Posted on 01/20/2003 11:35:47 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Two More Myths About Affirmative Action
Since the Bush administration filed an amicus brief opposing the University of Michigan’s blatantly discriminatory admission’s process, there has been much angry propagandizing amongst leftist pundits, columnists and activists. This is to be expected, of course, as affirmative action owes its existence solely to the distortions and lies of its supporters. However, two more myths have found their way into the debate, and they need to be properly refuted before they swamp out all intelligent discourse on this subject.
Myth #1- The Bush administration’s brief is a victory for those conservatives who advocate a color-blind society.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but a careful reading of the brief makes known that this is not the case. On the contrary, the arguments of the government reveal a classic, almost Clintonian approach, replete with triangulation and equivocation.
An explanation is in order. There are essentially two issues the court must resolve in this case. The first concerns merely the University of Michigan’s policies. In particular the University of Michigan must show, under a strict scrutiny test, that its policies to ensure a diverse student body are “narrowly tailored.” The brief argues quite persuasively that they are not. It notes that Michigan failed to consider race-neutral alternatives such as socioeconomic status, and goes on to argue that substituting these attributes for race would, “treat all applicants as individuals” rather than “presum[ing] that individuals, because of their race, gender or ethnicity think alike or have common life experiences" The brief also condemns Michigan for passing over more-qualified students, and incisively demonstrates that the school’s policies are thinly disguised quotas.
All of that is the easy part. Because, for reasonable people, there is no doubt that the University of Michigan’s policies are not narrowly tailored. The school, as I’ve mentioned twice before, awards an applicant twenty points for being Black, Hispanic or Native American, while awarding only 12 points for a perfect SAT score. Twenty points is also the exact difference between a 4.0 and a 3.0 GPA in the admission’s process (Here’s a question for President Lehman: If giving minorities the equivalent of a full GPA point in the admission’s process is a “narrowly tailored” consideration of race then what, in your estimation, would be a racial preference that goes beyond a narrowly tailored use of race? Two GPA points? Three?)
But this is a dispute about an individual case. The second and more important issue concerns diversity itself. Liberals claim that diversity is a compelling governmental interest and to ensure a diverse student body, some consideration of race as a “plus factor” is necessary. Conservatives interpret diversity more broadly, as a holistic concept and consider diversity of thought to be the most important sub-component. We further believe that the benefits of diversity, (and the social science suggests that the benefits racial diversity offers, in and of itself, are quite scant) do not justify discrimination.
It is this issue, about whether or not racial discrimination can ever be justified in an attempt to achieve racial diversity, in which this brief sorely disappoints. The question is never directly answered. Achieving diversity is deemed “entirely legitimate” and a “paramount governmental objective. The brief, in its discussion of diversity, eschews the more legally loaded characterization of “compelling state interest” but it never argues that it is not. Instead, the brief focuses almost entirely on the narrowly tailored component.
In other words, if the court follows the language of the government’s brief, they will strike down Michigan’s policies as unconstitutional on the grounds that they are not narrowly tailored while avoiding the broader question of whether colleges can use race at all. Of course, not all hope is lost. The court could rightly conclude that the government’s brief represents a shady political compromise and elect to make a sweeping judgment against affirmative action in spite of it. The point is, however, that contrary to news reports, this brief hardly represents the unambiguous condemnation of racial preferences that should be expected of a conservative Republican administration.
All of this begs the question: If the Supreme Court strikes down Michigan’s policies on the grounds that they are not narrowly tailored while still allowing the use of race, won’t this force other universities to moderate their policies as well? Nope. These other universities will simply argue that, unlike Michigan, their policies are narrowly tailored. And they’ll probably get away with it too. Politically, the problem is that most Americans have no idea just how much universities currently discriminate. Until I studied the issue in my minority politics class last year, I was under the impression that race was used very judiciously, and rarely made a difference in the admissions process (Boy, was I wrong!). Universities will continue to exploit the blissful obliviousness most Americans bring to this issue. Some might be forced to make superficial changes to their procedures, but the system of racial handouts will continue in full force.
Universities will always find little loopholes. For example, if the court rules that schools must first consider non-racial factors like socio-economic status, schools will then be arguing that these neutral factors aren’t enough to ensure diversity. If the social science doesn’t support this conclusion, the left will simply make it up. The only possible way to mitigate the corrupt system of racial preferences at our universities in the slightest is if the court tells them flat out, “You may not consider race, period.” Anything short of that, and universities will use whatever wiggle room the court gives them to fashion thousands of exceptions and loopholes.
Reading this brief, one can’t help but believe that it represents not the moral convictions of the Justice Department, but the political judgments of Karl Rove. Hopefully, the president has been watching the media reaction carefully over the last week. He might have expected to get some credit from the liberal media for filing a nuance-filled brief that studiously avoids commenting on the fundamental issue underlying the debate. But he didn’t. All of the usual demagogues have declared that President Bush is opposed to diversity outright and that his administration is committed to hurting minorities. So, by avoiding a full throttle attack on affirmative action, President Bush has abandoned his conservative supporters while gaining no real political benefits. Frankly, he should know better than that. I noted in a previous column that President Bush would be attacked no matter what position he took- therefore, why not take the principled one? Unfortunately, the president has done no such thing. This is extremely disappointing.
Myth #2- It’s ridiculous for conservatives to oppose affirmative action given the existence of “legacies (Preferences for the, mostly white, sons and daughters of alumni).
This argument has been made by virtually every liberal pundit since the brief was filed. In many individual cases, it is their only talking point. In keeping with their usual tactic of making a public policy argument personal, leftists point to President Bush’s admission to Yale University and Harvard Business School as prime examples of this practice.
Unlike most pro-affirmative action arguments, this is a respectable one and it deserves serious treatment. On the surface, it makes some sense, doesn’t it? Legacy preferences go almost exclusively to whites, so if you are staunchly opposed to racial preferences, it would seem logical to reserve at least a minimal amount of ire for legacy preferences.
But there are a few fundamental differences. First of all, legacy preferences do not explicitly separate people by their race, and then subject each racial group to disparate treatment. Historically, constitutionally and indeed, ethically, the implications of treating someone differently because of their race are far different than giving someone applying to Cornell a leg up because their father went there. Secondly, legacy preferences are not a racial phenomenon as much as they are a class phenomenon. While blacks and Hispanics do not usually benefit from legacy preferences, neither do most poor and middle class whites. If you are looking to counterbalance a policy that advantages the wealthy class, it would then seem logical to have class-based affirmative action. So far from making the case for racial preferences, legacy preferences seem to bolster the argument for an affirmative action policy that concentrates on socio-economic status- exactly the kind of policy that most conservatives support.
There’s also a practical point to be made here. It’s no secret that schools rely on the contributions of rich alumni to finance all sorts of educational and extracurricular facilities and programs for their students. Eliminating preferences for the relatives of alumni not only leaves open the possibility that a donor will stop contributing if their child does not get into their alma mater, but it also removes the incentive for a lot of potential donors to contribute in the first place, which can erode the educational experience for all students. There is, quite simply, no practical argument for racial preferences that is nearly as credible as this one.
With those minor qualifications duly noted, I will admit that I do oppose legacy preferences just as I oppose racial preferences. Both strike me as immoral and illiberal. I’m even willing to grant you that there is some difficulty in being for one and not the other so long as you concede that it is not a perfect comparison, for the reasons cited above.
Here’s the fundamental question, though: Who is it that actually supports legacy preferences? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not conservatives. Over the past year, I’ve probably spent an hour or two each day perusing conservative websites and political journals and reading the articles. In all that time, I’ve never seen an article defending legacy preferences against attacks from the left. Not one. Politically, you could abolish the practice tomorrow, and most conservatives would barely be able to stifle a yawn. Those that did react to it would probably have nothing but good things to say about its abolition.
So, if conservatives don’t support legacy preferences, then who does. Well, here’s a bold proposition: maybe it’s the people, who, I don’t know, award preferences to the sons and daughters of alumni! That would be college admissions officers. These same college admissions officers, who represent some of the most politically correct, pro-racial preferences people in the country, are the driving force behind legacy preferences. Some might have more noble intentions, but the fact of the matter is, the main reason liberal admissions officers continue such an illiberal practice is to maintain a steady flow of donations. I’m not saying this to malign admissions officers, most of whom are well-intentioned people who do the best they can in an occupation where they are always lightning rods for criticism. On a fundamental level though, it’s quite odd for liberals to use legacy preferences to undercut conservatives, when it is their fellow liberals who are responsible for the existence of legacy preferences in the first place.
Oh, sure, liberals can still argue for conservative hypocrisy in the sense that conservatives devote a lot more energy to eradicating racial preferences than they do for legacy preferences, even if they oppose both. By this line of argument, conservatives need to spend equal time fighting each practice for their beliefs about either of them to be valid. But this is a very weak argument. After all, we don’t generally believe that someone shouldn’t speak out about human rights violations in, say, China, if they don’t speak out just as often about similar violations in Sudan, Libya or elsewhere. But I suppose I’ll conclude this column, by following a suggestion from Dinesh D’Souza, from his excellent book, “Letters to a Young Conservatives.” I will form an alliance with any liberal who is interested: together, we will oppose both legacy preferences, and racial preferences. Needless to say, I doubt that there are many liberals out there who will accept this offer.
His second sentence is correct. In his first sentence, however, he betrays his youthful inexperience. Very few Americans over the age of, oh, 25, are oblivious to affirmative action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.