Like most Americans I believe that our laws should be color blind. That means that race should not be a factor in who to hire or who to admit to college. But put aside what is required by the law for a moment and ask: what is good admission policy for a university? What we consider “good policy” itself depends on the purpose or objective of the policy.
Let me focus on private universities and colleges that are not benefiting from taxpayer (our) money, if there are any, who are thus free to determine what they consider “good policy.” Such universities are likely to want to provide the best educational experience for their students possible. Having smart, motivated students is an important component of an enriching intellectually stimulating environment. Diversity of ideas, personalities, and ethnic backgrounds is also a good component of such an environment.
Basing student admissions solely on SAT scores or such metrics will, unfortunately, over-represent Asians and underrepresent blacks. The goal would not necessarily be exact proportionality of the share of these groups in the population (U.S. population or global population??), but it might well be sensible given the desire for diversity, to shade admissions a bit toward more blacks and fewer Asians. Enlightened university admissions officers might well operate this way. Catholic and Hebrew schools have a different purpose, but it is expressed more on the side of applicants than admissions officers. My point is that there can be a good and proper place for such judgements in a “good” society.
“In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing the majority opinion upholding affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger, expressed the hope that race-conscious admissions would be unnecessary 25 years hence.” “Harvard UNC affirmative action admissions before Supreme Court” Because of earlier discrimination against blacks, in part through inferior elementary and secondary education, it was accepted as OK to temporarily discriminate modestly in favor of blacks when admitting students to a college or university. Such “affirmative action” has increased black college enrollment considerably. “Affirmative action-supreme court cases”
But 40 years of affirmative action (the waving of equal treatment under the law) is stretching the notion of temporary and the SC is likely to end it. In many respects it is about time. However, it also illustrates that the rigidity of a legal remedy in place of more nuanced judgement can be second best. This is a dilemma.
While enjoying an intellectually stimulating time in college may help attract good students, the real test of a college’s success is the extent to which the experience promotes a richer (in all senses) life after graduation. This requires admitting students who will benefit most from what the college offers, whatever their starting point. It requires looking deeper than such indicators as SAT scores. Prof. Roland Fryer’s experience suggests possible approaches. “Affirmative action-Supreme Court and college admissions”
As he often does, George Will confronts us with the frequent contradictions in our thinking on such tricky issues: “College racial discrimination and affirmative action”
One thought on “Affirmative Action”
Such an important and interesting topic. Affirmative action needs to be put within the larger context of excesses and balances. Those with deficits in education should be given a chance to receive some of the surpluses offered to theirs who have excesses. If an education system of a country does not address the need for educational balance, it will reach situations where there are such Greta imbalances and disequilibrium within the system. Education is a necessity like food. A society needs to collect surpluses and redistribute them to those less well off. This should not be a race and religious thing. It should apply to everyone. It is common sense to avoid the pains arising from imbalance and to extract the tremendous gains to be had from a balanced healthy economy.