John Rosenberg of Discriminations discusses a crucial topic for college admissions: Are those of us who oppose affirmative action under the obligation to come up with something better?
He first made this post:
Still, it is a fact -- a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless -- that a large number of decent people like Bill Cosby view all critics of racial preference as uncaring racists. This is no doubt caused in part, perhaps in large part, because that charge is repeated so often that after a while many assume it must be true. We, in turn, become bitterly defensive and reply in kind that the accusers are dumb or unprincipled, or both. This is not good.
Part of the problem, I think, is that we -- and here I am really thinking primarily of myself, since I am a prime example -- talk mainly about principles while they emphasize people. Think about it: anyone who opposes preferential admissions is saying that a large number of the minority students at selective universities -- actual, live people sitting in the audience if this argument is being presented in person on campus -- don't deserve to be there. Of course we come across as mean and uncaring.
I don't have a solution to this problem. Since we are honestly convinced that the principle of equal treatment is of fundamental importance we are not going to abandon it, nor should we. But we should probably do more than we have to demonstrate why that principle is so important, why it is not simply an abstraction, why abandoning it has its own terrible human costs.
Given that I'm a psychometrician, the "racist" label doesn't scare me that much. Some people apply it so broadly to everyone with my degree that it's hard to take it seriously after a while, although I still consider to be an insulting and inaccurate label. But John raises a very good point. I've often used this blog to criticize affirmative action policies, especially ones that involve lowered standards or quote systems. But if I oppose AA, does that mean that I must come up with some system other than equal standards for all?
One of John's commenters replied thus:
think the problem that anti-Affirmative Action folk need to address (and I consider myself a firm fence-sitter on the issue), is that it is not enough to JUST be against affirmative action. You need an alternative.
One might say, for example, "I am against affirmative action, but I am in favor of devoting whatever resources are necessary to guarantee that every needy person has sufficient resources to succeed by increasing all education funding, social services, and EEOC enforcement budgets." However, most politicians you find who are against affirmative action also tend to be against increased government spending.
So, if I'm an open-minded member of the NAACP and I say, "Blacks are underperforming. Affirmative action is helping to make up for that. If you want to get rid of it, what are you going to do to help black people succeed?" it is not enough to just say, "I want everyone to be treated equally." You are essentially acknowledging the problem, but not suggesting a solution that will actually improve it.
At this point, though, John wonders why it's not enough just to say " I want everyone to be treated equally." The issue is not about solutions to problems, but on agreeing what the problem really is:
My correspondent regards affirmative action as a solution to the problem of blacks “underperforming.”... Affirmative action, however, does nothing to solve that problem. All it does is to reduce the use of performance as a criterion for entry to college, occupations, etc., but the underperformance continues unabated...
But affirmative action is a solution to another problem: “underrepresentation.” If one believes that rights inhere in groups, not individuals, and that groups have a right to receive benefits (admission, hiring, appointments, whatever) in proportion to their numbers, then affirmative action is clearly and closely related to achieving that goal...
Which brings us to the question of demonstrating that critics of preferences “actually care.” All too often, in my view, the only evidence of “caring” that is acceptable is a willingness to spend more money. I certainly do not claim to speak for other critics of preferences, but for myself I can say, without fear of successful contradiction (as Sen. Sam Ervin used to say), that I would enthusiastically support greater spending on closing the performance gap if I thought the spending had a reasonable chance of some success.
Indeed, since I am convinced that double standards do much more harm than good, even or especially to the temporary beneficiaries, I believe that opposition to such double standards is itself proof of “caring.”
Bingo. The reason that people like John and I don't come up with some other method of "correcting" the "underrepresentation" is that we don't think that particular groups have the right to demand equitable representation on college campuses. We don't think that anyone should get extra points towards college admissions based on race.
We do think that college applicants should be academically prepared, and many current AA policies tend to admit applicants who are not prepared solely because of those applicants' contribution to campus "diversity;" hence, our opposition. But that opposition is not uncaring; we merely want students to go to colleges that are best for them, instead of going to colleges that are too challenging. Why is it racist, or uncaring, to want to prevent AA-admit students from enrolling in colleges from which they will flunk out in two years, while the college gets to bask in the glory of its "diversity"?
Our society owes black children nothing more or less than it owes all children, which is a good solid education. The prevalence of AA at the college level is, I think, an indicator that our society is failing in this regard, but it is not a solution to that failure. It merely points out that our public school system is doing such a poor job of educating black youth that some colleges have come full-circle from the ideals of integration, and now admit students based on race more than on accomplishments.
My "alternative" to AA is to remove the need for it, and that cannot be done until the K-12 educational system is held accountable for the students who pass through it.
Posted by kswygert at November 6, 2003 03:47 PM