obedient, lovable and beautiful child. Teachers fell over themselves doing me favors until I was 17 --- (chosen by teachers as valedictorian). No money at all for college, and my dad went mad and was institutionalized. No social security or disability in those days, just the snake pit. But I as 99th percentile SAT and 4.0 gpa (and could leap tall buildings in a single bound. Yale and Princeton came through with full-ride scholarships (legacy at Princeton) limited to Southern white kids (they were trying to become more regionally representative). Went Tiger (they were closer) (no blacks there--the our beds were made by Italian men twice our ages). Very successful until I went mad (like my Dad). Kicked out. Drafted into the war-time Marines (everyone was crazy there so theydidn't mind me preaching to the seagulls. No blacks there. There I learned (among other things) to duck whatever comes your way (it won't be good) and to carry an extra set of contact lenses. If you can write that you would be ashamed to receive an undeserved privilege, you must not have lived or ever received an undeserved gift and therefore you must have lived a miserable life. I bid you take life easy.