Reader Gus Mahler sends a reference to an example of an IUNS (Invidious Ubiquitous Non Sequitur) in a Frank Deford SI article.
It is generally accepted that when it comes to affirmative action in college admission, the group that receives the most favored treatment is the children of faculty. Then comes athletes. Then legacies — children of alumni. Then minorities. Oh, it may not be in exactly that order at all colleges, but that seems to be the pattern. Athletes, however, probably profit most overall, not only because they are given special admissions preference, but because so many of them also receive scholarships — even if their parents can afford full tuition.
This is worth our being reminded, because, of course, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the 1978 Bakke decision, which upheld the right of universities to consider race as a factor in making admissions decisions.
Let us, then, jump ahead to next June when the new decision may be handed down. If the high court rules that applicants are discriminated against because of race, could we not expect someone to contest the similar favoritism that is applied to athletes at state universities? Why should an A student with high SAT scores be denied admission when a football player with low class standing and abysmal SATs is accepted? Is this not unfair? Is this not the stuff of a civil suit?
Unfair? Perhaps. Bad academic policy? Probably. On the same moral plane as discriminating on the basis of race? No way.
The IUNS assumes that an absolute devotion to merit provides the only basis for criticizing race preferences. If one is willing to compromise merit to provide preferences for athletes or legacies, so the argument goes, then one can’t consistently oppose preferences based on race. So far as it goes that’s true, but it doesn’t answer the much more fundamental criticism of race preferences, which has nothing necessarily to do with merit. That criticism recognizes that all sorts of discrimination are acceptable in our society, but a few — race, religion, and increasingly gender — are not, and should not be.
