Robert Dynes, President of the University of California, says that “the differences in admission rates of similarly qualified students has dropped significantly since Proposition 209 was passed.” Thus he is currently trying to explain the findings of a new report. According to that report:
Asian-American students are less likely to be admitted into the University of California than students from other racial groups with comparable academic qualifications, according to a UC study released yesterday.
Additionally, African-American and Latino students are more likely to be admitted than students from other ethnic groups, when most other factors are considered equal, the study said.
This report was commissioned after criticisms of UC admissions last year by Board of Trustees member John Moores (discussed here).
… Moores issued a report last year that found hundreds of students with lower-than-average SAT scores were admitted to UC Berkeley in fall 2002, while thousands of students with higher-than-average SAT scores were rejected. More than half of the students accepted with low scores were black or Hispanic.
….
For the past several months, Moores has been studying whether UC Berkeley rejected a disproportionately higher number of Asians in 2002, while rejecting a disproportionately lower number of Latinos and blacks.
UPDATE –
The Daily Californian, which has more, quotes President Dynes making an inane remark that is typical of “diversity” laments:
The differences in this new analysis between actual and predicted numbers of admitted students are vastly outweighed by the simple fact that there are many fewer African Americans and Chicanos and Latinos at UC than one would suppose based on their representation in the broader population.”
But who, other than a university president, would “suppose” that racial and ethnic groups would be represented at a highly select institution in proportion to their “representation in the broader population”?
Along the way the article also presents an interesting measure of the extent of the preferences before Proposition 209 went into effect.
Before 1997, according to the model presented yesterday, the campus would have expected to enroll 18 percent of its black applicants. Considering race in admissions raised the actual admit rate to 54 percent.
I suppose I should stop beating this drum, but if Thomas Dynes doesn’t think affirmative action is wrong, then why does he feel compelled to lie about its effects?
I am still waiting for the first university president, dean or admissions officer to say, “Heck, yes, we intend to enroll a minimum number of African Americans and Hispanics and we will disregard academic achievement and test scores to accomplish this goal if we have to. Diversity of skin color on campus is our most compelling objective, even if it requires us to discriminate against other ethnic groups on the basis of skin color.”
Exactly when might I expect hell to freeze over?
Small point: I think it’s Robert, not Thomas, Dynes.
Here is the report from the UCOP website: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compreview/0308_meeting/Data_release_summary_FINAL_Mar_8_20041_with_data.pdf
The so-called key points for this report are on the bottom of Page 1. One interesting one (Point 4) is the conclusion that Blacks and Hispanics are in fact underrepresented, even if they’re admitted above the statistically predicted level (which is itself a statistically predictable finding).
Another (Point 2) is that the “analysis is limited because it incorporates only those admissions factors that are quantitative”, which obivously excludes, from Point 1, legal use of “…multiple indicators of academic and personal achievement”.
Dom – Thanks. My mistake, now fixed. Robert it is.
Tokenization
A University of California study ((pdf link) is shocked to discover that blacks and Latinos are more likely to be admitted than Asian-American and white applicants with the same qualifications. The UC analysis used a statistical model in which applican…
Stu’s first sentence nails it.
My question in comments what South Africa should be doing to undo the economic and educational damage inflicted on non-whites by the apartheid system has scrolled off the blog bottom. My cynical first thought is most conservatives answer: “Repeal the estate tax.”
However, it will be impossible ever to have an honest discussion on this question, and the analogous question about official and unofficial racial discrimination in the United States, when at least one side is clouding the issue with a fog of euphemisms.
not sure what to make of that.
Andy – I’m not sure what you mean about your previous blog comment scrolling off the bottom. I don’t think that happens, and I certainly didn’t delete it. I think your comment may have been to another post of mine. As for your question about South Africa, let me jump in assert emphatically that … I haven’t a clue. I know very little, or less, about South Africa and so am unwilling to venture an opinion about it. This may sound like dodging, or it may actually be dodging. But for better or worse my own opinions/prescriptions are limited to the U.S. since they derive from my views of our history, traditions, and values and not from pure moral principles.