General

…euphemistically known as “affirmative action.”

When I first read about “What Happens After Enrollment: An Analysis of the Time Paths of Racial Difference in GPA and Major Choice (32 pages in PDF),” by Duke University economists Peter Arcidiacono and Esteban Aucejo and sociologist Ken Spenner, the results seemed intuitive to me. Students admitted with lesser credentials have a harder time handling the course work. It’s neither rocket science nor a great mystery.

According to the study, if the point of affirmative action is to identify “students with much potential but weak preparation, suggesting recipients should catch up to their more-prepared counterparts over time,” it hasn’t worked very well. The data reveal that white students enter with higher GPAs than black students. By senior year, the gap has narrowed. But the researchers attribute the shrunken gap to affirmative action students switching to “easier” majors as their academic careers progress. An excerpt:

“An initial glance at data from consecutive cohorts of students who first enrolled in 2001 and 2002 suggests that this catch up does occur. Namely, black students who completed college start out significantly behind their white counterparts in terms of grade point average but rapidly catch up. Figure 1 shows that differences in grades between black and white students during their first semester were almost half a grade. However, this disparity was reduced by almost fifty percent by the last semester of college.

“There are, however, at least two reasons to be skeptical of Figure 1: variance and course selection. With regard to variance, instructors use much less of the grade distribution in upper year courses. Indeed, the standard deviation of grades for second-semester seniors is 86% percent of the standard deviation of grades for first-semester freshmen. For convergence to occur, it is therefore important to examine differences in class rank over time rather than GPA levels.

“The second concern is course selection. Grading standards differ wildly across majors at Duke (see Johnson 1997, 2003), with similar differences seen across many universities (see Sabot and Wakeman-Linn 1991, Grove and Wasserman 2004 and Koedel 2011). In particular, natural science, engineering, and economics classes have average grades that are 8% lower than the average grades in humanities and social science classes. Note that these averages do not take into account selection into courses: average SAT scores of natural science, engineering, and economic majors are over 50 points higher than their humanities and social science counterparts. Although blacks and whites initially have similar interests regarding whether to major in the more strictly graded fields, the patterns of switching result in 68% of blacks choosing humanities and social science majors compared to less than 55% of whites. We show that accounting for these two issues can explain virtually all the convergence of black white grades.”

As expected, racial preferences supporters are crying foul, as if protesting objective data will somehow change it. According to the Associated Press, study author Arcidiacono was “surprised” by the negative reaction from blacks, who said he wanted to “show the need to find ways to keep minorities in difficult majors such as the natural sciences, economics and engineering.” For all his well meaning intentions…I guess he didn’t get the memo. Any attempt to shine light on the issue, regardless of intentions, makes one the enemy of “progress.” We’re not supposed to talk about it or examine it. Just let it be because…well, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and “white privilege” and all the rest. That’s why the disparities between racial groups exist, and any suggestion otherwise gets one branded unfriendly toward progress.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

So now it’s controversial to propose that race not be a factor in receiving taxpayer-funded government grants. How, in such a short period of time, did we arrive here?

A state assembly member in Wisconsin, a Democrat, introduced a measure that would eliminate considerations of race in the Talent Incentive Grant. Is the proposed amendment controversial because a Democrat introduced it? Would it have been less so if she were a Republican? An excerpt:

Krusick’s proposed amendment received approval from Assembly Republicans and sparked nine hours of overnight debate before passing along party lines.

Although Young said he respects Krusick’s voice, he believes her actions undermined the caucus and “the only recourse is for [Krusick] to remove herself.”

“Standing up for minorities is a core value of the Democratic Party,” said Young in a statement. “Krusick’s amendment is counterproductive to our objectives.”

Translation: standing up for minorities requires elected officials to dole out taxpayers’ funds to individuals based on the color of their skin. Anything less would be…standing against minorities?

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

A few years ago, racial preferences opponents attempted to put a measure on the November 2008 ballot in Oklahoma. Opponents of racial neutrality in government challenged the validity of the collected signatures, and because the validity rate for collected signatures would have been unrealistically high, the backers of the initiative withdrew it.

Earlier this year, Oklahoma senator Rob Johnson authored a similar measure, and the legislature approved it. On November 6, 2012, Oklahoma voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to bar the government from treating people differently in employment, contracting, and education based on race. An excerpt from Tulsa World:

SQ 759 would abolish affirmative action public employment, contracting and education, with some exceptions. It would apply to the state, public agencies, counties, cities, towns, school districts and other state subdivisions.
…
The advocacy arm of the American Civil Rights Institute, based in Sacramento, Calif., will back the Oklahoma state question, said Ward Connerly, founder.

“We haven’t decided exactly what we will do,” Connerly said. “We will be involved.”

The group supported the earlier failed petition effort.

Similar measures have been passed in California, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona and Washington, he said. Colorado narrowly defeated the measure, Connerly said.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

If you believe taxpayer-supported grants should be awarded to individuals without regard to race, you might be a racist.

Last week, Rep. Peggy Krusick (pictured), a Democrat in the Wisconsin legislature, introduced a measure that would remove race from the taxpayer-funded college grant equation. An excerpt from PostCrescent.com:

“The proposal, made around 11 p.m. Tuesday, elicited a furious response from Democratic opponents, who labeled it an affront to minority rights and a ‘racist race to the bottom.’

“But Republicans, who hold the majority, sided with Democratic Rep. Peggy Krusick who made the proposal and pressed ahead, arguing race shouldn’t be a factor when considering who gets aid based on financial need.

“‘What it is  racism in its highest institutional level,’ said Rep. Tamara Grigsby, D-Milwaukee.
…
“Applicants must be poor and a nontraditional student. To be a nontraditional student, the applicant must meet one of several criteria including being in prison, a first-generation college attendee or black, Indian, Hispanic or Hmong.

“The amendment removed being a minority as one of the qualifiers for the grants. It was adopted on a 57-34 vote with all Democrats voting against it except Krusick.”

It’s embarrassing as well as unfortunate that people engage in such hyperbole and fight so fervently to maintain a government that takes race into account.

Last month, the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) released studies that showed the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the law school lowered admissions standards for certain racial minorities. CEO’s Roger Clegg appeared at a hotel in Madison, Wisconsin to discuss the findings and answer questions, and he was mobbed by people who oppose racial neutrality in admissions.

Did the Democratic delegate introduce the bill in response to CEO’s study, or is it coincidence? Either way, it’s a step in the right direction, whether the measure becomes law or not.

Also see John Rosenberg’s “An Outbreak of Equality in Wisconsin.”

{ Comments on this entry are closed }