By David French
Thursday, August 24, 2017
This morning the New
York Times published an extraordinary, data-rich article examining the
outcome of diversity efforts at colleges and universities from coast to coast.
The results, quite frankly, are sobering.
After decades of affirmative action, billions of dollars
invested in finding, mentoring, and recruiting minority students, and
extraordinary levels of effort and experimentation, black and Hispanic students
are “more underrepresented at the
nation’s top colleges and universities than they were 35 years ago” (emphasis
added). White and Asian students, on the other hand, remain overrepresented as
a percentage of the population, with Asian students most overrepresented of
all.
On the one hand, these statistics represent a staggering
failure. It’s difficult to overstate the modern campus obsession with
diversity. To judge from marketing materials, campus investments, and the
explosive growth of diversity bureaucracies, increasing minority representation
on campus isn’t just a priority on par with, say, a good math, English, or
engineering department, it’s deemed to be an indispensable part of a
high-quality college education. That’s the legal rationale that’s used to
justify racial discrimination in college admissions — that there is a
“compelling state interest” in creating a truly diverse educational experience.
On the other hand, however, one wonders whether failure
was inevitable. Not even the most aggressive of affirmative-action programs can
find students who don’t exist. And when it comes to college admissions, the
problem isn’t a lack of collegiate demand for qualified minority students but
rather a serious deficiency in supply. There are simply not enough students who
are ready, willing, and able to do the work.
That’s not to say that affirmative action is meaningless
or irrelevant. Absent admissions preferences, the number of black and Hispanic
students would decrease even further. It does mean, however, that educational disadvantages
exist long before the college admissions process, and the college admissions
process can’t come close to closing the gap. Here’s the Times:
Affirmative action increases the
numbers of black and Hispanic students at many colleges and universities, but
experts say that persistent underrepresentation often stems from equity issues
that begin earlier.
Elementary and secondary schools
with large numbers of black and Hispanic students are less likely to have
experienced teachers, advanced courses, high-quality instructional materials
and adequate facilities, according to the United States Department of
Education’s Office for Civil Rights.
Wait just a moment. There’s little doubt that these
factors matter, but isn’t there a word missing from the Times’ summary of disadvantages? Isn’t it, quite possibly, the most
important word? Yes, I’m thinking of “family.”
Here’s an interesting fact. The cohort that’s most
overrepresented in American colleges and universities, Asian Americans, also
happens to have the lowest percentage of nonmarital births in the United
States. In fact, the the greater the percentage of nonmarital births, the worse
the educational outcomes. Only 16.4 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander
children are born into nonmarried households. For white, Hispanic, and black
Americans the percentages are 29.2, 53, and 70.6, respectively. Taken together,
that means that staggering numbers of Hispanic and black children face a degree
of family stress and uncertainty that their white and Asian peers simply don’t
experience.
While it’s of course true that correlation doesn’t always
indicate causation, one of the most important realities explored in Robert
Putnam’s vital book, Our Kids, is the
extent to which childhood stresses can plague kids for the rest of their lives.
Family dissolution and family instability place extraordinary pressure on young
hearts and minds, and one doubts whether better lab equipment, motivated
teachers, or new school buildings can ameliorate the aggregate effects of such
profound loss.
No one should argue that increased resources make no difference. But to omit the influence
of family on educational outcome is to conveniently forget the elephant in the
room. Teachers know the importance of family, and they feel its absence. A good
friend taught four years in an inner-city elementary school, and she told me
that out of 100 kids (25 per year) exactly seven
lived with their mom and dad. None lived with married parents. Only a small
minority of single moms ever showed up for parent-teacher conferences. How much
money will put those kids on equal footing with peers from intact, engaged
families?
Indeed, there’s abundant evidence that even vast
increases in public spending on education hasn’t led to corresponding increases
in test scores, and when you understand how education really works, it’s easy
to understand why. One of the most common characteristics of high-achieving
students is they come from families
that prioritize academic success. Yes, there are exceptions. Every college
class includes high-achieving kids from single-parent homes, but at scale
family involvement is indispensable.
But rather than focus on families, our political culture
spends 90 percent of its time talking about 10 percent solutions — investing
vast sums to move the margins. Part of this rests on fundamentally flawed
conceptions of human nature, including the notion that government programs and
government spending can replicate the advantages inherent in two-parent
families. Think of Barack Obama’s now-famous “Life of Julia” graphic, which
chronicled all the ways the Obama administration could elevate Julia and her
children, with nary a man in sight.
In Jessica Gavora’s memorable phrase, Julia was married
to the “Hubby State.” The Hubby State is the sexual revolutionary’s dream — you
gain personal autonomy without losing security or opportunity.
But part of our unwillingness to talk about families
rests in something else — a sense of resignation and despair. After all, what
can we do? What’s the four-point plan for building a marriage culture in
neighborhoods where kids may grow up without knowing a single person who lives
in an intact home? We often don’t like to hear that cultural problems only have
cultural or religious solutions because that’s hard, that’s long-term, and that’s out of our control. So, we
change what we can change — curriculum, spending levels, admissions policies —
and hope for the best.
No one should think that if we could wave a magic wand
and immediately knit families back together then our nation would cure all its
ills. Racism and its legacy still haunts this nation, and a myriad of other
factors would lead to different outcomes. But we can say, and we do know, that
intact families are greater assets to children than even the most generous
taxpayers or the most diligent college admissions committee, and not even the
most generous taxpayers or the most diligent admissions committee can fix the
inequality that damaged families create.
No comments:
Post a Comment