|
 n
June 27, the Washington Post ran an op-ed, "The
Strong Case for Campus Diversity," by Eric Holder and Neal
Katyal, two ex-Clinton administration Justice Department officials.
In it, they defend the use of racial and ethnic preferences in university
admissions, arguing that the justification for discrimination in
this context is much stronger than it is for government-contracting
preferences.
While it was
gratifying to see an implicit acknowledgment of just how bankrupt
the case for contracting set-asides is — especially from these authors,
whose Justice Department spent the last eight years defending them,
tooth and nail — their op-ed only underscores that the case for
admissions discrimination is just as weak.
Like universities
themselves, Holder and Katyal have (thankfully) given up on the
so-called remedial justification for preferences — the claim that
slavery and Jim Crow justify preferential treatment for 17-year-old
college applicants, born in the mid-1980s, twenty years after the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead they rely on the "diversity"
mantra.
But this is
equally unpersuasive. The claim is that racial and ethnic discrimination
in admissions is essential if universities are to be "places
where people from different walks of life and diverse backgrounds
come together to learn from one another." But skin color does
not equal "walk of life" and national origin does not
equal "background." There are African Americans and whites
from all walks of life and there are Latinos and Asians of every
background. The assumption to the contrary used to be called stereotyping.
Holder and
Katyal stress that diversity "enriches all students in a unique
way" — but of course this enrichment does not benefit the students
who get a thin rejection letter because they are the wrong color
and have the wrong ancestors. And there is great irony in the authors'
premise that students are being brought "together as democratic
equals" when, in fact, everyone knows that some races are more
equal than others.
Holder and
Katyal assert that there is a "crucial distinction" between
racial classifications (bad) and racial considerations
(good). But if race and ethnicity are being considered, it must
be because — in at least some cases — they will make the difference
between whether a candidate is admitted or not. Otherwise, there's
no point in considering them at all, right? And in those cases where
it makes the difference, then racial or ethnic discrimination has
occurred.
Nor are preferences
a mere tiebreaker or tiny plus factor. The studies published over
the years by the Center
for Equal Opportunity — based on the universities' own data,
obtained through freedom-of-information laws — and the evidence
uncovered through litigation against the schools have shown that
the academic qualifications demanded by schools vary dramatically
according to the skin color and ancestry of the applicant. Subsequent
academic and professional performance by those who are preferentially
admitted is, therefore, lower too.
As a consequence,
Holder and Katyal are wrong to declare that preferences are "the
ramp up to a level playing field — with no further affirmative action
needed for the rest of one's life." Instead, it is the first
layer in a tissue of lies that foster hypocrisy, resentment, stigmatization,
and lower standards.
By systematically
admitting African Americans and Latinos who have performed and will
continue to perform at a lower academic level, racist stereotypes
about their lack of intellectual ability are inevitably reinforced
among their classmates and professors. This stigmatization hurts
not only those who are given preferences but also blacks and Latinos
who are not, and it plants the seeds of doubt not only in the minds
of other groups but in their own as well.
The most chilling
part of the op-ed is its attempt to reassure us that the opportunities
for fraud in university admissions are limited because the school
"has years to verify any individual applicant's claims."
In other words, Holder and Katyal expect schools to investigate
whether an applicant is really an African American, Latino,
or American Indian, instead of merely white, Arab American, or Asian
Indian. Will they use genealogical records and a one-drop rule?
Holder and
Katyal also warn that, if "university educators who are experts
in their fields" are not allowed to have their way, then they
may well "reduce their reliance on traditional standards of
merit." That is, if admission bureaucrats aren't allowed to
use overt preferences on top of otherwise valid academic criteria,
they will jiggle and dilute the criteria to guarantee a predetermined
racial and ethnic mix. That is a real danger, all right, but such
stubbornness and willingness to destroy the system rather than change
it were not acceptable excuses during the post — Brown v.
Board of Education era of massive resistance, and they should
not be accepted now either.
Finally, preferences
are insulting. African Americans are being told that, despite making
enormous contributions over the centuries to American life and culture
in the teeth of horrific discrimination, they can no longer be expected
to succeed unless the bar is lowered for them.
Holder and
Katyal call on the Bush administration to follow the Clinton administration's
policies and "reaffirm" that admissions discrimination
is lawful. One hopes that the new administration will have more
respect for the principle of nondiscrimination than that.
|
