The news blog of the Chronicle of Higher Education reports today that the College Board has issued a paper “urging higher-education institutions to prepare in advance to fight state ballot measures prohibiting the consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions.”
The paper, which can be found here, asks, among other things, “What Strategies Might Be Pursued by Higher Education Institutions to Deflect or Defeat Voter Initiatives?” And then proceeds to provide some recommended answers.
The authors of the report are clearly upset that citizens don’t have the sophisticated and nuanced understanding of “diversity” as college administrators of the five members of the Supreme Court who formed the Grutter majority. This, of course, leads them to suggest more thorough “communication”:
No fact better highlights the challenge of effective communication with the public regarding the need for maintaining the academic freedom of higher education institutions to use race and ethnicity in enrollment management practices than the contrast between: (1) the substantial margins by which the two most recent state initiatives passed, and (2) the success of the University of Michigan (with its broad-based advocacy partners) in the Grutter litigation. Clearly, the arguments that shaped the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition of the educational, economic, civic, and security benefits associated with a diverse student body, which could be pursued through the limited use of race or ethnicity in admissions, did not carry the day in the court of public opinion. Key areas to assess are, therefore, the core arguments that were successfully made before the U.S. Supreme Court and the ways they might be adapted in order to provide a better public understanding regarding admissions (and related) decisions that are designed to achieve the benefits associated with a diverse student body.
The College Board report is quite useful in one important respect: it provides those who will be organizing to ban racial preferences in additional states with a clear outline of the arguments many of their opponents will be making in defense of racial preference.
ADDENDUM [26 March]
Now that I have had time to read this report more carefully I have a few additional things to say about it. They will not be kind.
First, the very first thing in the text of the report is a misrepresentation. There are two quotations at the top of the page where the “Introduction” begins, one from one of the obvious good guys, University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman, on how great “diversity,” and hence the University of Michigan, is, and the other from foremost bad guy, Ward Connerly. Connerly’s “quotation,” taken from this article in the Los Angeles Times, follows:
“I think the end is at hand for affirmative action as we know it,” and that an “anti-affirmative action wave washing over America” will wipe out the race-based preferences used for decades to help African Americans, Latinos and other disadvantaged ethnic groups.
– Ward Connerly, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times
This “quotation” is accurate as far as it goes — Connerly was quoted in the article as saying the words that are inside the quotes — but he most definitely did not say that race-based preferences have been “used for decades to help African Americans, Latinos and other disadvantaged ethnic groups.” That is pure editorializing by the person imitating a journalist who wrote the LAT article, and it is pure editorializing here in this august, high brow, academic report.
Moving on, I am struck about equally by what is in this collection of recommendations on how to defeat anti-preference initiatives … and what is not.
For anyone who followed the struggle to enact Prop. 2 in Michigan, most of what is in this report is a repetition of the tactics in fact used by the pro-preference forces, i.e., the tactics that, despite all the money and organizing effort that was expended, won the votes of only 42% of Michigan voters. Here’s the summary of the “action” points:
1. Build broad-based coalitions to inform policy development and provide support, with the right leadership (higher education, business, military, government, etc.) advocating the educational, economic, civic, and security interests advanced by diverse student bodies.
2. Convey a common sense description of what the research and experience show regarding the relative benefits and costs associated with diversity, with a focus on the benefits of diversity that inure to all individuals, as well as the rationale and need for considering race in certain cases when making admissions (and related) decisions.
3. Pursue public education campaigns associated with the benefits of diversity, focusing on the importance of higher education institutions preserving their full array of policy options consistent with federal law when making mission-driven decisions that have major institutional, economic, and societal consequences.
The first part of the report provides a moderately useful description of the history of the anti-preference in California, Washington, and Michigan.
Part II turns to “Lessons Learned: What’s Missing in the Public Discourse?” What’s “missing,” it turns out is “A Clear Articulation of the Benefits Associated with and Positive Impact of Diverse Student Bodies.” A majority of the Supreme Court, but not a majority of the citizens of Michigan, were persuaded of the
- Educational benefits—improved teaching and learning;
- Economic benefits—better preparation for the workforce in an increasingly global economy;
- Civic benefits—preparation of students for citizenship in America; and
- National security benefits—preparation of a better-trained, more highly skilled military.
What would a list be without the ubiquitous “global economy” (why not simply admit more “global” students, then?), but the new appearance of the “national security benefits is my favorite.
The “Lesson Learned”? That the evidence must be “framed” so that everyone can see what the five worthies on the Supreme Court saw in Grutter.
The second lesson learned turns to something I think preference critics should not only accept but insist on: “Transparency Regarding Enrollment Management Practices, to Illustrate that the Use of Race is Limited and to Debunk Myths Regarding Test Scores and Grades.”
Here’s what the College Board anti-preference strategists say about “transparency”:
(1) Its consideration of race did not involve the use of quotas. In fact, the use of race was limited— sometimes operating as a permissible “tipping point” for some minority applicants but not operating to guarantee admissions to virtually all minimally qualified minority students.
(2) The notion that test scores and grades should somehow, standing alone, define the “merit” of applicants was a complete myth—inconsistent with basic test measurement principles and sound admissions practice. To the contrary, many factors, qualities, and characteristics in addition to test scores and grades helped define the kind of entering class that Michigan sought—including the strength of recommendations, the quality of the undergraduate institution, the rigor (and areas) of the student’s course work, travel/residence abroad, language fluency, community service, having overcome hardships, and successful careers in other fields.
(3) Correspondingly, decisions about whom to admit were not made in isolation, with an exclusive focus on a student’s individual attributes. Rather than conceptualize the admissions process as one of just rewarding individuals for past achievements, the University sought to build a community of learning, where a diverse group of students would interact and learn from each other, in and out of the classroom. Thus, at its core, the admissions process at Michigan was both studentcentric and school-centric—with admissions judgments being made through dual lenses
If these guys think the use of race at Michigan was limited to a “tipping point,” then it is they who are tipsy. I would like nothing better than for all academic and other institutions in the states where measures to end racial preferences will be placed on the ballot to release all the data at their disposal revealing the weight they place on race and ethnicity in their admission and hiring and contracting decisions. So, “Transparency?” Bring it on!
Re No. 2, and the wordy, “school-centric” No. 3, the report misses the fundamental point that the anti-racial preferences does not rest on, or even make, the claim “that test scores and grades should somehow, standing alone, define the “merit” of applicants,” merely that race, sex, and ethnicity alone cannot be considered. The real “myth” is that those opposed to racial preferences make a fetish of grades and test scores.
Ignoring that gaping hole in their armor, the pro-preference strategists turn to a whole host of strategies that were in fact used in Michigan and utterly failed to persuade most voters that the “without regard” principle barring racial discrimination should be abandoned. Among them: building “alliances” with “stakeholders” such as “major businesses,” “retired U.S. military officials,” “educational researchers,” “professional organizations,” and, lest we forget, “coalition building” among “disparate groups.” (What? No churches and religious leaders? No bi-partisan political hacks? Did these guys not look at Michigan?)
Finally, there is a large dog that did not bark in this strategy paper, a big hole in the center where its philosophical core should be. The entire report is organized around strategies to make the dumb populace aware of the “benefits of ‘diversity,’” but that misses the point. The anti-preference initiatives have not, and will not, challenge the idea of “diversity.” They challenge policies that in fact define “diversity” to mean no more than racial and ethnic representation of certain groups.
More fundamentally, this strategy paper completely ignores the most effective weapon in the arsenal of those of us who oppose racial preference: the widespread, and accurate, belief that favoring some individuals and disfavoring others because of their race is simply wrong and unfair.
In one of the two quotes to which I referred above that begin this report, University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman is quoted as saying:
We fought for the very principle that defines our country’s greatness. Year after year, our student body proves it and now the Court has affirmed it: Our diversity is our strength.”
“Diversity,” whatever it encompasses, is nice, but it is not “the principle that defines our country’s greatness.” Our defining principle, instead, is the core value that every individual should rise or fall according to his own efforts, “without regard” to race, creed, or color. And when “diversity” is defined and implemented in such a way as to depend upon racial and ethnic discrimination, it even ceases to be nice.
ADDENDUM II [27 March]
Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity sends the following astute (as usual) comments. He finds the report “underwhelming”:
1. The premise is that, since the Supreme Court was convinced about the desirability of racial preferences and the voters of Michigan were not, all that needs to be done is to make the same arguments to the latter that were made to the former. That’s misguided for a number of reasons, the most fundamental of which is that judges are going to be more deferential to educators than voters are—particularly voters whose children will be discriminated against.
2. The report also seems to think that the people being discriminated against will be won over if the joys of a multiculti environment are patiently explained to them. This is also misguided for a number of reasons, the most fundamental of which is that these joys can be experienced only by those who get into the university, and for that it helps not to be discriminated against.
3. The report wants schools to be more transparent in their admission policies, and to document the benefits of diversity and the failure of race-neutral means to achieve institutional goals. To which I say: Wonderful. By all means, let’s have that transparency—especially regarding how heavily race and ethnicity are weighed—and please turn over to us your documentation for why your discrimination is narrowly tailored, and how it serves a compelling interest.
4. Finally, the report calls for “discussion about the precise background and agendas of those who attempt to step into the fray.” I assume this means that we can look forward to more attempts to link us to the KKK, etc.
ADDENDUM III [27 March]
Re the “tipping point,” i.e., the allegedly “limited use of race” the College Board anti-equality strategists mention at several points, a well-informed reader writes:
If the phrase “tipping point” reappears, you might usefully point out that it is used dishonestly. It is not a single point (we could probably live with that, it would hardly be noticed, and it would not be observable statistically. It is a whole spectrum of points).
Back when Michigan had actual cell diagrams … the tipping point was applied separately in every cell. So a high-level applicant who lost in his own cell to a very slightly less qualified applicant, was not bumped down to a lower cell where he would be even more competitive. He was just out of consideration, period. That is why there was a whole broad swatch of cells where the chance of white admission was under 25% and the chance of black admission was over 75% although the difference in any given cell was small enough to make the tipping point argument fairly plausible.
The University of Michigan, under the pressure of the impending litigation, abandoned this tainted cell approach to admissions decision, but the new system put in its place was hardly an improvement. In fact, a recent study of admissions practices at Michigan (discussed here and here), the Center for Equal Opportunity that UM had actually increased the weight given to race (quoted from the first link above):
In the most recent year (2005), the median black admittee’s SAT score was 1160, versus 1260 for Hispanics, 1350 for whites, and 1400 for Asians. High school GPAs were 3.4 for the median black, 3.6 for Hispanics, 3.8 for Asians, and 3.9 for whites.
In the four years analyzed, UM rejected over 8000 Hispanics, Asians, and whites who had higher SAT or ACT scores and GPAs than the median black admittee–including nearly 2700 students in 2005 alone.
The black-to-white odds ratio for 2005 was 70 to 1 among students taking the SAT, and 63 to 1 for students taking the ACT. (To put this in perspective, the odds ratio for nonsmokers versus smokers dying from lung cancer is only 14 to 1.)
In terms of probability of admissions in 2005, black and Hispanic students with a 1240 SAT and a 3.2 high school GPA, for instance, had a 9 out of 10 chance of admissions, while whites and Asians in this group had only a 1 out of 10 chance.
I always thought the word “collaborative” was an adjective, but the College Board seems to have deemed it a noun. Oh, well. According to that document, the College Board’s “Access and Diversity Collaborative” is a big business. It brings education bureaucrats to many seminars each year, publishes a lot of papers and guides, and urges educrats to hire its “core support provider,” the law firm of Holland & Knight LLP’s “Education Policy Team.”
I don’t think that document suggests any tactic which has not already failed during the MCRI battle. I think the writers are devoted to their cause, but I think it’s a case of cupboard love–they put on “diversity” seminars and so-forth for a living.
I hope that a few more MCRI-like initiatives pass soon, so that educrats may lose faith in the “Access and Diversity Collaborative” and its symbiotic law firm (forcing those folk to find more honest ways to earn their bread).
OT: “Collaborative” can be used as a noun, just like “cooperative”, meaning “a co-op”.
I’m less optimistic than you or Roger here. While the College Board is off-base, it is a better strategy than used in Michigan (except for the threat to examine and personally destroy “those that enter the fray”, a clear threat to continue the politics of personal destruction).
Your right – it won’t stop voters in the states that Ward goes to. We’ll probably win all those battles. But what of the war? What do we do after, say, 2012, when we’re out of western initiative states? And how does it impact the diversity industry in the long-run?
Clearly, our side needs more of a long-term strategy. Ward’s right to move the ball for the next first down – but we need an idea of how to finish.
Chet – Good points. I think the “diversity industry” will be hard to close down. But if an additional five or more states eliminate racial preferences I think it will be come easier to pass legislation to that effect in the non-initiative states. And then maybe the threat of extinction could force the diversity industry to concentrate on, well, diversity, and not racial balancing.
“We fought for the very principle that defines our country’s greatness. Year after year, our student body proves it and now the Court has affirmed it: Our diversity is our strength.””
I believe that are right diversity is our strength, but they are incorrect in that they should manage or control it.
Diversity happens by default when a group of people are selected. The selection criteria be default limits the diversity of a group. After all any elite university can select students who have not finished the fifth grade and have a greater effect on the diversity than any other measure thay are currently using.
Chetly — you’re right that in the non-ballot initiative states, there’s virtually zero chance of ever enacting anti-discrimination laws. I think the next step is revealed by the fact that Grutter was only 5-4.
Yes, it may be marginally easier to pass legislation but I think David’s closer to the real odds. These guys are coalition building for a very-long-term strategy – not to stop ballot initiatives.
And the last time we put all our eggs in the Supreme Court basket, we were disappointed. Sure, the court appears 5-4 for us NOW, but a Grutter-re-evaluation opportunity doesn’t appear on the horizon, and even if the K-12 choice cases were used that way and we had a reversal tomorrow, an activist court in 2010 or whenever could bounce the ball the other way. Yes, the ballot initiatives send a public message to the potential court members, but if in 2009 we have a Clinton presidency it won’t matter a hill-o-beans what the public thinks.
And remember, not only do we face long-term SC problems with a new presidency, but a new Dept. of Justice could wreak havoc even in the initiative states with federal reinterprations.
John writes:
>>>”“Diversity,” whatever it encompasses, is nice, but it is not “the principle that defines our country’s greatness.” Our defining principle, instead, is the core value that every individual should rise or fall according to his own efforts, “without regard” to race, creed, or color.”
When did the Founding Fathers write that one?
Despite the window-dressing of Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz, the anti-affirmative action movement is a conservative white male one. Those adversely affected by the movement are GAINING in population percentage, while conservative white males are not.
I’m sure your side is going to win some more pyrric victories in several states. It’s inevitable, as any pro-white male movement will gain traction in a society controlled by white males.
What’s your plan for the future folks? What are you going to do when African-Americans/Native Americans/ and Hispanice Americans with MEMORIES of these “white victories” rise in population percentage, political power and economic power, which CERTAINLY isn’t a stated goal of current conservative white male movement?
–Cobra
cobra – Your unshakable belief that the “American Creed” — the belief that everyone has a right to be treated without regard to race, creed, or color — is nothing more than white male self-interest is touching, in the way that blind faith is often touching. I hope that all opponents of colorblind equality share your belief and continue, as they did in Michigan, to act accordingly. As to what will happen if a majority of Americans ever reject this American Creed? That’s easy: we’ll then be a different country, and can rejoice in our new similarity to Mexico, Venezuela, etc., on the one hand, and those European countries whose societies have been transformed by large number of immigrants who don’t share their values, on the other.
I found it odd that the report called diversity America’s defining value. Even the national motto – e pluribus unum – suggests that out of the many one should arise. That is, unifying diverse origins – unity – is defining.
But really, the defining creeds of America are “all men (and women) are created equal” and that the people ultimately are the authority of their own laws, not the sovereign. We have yet to fully eradicate the “sovereign”, even from our system, (so-called sovereign immunity), and certainly have not “perfected” our imperfect union, but the idea is closer than humanity has ever before achieved. I suppose you might add First Amendment issues – essentially “tolerance” – into the mix, but it wasn’t even in the original Constitution (nor was the 14th). In fact, the First and Fourteenth Amendments are the crowning pinnacles of how America resolved some of its initial imperfections.
I love how Cobra plays the “might makes right” power card here. He suggests that when minorities attain the majority they will simply “take” what they want from “us”. So much for the intellectual argument in defense of minority rights. Cobra, your position is morally indefensible and reprehensible.
John writes:
>>>”Your unshakable belief that the “American Creed” — the belief that everyone has a right to be treated without regard to race, creed, or color — is nothing more than white male self-interest is touching, in the way that blind faith is often touching.”
Don’t misunderstand me on this one, John. I’ve said before that in a PERFECT world, your mantra…
“the right to be treated without regard to race, creed, or color”
…would be something I couldn’t reasonably argue against.
You DO realize that, as I’ve also said before, we DON’T live in a perfect world, and all these anti-affirmative action schemes do is prevent the GOVERNMENT from using race, creed or gender. Everybody else is still free to use race, creed or gender, which leaves those in power a lesser hinderance to maintain said power, (ie. white males.)
Perhaps you don’t wish that to be the case, but American History tells me otherwise.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>”I love how Cobra plays the “might makes right” power card here. He suggests that when minorities attain the majority they will simply “take” what they want from “us”.”
Not at all. It’s called politics. I posted the stats here before for Prop 2 in Michigan:
>>>”A CNN exit poll of Michigan voters suggested that the ban passed because of support from men. Sixty percent of men, but only 47 percent of women said that they backed the ban. By educational status, support for the ban was strongest among those who were college graduates, and opposition was strongest among those with postgraduate education. Among white voters, CNN found that 59 percent backed the ban, while only 14 percent of black voters did so.”
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/08/michigan
Demographics are changing, Chetly. A 9% shift in that result can easily be attained as Michigan “browns.”
>>>”The vote shows that “there is a huge sense on the part of white voters that affirmative action needs to end,” said Cose, an author and columnist for Newsweek. Although the national implication remains uncertain, “if this thing is put before states where there is a significant white majority, it’s likely to pass,” he said…
…”The measure in Michigan, as did the measure in California, passed along very clearly racial lines,” Cose said, showing that “even though jurists see a legitimate state interest in diversity voters, at least white voters don’t.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601492.html
My commentary is validated, Chetly. Second, you will notice that you don’t exactly have “white solidarity” on this issue, as Prop 2 ONLY received %59 percent of the white vote.
Chetly writes:
>>>”So much for the intellectual argument in defense of minority rights. Cobra, your position is morally indefensible and reprehensible.”
What exactly is indefensible about my position as compared to yours? You and your movement designed an initiative that will have a deleterious affect on African-, Hispanic-, and Native Americans, while granting more benefits to white males as chronicled in California after Prop 209.
http://drcenter.org/prop209.htm
Michigan CURRENTLY has a significant white majority population, and that helped your initiative win.
When Michigan NO LONGER has a significant white majority population, I can easily see a black or Latino “Chetly” putting forward an initiative that REVERSE your scheme. Given the demographics THEN, he’d have the votes to succeed.
What’s good for the goose..
–Cobra
Cobra, I didn’t say your vision wasn’t possible, I said it was morally bankrupt. You have defended the present scheme on the grounds that a vote of the majority violates minority rights. Yet you cheer for the day when the power is reversed and you can take it back (of course, to be morally consistent, you’d have to give preferences to white minorities 50 years hence). MCRI said all along that the initiative protected equality from either side hence into the future. The day will come when a white man gets preference (indeed, it has, in Nursing) and MCRI protects blacks or women against it, and that might just lock in long-term support for it.
I also have no pretense that demographics aren’t changing, and I’m concerned about how strategically to deal with that. I have answers, but not for you, here.
Finally, your data from “exit polls” in Michigan is cow-dung. Exit polls have been notoriously bad generally in the last decade, but on race issues they are even worse. Who’s going to admit to being a racist (or uncle tom) to a pollster, with community members in earshot?
The numbers you cite are impossible!
Quote:
Among white voters, CNN found that 59 percent backed the ban, while only 14 percent of black voters did so
If the final tally was 58-42, it is quickly demonstrated mathematically that blacks, as 12% of the population, at 14% approval, could not produce that result combined with whites averaging 59% approval, even if the hispanic and other votes are assumed to be 50-50. Using the exits for anything is very difficult – at best, they represent a “baseline floor” of the minimum number of supporters of Proposal 2, with hidden supporters distributed in an unknown way across groups. I suppose a detailed econometric-demographic model could be devised by looking at precinct breakdowns. My reading of that type of data by eyeballing precincts is that blacks supported MCRI at 20% or more and whites probably at about 65% or more, but even those majority-minority precincts have whites in them, and vice-versa, so its hard to tell.
Chetly writes:
>>>”Cobra, I didn’t say your vision wasn’t possible, I said it was morally bankrupt.”
Hello? Affirmative-Action only came into practice in the late 60’s-early 70’s. Can I draw from your statement that you believe America was NOT “morally bankrupt” before that time?
“You have defended the present scheme on the grounds that a vote of the majority violates minority rights. Yet you cheer for the day when the power is reversed and you can take it back (of course, to be morally consistent, you’d have to give preferences to white minorities 50 years hence).”
Where do you see me “cheering”? I’m just stating what’s going to happen based upon historical trends. And as far as whites receiving preferences in America…
Come on, Chetly…you KNOW better than to bring up “white receiving preferences” to me on this blog. Do I have to explain how America worked/still works to you yet AGAIN concerning white privilege?
Chetly writes:
>>>” Who’s going to admit to being a racist (or uncle tom) to a pollster, with community members in earshot?”
So you’re saying that there WAS some sort of underlying train of thought or motivation amongst many Prop 2 supporters neccessitating the need for them to LIE to pollsters?
Chetly writes:
>>>”My reading of that type of data by eyeballing precincts is that blacks supported MCRI at 20% or more and whites probably at about 65% or more, but even those majority-minority precincts have whites in them, and vice-versa, so its hard to tell.”
I have no doubt there are minorities who vote against their own best interests, and supplicate to the whims and dominance of the majority.
You’re kidding yourself if you think those folks are a large percentage of the conscious minority population, which is probably why you won’t enunciate your “victory in Brown America” strategy here.
–Cobra