Reading the essay, “Confronting A New Era Of Diversity,” by Mark Emmert, president of the University of Washington, in tomorrow’s Christian Science Monitor, I am reminded anew of why high level university officers and administrators are so widely, and so justifiably, regarded as out of touch elitist snobs.
Emmert’s essay is neatly divided into two parts: the first half, which whines about untutored voters and Supreme Court justices who failed to follow the advice of their betters and have set about “limiting the use of race” (that’s the elite’s way of saying “racial preference”); and the second half, which affirms that “diversity” can be produced without the use of race. The argument that diversity does not require racial discrimination should surprise no one (though many apparently need to hear this truth affirmted), but the first, whining, part I find more interesting and revealing.
Take a look at the opening three paragraphs:
SEATTLE – Access to equal opportunity distinguishes and strengthens the United States. The country has aggressively pursued this ideal over the past 50 years with federal policies and court decisions that opened colleges and universities to ethnic and racial populations that had historically been vastly underrepresented.
Affirmative action, the federal program that was most influential in helping build diverse campuses, has been slowly but demonstrably eroded over the past 10 years through a combination of statewide referenda and now the latest Supreme Court decision limiting the use of race in school choice.
These incursions have occurred despite the conviction of a vast array of business leaders, government officials, and university administrators that for the past 35 years, affirmative action has been a remarkably successful tool in the quest for equity in access to higher education.
First, I am surprised to learn that before the onset of affirmative action the University of Washington had denied “access to equal opportunity” and had been “[closed] to ethnic and racial minorities.” If President Emmert can point to the past policies and practices that denied minorities “access to equal opportunity” at his institution, he might well be able to persuade a court to allow UW to remedy that discrimination, including the limited “use of race” he is so fond of.
Now consider President Emmert’s use of “incursions” to describe the decisions by substantial majorities of voters in three states, including his own, to eliminate racial preference policies and reaffirm the traditional principle of civil rights law, that everyone should be treated “without regard” to race, creed, or color. “Incursion,” of course, is what we call an invasion when we want to use a more polite term. And what exactly were these substantial majorities of voters invading when they voted to end racial preferences? Why, the considered judgment of their betters, the “vast array of business leaders, government officials, and university administrators.”
Now, note that in each of the first two paragraphs President Emmert referred to affirmative action as settled (until recently) national policy, as “federal policies” and “the federal program.” Part of President Emmert’s problem appears to be an aversion to our federal system, since he then writes:
What had been a national policy is being dismantled, state by state. Each state that has abandoned affirmative action has had to ascertain separately its legal ability and the boundaries that would allow it to foster diversity. Because each state’s context differs, America is developing fragmented solutions to the challenge of maintaining a diverse student body, a challenge that many courts continue to see as a “compelling interest” for the nation.
First, what exactly is this “national policy”? What are its terms, and where is it written? Is it a law, passed by Congress and signed by the president, or simply a collection of bureaucratic and administrative policies? As I’ve noted too many times to cite, the two presidential Executive Orders requiring affirmative action by the federal government, by Presidents Kennedy (10925) and Johnson (11246), explicitly impose the obligation to treat federal workers, contractors, and applicants “without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” (See here for a convenient quote from both orders.) If President Emmert’s essay were a freshman composition, surely his instructor would scribble “What ‘national policy’? Be specific!” in the margin.
And since when did “fragmented solutions” to vexing and controversial problems become a bad thing? “Fragmented solutions” recognizing that “each state’s context differs” is precisely what federalism is all about. Just because a “vast array of business leaders, government officials, and university administrators” have managed to keep the people cowed in some states doesn’t mean they should in all.
Perhaps President Emmert needs to take a breather and audit courses in freshman composition and an introduction to American government. And while he’s at it he might try developing, or at least credibly faking, some respect for the principle of colorblind equality that is deeply held by a strong majority of his ultimate employers, the citizens of Washington.
The biggest problem I see with Emmert’s argument is the statement: “Affirmative action, the federal program that was most influential in helping build diverse campuses, has been slowly but demonstrably eroded over the past 10 years…” Are you kidding? Every year the number of colleges using racial preferences grows as does the breadth and depths of the those programs. Sure, a few states have outlawed affirmative action in college but I would venture that more students attend colleges with affirmative action programs than those who don’t compared to ten years ago.
Emmert’s contempt for the will of the people is astonishing. Equally astonishing is his arrogant notion that re-engineering the society is a perogative of his job.
If you’ve been reading the bios of Duke faculty at Durham in Wonderland, you will notice this constant theme of megalomania. How did faculty and administration at universities develop this absurd notion that they were appointed to change the very structure of society?
This is absurd arrogance. Their sole job is to deliver a quality education. They need to dump the Messiah complex.
Another problem with the analysis is that it does not consider a longer period of American history and broader consideration of how disadvantaged groups have availed themselves of higher education in the US. The “quest for equity” seems similarly limited in scope- programs designated to assist selected ethnic groups at selected campuses does not describe most college admissions practices or most students’ experiences. In addition, while he cites unnamed federal policies and court decisions as favoring affirmative action, it seems that many of the most important court decisions (Brown vs. Board of Ed, Bakke) have the opposite intent- limiting the use of race as a decisive factor in “granting access”.