Once you are armed with the assumption that fairness requires proportional representation of all identifiable groups, then every instance you encounter of a “racial gap” is a problem to be solved, a wrong to be righted. Thus columnist William Raspberry shovels it on in a column devoted to showcasing some approaches to “Filling the Racial Gap in Academia.”
Raspberry mentions that he is old enough to remember a time, which he implies is long past, when it was reasonable to assume that
the underrepresentation of black Americans in the nation’s elite universities was very much a matter of racial discrimination. The prescription that followed from that diagnosis — whether at Harvard or at Ole Miss — was to work at eliminating discrimination. And, to an astounding degree, it worked.
But if it worked, Raspberry implicitly asks, why aren’t there more blacks teaching at places like Harvard and Ole Miss? Thus he writes:
And yet a report released last week by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation reveals that while the numbers have been improving with regard to university enrollment, still a small fraction of the doctoral degrees granted by those universities go to blacks or Hispanics — about 7 percent in 2003. And most of that tiny number is awarded in a small range of disciplines, such as education. Almost certainly, someone will propose an attack on this new problem with the same diagnosis and prescription that worked for the old one.
Of course they’ve never stopped prescribing cures based on the assumption that this paucity is the result of discrimination, even if it has become more “subtle” over the years. It’s as though the better things have become, the more insidious discrimination has become.
I do not believe discrimination has disappeared, but as I’ve written here many times I also do not believe that every instance of racial “underrepresentation” is caused by discrimination, and hence is a problem crying out for a solution. Raspberry’s column today showcases solutions to something that is not necessarily a problem. Consider, for example, this remarkable statement:
Robert Weisbuch, president of the foundation that issued the report, acknowledges that affirmative action still has a role to play in increasing the number of African American, Hispanic and Native American students in PhD programs. But he thinks other things feed the problem: economics (both scholarship availability and post-university salaries), the dearth of same-race role models and encouragers, and the above-the-fray attitude often associated with academics.
This is a dramatically novel explanation of how “economics” is partly responsible for “the problem” of racial underrepresentation in academia. I think what Weisbuch is saying is that black college graduates can make so much money in other fields right after graduation (their “post-university salaries” are so high) that they do not choose to pursue graduate education.
Well, we can’t have that, can we? I mean, since “diversity” is the veritable mothers milk of the American Way of Life and university education as we know it will shrivel and perish without it, I think limiting the “post-university salaries” of recently minted black and Hispanic college graduates should be placed high on the liberal reform agenda. I mean, there’s a limit, isn’t there? to how much universities can be expected to pay to attract minority graduate students who would rather be somewhere else.
Raspberry next turns to the work of the University of Texas’s Rick Cherwitz, who has been searching for novel ways to lure blacks into academia. Graduate education, Cherwitz argues,
has been perceived as a series of silos — narrow, deep and walled-in structures in which participants learn more and more about less and less and speak in ways only they understand.
Cherwitz, a former dean who has been working to increase minority representation on his Austin campus, says he was looking for something else when he stumbled upon an approach that minorities seem to find particularly attractive.
Graduate schools, he says, sometimes behave as though their main objective is to produce PhDs who will go on to become top-ranked professors or exquisite researchers on some arcane subject or other. He wanted to change the image.
Thus he created a program he calls Intellectual Entrepreneurship, the purpose of which is to teach students — undergraduate as well as graduate — that university learning ought to apply to all sorts of community situations.
“Instead of beginning with the idea of graduate school, we begin with a deep and detailed discussion of what the students are interested in, what are their long-term commitments and to whom they wish to contribute value. We found that the students attracted to this sort of exploration were far more likely to be minorities than was the case with the overall cohort of graduate students.
I have no idea whether what Cherwitz says is true or not, but what he seems to be promoting does not strike me as a particulary promising, or even appealing, avenue to increased black participation in higher edudcation. Blacks, he seems to me to be saying, can’t be expected to be attracted to an undertaking whose “main objective is to produce PhDs who will go on to become top-ranked professors or exquisite researchers on some arcane subject or other.”
I have nothing against applied knowledge, but I doubt that an academic career is the best choice for people who do not want to “go on to become top-ranked professors or exquisite researchers on some arcane subject or other.”
As I’ve argued before, if a “gap”is not caused by current and ongoing discrimination it simply may not need to be closed.
I do not believe discrimination has disappeared
I have a conundrum. How is it possible that the University, the bastion of diversity, is guilty of discriminating against minorities when it comes to advanced degrees? Aren
In these endless articles in the MSM on diversity, etc., etc., which this site does an admirable job of noting, when oh when is anyone ever going to mention that the lack of “proportionality” among grad students, law students, and all the others may have, just may have, something to do with the fact that nationwide, as a group, blacks have a (roughly) 50% dropout rate from high school, and those that do graduate read, as a group again and on average, at an eighth or ninth grade level? These factoids are mentioned regularly in newspapers all around the country every year, e.g. Henninger of the WSJ wrote a column on it last year I believe it was, but never is this info mentioned when talking about diversity and proportional representation. How can one possibly have a “proportional” number of, e.g., lawyers or doctors, with such a huge difference in high school graduation rates. I guess I will be waiting a long, long time for a MSM, or any other, for that matter, journalist to make this rather basic point.
Ignoring for the moment studies by Roger Clegg’s group, inter al., that show that racial preferences are responsible for a huge number of professional school admissions of some minority groups, it seems to me that 3-7% favored minority group presences in certain graduate programs is about what one would expect, from year to year, given hugely disproportionale dropout rates among such favored minority groups.
Dennis is absolutely correct; the 50% high school dropout rate severely limits the pool of eligible candidates. Given these astounding figures,
If academia is so concerned about issues like this why don’t they teach in the slums of America to correct the 50% drop out rate?
You are misrepresenting the challenge to american universities, perhaps not intentionally. The challenge is not to disregard proportional representation in light of a high dropout rate, and simply try to improve the dropout rate in hops of improving representation levels. No indeed. It is mandatory that representation levels be at least proportional in spite of dropout rates. Once this occurs, the greater numbers of minorities in positions of responsibility will be better able to do something about the dropout rates.
You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.
ditto
Given academia’s access to and participation in studies (revealing statistics such as the high dropout rate among black people in America), I can only conclude that their focus on the issues of racial and/or gender gaps is based on some other agenda than lessening discrimination.
It appears that the same set of percieved problems get dissected again and again. Each cut shows some new anomaly that needs addressing when a simple examination would reveal that the “problem” as a symptom of a greater disease.
“It is mandatory that representation levels be at least proportional in spite of dropout rates.”
Wow, there it is, naked raw preference based on race, and not merit. The technical term for this is racism.
What, praytell, to you say to a non-favored student who is told he does not qualify for a position in a school solely because he is the wrong color?
This is for a greater good? Would you accept this answer as ok if you were the person adversely affected?
Once upon a time James Meredith wouldn’t take that answer from the U. of Miss. He was right, by god he was right.
Graduate education, Cherwitz argues, has been perceived as a series of silos — narrow, deep and walled-in structures in which participants learn more and more about less and less and speak in ways only they understand.
Beware the passive voice. What’s with this cumbersome “has been perceived as”? Is he unwilling to say outright that the “perception” is accurate (as it largely is)?
But I agree with John: if some groups are less attracted to graduate study than other groups, I really don’t see a problem, provided that no one is being actively discouraged or excluded. Still less do I see a reason to turn graduate study into something completely different just so that the racial balance will be more to someone’s liking.
I am reminded of a Chesterton essay on what he called “The Usual Article,” that being the typical letter-to-the-editor or whatever about declining church attendance, the kind that explains that if only the churches would stop obsessing about things that happened 2000 years ago, young people would “flock to them.” Chesterton’s reply was, first, that the churches were only there in the first place because a lot of people had strong views about certain events that took place 2000 years ago; and second, that he couldn’t see why anyone would “flock” to a particular building just because a perfect stranger promised not to mention something that happened 2000 years ago.
In other words, the churches existed in connection with a certain set of beliefs and desires and missions, and it was really kind of pointless to change the beliefs and desires and missions just to bring in more people. You might as well broaden the scope of the American Scorpion Fanciers’ Society so as to include Golden Retrievers when the monthly dues start looking a little meager.
Academia is just the same. A lot of graduate study is arcana, and a lot of fields are small and confined. (I think I met every renowned Haydn scholar in the country but two at a little conference at Amherst about a decade ago, and of the two who weren’t there, one was my doctoral advisor.)
If specialization is a bad thing, attack specialization, but do it because it’s a bad thing, not because it’ll improve the racial stats.
Akefa is bring some truly new views to this discussion.
For one thing, his use of the phrase “at least proportional” implies that he wants something more. Perhaps he could propose a table of what he considers adequate representation of each group.
Secondly, he is proposing (what is for me anyway) a totally new rationale for all this. He wants to make sure that the black surgeon operating on him has as little skill as necessary to create correct representation, all so that this surgeon can work towards reducing the high black dropout rate.
Wow.
Afeka, you have a point, except that Raspberry lists education as one area where black graduate students are concentrated.
It’s not just the dropout rate that’s the problem, it’s also kids who graduate but still aren’t educated. I really think K-12 education has to be fixed before any problems with higher education can be solved.
Was there ever a period when non-Southern colleges discriminated against blacks in their admissions process? If so, my experience says it was a long time ago
My wife and I both entered college in 1960 — U. of Chicago and Wellesley. Both colleges had a few black students. They were substantially less qualified than the average student. In other words, these two institutions were practicing affirmative action on a small scale even before it was required.
David,
My wife and I both entered college in 1960 — U. of Chicago and Wellesley. Both colleges had a few black students. They were substantially less qualified than the average student. In other words, these two institutions were practicing affirmative action on a small scale even before it was required.
It was never “required,” David. At least, certainly not for private institutions like the two you name, and not, so far as I know, even for public ones. Desegregation, sure; preferences, I don’t think so, but if John or anyone else knows of counterexamples, I’d be interested to see them.
“The greater numbers of minorities in positions of responsibility will be better able to do something about the dropout rates.”
Like what?
Wow! One more unthinking liberal (Akefa) sliced, diced, shrink-wrapped and ready for shipment to the get-a-clue factory. I am impressed. Now I challenge you all to do the next one in just TWO comments.
I find these latest threads fascinating.
In a different recent thread, I’m admonished for viewing people by race, especially in regards to admission percentages. There I am allegedly showing a disregard for the people on the losing side of an situation based upon the structure and practices of society. I’m allegedly showing that disregard by supporting the system in place.
Here, I find posters eagerly viewing people by race, especially in regards to drop-out statistics.
There is truth in statements here:
“I do not believe discrimination has disappeared”
-John
“It’s not just the dropout rate that’s the problem, it’s also kids who graduate but still aren’t educated. I really think K-12 education has to be fixed before any problems with higher education can be solved.”
-Laura
I would argue that those who simply point to “gaps” without addressing the structure and practices of the system put in place by society has no standing to call for the demise of Affirmative Action. John, to his credit, has done so on occassion, as have a few others, but it’s far from a consensus.
When racial preferences are mentioned, the language is “we” and “us”. When racial deficiencies are gaps are discussed, it becames “they” and “them.”
That doesn’t sound like a “color-blind” society to me.
–Cobra
Cobra, AA at the college level does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of K-12 education. Actually, it enables the problem to go on and on, because black kids and their parents know (or think they know, which amounts to the same thing) that they’ll get into college no matter what. Why push for a more rigorous education if you think you can get what you want without it? That’s one of the main reasons why I oppose AA. If we didn’t have it, we’d have to fix the schools. I will say that NCLB, with its requirement that test scores be broken out by race, makes it harder to hide the terrible job some of the schools are doing for black kids.
Cobra —
Opponents of AA do not merely argue that it is not the best possible solution to some problem. They argue that, other things being the way they are, it does more harm than good.
If you wish to address this issue, rather than demand that AA opponents solve some problem or other, you should directly argue why, other things being the way they are, AA does more good than harm.
Cobra,
I would argue that those who simply point to “gaps” without addressing the structure and practices of the system put in place by society has no standing to call for the demise of Affirmative Action. John, to his credit, has done so on occassion, as have a few others, but it’s far from a consensus.
When racial preferences are mentioned, the language is “we” and “us”. When racial deficiencies are gaps are discussed, it becames “they” and “them.”
That doesn’t sound like a “color-blind” society to me.
Cobra, I have never used “we” and “us,” and I’ve taken considerable trouble to point out that the people on the losing end of affirmative action aren’t all white, as you very well know.
As for the structure and practices of the system put in place by society, if you can tell me how said “structure” affects a Mexican immigrant who speaks little English more than it does a Chinese immigrant who speaks little English, both poor and both living in the same state, please do. The ordinary AA setup gives the first an edge and the second an extra hurdle, and I really don’t see why.
Michelle,
I was very careful to write “and a few others.” I didn’t indict EVERYBODY.
>>>As for the structure and practices of the system put in place by society, if you can tell me how said “structure” affects a Mexican immigrant who speaks little English more than it does a Chinese immigrant who speaks little English, both poor and both living in the same state, please do. The ordinary AA setup gives the first an edge and the second an extra hurdle, and I really don’t see why.”
If you’re talking about California, that’s not the case anymore due to Prop 209. If you’re talking about a state that still has Affirmative Action laws on the books, the answer is easy. Chinese Americans, in theory, are higher on the American “ethnic totem pole of acceptablility” than Mexican Americans. I didn’t make this up, and as I’ve mentioned before, that theory of hypodescent rears its head again.
They are viewed, alongside of other Asian Immigrants by many in the white majority as a “model minority”, whereas Mexican Americans suffer from a more negative stigma. The logic would be that to counteract negative treatment, positive or “affirmative” treatment may be needed. It really still depends on which group is running society.
LTEC writes:
>>>Opponents of AA do not merely argue that it is not the best possible solution to some problem. They argue that, other things being the way they are, it does more harm than good.”
Well, that depends on what the definitions of “good” and “harm” are. I have a suspicious feeling that the two sides will never agree on the significance of the two. My argument goes deeper into the real world inequity of American Society than what appears to be the simple concept of “just hire/admit/promote/reward the most qualified.” (with “most qualified” generally defined at the whim of the majority.) The fact that some may find resentment at underrepresented minorities for Affirmative Action is actually a few centuries late, since negative feelings towards them were around for at least that long here.
Laura writes:
>>>That’s one of the main reasons why I oppose AA. If we didn’t have it, we’d have to fix the schools.”
This is the rub. You see, if you get right down to it, I’ll be the FIRST PERSON TO ADMIT that the Anti-Affirmative Action message sounds great on paper. I mean, who can put up a good argument against principles of fairness and equal opportunity for all? It’s a tough nut to crack, I’ll grant you.
HOWEVER…
What happens is messages like Laura’s… “we’d have to fix the schools”, gets lost after the fact. For evidence, let’s look at the State of California’s Public School System NINE YEARS after Prop 209, Ward Connerly’s destruction of Affirmative Action.
(HINT: this is NOT a happy report)
http://www.hewlett.org/NR/rdonlyres/7C8362B1-4D4D-4977-B10B-B5AB01A6E906/0/Harrisexecutivesummary.pdf.
You see, most of us on the AA support side understand how society works in regards to underrepresented minorities after the dust has settled, the votes tallied, and the signs put away. It’s back to business as usual.
Apparently, nobody’s trying to “fix” the schools in California, Laura, and there’s no Affirmative Action there to blame. And the results of the “broken” system are drop-out rates, lower academic scores and lack of preparation for college level material. Mandates like NCLB would be great if there were FUNDS BEHIND IT, and as the report shows, many school districts can barely afford text books.
–Cobra
NCLB is an unfunded mandate?
Then why do so many schools want to keep the money and drop the requirements?
If schools don’t have enough money for textbooks, then maybe they should get on the fed/state gov’ts to drop some of the other unfunded mandates from 30-odd years ago.
Sandy:
>>>Last week, what had been rumblings of discontent turned mutinous. Unlikely allies joined. The heavily Republican Utah Legislature voted to defy the law even at the cost of giving up federal aid. The nation’s largest teachers union, the Democratic-leaning National Education Association, sued on behalf of districts trying to get out from under No Child Left Behind. Other states are muttering threats.
To an extent, the administration can blame itself. Rod Paige, the previous education secretary, was doctrinaire about enforcing the law, even though rules implementing it are clearly flawed. The administration and Congress have SHORTCHANGED FUNDING by BILLIONS of dollars, feeding the argument by the teachers union that the law is an UNFUNDED MANDATE.
No Child Left Behind’s survival may depend on the ability to respond to two opposite risks. One is death by a thousand waivers: states dumbing down their standards or seeking exemptions making it easier to pass.
The other is death from a deluge: States like California with high standards will be overwhelmed as tens of thousands of schools face penalties. Flunking everyone is no more a solution than giving all schools a social promotion.”
http://www.vvdailypress.com/2005/111512496619713.html
>>>”It’s an unfunded mandate,” said Bill Capehart, a Kentucky-based superintendent who will become superintendent of Rockingham County Schools in July. “The funds don’t follow the law to get it implemented, and then it falls upon a district to go into a budget dilemma to address those priorities.”
The district now faces a $3.6 million budget shortfall, much of which comes from cuts in state appropriations and additional expenses mandated at the state and federal level.
Across the nation, some school districts and even entire states have balked at the requirements of the federal act and threatened to not follow the law. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman signed a bill earlier this month demanding that the state’s educational priorities take precedence over the No Child act, while the state of Texas was fined $444,000 by the federal Education Department for not complying with parts of the law.”
http://www.edendailynews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=EDN/MGArticle/EDN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782851996&path=
You see the bait and switch? Proposing 1000 page rules regulations and duplicate testing at the federal level, under the threat of fines and school closures, while short-sheeting the school districts on funding, which means the LOCAL COMMUNITY (the residents) have to pick up the slack. This is another smack to primarily middle class and working class homeowners in the district, because to comply with the law, taxes must come from SOMEWHERE.
-Cobra
Michelle Dulak Thomson says AA was never “required,” for private institutions. I agree that “required” was too strong a word. However, I believe there has been great pressure on universities to practice AA. The pressure comes from federal funding agencies, accrediting bodies, etc. AFAIK few if any universities have resisted the pressure.
Does anyone know of any private colleges or universities that have taken a public stand not to practice AA?
Cobra,
let’s see if I’ve got this right. Michelle, in response to your comment about society’s structures and practices, asks how said structure affects Mexican and Asian immigrants differently, so as to condone putting the Asian-American at a legal disadvantage while favoring the Mexican-American. You respond that (1) they’re not at an equal disadvantage, that Asians are higher on the “ethnic totem pole” and are seen as a model minority (are you saying they succeed because Whitey likes them better?); and (2) your brand of logic concludes that Mexican immigrants suffer from a negative stigma relative to Asians, one that is best counter-acted by laws that promote them and hold back Asians.
Wow. Let’s assume for a moment the relevance of the “ethnic totem pole” (personally, I view it as an excuse, an attempt to explain away the unfortunate fact of Asian immigrant success that somehow eludes many other minorities — notwithstanding your ability to data dump on the subject). Rather than the knee-jerk response of, “hey, they’re succeeding, they need to be held back (that says so much about AA), perhaps a better alternative would be to understand and emulate the practices of this group, that succeeds at much higher rates than many other minority populations AND the majority — the top of the pole.
Why is everyone being so defensive? There are clear areas where social injustice is allowed to thrive. Some of us are merely calling for these injustices to be addressed and corrected. America is a rich country. It can afford to give its oppressed minorities a leg up.
Akefa,
America is a rich country. It can afford to give its oppressed minorities a leg up.
I think you (and Cobra, and actus) will agree that there exists prejudice against Asians. (The 49ers video Cobra mentioned will do for an instance.) Do they get a “leg up” as well? Or are we to conclude that they aren’t “oppressed minorities” merely from their grades and test scores?
Scott writes:
>>> Rather than the knee-jerk response of, “hey, they’re succeeding, they need to be held back (that says so much about AA), perhaps a better alternative would be to understand and emulate the practices of this group, that succeeds at much higher rates than many other minority populations AND the majority — the top of the pole.”
One of the frustrating things about this entire debate is that with a few noted exceptions, we’re dealing with different perceptions of societal reality and history.
For example, Scott writes:
>>>You respond that (1) they’re not at an equal disadvantage, that Asians are higher on the “ethnic totem pole” and are seen as a model minority (are you saying they succeed because Whitey likes them better?); and (2) your brand of logic concludes that Mexican immigrants suffer from a negative stigma relative to Asians, one that is best counter-acted by laws that promote them and hold back Asians.”
First of all, I didn’t create term “model minority” for Asian Americans. In fact, there’s a great little website about Asian American empowerment you should check out:
>>>As diverse and rapidly changing as the society we live in, Asian Americans do not conform to any single description. Despite this, Americans reluctant to address the realities of continuing racism and white privilege have consistently portrayed Asian Americans as a “model minority” who have uniformly succeeded by merit.
While superficially complimentary to Asian Americans, the real purpose and effect of this portrayal is to celebrate the status quo in race relations. First, by over-emphasizing Asian American success, it de-emphasizes the problems Asian Americans continue to face from racial discrimination in all areas of public and private life. Second, by misrepresenting Asian American success as proof that America provides equal opportunities for those who conform and work hard, it excuses American society from careful scrutiny on issues of race in general, and on the persistence of racism against Asian Americans in particular.”
–http://www.modelminority.com/
There are also studies on social mobility among Asian Americans that depicts circumstances not easily transferable onto other minority groups.
http://modelminority.com/printout859.html
>>>Rather than the knee-jerk response of, “hey, they’re succeeding, they need to be held back (that says so much about AA), perhaps a better alternative would be to understand and emulate the practices of this group, that succeeds at much higher rates than many other minority populations AND the majority — the top of the pole.”
Again Scott, we come from two different perceptions of America. Any reputable examination of American history shows PRECISELY why white Americans sit atop the “ethnic totem pole.” It’s not a particularly pretty story, Scott. If your suggestion is that groups at the bottom of the pole should “emulate the practices” of the majority…I’m afraid that’s a road you don’t really want to go down.
–Cobra
Cobra, I think I’ve asked this many times before, so at risk of wearying everyone: if AA is compensatory for past and present racism, and there is ample evidence of past and present racism against Asian-Americans, why should there not be AA for Asian-Americans in college admissions? (Don’t tell me “they don’t need it.” The question is whether they deserve it; and if they do, shouldn’t they have it?)
Cobra, I read your article. It deals mostly with rundown facilities. My daughter attended, until her graduation this spring (O happy day), a high school that was coming down around the kids’ ears. It didn’t stop the school from offering a quality education.
I’ve been looking for an article I can’t find but I know I’ve read in the past, about the significant increase in black high schoolers in California who enrolled in calculus courses after racial preferences ended. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about, not mice and cockroaches.