|
panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was set
to hear oral arguments this week in a pair of cases challenging
the use of racial and ethnic preferences at the University of Michigan
— one in undergraduate admissions, the other for slots at the
law school. But on October 19, the hearing was canceled and the
case reset for argument before the full Sixth Circuit on December
6. This is probably a good thing for those challenging the preferences,
since the original panel was likely to have been hostile to their
arguments.
U of M does
not deny that it discriminates on the basis of race and ethnicity.
Its defense is, instead, that such discrimination is justified because
education is so much better in a school with a predetermined racial
and ethnic mix. This is a dubious proposition empirically and an
untenable one legally/constitutionally. That is, the connection
between how much you learn and who sits next to you is weak, and
even if there is some connection, it would hardly justify state
classifications and preferences on the basis of skin color and ancestry.
Michigan also
tries to minimize the weight given to race and ethnicity in its
admissions decisions, but the fact of the matter is that these criteria
are not mere tiebreakers or plus factors. To the contrary: A black
or Hispanic applicant stands a much better chance of getting in
than an Asian or white candidate with identical academic qualifications.
Indeed, a study
based on U of M's own 1995 admissions data by the Center for Equal
Opportunity found that a black candidate was 174 times more likely
to be admitted than an equally qualified white candidate (for a
Hispanic candidate, the odds were 131 to 1). Thus, a white candidate
with a 540 math SAT, 480 verbal SAT, and 3.3 high-school grade-point
average had a 34 percent chance of admission, versus a 99 percent
chance if he were black or Hispanic. With a 470 math SAT, 430 verbal
SAT, and 3.0 GPA, a white's chances were only 5 percent, versus
89 percent for an African American and 86 percent for a Latino.
Of course,
Michigan is not alone in such discrimination. Last week, a report
edited by the Institute for Higher Education Policy and sponsored
by the Nellie Mae Education Foundation lauded the "affirmative
admissions" policies in New England higher education. The foreword
to the report claims that "there is no significant evidence
that colleges have reduced standards to admit greater numbers of
Minority students." But the text and data in the study show
that minorities have significantly better chances of admission than
whites with the same academic credentials.
Or go west
from Michigan, to Illinois. "What should a student gain from
college?" That was the question put to residents in a recent
survey, highlighted in a report written by the Committee on Access
and Diversity of the state's Board of Higher Education and adopted
two months ago by the full board.
At the very
bottom of the eight answers ranked was "Exposure to Great Writers
and Thinkers." Next to last was "Responsibilities of Citizenship."
These were the only two that most residents did not think were "absolutely
essential." Indeed, half thought they were not essential at
all, and 14 percent and 9 percent, respectively, said that they
were in fact "not too important."
The top two
vote getters were "Sense of Maturity and How to Manage on Their
Own" and "Ability to Get Along with People Different from
Themselves." Only 2 percent viewed these as "not too important,"
and 71 percent and 68 percent, respectively, called them "absolutely
essential."
Needless to
say, the strong support for the second item ("Ability to Get
Along with People Different from Themselves") was used to help
justify the report's recommendation that Illinois public universities
discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity. Such discrimination
is needed, you see, to ensure that student bodies are sufficiently
diverse for students to hone their abilities to get along with people
different from themselves.
Along the way,
students will also learn that some races and ethnicities are less
academically able than others. After all, the black and Latino students
they meet will in the aggregate be less academically able than the
whites and Asians admitted — that's the inevitable result of
a double standard in admissions, right? But no matter. The use of
racial and ethnic preferences in the workplace will teach students
the same lesson once they graduate, so they might as well get a
head start in college. Universities could instead show that members
of any race can achieve academic excellence, simply by holding everyone
to the same standard, but they'd rather be fashionable than fair,
even if in doing so they perpetuate racist stereotypes.
The one dissenting
member of the board was John C. Thompson, a graduate student at
the University of Illinois at Springfield. He pointed out that,
among other things, the discrimination being endorsed will be expensive.
Neighboring Michigan has so far spent about $30 million in the lawsuits
challenging its discrimination, according to Mr. Thompson. But apparently
the Illinois board's motto is: Millions for defense, not much sense
to contribute. At a time when many students and professors are afraid
publicly to oppose racial and ethnic preferences while privately
admitting to misgivings, Mr. Thompson is a hero.
One wonders
why the report's recommendations do not go further. Since it is
so important for students to learn in college how to get along with
everyone, regardless of academic ability, it is only logical to
do away with academic admissions requirements altogether. Since
we often must deal with people who did not finish high school, for
instance, it is quite wrong to insist on a high-school diploma as
a prerequisite for college admission. How are college students supposed
to learn to get along with high-school dropouts if they don't go
to college with them?
Incidentally,
the other four answers on the survey of Illinois residents —
bunched in the middle — were: Improved Ability to Solve Problems/Think
Analytically, Learning High-Tech Skills, Specific Expertise and
Knowledge in Chosen Careers, and Top-Notch Writing and Speaking
Skills.
But back to
the top and bottom finishers: Isn't it amazing that at the bottom
should be "Exposure to Great Writers and Thinkers" and
at the top is "Sense of Maturity and How to Manage on Their
Own"? Colleges, in other words, are just babysitters: a place
to park children while they weather the last few years of adolescence
and maybe learn how to write checks and set an alarm clock. As for
the great books — famously featured, ironically, in the University
of Chicago's curriculum — well, whatever.
But why should
anyone feel strongly about maintaining high intellectual standards
when universities themselves are willing to sacrifice them —
to say nothing of the principle of racial and ethnic nondiscrimination
— on the altar of political correctness? When the University
of Michigan defends its use of racial and ethnic preferences before
the court of appeals on December 6, it is necessarily admitting
as well that it is no longer an intellectually serious institution.
|
