Archive for August, 2009
Colleges and universities either prohibited by law from factoring race into admissions decisions, or those that prefer a subtler approach to admitting applicants based on race, do so by measuring personality, leadership qualities, life experiences, creativity, resilience, and other “noncognitive” factors.
According to a story in the Wall Street Journal, some schools claim that using noncognitive assessments are improving minorities’ odds of admission. No kidding? Northeastern University in Boston has gone so far as to develop the Torch Scholars Program to assess “leadership potential” and evaluate how an applicant has “overcome adversity.” As expected, average SAT scores for the program’s so-called scholars are 200 points below the typical student.
Read the rest at Townhall.
Filed under: Column | |Comments off
The ever-present academic gap between the races is one of the main reasons racial preferences exist in 2009. Redressing past injustice and promoting equality are mere platitudes to placate the masses. Reams have been written about the gap—how to close it, narrow it, downplay it, or ignore it. But it’s still with us, seemingly intractable.
USA Today reports on SAT score disparities between people of different races, sex, and income levels. No surprises. The average score gap between Asians and blacks was by far the largest: 347 points. Students of Asian decent averaged 1623; whites 1581; Mexicans 1362; Puerto Ricans 1345; Indians or Alaskan natives 1448; and blacks 1276. The national average was 1509.
One question I rarely see/hear asked is this: Why do students of Mexican descent, likely from low-income families and whose first language may or may not be English, consistently outscore native-born blacks?
According to the report, female test takers averaged 27 points lower than males. Test takers who reported family incomes of over $200,000 and year and higher scored higher on the SAT than those who reported family incomes of less than $20,000. While it’s true that higher-earning families can afford to send children to better schools and SAT preparation programs, that’s not the end of the story. Lower income whites and Asians on average outscore wealthier blacks.
What will it take to close or significantly narrow the academic achievement gap?
College Board president Gaston Caperton said, “As a country we must do better at providing students of every background equal access to education, equal access to the best teachers, and equal access to the best counseling.”
“Equal access” is a euphemism for more money and more preferences. Millions of dollars have been poured into schools and prep programs, and the gap remains. Children are bused across town and are admitted and denied entrance to schools based on the color of their skin in an attempt to achieve a magical balance of races that will close the achievement gap, and the gap remains. Crying racism generates sympathy and government funds, but the gap remains.
What people are only now starting to talk about publicly is how family structure, or the lack thereof, affects the gap, which shows itself beyond school in employment, rate of imprisonment, etc.
An intact family is one where the children’s parents are married to each other and living under the same roof. Studies have shown that children in these kind of families are better off than children raised by one parent, typically the mother. Fatherless children are more likely to end up having babies out-of-wedlock, drop out of school, use drugs, commit crimes, spend time in prison, and on and on. The rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancy among blacks is a whopping 75 percent. It’s higher in some urban areas.
When it comes to closing the gap between the races, there is no magic fairy dust. People are intuitively aware that money is not the solution, and neither are guilt-tripping and lowering standards. It’s going to take honesty and hard work to even make a dent in the gap.
Filed under: Achievement Gap | |Comments off
Achievement gaps between the races are not only embarrassing to educational institutions. They’re also frustrating to those obsessed with skin deep-only diversity. That’s why some schools blatantly lower admission standards for black students, while others take a subtler approach by using proxies for race.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Boston College, DePaul University, and Tufts University, to name a few, are using “noncognitive” criteria to admit more preferred minority students. (Americans of Asian descent are not included in this category.) An excerpt:
“Using recently developed evaluation systems, these schools and others are aiming to quantify so-called noncognitive traits such as leadership, resilience and creativity. Colleges say such assessments are boosting the admissions chances for some students who might not have qualified based solely on grades and traditional test scores.”
Noncognitive criteria are, plain and simple, proxies for race. Because blacks and Hispanics tend to score lower on standardized tests than whites and Asians, schools want to place less emphasis on such tests. The question is, why would measuring so-called “leadership, resilience and creativity” result in more racial diversity? Why not less?
Northeastern University created the Torch Scholars Program to determine who has “leadership potential or [has] overcome adversity.” Again, how would this increase the presence of black students on campus? The answer will stun you.
Obviously, the admissions folks are applying noncognitive assessments like leadership more heavily to minority applicants. Stunned yet? Michael Rosman, general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, told the WSJ that schools “can’t apply them in a discriminatory fashion or adopt them solely for the purpose of increasing minorities in their classes.”
But isn’t that exactly what’s happening? Noncognitive assessments are race proxies for colleges and universities that want to add more style to their discriminatory practices.
Filed under: Achievement Gap | |2 Comments
There’s an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times that discusses the University of California (UC) system’s revised admissions policy in the context of Proposition 209, which became state law in 1996.
Since voters barred the state from discriminating against or preferring individuals or groups based on race in hiring, contracting, and admissions, certain government institutions have tried to find loopholes. The UC system, for example, recently changed its admission policy to eliminate two previously required SAT subject tests, a change intended to benefit blacks and Hispanics. Some Americans of Asian descent, who’ve complained about the changes, believe the new policy will negatively impact them.
Other changes include reducing guaranteed admissions for high school students graduating from the top 12.5 percent of their class to the top nine percent.
“The theory is that this will guarantee more spots for students at underperforming high schools where opportunities are not as great and more of the students are underrepresented minorities,” Marc B. Haefele writes.
The writer brings up a point I often emphasize when discussing attempts to attract more black students. If UC applies the new (lower) standard to all students, it would increase the percentages of white and Asian students, because they too will benefit from the lower standard. The only way the system can admit more black students while keeping white and Asian numbers more or less constant is to apply the changes only to blacks, and that’s against the law.
Filed under: UC | |Comments off
Last year, two people filed suit challenging the University of Texas (UT) at Austin’s racial preferences admissions policy. This week, a federal judge granted summary judgment in favor of the school.
The plaintiffs claimed that UT failed to meet the standard laid out by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, where the court barred racial quotas but allowed some racial considerations in admissions. (Source)
Judge Sam Sparks found “plaintiffs’ arguments unpersuasive and finds UT has a compelling interest in student body diversity as articulated in Grutter. First and foremost, nothing in Grutter suggests a university must establish a specific percentage, or range of percentages, the achievement of which would satisfy critical mass.”
As you may recall, Texas guarantees admission to tax-supported schools to students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their Texas high school class. The intent is to increase racial diversity. The plaintiffs in the UT case argued that since Texas uses the 10 percent plan with the goal of increasing diversity, UT shouldn’t be allowed to explicitly consider race. The court rejected this argument as well.
“Despite these race-neutral efforts to expand diversity at UT, in 2004 the university determined it still lacked a diverse student body, as evidenced by the absence of African-American and Hispanic students in thousands of its classes. To argue UT has failed to give serious, good faith consideration to race-neutral alternatives is to ignore the facts of this case — namely, that UT has used and continues to use race-neutral alternatives in addition to its limited consideration of race as part of its admissions process.”
In other words, because the race-neutral 10 percent plan didn’t achieve the results UT wanted, UT may revert to admitting students based on race.
Filed under: Judiciary | |Comments off
Police and fire departments are ordered to consider race when hiring and promoting to rectify past intentional or unintentional racial discrimination against blacks, thereby intentionally discriminating against whites. Does this make sense? The practice occurs wherever racial preferences exist. The race of job candidates and college applicants must be considered in order to implement preference policies. The only way to break out of the vicious circle is to implement race neutrality when hiring and admitting.
The city of Macon in Georgia is trying to unburden itself from a judicial consent decree in which it was ordered to hire and promote based on race. (Source) In 1976, black officers and firefighters claimed racial discrimination, and a federal court ordered the city to use quotas to hire minorities. In 2000, white police officers and firefighters filed suit against the city, claiming racial discrimination. Four years later, the city was ordered to use race-neutral methods to hire and promote.
In light of Ricci v. DeStefano, the city of Macon is wise to request an end to the consent decree. The Supreme Court found that New Haven discriminated against white firefighters in its misguided effort to pacify politicians.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
Michigan Live reports that a jury found race was a factor when the former mayor appointed four black men and one woman (bypassing typical promotion procedures) to a special unit. A white officer sued, and a jury awarded him $131,000 in damages.
Plaintiff’s attorney Glen Lenhoff said, “We feel it’s wrong when [a black American] is discriminated against, but it’s also wrong when a white male is discriminated against.”
If some of the officers’ claims are true, the unit was created to pacify people complaining about the paucity of blacks and women in leadership positions. According to the article, the plaintiff’s suit was one of 47 pending against the city.
It’s worth noting that government preferences are illegal in Michigan. In 2006, 58 percent of voters barred the government from preferring or discriminating against individuals or groups based on race in hiring, contracting, and admissions.
Filed under: Judiciary, MCRI | |Comments off
A mainstream media outlet finally reports on “little-noticed” racial preference provisions in the House of Representatives’s version of the health care reform bill. Found on page 881 of a bill of over 1,000 pages:
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of…Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
This is only one of several examples. The Washington Times reports that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights itself calls the provisions racially discriminatory and will ask for a rewrite. (Also see Google news) An excerpt:
“In a draft of a letter the commission approved Friday, the group raises constitutional questions about giving preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships, and about favoring medical schools and organizations that have a record of sending graduates to areas with inadequate health care services.
“‘These programs are unlikely to reduce health care disparities among racial and ethic groups,’ according to the draft letter obtained by The Washington Times. ‘A growing body of evidence indicates that increasing access to high-quality physicians – whatever their racial or ethnic ancestry – is the best way to mitigate such disparities.’”
Given the extent of racial preferences in government entities, one wonders why the commission isn’t issuing daily formal complaints about the practice.
According to the Times, the commission cited research that showed improving quality of care at hospitals in minority areas would improve minority care more than eliminating racial disparities. Although this sounds like common sense, civil rights industry professionals prefer to deal with quantity over quality.
Wade Henderson, president and chief executive officer of the Leadership Council said, “The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is overstepping its bounds yet again with another slanted and incorrect interpretation of logical and constitutional standards” and claimed that the commission doesn’t have the “expertise and understanding of how the training in the House bill will work.”
As we’ve mentioned on the blog many times, racial preferences are anathema to what actual civil rights crusaders (as opposed to preference proponents) intended. The provisions in the House version of the bill clearly discriminate based on skin color. But this lowering-of-the-bar standard in the name of skin deep-only diversity is entrenched.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
I’ve blogged about the non-preferred minority status of Americans of Asian descent a few times. For example, I mentioned the University of California (UC) system’s admissions changes, designed to accept more preferred minorities. Parents of students and groups of Asian descent called foul.
The state legislature’s Asian and Pacific Islander caucus asked UC’s Board of Regents to postpone voting on the changes, but the board overwhelmingly approved the policy. Ward Connerly, former UC regent and current president of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), wrote an op-ed for the Sacramento Bee about what Asians faced at UC:
“I asked [a fellow regent] why he considered it important to tinker with admissions instead of just letting the chips fall where they may. In an unguarded moment, he told me that unless the university took steps to ‘guide’ admissions decisions, UC would be dominated by Asians. When I asked, ‘What would be wrong with that?’ I got an answer that speaks volumes about the underlying philosophy at many universities with regard to Asian enrollment.’
“The UC administrator told me that Asians are ‘too dull – they study, study, study.’ He then said, ‘If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it.’ I won’t betray the individual’s anonymity because to do so would put him in a world of trouble. Yet, it is time to confront the not-so-subtle hand of discrimination against Asians that masquerades as ‘building diversity’ at many campuses.”
Americans of Asian descent are a non-preferred minority. Because they tend to score higher than whites and blacks on standardized tests, the powers that be don’t lower the bar for them. In fact, as some suspect, the bar is raised higher to limit their numbers so as not to overrun college and university campuses.
John Rosenberg at Discriminations posted this about medical school admissions statistics:
1. An Asian American with a GPA of 2.8 to 2.99 and a MCAT score of 36 to 38 has a 36.8% chance of being admitted to a U.S. medical school.
2. A White with a GPA of 2.8 to 2.99 and a MCAT score of 36 to 38 has a 40.7% chance of being admitted to a U.S. medical school.
3. An African American with a GPA of 2.8 to 2.99 and a MCAT score of 36 to 38 has a 100% chance of being admitted to a U.S. medical school.
These are racial preferences in their purest form. Blacks with lower scores and grades stand a much better chance of admission than whites and Asians with higher scores and grades.
The practice is prevalent. Last year, the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) released two reports that showed the extent of racial discrimination at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University law schools. The studies describe the discrimination as “severe.”
For example, black and Hispanic students are admitted with “significantly lower undergraduate” GPAs and LSAT scores. CEO chair Linda Chavez said the odds favor black applicants over whites at the 250 to 1 at the University of Arizona and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State.
Part of ACRI’s mission is to end such practices at taxpayer-supported schools.
Filed under: General | |4 Comments
There’s another racial discrimination case brewing in Connecticut, but this one is close to settlement. The Connecticut Post reports that a lawsuit filed by 12 white firefighters in Bridgeport may be settled by the end of the month.
In a case similar to Ricci v. DeStefano, white firefighters sued the city for rescoring a lieutenant exam because no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotions. Because blacks tend to score lower on standardized tests than whites, the city decided to give less weight to the written portion of the test and more weight to the oral portion. As a result, some of the white firefighters lost provisional lieutenant positions.
As with the Ricci case, the white firefighters lost opportunities because they were white. The Supreme Court’s ruling made clear that New Haven discriminated against firefighters based on race. Both parties in Bridgeport seem partial to a settlement, particularly the defendants. It’s highly doubtful that Bridgeport would prevail if the case goes to trial. The intent of rescoring the test was to promote employees based on race.
Filed under: General | |Comments off
« Previous Entries||
