By John C. Goodman
Saturday, June 29, 2013
The Supreme Court punted on the University of Texas
affirmative action case the other day. But the issue won't seem to go away -
except in California. California? Yes, California. Although seen as a bastion
of liberalism in the public mind, the state passed proposition 209, banning
affirmative action, 17 years ago. So what happened? Are California university
campuses today completely lily white? Or all Asian?
Hardly. As explained in a study for the Cato Institute,
with the exception of one or two "elite" institutions, California
university campuses are more diverse today than before the ban, and the
graduation rates of minority students are much higher. But how is this possible
if the ban says affirmative action was neither achieving more diversity nor helping
black and Hispanic students acquire a college diploma?
That is exactly the thesis of a new book by UCLA law
professor and civil rights activist Richard Sander and journalist Stuart
Taylor, "Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts the Students It's Intended
to Help and Why the Universities Won't Admit It."
Mismatch works like this. Minority students who should
have attended an Ivy League school such as Harvard or Yale are instead admitted
to MIT and Cal Tech, where SAT scores are near perfect. Then to fill the void
in the Ivy League those schools accept students who should have attended
Southern Methodist University (SMU) or Emory. Those schools then admit students
who should have attended lower ranking state colleges and junior colleges. In
the end, just about every minority student ends up at the wrong school. They
are admitted to institutions where other students are better prepared than they
are. As a result, they find themselves at the bottom of the class. Even if they
don't get discouraged and drop out, the entire set up reinforces racial
stereotypes.
A Wall Street Journal book review recounts Professor
Sander's earlier analysis:
[O]f the troubling performance of many black law-school students at UCLA in the late 1990s. About half of them, he found, ended up in the bottom 10th of the class and achieved only a 50% pass rate in bar exams, compared with 90% for whites. The reason? Many had been admitted with large racial preferences. Though a mismatched undergraduate might switch to an easier major without punishing anything more than his dreams, failing the bar exam could ruin a career.
So if the evidence is clear and overwhelming, why are
liberals so committed to affirmative action? For white liberals, I think it's
all about guilt. Some years ago Ken Pye, who was president of SMU at the time,
explained why getting minority kids to the campus was his number one goal.
"White students from middle and upper middle class
families can't get a well-rounded education if they only encounter other
students who are just like they are," he explained to me. Good point, I
thought. But surely black students have legitimate goals of their own, other
than providing a richer learning environment for white kids? Is being at SMU,
even if they are scoring at the bottom of their class, good for the
"beneficiaries" of affirmative action? Turns out that it isn't. And
are white kids at SMU even asking for more diversity? Is that a major objective
of their college experience? I don't think so.
The pressure for affirmative action comes mainly from the
faculty. It seems professors don't like the idea of walking across the campus
and seeing no black students. And it turns out that it really doesn't matter
who the black students are or where they come from. Although one encounters the
inevitable references to the "vestiges of slavery," Henry Louis
Gates, Jr. says that less than half of the black students at Harvard are
unambiguous descendants of slaves. The rest are foreigners or children of mixed
parentage.
While we're at it, the evidence isn't very kind to
affirmative action in the workplace either. See the very excellent book on this
whole subject by former CBO director June O'Neill and her husband, David
O'Neill:
Take the difference in pay for black and white men. The O'Neill's find that the difference narrows to just 4% after adjusting for years of schooling and it reduces to zero when you factor in test scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), which is basically an intelligence test. In other words, after adjusting for just two factors that cause people to be different, the pay gap between black and white men disappears entirely. Among women, the gap actually reverses after adjusting for education and AFQT scores. Black women get paid more than white women. Among Hispanic and white men, the pay gap narrows to 8% after adjusting for years of schooling and disappears altogether with the addition of AFQT scores. Among the women these two variables cause the pay gap to reverse. As in the case of race, Hispanic women are actually paid somewhat more than white women.
In other words, affirmative action at work isn't
correcting a problem because there is no problem to be corrected. By the way,
we should all welcome these findings. Granting favors based on skin color
should be seen as a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. That it doesn't even
help the people it is intended to help means that following the substitution is
practical as well as being mandatory.
No comments:
Post a Comment