Brian Dickerson, a columnist for the Detroit Free Press, argues that discriminating on the basis of race to promote “diversity” is “essentially the same” as discriminating on the basis of geography for the same end.
Long before affirmative action became part of the American lexicon, the university I attended was seeking to enroll first-year classes that were representative — geographically, if not racially or economically — of the nation as a whole.
Because applications for admissions came disproportionately from the Northeast, this quest for geographic diversity gave applicants from Alaska or Wyoming an advantage over similarly qualified applicants from New York or Connecticut.
First, preferentially admitted applicants at the University of Michigan are far from “similarly qualified” to many applicants they displace. According to a report by the Center for Equal Opportunity, which I discussed here, the relative odds ratio favoring the admission of black over white applicants with the same grades and test scores in the years studied was 174 to 1, and the median SAT score for blacks who were admitted was 230 points lower than for whites.
Second, although some will regard this as a mere technicality, there is no right in the Constitution or civil rights statutes to be free from geographical discrimination. Silly as it may be, some of us continue to believe that the Constitution and statutes do (or at least should) make racial discrimination illegal.
But leave aside such trivial matters as qualifications and law. What I found most interesting about Dickerson’s column was its unwitting echoing of the arguments, now generally thought to be discredited, that were always used to limit opportunities for Jews. In the bad old days most Ivy League institutions didn’t altogether exclude Jews; they simply imposed a quota on them, meaning that the few who were admitted were required to have much higher qualifications. And this was done precisely in the name of “diversity.”
Dickerson writes from his own experience of the virture and value of seeking geographical diversity.
Let me give a counter example from my experience. Well back in the dark recesses of the last century I applied as a freshman to a small, selective Southern college. I was, let us charitably say, naive or perhaps innocent of the world, and so I asked the Dean of Admissions during my interview whether the school had a quota on Jews. “Of course we do!” he answered without hesitation, or guilt. “If we didn’t, if we accepted students solely on the basis of academic qualifications, within one four-year turnover our student body would be 75% Jewish and from within 50 miles of New York City, and we’re not that kind of school.” (I attended for a year, loved it, but transferred anyway.)
Since I would be willing to bet that born-again Christians are “underrepresented” among the students and faculty at Michigan, and Jews “overrepresented,” Dickerson needs to ask himself, and his readers, whether the goal of “diversity” justifies a state institution to help some and hinder others because of their religion. If the answer is no, why should race be treated more cavalierly?
Or let me put the question another way. Assume that we are presented with the following either/or choice:
1. Maintain and strengthen our laws that prevent the distribution of burdens or benefits based on race, recognizing that doing so will bar racial preferences, or
2. Repeal our laws preventing the distribution of burdens and benefits based on race so that we can continue to provide racial preferences in college admissions and elsewhere.
I wonder which Dickerson et. al. would choose. Those who support racial preferences, of course, reject this choice. What they want is to bar bad racial discrimination and promote good racial discrimination. So long, that is, as they get to decide which is which.
In closing, however, I should point out that the tone of Dickerson’s article was much more respectful of the people with whom he disagrees than is usually the case from people arguing his side of this issue.
Living in Iowa (allegedly one of the biggest beneficiaries of geographical diversity) as I do and with a little one on the way, I’m all for geographic diversity. And you are all welcome to move here to take advantage of it!
Jews are less than two percent of the population of Michigan. Based on estimates from the Hillel Foundation and elsewhere, this means that Jews are substantially overrepresented at the University of Michigan.
The Asian population of our state is also not great. I don’t know any figures, but a stroll across the U of M campus will indicate gross overrepresentation of Asians.
In order to achieve true diversity the U of M admission office’s duty is clear. It is true that many qualified Jewish and Asian students will be denied admission but you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, can you? This is especially true if you don’t see yourself as one of the eggs.