Why we don't need affirmative action
The Christian Science Monitor ran an article by lawyer Andrea Guerrero on "Why We Still Need Affirmative Action". Much as I hate to fisk the product of what I consider to be a generally-respectable news organization, I definitely disagree with some of the comments made in the article, and I believe they require some skeptical attention.
In 1996, the State of California passed a measure to ban affirmative action practices at its public universities. Since then, the number of minority admissions to the most competitive campuses has plummeted. Now, with affirmative action being challenged in other states, the same drop could occur nationally.
Note that admissions plummeted only in the "most competitive campuses". What were the minority graduation rates at those campuses when affirmative action was in place? Have we seen a corresponding rise in minority enrollment at the next-most-competitive campuses? I fail to see how low graduation rates for minorities and the drawing of mediocre or "merely good" students of any ethnicity to elite schools will do much for the cause of improving educational opportunities for minorities. Admitting students to colleges for which they are not qualified may motivate some, but it is likely to discourage others.
Update: Nat Hentoff reports in the Jewish World News today that minority enrollment in the UC campus system is now 1% higher than it was during 1997, the last year of affirmative action. Increases have also appeared in Georgia and Texas.
As an undergraduate at Stanford, I also was admitted under affirmative action. That didn't keep me from learning hard lessons about ongoing racial prejudice...After hearing my name, [my new roommate's parents] asked if I was Mexican. Learning that I was, the parents marched out of the room and within earshot announced to the resident staff that they were not paying college tuition for their daughter to live with a "spic."
Hateful as that is, enforcing a code of affirmative action does nothing to change the mindset of such people, and indeed may do harm to the anti-racist cause. After all, such people will use the presence of affirmative action to bolster their ugly attitudes, and the "soft bigotry" of lowered academic standards feeds directly into the hard bigotry of such cut-and-dried racism. Wouldn't it help a minority student's self-esteem to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he or she met the same standards as everyone else?
In 1996, the year prior to the dismantling of affirmative action in California, I applied to law school at Berkeley's Boalt Hall. Though I was a strong student (with a 3.25 undergraduate GPA) and had scored well on the LSAT (in the upper 90th percentile), this alone was not enough.There are only 270 seats. Applicants, numbering more than 5,000, were placed into four groups based on their combination LSAT score and undergraduate GPA. The first group was admitted, the second two groups were discussed in committee, and the last group was denied. It was into this last group that I fell, as do most underrepresented minorities. However, because of the affirmative action policy then in place, my race and ethnicity as a Mexican-American were considered, and my file was sent on to committee. There, the admissions committee learned that I had earned a master's degree in public policy at the University of Texas, published an academic article, graduated with nearly a 4.0 GPA, and worked for two years as a border policy specialist for the state of Texas. They also learned about my binational and bicultural background: I was born in Mexico to a Mexican father and American mother and raised mostly in the United States. I was admitted to the law school because of my demonstrated ability to succeed. But I was also admitted because of my experiences and background as a Mexican-American, which the school viewed as valuable to creating a class that was diverse in many ways. Critics of affirmative action argue that this is unfair because the consideration of race and ethnicity serves to deny admission to a more "qualified" white student.
And rightly so, although Ms. Guerrero states this criticism in very inflammatory terms. She was a very accomplished student, and deserved admission based on her supplementary experience. But why shouldn't every applicant be allowed to demonstrate their accomplishments outside the classroom? Why wasn't that entire pool of "denied" applicants given a further look? What about other students who have published articles and masters degrees? Did she work this hard during her college career in order for Boalt to decide that, ultimately, it was her Mexican-American heritage that was most important? It seems clear to me - and to most affirmative action critics - that this decision is highly insulting to Ms. Guerrero, because it reduces her to an ethnic group, and does not celebrate her individuality and accomplishment. It is, quite simply, racist to conclude that Ms. Guerrero would be a benefit to campus because of her ethnic group, and not because of her masters degree.
...Deciding whether one person is more qualified than another based on standardized test scores and grades alone is neither fair nor appropriate. Studies have shown time and again that university entrance tests are better at predicting race and ethnicity than at predicting performance.
This is a myth that is repeated time and again, never with any supporting data. That's because the data support the thesis that tests such as the SAT are predictive of minority performance in college. What's more, let's take a closer look at the logic here. Ms. Guerrero claims, as do many affirmative action proponents, that SAT scores should be weighted less because they are not valid predictors of performance in higher education. But ethnicity is? If the purpose is to better predict college performance, then the variable of ethnicity fails miserably, which reveals that affirmative action proponents aren't really interested in improving prediction. They aren't really interested in developing a set of standards that will truly determine who will do best in college. They simply want ethnicity to be a prevailing factor in admissions, just like in the bad old days.
One study in particular found that top minority students who attended the same competitive colleges and had the same high grades as white students, and thus should have scored the same on the LSAT, consistently scored lower - demonstrating shortcomings and possible bias in the test.
Or possibly it demonstrates that grade inflation that more commonly affects minorities. Or it demonstrates that stereotype threat is a reality, and that minority test takers are so convinced that they will do poorly on the exam that they do poorly on the exam. Or it demonstrates the effectiveness of affirmative action in convincing minorities that they do not need to study hard for the LSAT, because they will be admitted with lower scores than will whites. Or it demonstrates that minority students don't prepare correctly for the LSAT, and other students do. Yes, test bias is a possibility, but it's tiring to see it constantly presented as the only possible explanation for the data.
Comparing undergraduate grades is also problematic, since such comparisons do not factor in a student's need to work while attending school or the time it takes to overcome an inferior high school education. These factors affect students of all racial backgrounds, but they disproportionately affect minorities.
So the SAT can't be used, and now grades can't be used. What are we left with? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.
Funnily enough, affirmative action proponents don't seem to want to focus on those inferior high schools that disproportionately affect minorities. After all, fixing bad high schools requires a lot of thought, time, money, and educational reforms, as opposed to the quick band-aid that is affirmative action. What's more, fixing the schools would help everyone, not just minorities. But I suppose it's not politically correct to want to help out poor white kids these days.
Now in the legal profession, I am an immigration attorney in the border region with a clientele that is predominantly Mexican and Mexican-American. Within this community, I provide pro bono services and educate people about how the laws of this country affect them. I relate culturally and linguistically with my clients. Unfortunately, there are not enough lawyers like me.
And, unfortunately for others who are not so intelligent and motivated as Ms. Guerrero, affirmative action at the college admissions level will not necessarily help them excel. Such a policy only covers up the true problem, which is the failure of schools at the K-12 level. Affirmative action critics such as myself are often called "racist", when in fact we just want to make it clear that if the high schools are lousy, lowering admissions standards for certain groups (but not others) will not make things right. Affirmative action at the college level has allowed lousy high schools to continue being lousy for far too long. The lowered minority admission rates should take the educational reform focus off the colleges and place it back at the K-12 level, where it belongs.
Update: Mr. Xrlq, aka Jeff Bishop, has a great take on this article on his self-titled blog. Go. Read. Enjoy. He also corrected my comments above from Nat Hentoff, and notes that 1997 was not the UC system's last year with affirmative action, but its first year without it.
Update #2: Stefan Sharkansky of SharkBlog has the roundup of those who fisked the original article, along with a first-hand look at an affirmative-action travesty.