The Washington Post Skews It, Again

Once again the Washington Post totally skews a story on affirmative action, this time in a page three story by Robert Pierre on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

Before turning to what substance there is here, however, at the beginning of the weekend it will be amusing to note two of the more inane quotes I can recall seeing that Pierre reproduces with the print equivalent of a straight face. First, the Rev. Wendell Anthony, head of the Detroit NAACP, who of course opposes the move to place the anti-preferences initiative on the ballot, is quoted as saying “We won’t allow them to put a black face on a red, white and blue problem.” Don’t ask; your guess is as good as mine.

Not to be outdone on the inanity front, Brig. General Michael Rice (Ret.), chairman of Citizens for a United Michigan, announced that

We have to get the word out not to sign these petitions…. This will have far-reaching effects. It will have unintended or intended consequences, depending on who you ask. We’re asking people not to throw their signature away in a shopping mall.

I don’t think I can add anything to that, but Rice went on (as if he hadn’t already said more than enough) to predict that the passage of MCRI would result in “a rollback [in] the number of women who enroll in the math [sic] and sciences at state universities….” Sounds like Rice must have studied the new math, under which the elimination of racial preferences in college admissions would result in a decline of math and science interest among women. Oh well, what can you expect of someone who believes that an amendment forbidding the state to “discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin” is guilty of “deceptiveness.”

More substantively, and sloppily, the article states that

University of Michigan officials reported this month a sharp, 23 percent decline in the number of blacks, Hispanics and American Indians seeking admission. Officials blame the prolonged court battle.

Left misleadingly unreported is what Pierre would have found if he’d done a little bit of research — or better yet, read this blog here and here — which is that overall applicants were down at Michigan by 18% in this estimate, which was preliminary. And if the decline in minority applicants was due to “the prolonged court battle,” why were minority applications, and overall applications, also down at Ohio State?

Say What? (7)

  1. Chetly Zarko March 6, 2004 at 1:11 am | | Reply

    John, my biggest complaint was the piece used the name of our opposition group (CUM), but didn’t specifically use our groups name (MCRI). In this google-able world, the old saw that all news is good news if they spell the name right is even more significant (people can then easily get their own facts). They didn’t even spell the name, let alone misspell it. Then again, if you just “google” those acronyms, the former acronym will

    result in an explosion (pun intended)

    of unrelated material.

    However, the article was mostly fair in that it presented several hitting quotes from our side, something the press in some places hasn’t even bothered TO ASK US FOR. The fact that he presented the other sides facts without checking them has become almost routine in the media (although if I get my facts wrong, I’ll be fried over the coals for it).

  2. Nels Nelson March 6, 2004 at 1:49 pm | | Reply

    John, I believe you are making a mistake in drawing a comparison between minority and overall applications, as minority applications are a subset of overall applications.

    As an example, suppose last year the school received 6 applications from racial minorities and 4 from non-minorities. This year it receives 3 applications from minorities and 3 from non-minorities. Minority applications are down 50% and overall applications are down 40%, but what relevance does the 40% figure have when most of it comes from the decline in minority applications? The meaningful comparison is that minority applications are down 50% while non-minority applications are down 25%.

    A more extreme example would be if, again, last year the school received 6 applications from racial minorities and 4 from non-minorities. This year it receives 3 applications from minorities and 5 from non-minorities. Minority applications are down 50% and overall applications are down 20%. But the overall decline is entirely attributable to minority applications, while the number of non-minority applications actually rose.

    The missing data, which I looked for online but couldn’t find, is what percentage of overall applications are from minority students.

  3. John Rosenberg March 6, 2004 at 4:07 pm | | Reply

    Nels, I’m no math whiz, but I fail to see the mistake. The fact that minority applications weredown 23% looks considerably different when you know that overall applications were down 18%. The article also said the minority apps were down because of the case, which leaves unexplained why the non-minority apps went down as well, or why minority apps were also down at Ohio State.

    All that being said, however, it makes perfect sense to me that the minority apps would decrease once the 20 point bonus was eliminated. It’s expensive and time-onsuming to apply. If you think you wouldn’t get in without the racial bonus, it makes sense not to apply.

  4. Nels Nelson March 7, 2004 at 2:12 am | | Reply

    John, I’m not a math whiz either so I may be wrong on this, but let me try to provide an example which uses the numbers you cited:

    Suppose an equal number of racial minority and non-minority students applied last year, such that minority and non-minority applications each represented exactly half of the overall applications. If minority applications this year are down 23%, and overall applications are down 18%, then non-minority applications must be down 13%.

    On the other hand, if minority applications represented 3/4 of last year’s total applications, while non-minority applications were the other 1/4, for minority applications to be down 23% and overall applications down 18%, non-minority applications must be down by 3%.

    However, if 1/4 of the applications last year were from minorities, while 3/4 were from non-minorities, for minority applications to be down 23% and overall applications down 18%, non-minority applications must be down by roughly 16%.

    And at the extreme, if 9/10 of last year’s overall applications were from minorities, and 1/10 of the applications from non-minorities, for minority applications this year to be down 23% and overall applications down 18%, non-minority applications must have actually risen by 27%.

    Basically, instead of A being compared to B, it is being compared to (A + B). The larger A is in relation to B, the more the comparison is actually A to itself. If A is small in relation to B, the comparison is more meaningful but is still faulty.

    As another example to illustrate the problem with this type of comparison, suppose we were discussing the poor reading scores of K-12 students in California. I argue that the scores are not really as bad as they seem, as overall scores within states that border the Pacific are not much better than those in California. “But what percentage of those overall scores come from students within California itself?” you ask. After making some extremely rough estimates based on census data, I reply that about 76% of the total students in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington are in California. “So,” you say, “you’re comparing the poor reading scores in California to the overall scores which have been dragged down by the poor scores in California. You’re largely comparing California to itself. What you should be doing is comparing California’s scores to those of the other four Pacific states.”

    I recognize this was a minor point of your blog entry and, since racial minority applications probably represent less than a quarter of the total received by the University of Michigan, the 18% figure is only a percentage point or two off from the decline in non-minority applications, but it bothered me to see this type of comparison, when relevant data (the percentage of last year’s applications which were from minority students) is unknown or assumed, used to illustrate a point.

  5. aaron March 7, 2004 at 2:06 pm | | Reply

    Your estimates seem pretty good, but you skipped the most probable scenario: Minority applications represent 10% of overall applications. That would mean minority aps were down 23%, overal 18%, non-minority 17.5%. (I would be willing to bet minority aps are less than 10%.)

    This also ignores how economics would affect applications, and how UofM’s wasted goodwill makes it much less attractive to those poorer candidates. It costs more for those of us without wealth to attend Michigan. Michigan also embarassed itself in the media, many of us now consider its reputation very over-rated (especially those of us who attended). And when someone like me comes home from school $30,000 in debt and can’t find a decent job, it make less expensive schools more attractive (and trade schools). Plus, without decent jobs we simply can’t afford to live in Ann Arbor comfortably.

    Now, the job market isn’t great, but invesments do well. This makes college even more attractive to wealthy candidates. Why waste time earning very little money when you can attend school now and continue to earn on your investments? And, the job market will be better when you graduate.

    I chose to attend Michigan back in ’96 and right now that looks like a mistake. I could have attended any other university in the state for free, but I chose Michigan and I’m poor now. I could have attended State, learned the same material, scored a 4.0, worked and save money while attending, and not have any debt.

  6. Laura March 7, 2004 at 2:25 pm | | Reply

    I think the relevant point here is that the assertion isn’t that fewer minorities who apply are being admitted, but that fewer minorities are applying. They’ve apparently internalized the AA premise, which is that they just can’t compete, so they won’t even try. I think that is SAD. Maybe if we could get the first generation of post-AA minority grads through college and out into the world, this mindset would begin to melt away.

  7. aaron March 7, 2004 at 4:44 pm | | Reply

    Laura, exactly. Why isn’t U of M reaching out to minorities, encouraging them to apply, teaching them how to apply, telling them what they look for, teaching them how to find financial aid…?

Say What?