Posted on 10/31/2022 12:24:47 PM PDT by karpov
In most public discussions, “affirmative action” in higher education is treated as one of the core issues that divides liberals from conservatives. It is rare in public life to hear a Democratic leader criticize the use of racial preferences in college admissions, and it is equally rare to hear a Republican support them. Supreme Court opinions on the use of preferences have typically broken down as splits between “liberal” supporters and “conservative” critics, and many journalists have opined that such preferences are now in great danger because of the six-to-three conservative majority on the Court.
The ideological divide on this issue has always mystified me because, as a lifelong liberal who tries to do objective empirical research on social issues, current admissions practices at colleges and universities strike me as both inconsistent with liberal values and ineffective in achieving liberal goals.
In this brief article, I explain why this is and suggest what universities should do if the Court does substantially restrict current practices.
Let’s begin by being clear on terminology. “Affirmative action” in higher education embraces many activities that the plaintiffs in the Harvard and University of North Carolina cases are not challenging. Investing in educational pipelines to improve under-performing high schools, improving outreach to underrepresented students, improving admissions practices to better capture student ability—these all reflect the traditional meaning of “affirmative action,” and no one is questioning their legality.
The practices used by Harvard and UNC, and challenged by Students for Fair Admissions, are racial preferences—admitting some students with weak credentials, and rejecting other students with strong credentials, strictly based on which racial “box” they check.
Almost every liberal who knows about Harvard’s “Jewish quota” from the 1920s and 1930s finds it repellent. Yet it bears a striking similarity to the university’s current anti-Asian policies.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
Democrats want to pick and choose who gets preferences.
Republicans believe in merit.
I believe in merit as well.
The Constitution protects the ownership of personal property, and is a barrier to establishing a Socialist Utopia. The State must be the final arbiter of what the People should "own." Until there is a final equality of outcome, Leftists will continue to create a smokescreen.
I was on the Admissions Committee of a well-know private university for two years. Our job was to “reconsider” applicants who did not have the requisite scores and other qualifications to gain admission. I would guess about 3/4’s were black, the rest mostly white. Far too many times my colleagues voted to admit the black student over a more qualified white student “to give them a chance”. I told them they are doing nothing more than taking their money for one semester because they were not prepared for the competitive grading system they were going to face. 93% of those “charity” cases lasted one semester. The success rate for white marginal students was just under 2/3’s. Did my liberal colleagues do them any favors? I don’t think so.
What's really sad is a lot of those kids might have done just fine at a community college... With affirmative action black students are almost always matched against more qualified students. Which is depressing and demoralizing for them and their families.
Excellent column.
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.