Diversity

Hoover Institute fellow and columnist Victor Davis Hanson hits the proverbial nail on the head in a recent column, “Diversity, Inc.”

“Affirmative action” evolved in the U.S. from broadening educational and employment opportunities for a group of historically enslaved and segregated people—descendants of African slaves—to granting entitlements and special rights to other so-called victims. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that if you’re not white, male, straight, and Christian, you can claim some government entitlement or other based on your unique snowflake-like qualities.

Hanson echoes the sentiments of most preferences opponents about who qualifies as a minority (will whites qualify for government entitlements when they become a minority?), who qualifies as a victim, etc. An excerpt:

“2. Who was victimized? The industry could never quite decide what constituted grounds for favoritism. In 1970, African-Americans might legitimately make the claim that the heritage of slavery and Jim Crow, and ongoing prejudice north of the Mason-Dixon line, made their struggle for equality almost impossible without government help. But do second-generation dark-skinned Pakistanis, first-generation immigrants from Barbados, or Palestinians on student visas qualify for government preferences? In racial terms, one group can be darker than another, and receive no help: but if an Egyptian is not a beneficiary of affirmative action, does that mean racial prejudice no longer exists? Is it the supposed present or past bias that counts — or both? Does an illegal alien of 17 — a Mexican national named Raúl Martínez, who crossed the border in 2009 — qualify on the basis that he looks like a Mexican-American and has an Hispanic surname — and thus can plead that traditional discrimination against Mexican-Americans was immediately turned against him, and to such a degree that he needs government preference? Again, any discussion of culture also became forbidden, as race trumped all: Did racial prejudice alone, rather than patterns of marriage, child-raising, and parental involvement, result in differing rates of success between Korean-Americans and African-Americans? Why on a per capita basis are Punjabi immigrants or Armenian-Americans wealthier than whites of Dust Bowl heritages in Tulare County, given that the latter supposedly enjoy insidious advantages based on their race?”

Davis alludes to something that’s always piqued my curiosity. If police and fire departments across the country water down standardized exams to increase diversity, why doesn’t the government water down bar or medical board exams? If diversity is so noble and worthy of such reverence, why not expand it to…say, neurosurgery departments?

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

One of the reasons I oppose racial preferences is the implication that but for factoring race into the admissions equation, blacks would disappear from colleges, or that blacks wouldn’t have opportunities unless the decision-maker considers their skin color.

I reject the implication and the practice, and I believe blacks can achieve without racial considerations. Racial preferences alter perceptions and undermine efforts to stand on one’s merits, not skin color. Yet in some quarters, I’m the sell-out. Strange world.

I wanted to point to you to an article in the New York Times with the alarmist headline, “College Diversity Nears Its Last Stand.” The reporter provides background on Fisher v. Texas, the racial preferences case the U.S. Supreme Court might hear. Given the continuing and muddied racial preferences controversy, I predict the court will take up the case. An excerpt:

Diversity is the last man standing, the sole remaining legal justification for racial preferences in deciding who can study at public universities. Should the Supreme Court disavow it, the student body at the University of Texas and many other public colleges and universities would almost instantly become whiter and more Asian, and less black and Hispanic.

A judicial retreat from diversity would be deeply symbolic, too. The term — a gauzy, unobjectionable way to talk about the combustible topic of race — has had a remarkable run. If the diversity rationale falls apart in university admissions, it could start to test the societal commitment to it in other arenas, notably private hiring and promotion.

There is little question that diversity as a legal justification for preferences is at risk. Grutter was decided by a 5-to-4 vote. The author of the majority decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, announced her retirement in 2005. Her replacement, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., has consistently voted with the court’s more conservative justices in major decisions hostile to the use of racial classifications by the government.

Look at the image above the story: 1963, a black student walks across a college campus in the deep south. The reporter, the editor, or both are connecting resistance to integration of the Jim Crow era to present-day attempts to remove race from the admissions equation. The two ideas aren’t synonymous; they’re in opposition. In the past, the government rejected blacks based on race and violated their rights. Jim Crow is gone. Dead. There are no more laws barring blacks from anywhere they want to go or anything they want to do, as long as they have the qualifications.

The Century Foundation’s Richard Kahlenberg, who favors class-based preferences, commented on the NYT article. He sees a third approach to retaining “diversity,” in lieu of striking down the rationale altogether or allowing the government to continue using preferences: the Texas top 10 percent plan and the state’s use of socioeconomic status in admissions.

After the Fifth Circuit declared racial preferences unconstitutional in 1996, Texas came up with a way to admit more minorities without explicit using race. Students graduating in the top 10 percent of their class are automatically admitted into a taxpayer-supported school, and the state also factors in family income. The plan worked, but after Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, Texas resumed racial preferences and kept the 10 percent plan. Kahlenberg believes the state’s pre-Grutter plan is the way to go. An excerpt:

Could UT’s success be replicated elsewhere? According to 2004 research published by the Century Foundation, class-based affirmative action would produce three-fourths as much racial diversity as using race at the most selective 146 colleges and universities. While university admissions based on grades and test scores would yield student bodies that have a 4-percent combined black and Latino admissions, class-based preferences would boost that to 10 percent black and Latino, somewhat short of the current 12-percent representation. Socioeconomic factors not included in the Century Foundation study—such as wealth—could boost racial diversity even further, as black income is 60 percent of white income, but black net worth is just 5 percent of white net worth.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }