Many of you have probably seen news stories, like this one, reporting that the good people who revived the “without regard” principle of colorblind equality in Michigan — Ward Connerly, Jennifer Gratz, and friends — have been laying the groundwork for a “Super Tuesday for Equality” on Nov. 4, 2008: initiatives outlawing racial and ethnic preferences in five or six additional states.
The opposition is already starting to form, and froth, as indicated by this recent article from Missouri, one of the states that may be targeted. Here’s my favorite passage:
Barbara Rupp, director of admissions at MU, said that between 8 percent and 12 percent of approximately 11,000 students who have applied for admission into MU in August are subject to the [“holistic”] review by a committee that considers “extenuating circumstances,” such as disability, race, family history and evidence of overcoming diversity. The committee also looks at the students’ class load in high school or whether they have improving or declining grade-point averages.
Race as an “extenuating circumstance[]” in “overcoming diversity”! Now I assume Ms. Rupp meant, and may even have said, “overcoming adversity” [ed.: although maybe not, since “diversity” has come to be a synonym for blackness], but that possibility hardly redeems the patronizing, condescending, or even outright racist attitude revealed by this sentence. My dictionary (the New Oxford American Dictionary, built into Apple’s OS X) defines “extenuating” as follows:
1 [usu. as adj. ] (extenuating) make (guilt or an offense) seem less serious or more forgivable : there were extenuating circumstances that caused me to say the things I did.
Does what now passes for the civil rights movement really want to rally around the idea of race as an “extenuating circumstance” that justifies treating minorities as more (because they are in reality viewed as less) than equal?
oh be fair. the lady hardly knows the difference between adversity and diversity. she probably didn’t mean to use the word “extenuating” (it’s a complicated word, as multi-syllabic words usually are). indeed i doubt she meant to write any of that stuff.
Doesn’t the UofMissouri application process should like it is in violation of virtually every court case so far. It makes it sound like all of the minority applications are sorted into their own admissions process where factors are taken into consideration that are not considered for White or Asian students.
Having been a college admissions professional, the most important factor is evidence to do the work on the basis of past academic performance. For anybody, regardless of race or personal circumstance. That being said, posts such as this one give the uninformed reader the impression that all students of color are admitted on the basis of race alone, and that ability to do the work is not at all a consideration. It also makes the assumption that every White and Asian studnent is qualified, but we never seem to read about the ones who aren’t, or who are nuttier than fruitcakes and who couldn’t tell you the difference between adversity and diversity. Given the way education has gone in the US, this is most likely more true than we realize.
Where affirmative action needs to get back to its original purpose, which is to provide opportunity, and I believe most institutions do just that.
… posts such as this one give the uninformed reader the impression that all students of color are admitted on the basis of race alone, and that ability to do the work is not at all a consideration. It also makes the assumption that every White and Asian studnent is qualified….
With respect, I don’t believe this post, or any other post I’ve written, suggests that blacks who are admitted under affirmative action preferences “are admitted on the basis of race alone” or that “every White and Asian” applicant is qualified. I have argued, because I think it’s indisputably true, that many blacks who are admitted under affirmative action preferences would not have been admitted but for the racial preference. Even that, however, does not necessarily mean they were unqualified, only that they were less qualified than the other applicants who were rejected in favor of those who received the racial preference.
Indeed, as I have often argued, one of the most destructive, corrosive effects of the racial preferences some minority applicants receive is the cloud it places over all minority applicants, many of who would have been admitted even if their race had not been taken into account. Eliminating racial preference, after all, as the experience in California and Washington demonstrates, does not exclude all minority applicants from even the most selective institutions.
Finally, I completely agree, as I’ve also written many times, is that we should get back to the “original purpose” of affirmative action. I’ve quoted too many times to cite the text of the two Executive Orders implementing affirmative action in the federal government, by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, that require affirmative action to ensure that all job applicants and employees must be treated “without regard” to race, ethnicity, or national origin.
“…only that they were less qualified than the other applicants who were rejected in favor of those who received the racial preference.”
With respect, I have a real problem with this statement. So, the belief is that in order to allow a person of color admission is to allow a lesser-qualified person, who happens to be of color, admission over a more-qualified Caucasian? Again,you perpetuate in your statement a widely-held belief about affirmative action.
I take issue that every time a person of color is offered admission or employment, a White person is left out there in the cold, and that’s plain wrong. We can’t continue to perpetuate this sort of ignorance.
I take issue that every time a person of color is offered admission or employment, a White person is left out there in the cold….
I don’t blame you. I too take issue with this. It is perfectly true that some minorities who are admitted to schools that award preferences based on race didn’t need the preferences in order to be admitted. It is also true — and I believe it is indisputably true, as I said — that a significant number of minorities who are admitted to schools practicing racial preference would not have been admitted without the preference. That doesn’t mean they are “unqualified” in any absolute sense; all selective schools reject many applicants who are qualified.
But it does mean, by definition, that they were less qualified than the rejected applicants who would have been admitted had the minorities in question not received the preference. Think about it: if this were not true, eliminating racial preferences would have no impact on minority admissions.
Let’s take hypothetical, selective X University, which by using racial preferences year after year admitted a freshman class made up of 10% to 14% minorities. Then, suddenly barred from extending preferences based on race, forced to evaluate all applicants “without regard” to their race, and without enough time to put substitute “outreach” programs in place, the very next year the freshman class was only 4% minority. If we assume a freshman class of 4,000 students, lets say the last class admitted under the regime of racial preference included 400 minorities, and the first class admitted under the “without regard” regime contained 160 minorities. The difference between those two numbers, 240 students, is a pretty good, conservative measure of how many students were admitted every year in the past who would not have been admitted but for their race. And it follows, necessarily, that for every single one of these preferentially admitted students there was a white or Asian or Middle Eastern or some non-preferred minority student who, but for his or her race or ethnicity, would have been admitted.
John writes:
>>>”But it does mean, by definition, that they were less qualified than the rejected applicants who would have been admitted had the minorities in question not received the preference. Think about it: if this were not true, eliminating racial preferences would have no impact on minority admissions.”
“Qualification” is a term used as a weapon by anti-affirmative action types to justify their positions. In many cases, anti-affirmative action types try to dilute the often complex college admission process into a simple “who scored highest on their SAT’s” scenario, (which ironically, was never applied to the Jennifer Gratz scenario.)
John, you’re at least honest enough to admit here:
>>>”That doesn’t mean they are “unqualified” in any absolute sense; all selective schools reject many applicants who are qualified.”
That brings us again to the argument of determining the LEVELS of qualification, which in my opinion opens a pandora’s box of criteria that transcends race.
Was two time Super Bowl MVP Tom Brady “more qualified” than Jennifer Gratz to be admitted to the University of Michigan that year, even though he had a lower GPA? Do I have to even address the Wolverine Basketball program of that time period?
Beyond athletics…
How on EARTH can you objectively determine who’s more or less “qualified” without examining complex individual admissions criteria involving family income, area of state residency, out of state or foreign status, extra-curriculars?
Why do anti-affirmative action types continue to seemingly IGNORE these factors?
For example…
John writes:
>>>”Let’s take hypothetical, selective X University, which by using racial preferences year after year admitted a freshman class made up of 10% to 14% minorities. Then, suddenly barred from extending preferences based on race, forced to evaluate all applicants “without regard” to their race, and without enough time to put substitute “outreach” programs in place, the very next year the freshman class was only 4% minority.”
John continues:
>>>”The difference between those two numbers, 240 students, is a pretty good, conservative measure of how many students were admitted every year in the past who would not have been admitted but for their race. And it follows, necessarily, that for every single one of these preferentially admitted students there was a white or Asian or Middle Eastern or some non-preferred minority student who, but for his or her race or ethnicity, would have been admitted.”
That argument does NOT, and I repeat, does NOT calculate on an individual basis, the “qualification” of the non-minority student admitted. The question must be asked, and quite fairly, why these students were “on the bubble” in the first place. Why weren’t they part of the 86% to 90% of non-minority students who were admitted?
When you show me a valedictorian, perfect grades, perfect SAT student with no criminal record turned away from “X University” because of race, John, I will march right beside you in protest.
Until that day, I suspect that this color-blind movement in regards to admissions is sheep’s clothing for a lycanthropic revival of one of our nation’s darkest shames.
–Cobra