The Chronicle of Higher Education reports this morning that Theodore O’Neill, the long-time director of admissions at the University of Chicago, has announced his retirement. “Dubbed the ‘philosopher king’ of admissions by one colleague, Mr. O’Neill is widely known as one of his profession’s deepest thinkers.”
Perhaps that’s not saying so much.
His office is best known for the eccentric essay questions it asks students to answer in their applications. A few years ago, one question asked applicants to describe what they would do with a foot-and-a-half-tall jar of mustard. This year, one option is to respond to a quote by the German poet Rainer Maria Rilke: “At present you need to live the question.”
We here at DISCRIMINATIONS have also had occasion to examine some of philosopher king O’Neill’s deep thinking. Some of you may recall that during the late, unlamented presidential campaign candidate Obama gingerly, tentatively suggested to George Stephanapoulos that maybe, perhaps, conceivably his two daughters, who are “pretty advantaged,” should not receive preferential treatment because of their race. You may also recall philosopher king O’Neill’s deep thought on that question, which I discussed here:
Of course no one took advantage of that opening by asking whether Obama really opposed preferential treatment for all minorities who could be regarded as “advantaged,” and what might have been a fruitful discussion never happened. Now comes Theodore O’Neill, the director of admissions at the University of Chicago, who not only did not walk through the door Obama at least partially opened; he actually slammed it shut. [HatTip to anonymous University of Chicago graduate]
A few months ago, black presidential hopeful Barack Obama, a former U of C lecturer, told George Stephanopoulos that he didn’t think his daughters should be treated differently in the college admissions process from any other “advantaged” kids. But Mr. O’Neill disagrees. He would give the Obama girls “a break” anyway: “Those children, for all their privileges, will have interesting things to say about American society based on what I’m assuming their experiences are.”
I wonder, does the University of Chicago afford preferential treatment to all applicants whom its director of admissions assumes “have interesting things to say about American society,” to children of all U.S. Senators and presidential candidates because they no doubt have interesting things to say, only to the children of U.S. Senators and presidential candidates who have at least one black grandparent, or to any mixed race applicants with interesting things to say?
In the old days the University of Chicago was an interesting place, full of intellectual ferment. It may still be, but if it is I suspect it’s more in spite of than because of its director of admission’s concern with “diversity,” at least as expressed here.
If this thought is deep, the intellectual pond of admissions officers is pretty shallow.
