In response to the Gratz decision that barred its use of fixed points in admissions decisions (20 points to minorities, 4 points to legacies, etc.), the University of Michigan has abandoned the use of hard, clear points. In its place is a “holistic” policy of reading the 26,000 or so applications with a view of assessing the whole student.
While legacies still will be taken into account, they will be considered as one of several factors in admissions decisions.
In compliance with a June Supreme Court ruling, Michigan discarded its former undergraduate admissions procedure that allotted points to various factors of a student’s application, including legacies, and instituted a new holistic policy, said Julie Peterson, associate vice president of media relations and vice president for communications at the University of Michigan.
“It is more qualitative than quantitative,” she said.
Will this make any real difference in what Michigan actually does. Well, no, said Ms. Peterson.
Peterson said the new procedure calls for a more individualized review of applications. Admissions officers will focus more on specific aspects of a student’s application and consider his or her accomplishments and experiences as a whole….
Peterson said, however, that the new policy will not have a major impact on the status of the legacy factor in admissions decisions.
“Legacies are still something we consider,” she said. “It’s impossible to quantify, but they’re generally weighing in the same.”
It wasn’t impossible before Gratz, but it is now. But no matter, since the “holistic” approach will predictably lead to the same result as the pre-holistic approach, with race as well as legacy status.
I have commented before (see here, here, here, and here for example) how odd it is that advocates of civil rights have reversed themselves 180 degrees on this matter. One of the central purposes (and effects) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was precisely to eliminate what was then called “white male discretion.” The whole point of a clear, bright, non-discrimination rule was to remove the discretion of employers, promotion boards, admissions officers, voting registrars, etc., from “taking race into account,” either overtly or surreptitiously.
But times change, and the principles of some along with them. Confident that these days most decision-makers can be trusted to do the right thing, i.e., give preferences to formerly disfavored but now favored groups, those who claim to favor civil rights now are all in favor of unencumbered discretion.
Sooner or later they’ll be sorry. You don’t think so? You think discretion is now not only the better part of valor but also an essential principle (or evidence of the lack thereof) of this new era of multicultural management? Then try this thought experiment, brought to mind by Dr. Dean’s recently discussed Southern strategy: how long do you think we would continue to hear ringing defenses of employer/university/etc. discretion if it were determined that the decision-makers drove pickup trucks, or even fancy cars, with Confederate decals?
Regarding the Michigan case on *undergraduate* admissions th thing that stuck in my craw was this: the young woman who was a plaintiff in that action breezily maintained that she had applied to no other universities. She had good grades (not stellar) and se participated in high school activities and she simply *assumed* she was entitled to admission. When I applied to colleges, money was tight and impacted how many applications fees were going to be paid. I followed the rule I was told: dream college, a good bet, and one sure bet. I never heard that thi woman’s conviction of her own entitlement was an issue in any of the legal proceedings.
I’m wondering if you can offer a definition of “merit”. Anti-affirmative action people invoke this a lot without defining it.
The argument we anti-AA types make is not that Jennifer Gratz, or anyone else, was “entitled” to a place in the freshman class at Michigan. Our argument is that what she was entitled to is the right to be free from discrimination based on race. It doesn’t matter how I define “merit” (although it is true that when I use the term I don’t put it in quotation marks). What matters is how Michigan defines it. If Jennifer Gratz, or anyone else, had higher grades, higher test scores, more activities, i.e., whatever non-racial attributes Michigan looked at, than a very substantial number of minority applicants who were admitted at the same time that very, very few non-minority applicants with lesser qualifications were admitted, then there is a very strong case that she was discriminated against because of her race.