America's Universities Are Living a Diversity Lie

Wall Street Journal ^ | 28 June 2008 | PETER SCHMIDT

[shrinkermd]

Thirty years ago this past week, Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. condemned our nation's selective colleges and universities to live a lie. Writing the deciding opinion in the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, he prompted these institutions to justify their use of racial preferences in admissions with a rationale most had never considered and still do not believe – a desire to offer a better education to all students.

To this day, few colleges have even tried to establish that their race-conscious admissions policies yield broad educational benefits. The research is so fuzzy and methodologically weak that some strident proponents of affirmative action admit that social science is not on their side.

In reality, colleges profess a deep belief in the educational benefits of their affirmative-action policies mainly to save their necks. They know that, if the truth came out, courts could find them guilty of illegal discrimination against white and Asian Americans.

...Proponents of race-conscious admissions policies have yet to produce a study of their educational benefits without some limitation or flaw. Many focus only on benefits to minority students. Others define benefits in nakedly ideological terms, declaring the policies successful if they seem correlated with the adoption of liberal views. A large share relies on survey data that substitute subjective opinions for an objective measurement of learning. The University of Michigan's star witness, Patricia Gurin, a professor of psychology and women's studies, presented studies showing the educational benefits of classes and campus programs that promote interracial understanding. Those may exist at colleges that don't consider an applicant's race.

[shrinkermd]

The underlying problem here is the belief there are no real average IQ differences between the races. To even say this, usually results in banning in spite of over a 100 years of research. Indeed discussion of Murray and Hernstein's book The Bell Curve was banned in much of the MSM when it came to racial IQ differences.

Actually, what was more important than their brief, tepid discussion of race was their discussion of dysgenesis. But I digress.

[Apollo 13]

I would like to see solid proof that there actually is a difference between the average IQ between various races (which would amount to having tested very large populations from both sexes and from numerous different races to actually be solid; and even then participants would have to had comparable educations from their very birthday onwards. Otherwise even hundred years of study would add up to zilch. This, by the way, is not leftist propaganda, it’s a matter of decent inquiry.
That said: I am against any pre-ordained percentual admission for white vs. black vs. yellow etc. etc. Only solid qualifications for admission should be the true litmus test, not whether you belong to any minority (or for that matter, majority) group.
Even DNA-Structure-Nobel_Laureate James B. Watson had to find out things the hard way...

[Pablo64]

I’ve never understood how anyone could come up with the idea that diversity of race equals a better education. The goal of learning is to acquire knowledge, and knowledge, in and of itself, has nothing to do with race. One might argue that being exposed to people of different races and cultures is an enriching experience, but it doesn’t automatically equate to more and better learning, especially if the learning is sacrificed on the altar of “diversity”.

[Calvin Locke]

The underlying problem here is the belief there are no real average IQ differences between the races.

The Marxist social engineers' solution is to dumb down the populations to the LCD. With them on the top, of course.

Even a liberal like Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. recognized what was happening in the early 1960s when he penned "Harrison Bergeron".

[AmericanVictory]

The disturbing part is that we spend tax money on advancing this goal that has no provable benefits and create a class of “professionals” whose job is to damage education in pursuit of it.

[shrinkermd]

A good place to start is the Bell Curve. Summary articles are easily found on the La Griffe du Lion Web Site which can be found: here.

[Calvin Locke]

I believe it goes back to the 1954 Brown decision. "Diversity" was unfortunately mentioned in the decision.

That's how racists get their way on "diversity".

The fact that "educators" apply the same principle to schools that require tested ability shows that they are either for equality of outcome, or too wimpy to stand up to challenges of their academic requirements.

[Altura Ct.]

But affirmative-action preferences are not just any education policy; they require some students to suffer racial discrimination for the sake of a perceived common good

But of course. The left in particular but all "color-blind" proponents, even the memes on the right, believe that discrimination is OK depending on who is doing the discriminating. Racism for me but none for thee.

[Apollo 13]

OK cheers for that.
By the way, I forgot to mention the late Allan Bloom’s excellent comments on ‘mandatory diversity’, ‘positive/affirmative action’, etc., at the Universities in ‘The Closing Of The American Mind’. He wrote that he observed student populations of different colors separating themselves off from whites, and being quite shy. Why? Because they just knew that they hadn’t been let in on the grounds of up-to-par past performances, but of their racial backgrounds. Which perfectly illustrates the problem.

[Ratblaster]

Somebody’s going to re-education camp in Obama’s Amerikkka.

[Pablo64]

I think you are probably closer to the truth on "wimpy" educators than even they themselves know. I believe that it stems from a deeply subconscious root of fear that they will be exposed as inadequate. Then, if they can achieve so-called "equality of outcome", as you said, no one can point to any one person as being better served, and so, conversely, no one can point to any one person as being given short shrift in their "education" (so the finger of blame can't be pointed toward the "educators").

Once again, liberalism is shown to be the cowardly, gutless, path of least resistance, where the only thing that matters is your "good intentions" and "feelings". It never requires making the hard choices and never allows for the reality that not everyone is the same.

[Neoliberalnot]

Here is another paradox. There are actually some breeds of dogs that are more intelligent than other breeds according to the non-PC, radical right-wing, nazi zealots.

[sasafras]

Diversity is another way for leftist to push their radical racism and division bump.

[CGTRWK]

I would like to see solid proof that there actually is a difference between the average IQ ... which would amount to having tested very large populations from both sexes and from numerous different races to actually be solid; and even then participants would have to had comparable educations from their very birthday onwards

Don't worry about standardized paper testing of a few people. Too narrow a focus, too narrow a sample group, too easy to argue with.

Look at merit accomplishments of millions.

The names on peer reviewed papers in the journals of any hard science. The Nobel science winners - and the science judges, and the audiences at the award. The faces in the electrical engineering department. The finalists in spelling bees. The Intel Science Talent Search contestants. The chess masters. Any mentally challenging field you can think of.

Either some people can't compete. Or else they can compete, yet have unanimously chosen not to at any point in recorded history.

Now look at the merit admissions for correctional institutes...

[rdb3]

Indeed discussion of Murray and Hernstein's book The Bell Curve was banned in much of the MSM when it came to racial IQ differences.

I got a kick out that book, knowing that my IQ was/is 127.

[fightinJAG]

I recently read Murray and Hernstein's The Bell Curve and found it extremely profound in its analysis and its relevance to public policy.

I wholeheartedly recommend and urge anyone even slightly interested in having public policy that actually relates to doable and worthy social goals read this book.

I will add as well that the book is marvelously written and, therefore, a joy to read just for its succinct and exact prose.

In fact, if any freepers are interested in a chapter by chapter discussion of The Bell Curve, (believe me, there is SO much to discuss relevant to the news of the day), I would be more than willing to start a sort of "book club" thread and post chapter summations for those who might not always have time to read the book itself. FM me if interested!

[fightinJAG]

Read The Bell Curve and review its documentation. It's not quite as simple or as stark as the conclusion that "there are IQ differences among the races."

IOW, no conclusion such as this can be taken out of context, mainly that such conclusions relate to aggregate differences, not so much individual differences, and that, as such, it is legitimate to base policy on such conclusions only at the aggregate level.

Also it's very important to realize that, in talking about IQ differences between the races, The Bell Curve leads to the conclusion that social stratification does not (and should not) occur along racial lines, but inevitably occurs along cognitive ability lines. And no amount of trying to force "equal outcomes," rather than "equal opportunity," can overcome that reality. (In fact, trying to force equal outcomes for people of unequal ability only WIDENS the gap.)

In any event, I really encourage you to read The Bell Curve and see what you think. Upthread I threw out the possibility of starting a book discussion thread, going chapter by chapter, if you're interested.

[fightinJAG]

In The Bell Curve the authors discuss the fact that when people of less cognitive ability are admitted to a university, for example, they have a greater chance of being in the bottom of the class and a greater chance of washing out altogether. And that's predictable: if they didn't meet the true standards for admission, of course they will have a much harder time achieving even average success.

(Just like if I somehow got admitted to the NFL even though I didn't meet its true standards, just being admitted would not cause me to meet the league's standards for play on the field.)

So affirmative action actually sets up those who don't actually meet true admission standards for failure. Then who is that the rest of the student body is being "enriched" by being exposed to, when often they see people who are not succeeding in the true academic environment and even dropping out?

[fightinJAG]

You beat me to it! I didn’t read ahead and posted the same thing to Apollo.

[fightinJAG]

Your post also is echoed in the comments made by Mrs. Obambi.

She states quite clearly and often that she was admitted to Princeton even though she didn't have the test scores for it. IOW, she was admitted on the basis of a racial set aside.

Then she goes on about how alienated she felt there and so on, even writing her (horribly written and even worse thought-out) thesis on the plight of being black at Princeton. She apparently never once, then or now, caught the irony that the "plight" was not of being "black" at Princeton, but rather the plight of being admitted to an institution at which from the very get-go one was ill-equipped to compete.

Thanks for mentioning Bloom's book. Having just finished The Bell Curve, I was interested in pursuing some related analyses.

What I did pick up next was Arthur Herman's How the Scots Invented the Modern World (The true story of how Western Europe's poorest nation created our world and everything in it).

You might be tempted to think this is a cheeky text, but it's not at all. And while it doesn't bear directly on public policy issues (I'm only about halfway through, though), reading it after reading The Bell Curve has been fascinating for its detail of social and cognitive stratification in the unfolding of the Scottish Renaissance. In particular, how higher education developed.

I'm looking forward to taking a look at Bloom's book now, too.