Race Proxies
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.
1
Chetly Zarko
Thursday, August 27th, 2009 at 12:16 am
LaShawn,
I agree generally that most (haven’t found one hat is not … yet) of these non-cog measures are fancy attempts to put easier numbers on skin color, since words like “leadership”, or even “educational benefits” and “diversity,” are inherently so nebulous as to not be measurable. The question then is what is it measuring, and you’re right, the intent is clear.
That said, non-cog measures are in PRINCIPLE (not in practice) not morally objectionable, and some are as precise as test scores. For example, socio-economic criteria can measure “adversity” fairly clearly – but like most other clear measures, as universities argue, it would admit too many other poor non-minorities and water down the intended consequence. Another measure would be test score excellence at a particularly poorly performing school compared to a similar score at a high-performing school – or the creation of “educational empowerment zones” (the reason I don’t reject socio-economic possibilities – because I think simple poverty preferences are no more effective than any other preference) in areas where schools of choice or charters are also predominant or needed. But again, these programs actually improve schools and regional systems WHOLESALE, and universities would complain about the watering down of their real skin-color goal (not fix-the-system goal or help individual-students-goal) and the higher cost in handling more labor-intensive students. Whether all universities including elite universities should even take on or be required (by CRA) to take on that labor-intensive effort is a separate question, but once they decide to do so I’m with Thomas and Scalia that they should be in for the full dollar and a dime savings doesn’t justify violating the principle of the 14th Am.
The system is designed to churn out masses, and “help” minorities or anyone really. Preferences are a cheap tool to churn out the masses in a more color-friendly way to keep people thinking the Emperor has some clothing on.
2
La Shawn Barber
Thursday, August 27th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Agreed, Chetly. Noncog factors are not objectionable. How schools ae using them present the problem. If these factors result in more blacks admitted, it proves to me that blacks’ noncog qualities were given more weight than those of whites, which is racially discriminatory.