Evidence is mounting that not only do “diversity”-justified preferential admissions not help their ostensible beneficiaries but may even do more harm than good. For example, I’ve discussed a number of times (most recently here) that the University of Virginia has the highest minority graduation rate of any selective public university (and higher than many private elite schools) but that even at UVa “blacks failed to graduate at a rate over twice as high as whites and Asians.”
Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, has also been outspoken on the harm perpetrated in the name of “diversity,” as in this article yesterday.
Why is it, for example, that the University of Michigan and other selective schools continue to promote racially discriminatory admissions policies that lead to greater academic failure among black and Hispanic students than what results from racially neutral policies? Why do they extol policies that suppress black and Hispanic graduation rates? Is the University of Michigan’s mission to educate and graduate students or is it to placate racial bean counters?
The continued defense of racial discrimination in admissions is no longer contrary just to the principle of equal treatment, but to empirical evidence as well. Perhaps twenty years ago academic elites could hide behind the veil of uninformed good intentions to justify racial preferences; today, hard evidence continues to mount demonstrating that racial preferences have a devastating impact on preferred minorities…. Don’t academic elites think that black and Hispanic students should know about (to cite but one example) the studies by UCLA law professor Richard Sander showing that because of the mismatch effect caused by affirmative action (i.e., under-qualified minorities being admitted to schools at which they have difficulty competing) half of black law students cluster at the bottom 10 percent of their respective law-school classes? Would college administrators continue to mouth platitudes about affirmative action if their students knew that preferential admissions cause black law students to flunk out at two-and-a-half times the rate of whites? Or that black law students are six times less likely to pass the bar? Or that half of black law students never become lawyers?
But arguably worse than the actual damage “diversity” does in practice is that the theory on which it rests is even uglier. As I wrote in “Diversity” As Exploitation:
… since “diversity” is justified by the benefits it allegedly provides to those non-minoritiy students who are exposed to the “diverse” minorities who are preferentially admitted (those minorities, after all, would receive whatever benefits “diversity” has to offer even if they attended less competitive schools), there is an ugly, unstated element of exploitation associated with it.
….
The preferentially admitted minorties are not the beneficiaries — they are not even the “alleged beneficiaries” — of “diversity”-justified preferential admissions. They are merely the instrumental agents of benefits that are alleged to accrue to others because of their presence. Thus it really doesn’t matter how many of them drop out, so long as a large enough “critical mass” remains to provide “diversity” to the non-minority students.
Today Jonah Goldberg makes this point, exceptionally well (HatTip to reader Alex Bensky):
When the University of Michigan’s admissions policies were being reviewed by the Supreme Court, former school president Lee Bollinger explained that diversity was as “as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare” because exposure to people of different hues lies at the core of the educational experience. That’s another way of saying that racial preferences are forever, just like the timeless works of the immortal bard. That business about redressing past discrimination against blacks is no longer the name of the game.
It’s difficult to put into words how condescending this is in that it renders black students into props, show-and-tell objects for the other kids’ educational benefit.
There was a time when condescension, discrimination, arrogant social engineering along racial lines and the like were dubbed racism. And, to paraphrase Shakespeare, racism by any other name still stinks.
It is also exploitation.
“Why is it, for example, that the University of Michigan and other selective schools continue to promote racially discriminatory admissions policies that lead to greater academic failure among black and Hispanic students than what results from racially neutral policies?”
That’s it in a nutshell, isn’t it? Every other argument pales. AA hurts those it supposedly helps.
Well, if peoiple of a different skin hue by that feature alone bring something different to a university, why doesn’t it follow that they bring something different to, say driving? So if it could be shown that blacks tend to speed more than other Americans, what would be the problem with pulling them over more often?
The “AA is bad because it hurts Blacks” is the weakest argument against AA.
One reason it is weak is because it involves deep immersion into various statistics, all of which are controversial and difficult for almost everyone to evaluate. One simple example: why should we compare dropout rates instead of graduation rates? If 99% of Blacks graduate and 99.9% of Whites graduate, should we say that the graduation rates are nearly identical, or should we say that the Black dropout rate is 10 times the White rate?
Another problem with the “AA is bad because it hurts Blacks” argument is that is forces us to decide what is good for Blacks. Is graduating one person from a top tier school worse than graduating two from a second tier school? Does the “society transforming” (or so one might claim) picture of a Berkeley campus full of Blacks help Blacks more than the reality of them (or so one might claim) flunking out hurts Blacks?
I think that while it’s okay to raise these issues, John is on much firmer ground with his fundamental moral position against AA.
Are schools maximizing the exposure to the ‘diversity’ they already possess?
To stretch out their diversity resources perhaps they should restrict the number of specific minorities that may be enrolled in any particular class, especially if it is a course with multiple classes. There is no sense in allowing ‘diversity’ to coagulate in a few classes when they could be spread around.
Second, since the class enrollment procedure is so highly computerized, why don’t schools show not only the number of already enrolled students for a particular class, but their demographics. Why leave to random chance the ability of students to expose themselves to the full range of ‘diversity’ the school has promised?
Some students may enter their junior or senior year without proper exposure to militant lesbians or Native Americans. Empower those students to be able to complete their well-rounded education by being able to elect courses with fellow students who fit those missing demographics.
Thirdly, course instructors should list their full demographics in the class description. Why leave to chance, the ability to expose someone to a full range of ‘diversity’? If a student felt it was important, they should be able to avail themselves of the approach of a conservative, gay, Hispanic professor without resorting to the grapevine for information.
It seems then, that schools themselves have alot more they can do to utilize the ‘diversity’ they already possess. ;)