George Will’s column today references a brief that my U.S. Civil Rights Commission colleagues Gail Heriot, Todd Gaziano, and I have filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. The Fisher case presents the Court with an opportunity to revisit the constitutionality of racial preferences in college admissions.
Our brief makes the point that an increasing number of studies show that racial preferences actually harm their intended beneficiaries. Black and Hispanic students admitted to colleges due to preferences are far more likely to flunk out or rank at the bottom of their respective classes than their white and Asian comparatives. This is particularly true for students in science, technology, engineering, math, and law.
The phenomenon is due in large part to the “mismatch effect.” A recent Center for Equal Opportunity study showed that at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, black and Hispanic applicants were more than 500 times more likely to be admitted over similarly qualified white or Asian applicants. Thus, black and Hispanic admittees were more likely to be below the college’s median qualification level than white and Asian admittees — leading to profound performance disparities between the former and latter cohorts.
Racial preferences are not only harmful, they’re costly. Just a few weeks ago, University of Wisconsin–Madison professor of economics emeritus W. Lee Hansen estimated the cost of maintaining that institution’s diversity apparatus is $40 million per year (the salaries of college “diversity officers” alone can be several times the starting salaries of professors). Not surprisingly, as noted last week by Heather Mac Donald on this page, the staggering cost of the diversity bureaucracy contributes to the rising cost of tuition. Consequently, all students (or their guarantors/creditors) are paying more money/incurring greater debt so that preferred minority students will have a higher probability of flunking out.
More than two months ago in this space, I challenged University of Wisconsin officials to debate their assertion that their admissions policy complies with the “guidelines handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.” I stated that they could send two, three, or however many professors they needed to defend their claim and they could choose any neutral they wished to score the debate. I’d even spot them 20 points on a 100 point scale.
I’ve gotten no response. Therefore, I hereby extend the same challenge to any university in the country currently employing racial and ethnic preferences. My only stipulation is that the neutral be neutral.
Look forward to hearing from you.
However, none of this makes affirmative action unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constirution bars stupid laws.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEliminating racial preferences in admission would be pretty radical. A more pragmatic approach would be to simply grade and rank minority students separately from white (and Asian) students. I can't see any issues with this approach.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe end result would still be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWould you go to a minority doctor, knowing that minority doctors were graded on an easier scale than white doctors?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm white, so I'd go to a white doctor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am pretty sure the comment is ironic given the word "separate" which immediately brings "separate but equal" to mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne has to give the benefit of the doubt to Mitch Baker that he is joking; otherwise, his remarks are simply unintentionally silly and absurd. Regarding the legal profession, I recall the book that showed how those blacks admitted to higher echelon colleges and universities such as those in the Ivy League did poorer in their studies and in the legal profession than those who attended colleges and universities that were not in that higher echelon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeter, you must be a jealous white male! (sarcasm alert.)
Good post. Thanks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, let me say that I agree with you on affirmative action.
Having said that, if professors have nothing better to do than run off an debate any pundit that disagrees with the policies of their university -- policies they probably had little say in formulating -- their positions should be eliminated or they should be given more duties. The people you should be debating are the diversity officers and other administrators that formulate the policy. Unfortunately, doing something other than pandering to their own prejudices and expanding their empires is not what they want to do. And since they are administrators, they only do what they want to do.
And as an aside, I know that many administrators are tenured and carry the title of professor, but as far as I am concerned, when you quit interacting with students on academic activities and are instead polishing budgets and your resume for the next position, you are a PINO, Professor In Name Only.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe saw what happened when the federal government provided mortages to people without adequate resources to sustain home ownership. We should expect the same outcome when college admission is provided to students without the adequate resources and motivation to be successful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1 - "Our brief makes the point that an increasing number of studies show that racial preferences actually harm their intended beneficiaries."
2- "Black and Hispanic students admitted to colleges due to preferences are far more likely to flunk out or rank at the bottom of their respective classes than their white and Asian comparatives." -
The outcome (statement #2) - is the obvious and only possible consequence of deliberate racial profiling (or "preferences" or "discrimination"). Now we all know that the race lobby will say this outcome is due to post-admission racism and discrimination against the "preferred" students. Also, they, the race lobby, will not accept the assertion that these students are harmed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have seen the results of affirmative action admittance to law school up close. These students don't do well, and they don't understand why they can't do better. Because of the way law school operates, they graduate no matter how bad they are. Out of two such students I befriended, one could not pass the bar, so never practiced. The other passed the bar, but was a terrible lawyer. I saw some of his written work. It was just abysmal. But, black clients flocked to him because they felt comfortable with someone of their own race, and there weren't that many black lawyers in our city. They had no way of knowing he was a terrible lawyer and was giving them terrible service. Eventually, he got disbarred. But, in the meantime, he was hurting the minority community -- not deliberately -- but because he didn't know any better.
I can't help but wonder if Michael Jackson was a victim of the same phenomenon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Courts will continue to be completely wrong, because they must.
If all affirmative action and similar preferences were struck down and rendered void ab initio (clearly the proper outcome), this would instantly precipitate petitions requiring the damage be undone. Since legally they would be correct, it would require all affirmative action-derived hiring and promotions be reversed (employees fired and demoted) and their gross compensation (salary plus benefits plus pension) seized for distribution to another class: the Caucasian applicants and candidates deprived of that job.
A significant Board of Education case (in which a teacher was improperly fired) the remedy was reinstatement as of the date of termination complete with seniority, tenure, position in the vacation preference queue, total salary plus pension plus sick leave plus holidays.
Entire generations of unqualified black and Hispanic "employees" (charity recipients) have retired and their positions have been filled by their own children.
Since case law dictates that the employer is responsible (the replacement teacher was not responsible for the loss, the Board was), and since this cost could never be recovered from the recipients, full application of this decision would easily bankrupt most cities and lay waste to the stock market.
And that, dear reader, is why the legal and moral answer will always differ from the practical answer.
The very least that can be done is to strike all existing laws (including Title IX), but not retroactively, but "social justice" will not permit this either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSad but true, and it's been going on for decades. The result is that all 'minority' admittees are suspect until they prove themselves -- over and over and over again, for their whole careers. Nanny government messes up again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is absolutely true. After hearing from more than one medical student at prestigious American medical schools that half their class consisted of affirmative action admittees whom they wouldn't allow anywhere near their families, I have concluded that my first filter for selecting a physician is either to find one who attended medical school before the advent of affirmative action, or, if younger, is a White or Asian male who went to a good American medical school.
Not fair, I know. Among minority graduates there are certainly some brilliant ones. But, I don't have any way of knowing who they are. All I know is that White and Asian males are the ones most likely to have been admitted on their merits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDiversity is a euphemism. Proponents say the goal is to provide students with the benefits of a diverse experience, but if it were, admissions would focus on achieving diversity of political and religious beliefs and balance between students growing up in rural and urban areas and in poor families and rich ones. But there is none of that. Diversity is just a more palatable term for providing preferences for racial minorities who could not get in if the system were color-blind.
As the author notes, preferences hurt the minorities they're designed to benefit. Not only are many admitted to schools where they can't compete, but the degrees of those who manage to graduate come with a hidden asterisk. Non-minorities assume - often correctly but not always - that minority graduates got where they got based on preferences, not the merits.
The whole system is damaging, it's wrong, and it's discriminatory. The solution should be true color-blindness in admissions and hiring and renewed focus on resolving the problems that prevent more minorities from qualifying on the merits. A start would be the scandalous illegitimacy rate, which puts a majority of black children at a distinct disadvantage from the outset.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother factor that hurts minorities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThose minority students who flunk out prior to graduation, are still stuck with big college debts.
Do away with affirmative action, forced-diversity, and quotas and you could reduce the size of the Federal government workforce by a third.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAffirmative action.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook no further than the on-the-job-training President.
Would you visit a similarly qualified physician?
This is BS and was written to promote racist itineraries.
Far more Whites benefit from Affirmative Action policies than Blacks/Hispanics because the policies prevent economic discrimination as well. And also, maybe the students are flunking out because they can't deal with the RACISM that is prevalent on college campuses when they get there.
You also only used stats from one university, as if it speaks to all of them! This is a sorry excuse for journalism and is the #1 reason why people are so misinformed in a day and age where information is so easily accessible. Good day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse