By Mona Charen
Monday, June 18, 2013
In the weeks before the Supreme Court ruled on the
constitutionality of Obamacare, the country trembled with anticipation. No such
eagerness is evident now -- yet the court is again poised to rattle our world.
The case of Fisher v. Texas could upend the system of racial preferences in use
throughout American higher education.
The pursuit of racial justice in education has arguably
led to some benefits since its inception in the 1960s. But in the two
generations that have elapsed since affirmative action began, evidence of its
unintended consequences has accumulated -- even as a society-wide taboo has
forbidden honest discussion of that evidence.
The vast majority of elite American institutions supports
racial preferences. Of 92 briefs filed in the Fisher case, 17 agreed with the
plaintiff that racial preferences should be considered unconstitutional, while
73 urged that the current system remain undisturbed (two were in between). The
pro-university briefs included submissions by the U.S. government, 17 U.S.
senators, 66 members of Congress, 57 of the Fortune 100 companies, numerous
education associations, colleges and universities and establishment organs,
such as the American Bar Association.
Criticizing affirmative action (which is code for racial
preferences) can be a career-endangering step for anyone, particularly for
academics or politicians.
Some scholars have nevertheless been willing to follow
where the evidence leads and have found that nearly everything we believe about
racial preferences is wrong. In their outstanding book "Mismatch,"
Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. document the paradoxical results of giving
large preferences to racial and other minorities.
Sander and Taylor argue persuasively that the trouble
with preferences is not the injustice done to people like Abigail Fisher, who
was denied admission to the University of Texas while less qualified black and
Hispanic applicants were accepted -- though that is unfair -- but also the harm
it does to those to whom such preferences are extended.
Preferences have created a widespread mismatch between minority
students and the schools they attend. Minority students at all levels (least so
at the very top colleges) tend to wind up at schools for which they are less
well prepared than the majority of their classmates. The University of Texas is
typical in awarding the equivalent of hundreds of SAT points to minority
applicants. This results in minority students (who've been assured that they
have what it takes to be successful) plunging to the bottom of the class.
Students accepted under the preference regime often experience severe feelings
of inferiority, social segregation and much higher dropout rates. Both for
affirmative action "beneficiaries" and their classmates mismatch
reinforces negative stereotypes. It also causes more African-American students
to flee math, science and engineering majors in favor of softer subjects, such
as education and sociology. "Black college freshmen are more likely to
aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch
causes black to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites."
Yet research has shown that when minority students attend
schools for which they are well matched, there is no attrition in demanding
fields of study. It isn't that minority students cannot make it as scientists
and engineers but simply that they conclude that they cannot succeed when
forced to compete with superior classmates. This phenomenon also accounts for
the relatively low numbers of minorities who seek academic careers despite (or
rather due to) five decades of preferences. It carries lessons for families
considering whether to take advantage of "legacies" for their
children. The research suggests that academic and career success is more likely
when students attend colleges for which they are well matched.
Nor do preferences benefit the disadvantaged. In 1972,
more than 50 percent of black freshmen at elite colleges came from families in
the bottom half of the socioeconomic distribution. By 1982, that percentage had
dropped to one quarter, and by 1992, 67 percent of black freshman came from
homes in the top quartile of income. Among blacks attending elite colleges, 92
percent come from families in the top half of income earners.
Deciding who is a member of a historically oppressed
minority group also gets trickier with every passing decade. Intermarriage is
up.
Immigration complicates matters. A recent study found
that 40 percent of African American Ivy League undergrads are first- or second-
generation immigrants. A study undertaken by Harvard Law students found that
only 30 percent of the African Americans there had four black grandparents. The
rest were either of mixed ancestry, foreign students or recent immigrants from
the West Indies or Africa.
There is a place for preferences in higher education --
for those who come from poor homes or tough neighborhoods. But there is
abundant evidence that awarding preferences based on race and ethnicity is
counterproductive, corrupt and profoundly unjust.
No comments:
Post a Comment