“Solely On The Basis Of Race”?

I have written recently (here, here, and here) about the effort to expand the use of race in admissions to the University of Wisconsin. Now the Chronicle of Higher Education has printed the following letter making, not surprisingly, many of the same points:

From the issue dated March 30, 2007

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

The Impact of Race

To the Editor:

In “Regents’ Diversity Vote Means Trouble for U. of Wisconsin” (The Chronicle, February 23), Peter Schmidt quotes David G. Walsh, president of the Board of Regents, as defending that policy. According to the article, “Mr. Walsh, who is a lawyer, argued that Wisconsin law did not preclude public colleges from considering race ‘as a factor,’ as long as admissions decisions were not wholly determined by it.”

Aside from the question of legality, which the courts will no doubt continue to address, as a simple matter of fact, the argument of Mr. Walsh and nearly all defenders of racial preference — that even under affirmative action, race is no more than one of many factors — is nonsense, except where it is an irrelevant truism.

The irrelevant truism is that race can never be the only factor considered in admissions and hiring decisions, even under a rigid quota system. If it were, selective institutions would have no way of choosing from among their minority applicants. Of course minority applicants must present some qualifications besides their race. …

Under affirmative action, however, race is virtually always weighed more heavily than its defenders admit. Surely everyone will agree that thanks to racial preferences, some members of minority groups are admitted to selective institutions who would not have been admitted if their race had not been considered. Otherwise, the effort to treat everyone without regard to race would not be so strenuously resisted.

Since considering race means that some minority students will be admitted who otherwise would not have been, was not the admission of those students not only determined but, for all practical purposes, “wholly determined” by their race?

Philosophers can debate the meaning of “necessary but not sufficient,” but with regard to those applicants for whom race was necessary, who would not have been admitted if they had been of another race, it makes no sense to claim that their admission was not determined by their race.

John S. Rosenberg

Crozet, Va.

http://chronicle.com

Section: The Chronicle Review

Volume 53, Issue 30, Page A55

Say What? (3)

  1. Hull April 3, 2007 at 1:45 pm | | Reply

    I’ve tried to restrain myself from commenting here for among other reasons, I get it – I’ve read the anti-affirmative action arguments and thought about them and I disagree. There’s generally not much point in going through the argumetns again and again and again. But, I just finished lunch and I’m not quite ready to get back to work:

    So, John, the reasoning in your letter above has some fairly obvious flaws that undermine your argument.

    First, affirmative action is legal and even in states where so-called racial preference has been outlawed, I believe one could still argue that those state laws must defer to Federal law which oftentimes allows race to be taken into account in education and employment.

    Second, you state, “Under affirmative action, however, race is virtually always weighed more heavily than its defenders admit.” You don’t know that. I don’t think you sit on an admissions board and you certainly don’t have data on admissions reasoning across the nation.

    Then you state, “Otherwise, the effort to treat everyone without regard to race would not be so strenuously resisted.” Not necessarily. Perhaps, some (like myself) resist efforts to destroy affirmative-action because we disagree with the logic behind the effort and/or we believe affirmative action is still a valuable tool to allow a wider variety of people an opportunity to excel in this society (and, oh yeah, some of us just think anti-affirmative action proponents are racist). You cannot conclude that the only reason affirmative-action proponents resist “so strenuously” because race is taken into account more than we admit. That’s just a broad leap in logic.

    Finally, you state: “Since considering race means that some minority students will be admitted who otherwise would not have been, was not the admission of those students not only determined but, for all practical purposes, “wholly determined” by their race?”

    No. This makes no sense. Considering race does not necessarily mean that a student would be admitted who otherwise would not have been. If race was not taken into account there would still be other factors that admissions boards would use to determine who they want in their class (geographic location, income, outside interests, etc.). The only way you can draw the conclusion you stated is if race was the sole factor in admissions, which it is not.

    You argue that race is such an overriding factor that it is for all intents the sole factor. You don’t know that about any significant number of schools.

    Because “other factors” ARE considered in the admissions process how can you say that those factors are insignificant compared to race?

  2. John Rosenberg April 3, 2007 at 9:41 pm | | Reply

    Well, you’ve been missed, and I’m glad you’re back. I do hope, however, that you’ve digested your lunch by now; otherwise you might get indigestion, or even choke on what follows.

    I believe one could still argue that those state laws must defer to Federal law which oftentimes allows race to be taken into account in education and employment.

    You can argue anything you want, but an argument that a state law or constitutional provision that bars awarding benefits or burdens based on race must “defer” to a federal law or court ruling that “allows” race to be used to reward and punish people will not persuade very many people. It shouldn’t persuade anyone.

    Second, you state, “Under affirmative action, however, race is virtually always weighed more heavily than its defenders admit.” You don’t know that.

    Actually, I do know that. I don’t have to sit on admissions boards to know it. All I have to do is look at the voluminous data indicating that being a preferred minority is, on average nationally (this from the recent Princeton study I’ve discussed defending race preferences), worth an extra 230 points on the SAT. There are so many studies that show dramatically higher admission rates for minorities at selective schools (57% for minorities vs. 29% for others at UVa, to take one example) combined with substantially lower test scores and grades that expose the pious attempts to disguise those facts by fatuous references to “one factor among many” and “tipping point” for equally qualified applicants, etc., that any reasonable judge would simply take judicial notice of the obvious facts.

    Next, you deny the equally obvious fact that most people (I won’t respond to your characterization of your own motives) object to banning racial preferences because they believe that eliminating preferences will prevent many minorities from being accepted/hired who otherwise would have been. That connection is so obvious — especially since opponents nearly always mention it themselves — that I’m surprised you would question it. In addition, your reference to another motive — “oh yeah, some of us just think anti-affirmative action proponents are racist” — also deserves no argument in response.

    Finally, you also seem to deny yet another statement of the obvious: that racial preferences ensure that many minorities get accepted who would not have been in the absence of preferences. You say, first, that “Considering race does not necessarily mean that a student would be admitted who otherwise would not have been.” Note, first, your use of the euphemism, “considering.” The complaint isn’t against “considering” race; it is against giving extra points because of it.You can “consider” it all you want, as far as I’m concerned; what I don’t think you should be able to do is treat some people better and some worse because of it. I’ve explained that of course race is never “the sole” factor, but that doesn’t mean its not the determinative factor for those applicants who would not have been admitted if their race had not been “considered.”

    Because “other factors” ARE considered in the admissions process how can you say that those factors are insignificant compared to race?

    As I’ve just repeated, of course other factors are relevant as well. Those factors determine why this black or this Hispanic was admitted instead of that black or that Hispanic. But unless you really mean to deny that racial preference (not “other factor” preference) leads to the admission of some preferred minorities who would not have been admitted if they had been a member of a non-preferred race or ethnic group, then for those students their race was necessary to their admission. To deny this is to assert, ridiculously, that eliminating racial preferences would have no effect on which students are admitted. That is clearly, and demonstrably (look at Berkeley, UCLA, UC San Diego, etc.) not true.

  3. leo cruz April 4, 2007 at 2:29 am | | Reply

    john,

    Just to show how hell bent private universities are intent in fulfilling the diversity qouta, take a look at the data posted by the California Dept. of Education and the California PostSecondary Education Commision. The data is posted in the Internet and shows how many graduates of every public high school in California to the UC, Cal State and community college system. It also shows how many graduates of every public high school in California go to certain private universities in California . The data is sorted by the

    race of the student. The data will make your jaws drop, it shows just how driven and determined these private schools are driven and determined to fulfill the diversity qouta and includes schools like Cal Tech. Take the case of Gretchen Whitney High school in Cerritos, the most competetive high school in Southern California public or private, none of its Asian graduates enrolled at the University of Southern California in 2005, but 8 of its Latino graduates in 2005 enrolled at USC. It just tells just how desperate USC is in enrolling a favored minority . In other words anyone who is black or Latino with a smidgen of intelligence in them will do and will enroll them.

Say What?