Wolff At The Door: Do Race Preferences In Admissions Require Race Preferences In Graduation?
According to the “mismatch” phenomenon analyzed by UCLA law professor Richard Sander (and discussed here too many times to cite), applicants to law schools who are preferentially admitted with much lower grades and test scores than others in their entering classes tend to cluster near the bottom of their classes, graduate at a much lower rate, and pass the bar at a much lower rate.
I have also discussed here too many times to cite (but I will anyway) the fact that the American Bar Association for all practical purposes requires law schools to achieve “diversity” by employing racial preferences in admissions. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here)
Now, with those two facts in mind, consider whether there are warning signals coming out of the predicament of St. Mary’s College, a small college near San Francisco, as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, based on this article in the Contra Costa Times.
St. Mary’s College of California has received a letter from its accreditor threatening to sanction the institution if it does not make more progress toward resolving unspecified racial issues on its campus....In an interview with the Associated Press, Wolff indicated that one of the deficient “tangible results” that concerns himIn the letter, Ralph A. Wolff, president of the commission that accredits senior colleges for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, said the commission was concerned about a lack of “tangible results” on concerns it first raised with the college in 1990 and re-emphasized in 2004. The college needs to quickly develop a plan for reducing racism and sexism on the campus, he said.
is that the college is not doing enough to even out graduation rates.... While the graduation rate for white students is 73 percent, for African American students, the rate is 56 percent.Would it meet the Western Association’s standard if St. Mary’s “evened out” the graduation rate by raising the graduation requirements for whites and Asians so that fewer of them graduated? Meanwhile, across the Bay, at Berkeley, and down the coast, at UCLA, the graduation rate for minority students has increased dramatically since preferential admissions has been eliminated. Does the Western Association like that solution to the graduation rate problem?
Will the American Bar Association, which requires “diversity” in the entering classes of law schools, also require a corresponding amount of “diversity” among graduates? Among those who pass state bar associations? If not, why not? If colorblind admission is unacceptable because it does not yield the requisite “tangible results,” why should the ABA allow blind grading of exams (where the professor does not know the identity of the student), since low grades of the preferentially admitted contribute mightily to low class rankings and low graduation rates.
There are other problems at St. Mary’s that may have implications for the accreditation process at other institutions. An article in the San Jose Mercury News quotes the new provost, who
acknowledged that minority professors are asked to serve on race- and diversity-focused committees more often than white colleagues, which contributes to feelings of discrimination.It would not be surprising if some minority students who were admitted at least in part to provide “diversity” think they were admitted at least in part to provide “diversity,” and thus feel that an implicit obligation to provide “diversity” discriminates against them.
Say What?
1 - No one can control someone else's feelings. And you can't hold the people in authority responsible for other people's feelings. If somebody wants to feel downtrodden, they will feel that way regardless of what anybody else does to stop it.
2 - Over and over the article says that allegations were made but no examples were given and no incidents were reported. I guess you can't tell the accreditation people to take a flying leap but my response would have been that I can't fix a problem if I don't know what it is. Put up or shut up.
Posted by: Laura(southernxyl) | April 4, 2008 11:54 AM
The artificial anger studies departments were created, in part, to graduate more of the unprepared students. Problem is that there are no jobs for those areas of "expertise," except sitting in one's underwear googleblasting the comments threads of blogs. So some demand for privileged treatment in passing courses and graduating in useful fields will probably be next on the list of the equalitarians.
Along these lines: a colleague of mine (from Argentina) went to the campus rec center last week for a midday swim and a sauna; the only other people in the sauna were two black undergrads who were commiserating with one another about the fact that the university had made such an effort (AA) to bring them to this relatively competitive school and then did nothing to help them towards graduation. My friend pointed out to them that the university doesn't “do” anything for any of the students; the students are expected to "do" the things they need to graduate themselves. Tutors are available, but one must seek them out (the U will help with cost if needed). Most tough classes will have study sessions, but they are informal and it is up to the student to participate. The library is available for all students, but one must take the initiative to go there and study, etc, etc. Their conversation was friendly, but the students insisted that the university was obligated to see to their success. The sad thing is that he said they seemed like really good, bright kids, and my guess is that they would have done well at one of the regional campuses; well enough, perhaps, to transfer here in a couple years when their study habits and other student skills had matured and they had experienced some personal success, not just frustration.
Posted by: Brad | April 4, 2008 5:44 PM
A few years ago in Colorado, there was the controversy that Hispanic students were not graduating at the same rate as whites at the University of Colorado and Colorado State University. This problem was recognized after the diversity programs for admission had started.
I proposed that the university just have more students check the Hispanic box on their student forms. The best idea would have had seniors who were close to graduating change their racial classification to Hispanic so that the Hispanic graduation rate would go up.
Posted by: superdestroyer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.discriminations.us/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 5, 2008 5:19 AM
So what is the potential consequence if St. Mary’s (or any other) College denounces
under the leadership of Ralph A. Wolff, andopenly avows to muddle through without "their full approval"?
Posted by: CaptDMO | April 5, 2008 9:42 AM
From: Blacks4Barack.org
OBAMA PROVES WHITES NOT AS PREJUDICED AS WE THOUGHT !
" There's no way America would vote for a black president !.....America's not ready for a black president." That has historically been the sentiment and attitude shared by the majority of blacks in America due in part to the fact that we have always been under the assumption that most whites are so prejudiced that a black president in America would just never happen. But one of the most incredible things that has arisen through Barack Obamas campaign has been the vision of mass numbers of white people at each of the Obama rallys showing great love and support for this credible, intelligent, gifted, strong leader....who happens to also be black. It has been incredibly eye-opening and uplifting, and it, for the first time, shows us blacks that we have actually been wrong in our assumption that most whites are prejudiced toward us. Guess what ? Although you do have the exceptions to the rule, the fact is....most whites ARE NOT racist toward blacks. This is a very important revelation. VERY !!!
We, as blacks have held on to our injured history, which we rightfully feel was caused by whites, to such a degree that we have never had the opportunity to see or learn that the prejudiced attitudes of whites does not exist today like it had in the past. We just didn't know. We knew that a lot of whites like black music. We knew that millions of white women love Oprah, but we thought that was just a 'woman thing'. But in all honesty, we had no idea, until now, that white people of all ages....even older ones...could be as supportive of a black candidate as they have shown in great mass. We, as blacks have been wrong !
And now, to my black brothers and sisters....It's time for us to acknowledge this extremely important revelation...In other words....all whites are not prejudiced !!! In fact, MOST whites aren't ! I know, it's hard to believe because of our lifetime of thinking differently....but these are the facts. Just look in the eyes of the whites at Obama's rallys. You see a true warmth, compassion and true support for this man....who is black. What this means is that most whites have risen above the racism of old. Now, it is time for us, as blacks, to rise up as well. Of course, we as blacks will have the specific cases of injustice and prejudice as displayed through examples like Jena 6, Genarlow Wilson, Katrina and the like....and specific cases like those should be dealt with accordingly. In regards to economic, educational and criminal injustices and institutional racism....we still have a long way to go. But we must not continue to allow certain negative occurances to misdirect our minds toward thinking that these negative examples speak for the entire white race. The majority of whites of today are actually on our side !
Obama's campaign has already won by proving that whites and blacks can not only get along....but can work TOGETHER....toward a better tomorrow...for us all. And guess what my black family....America IS ready !!!
Greg Jones
Visit:www.Blacks4Barack.org
Posted by: Greg Jones | April 5, 2008 12:27 PM
It has been incredibly eye-opening and uplifting, and it, for the first time, shows us blacks that we have actually been wrong in our assumption that most whites are prejudiced toward us. Guess what ? Although you do have the exceptions to the rule, the fact is....most whites ARE NOT racist toward blacks. This is a very important revelation. VERY !!!
And now, to my black brothers and sisters....It's time for us to acknowledge this extremely important revelation...In other words....all whites are not prejudiced !!! In fact, MOST whites aren't ! I know, it's hard to believe because of our lifetime of thinking differently....but these are the facts.
When I first read Greg Jones post I was certain that it was a parody. Nobody could write something like that if he wasn’t trying to make fun of the prejudices that certain Blacks (such as Rev. Wright) have towards Whites. However, I clicked onto his website and he is being serious! He really believes it, or at least believes that if he says it enough Whites will vote for Obama to make him the next President. Of course when it comes to his fellow Blacks who don’t support Obama he is not as generous in his feelings towards them.
Are Black Civil Rights Leaders Who Support Hillary SELL-OUTS ?
By: Greg Jones Blacks4Barack
It is the most hypocritical thing I have ever witnessed and I find it to not only be very sad but also destructive to the cause. I ask myself, how could this be? Why would our civil rights leaders be anti a black man who is truly credible, choosing rather to support a white woman instead, who has absolutely no true history of being pro-black ? So, I just wonder.
.....then our 'leaders' turn their backs on our very own. To me, that is the epitamy of a SELL-OUT !
Greg, don’t you think you are being a little harsh on your Black bothers? You feel that Whites should support Blacks but Blacks cannot support Whites? Do you not think that you may have a little double standard there?
Posted by: Richard Nieporent![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.discriminations.us/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 6, 2008 1:15 PM
Greg: I will not vote for Barack Obama because, in his ad running in PA, he stated he wants to tax oil companies to punish them for raising the price of gas and to alleviate America's dependence on foreign oil.
He assumes that it is (1) proper for government to use the tax system as a way to punish a company, (2) possible to decrease the cost of gas by taxing it, and (3) possible to reduce dependence by taxation. All wrong. Unless this is just campaign speak, he's not getting my vote.
Do you see racism in that?
Posted by: Dom | April 7, 2008 5:40 PM