A reader who wishes to remain anonymous has called my attention to this forum on admissions policies in the Chronicle of Higher Education that features comments from six worthies. One of them, Anthony P. Carnevale, a senior fellow at the National Center on Education and the Economy, offered comments that are almost perfect in the purity of their expression of contemporary liberal dogma. An excerpt:
The flaw in the American process is that college-admissions procedures may be fair, but society is not. When people start out with unequal opportunities in elementary and secondary school, college access governed by metrics like test scores and grades can become a bit of a dodge –a way of laundering unfair racial and class barriers to opportunity. Hence, to an extent, the current admissions apparatus makes selective colleges passive participants in the intergenerational reproduction of privilege.
There are many ways to start out unequal in the admissions process long before an admissions officer gets involved. Race is still the worst. American racism persists even without racists because of the lingering effects of Jim Crow. That’s why the share of black and Hispanic students at selective colleges is less than half their share of the college-age population.
It’s hard to know where to start on this, but a question from my anonymous correspondent is as good a place as any: “Could somebody explain how 18-year-old Hispanics are affected by the lingering effects of Jim Crow?”
Good question.
Carnevale’s statement has the great virtue of saying explicitly what liberals are generally loathe to admit — essentially, that nothing can be fair until everything is fair, that treating people equally, i.e., without regard to race, creed, or color, is repressive so long as society remains unequal.
But if this is true, why single out universities as perpetrators of “the intergenerational reproduction of privilege”? By this standard, law enforcement should not hold the underprivileged to the same standards as everyone else; the IRS should have different tax rates for blacks and whites with the same income; banks should pay minorities higher interest on savings and charge them lower interest on loans than others who present the same level of risk; etc. Admissions officers who share Carnevale’s values should ignore “metrics like test scores and grades,” or perhaps use them only if and where race norming is allowed. And, once admitted, the underprivileged should not be graded by the same standards as other students.
Finally, Carnevale never addresses the accuracy of the “metrics” he would have admissions officers ignore. And it’s easy to see why: if he admits their accuracy, he’s in the position of arguing that merit is measureable but should be set aside as a requirement for anything until the entire society is fair. But if he argues they are not accurate, then he loses his best evidence demonstrating that the society remains unfair. If, that is, the tests are wrong in suggesting that the underprivileged are less qualified than others, then it would seem that the underprivileged have not been as damaged by the effects of racism etc. as he otherwise claims.
UPDATE [2 March]
My correspondent who wondered “how 18-year-old Hispanics are affected by the lingering effects of Jim Crow” writes again to say, “I wish I’d thought to put in, from California whose parents came to this country in 1990.”
But if this is true, why single out universities as perpetrators of “the intergenerational reproduction of privilege”?
Where do you see “singling out,” John? It’s not as if the people who push for race conscious policies in college admissions aren’t the same ones who push for it in voting districts, government contracting, employment, etc.
It’s just that they’re more successful in college admissions than in the areas you propose because it’s easier to fudge college admissions. A credit history is a credit history — but an exam can be culturally biased, and what about the obstacles the person overcame, and isn’t diversity really part of education?
And the people who run universities do not have anything to lose by playing along with this charade. But if a banker gives out a lo-an to an undeserving person, he risks his job.
Oh, and your comment spam filter is set way too sensitively; it took me many bouts of trial and error just now to figure out that it won’t accept the word l-o-a-n.
I find it funny that particular words can appear in the posts but not in the comments.
Here’s my question: is there affirmative action for poor white trash? I ask this because I’m related to people who are usually labeled as such: unmarried parents, living in trailers, high school dropouts, history of domestic abuse. My relatives don’t seem to get any preferences (other than financial aid, which is based on measurable financial data, as far as I know), and have gone to community colleges which admit anybody, not given a leg up to 4-year colleges or more prestigious universities.
Of course, they’d fail miserably at colleges with high standards, but that doesn’t seem to get in the way of people with similarly poor backgrounds from getting in. I’m still trying to figure out what help it is to let people into programs well beyond their abilities — how would letting in underqualified people, no matter the reason for the educational deficiencies, be a help to those underqualified people? It seems more of a PR thing for the universities involved.
As for my own underqualified relatives, I recommend to all of them to start out at a 2-yr or community college before trying to transfer to a 4-yr university, so as to be better prepared (and to save money) or at least have a better handle on how they stack up to college level work. If they have a tough time in community college, they’d never have a chance at a university.
Fixing perceived or real instances of “privilege” is not and should not be the job of a college.
This is the underlying problem… arrogance.
A general house cleaning of folks who believe that their mission is to fix past injustices would be a good start toward returning humanities departments in colleges to the job of educating.
Where in the world did these folks get the idea that anybody wanted them to build Utopia? What arrogance!
David – In speaking of “singling out,” I was referring only to Carnevale’s statement, not people who share his views, about whom you are entirely correct.
David | Laura – Apologies again about how I’ve overtweaked my comment filter. (Laura: it filters only comments, not posts themselves.) It allows wildcards, and after it was first installed I didn’t realize how powerful this was. I also thought it was limited to filtering words in the URLs, not in the text of the comments, which turned out to be wrong. Anyway, I’ve fixed the line that blocked “loan,” and I’ll continue to try to find other inappropriate filter lines. Let me know if you get blocked and have any ideas what word might be causing it.
When I was ready for college, I would have fit the definition of “poor white trash”, because my mother, a hairdresser since she was 15, was supporting the entire family, and my father was unemployed (he had taken a leave from his profession as a chemist to raise and educate his children). They owned their own home, because they NEVER got into debt, and they did not spend ANY money on ANYTHING that did not contribute to the education of their 3 children, and they SAVED every penny possible.
As a result, I couldn’t apply for tuition assistance, because my parents were too well off. So, both I and my first sister had our parents pay for our first year at Carnegie-Mellon, and then we both found jobs that paid the rest of the tuition. We lived at home, and didn’t party, and by following the same life philosophy as our parents, we are now succesful and comfortable enough that we can retire early.
My mother is an immigrant, and my father’s parents were also immigrants. My mother is now 85, and she STILL WORKS. No one in my family tree ever owned slaves, or benefitted from either slavery or from any sort of discrimination of blacks or hispanics – in fact, my father used to complain that he was discriminated against, in his profession, because he was Italian.
I have hired, and promoted white men and women, Asian men, and black men and women, according to their ability – the hardest working employee I ever had was a REAL African-American woman – she has immigrated to the US from Somalia when she was young, to avoid persecution during the civil war there. She got ahead because she deserved it, and I treated everyone who ever worked for me fairly, regardless of their ethnicity.
So, why am I supposed to feel guilty because some people in some ethnic groups in this country do not have the discipline to take advantage of the opportunities that are available to everyone? Instead of playing basketball or hanging on street corners, or looking for the latest sneakers/clothes, why aren’t these kids home studying, or in the library, which is free to all?
ralph,
You are supposed to feel guilty because lots of folks want to get over, and lots of folks want revenge.
Revenge is at the bottom of what the racial quota mongers are after. The rest of us have the moral clarity to understand that this desire for revenge is evil.
Ralph writes:
>>>So, why am I supposed to feel guilty because some people in some ethnic groups in this country do not have the discipline to take advantage of the opportunities that are available to everyone? Instead of playing basketball or hanging on street corners, or looking for the latest sneakers/clothes, why aren’t these kids home studying, or in the library, which is free to all?”
First of all, I enjoyed your story. You have accomplished much, and should be very proud. Now…I have some questions for you.
Who is asking you to “feel guilty?” I’m a liberal minority who doesn’t ask that from anybody. I simply make my case for Affirmative Action and provide evidence to back it up. Secondly, many minorities are taking advantage of the opportunities, that thank God, REMAIN available in most of the states.
Third, I’m sure you’re not indicting ALL members of any group with your “hanging on the street corner/playing basketball line.” There are unmotivated, non-ambitious folks out there of all walks. Even white people.
>>>I have hired, and promoted white men and women, Asian men, and black men and women, according to their ability – the hardest working employee I ever had was a REAL African-American woman – she has immigrated to the US from Somalia when she was young, to avoid persecution during the civil war there. She got ahead because she deserved it, and I treated everyone who ever worked for me fairly, regardless of their ethnicity.”
You’re a perfect example of why we need DIVERSITY. You do realize that there are STILL employers out there who would’ve NEVER given that young woman a chance to excell. You did, and you’re to be commended for it. YOU may be non-discriminatory against minorities and women, but it’s a shame you don’t represent ALL employers in America…that is..unless your arguments is that you DO.
>>>As a result, I couldn’t apply for tuition assistance, because my parents were too well off. So, both I and my first sister had our parents pay for our first year at Carnegie-Mellon, and then we both found jobs that paid the rest of the tuition.”
I would take it you’re somewhere in middle age, if your mom is 85, but to put some perspective into this…
If you were a prospective freshman NOW, instead of way back when, your parents would’ve had to pony up $30,650 tuition for Fall 2004 at Carnegie-Mellon. That’s as a commuter student, living at home as you did. Add your sister and that’s $71,300. You’d have to come up with a solid job to pay for the second year, more likely two…plus maybe a paper route.
http://www.cmu.edu/hub/tuition.html
The more likely choice, sans heaping scholarships, and the impending cuts on Pell Grants (thanks Dubya!) would probably put you somewhere like, the Community College of Allegheny County, which is a nice school, but is also facing tuition hikes.
http://www.ccac.edu/default.aspx?id=148568
I would wager that many people without the tuition aid would pursue a similiar path.
This example was not to suggest that people shouldn’t try their best to further their education. I’m just here to suggest that the road isn’t as clear as your post may have suggested.
–Cobra
Cobra,
>>>Who is asking you to “feel guilty?” I’m a liberal minority who doesn’t ask that from anybody. I simply make my case for Affirmative Action and provide evidence to back it up.
The entire argument for AA is based on inducing guilty feelings in people with a moral conscience. It is a rhetorical technique that the Catholic Church used successfully for 1500 years. Unfortunately for AA advocates(and for the Church), people eventually see it for what it is, and reject it.
>>>Third, I’m sure you’re not indicting ALL members of any group with your “hanging on the street corner/playing basketball line.” There are unmotivated, non-ambitious folks out there of all walks. Even white people.
No, I did not indict ALL member of any group. I was careful to state “some people in some ethnic groups”, because I remember my father telling me that if I spent my time out on street corners like the children of some of his extended family members, I would end up delivering newspapers for a living, or maybe a ditch-digger. (I now consider the ditch-digging job wistfully, considering the political crap I deal with daily).
>>>you don’t represent ALL employers in America…that is..unless your arguments is that you DO.
No, I don’t. And I realize that racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination will likely never go away completely, because they are part of human nature – they probably evolved as a defense mechanism bask when humans lived in tribes. But I DO think that we have made tremendous progress in the US, better than anywhere else in the world (and I have lived outside the US for considerable amounts of time). I think that the efforts made by AA advocates to eradicate the last vestiges of racism are counterproductive, because they use guilt to impose a system of reparations on people who have nothing to feel guilty for, to the benefit of people who were never harmed in the first place. The resentment that arises (and which is expressed here) is also a very natural human reaction, which you will not be able to eradicate, either. Time, and the continuing successful interaction of people with different basckgrounds, is the only thing that will eventually get rid of it.
>>>>Add your sister and that’s $71,300. You’d have to come up with a solid job to pay for the second year, more likely two…plus maybe a paper route.
Current tuitions are an abomination, but when I graduated, it was $2500/year, which was not insignificant. I worked in the University as a computer programmer, probably 30 hours per week, to do this. I see some people who are working similar hours now to achieve the same end. You can do it, if you (1) don’t waste money on frivolous entertainment, (2) don’t get yourself married/pregnant, and (3) have supportive parents who you get along with. Just stop whining – in the words of one of America’s most renowned black politicians, “Get over it”.
You’re a perfect example of why we need DIVERSITY. You do realize that there are STILL employers out there who would’ve NEVER given that young woman a chance to excell. You did, and you’re to be commended for it. YOU may be non-discriminatory against minorities and women, but it’s a shame you don’t represent ALL employers in America…that is..unless your arguments is that you DO.
But the part of your argument that has never made any sense is that the sort of people who would refuse to hire a black person is not the sort of person who would have AA programs. The sort of person who would implement AA programs is the sort of person who would “give that young woman a chance” even without the programs.
In other words, the only places that have AA programs are the places that don’t need them.