Unintended Consequences Affirmative Action's Impact on Higher Education
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES "''*3."5*7&"$5*0/4*.1"$5 0/)*()&3&%6$"5*0/ Mark J. Farrel The great Dr. Martin Luther King is best known for saying, ÒI have a is considered with all other white students, including afßuent students dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they whose applications would be more desirable.3 Because afÞrmative ac- will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their tion policies do not consider economic factors, but instead focus entirely character.Ó It is obvious Dr. KingÕs principles extended to the American on race, poor white students are the most disadvantaged class of college education system, where he imagined blacks and whites, as well as peo- applicants.4 Some schools consider economic status, but many consider ple of all races and ethnicities, would have the opportunity to attend a Þnancial issues outside the scope of afÞrmative action policies. university or college. In his famous speech in the 1960s, he was protest- The recent dual decisions by the Supreme Court partially over- ing the outright racism that discriminated against minority students who turned race-based admissions policies that were blatantly disadvanta- would not be admitted to American universities. About Þfty years later, geous to whites. In Grutter vs. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that American universities still include race as a factor in admissions policies the University of MichiganÕs preferential admissions policy was against Ð only now, minorities are given an unfair advantage. However, as the the law. Under its system, Michigan gave points to applicants for dif- effects of afÞrmative action prove, nobody is really beneÞting from the ferent questions on an application. The school would reward minority policy. Minorities and whites alike are deprived of the opportunity for students with 20 points just for being a minority. Twenty points on the a top education because of shortsighted afÞrmative action policies that admissions application is the equivalent of 1 grade point average (GPA) should not be a part of college admission policy. point. All things equal, a white student who worked hard in high school The most common argument against afÞrmative action is that it is and received a GPA of 3.5 and a minority student who received a 2.5 unfair to white college applicants. This is obviously true, considering would have the same amount of points on their admissions application. the case of a white student who received a high school GPA of 4.0 and It is clearly unfair to white students who do well to deny them admission scored 1300 on the SAT exam. This student was rejected from an Ivy to a top university in favor of a student who received inferior grades. League university that, at the same time, accepted numerous black, His- It is obvious that afÞrmative action hurts white applicants, but more panic, and American Indian applicants, none of whom received higher importantly, it also hurts minorities. There are a myriad of reasons why than a 2.5 GPA or 800 on the SATs.1 This Ivy League schoolÕs policy afÞrmative action is not beneÞcial to minorities, not the least of which is is blatantly unfair to the white student. In this case and many others, that it provides a ÔcrutchÕ on which minority students can lean. Creating the more qualiÞed white student is denied admission to the University preferences for minorities in admissions policies does not make up for because of an unfair policy based on race. This unfair policy is the result past injustices, as it does not instantly (or even gradually) achieve parity of afÞrmative action, a strategy to bring more minorities into college between whites and minorities. As Steele asserts, Òracial representation through race-based preference. is not the same thing as racial development.Ó5 Because minorities are Dartmouth Professor Jeffery Hart argues that by rejecting the su- truly disadvantaged, lowering the standards for admission cannot solve perior applicant because of race, Òher work, his work, is discounted.Ó2 the problem. Many white students end up feeling discouraged from studying hard, AfÞrmative action also implies inferiority, sending a message that taking AP courses, and taking SATs or ACTs, knowing that the color of minority students are not expected to do as well as white students. Both their skin makes their college application less desirable. The same stu- of these lead to a Òdebilitating doubt,Ó where many classmates and future dents may also feel that if admissions are not based on merit, but rather employers view minority students or graduates as products of a policy a policy that gives preference to minority students, there is little point and not of merit.6 Many employers view the degree of a minority with to putting forth extra effort required to get into a prestigious university. suspicion, assuming he or she was only accepted into college because Because of this discouragement, afÞrmative action clearly puts white of race. 7 In the Supreme CourtÕs other ruling on afÞrmative action in students at a disadvantage. Gratz vs. Bollinger, the Michigan law school is allowed to continue its If white students are automatically disadvantaged by the afÞrmative preferential policies simply because few minorities are admitted to law action policies, then poor white applicants are the most disadvantaged. programs nationwide. This is obviously absurd, as the minorities will First, poor white students are already disadvantaged when their applica- be viewed with suspicion, even if their application was accepted on a tions are compared to minority applications. After that, their application meritorious basis. 33 At least one merit based system has proven to work in America. For not receive an adequate education in elementary and secondary school example, the United States military is a meritocracy. Military members (although at no fault of their own), often receive poor grades at the chal- do not receive recommendations from their superiors, and promotions lenging university. If, instead of being thrust into the more difÞcult are not decided by anybody the member knows. Instead, promotions in university, the minority students attended a college more able to meet rank are decided by time spent in the soldierÕs current pay grade, time their disadvantaged needs, the students may have done better. This is spent in the service, duty performance, awards and decorations, extra proven in the high dropout rates for minorities in AmericaÕs top colleges training and education, and scores from tests. Points are determined (see Appendix A on p. 7). for each of these categories, and ofÞcials from the Pentagon add up the When colleges admit these unprepared students to meet afÞrma- points to determine which members deserve promotions. Therefore, tive action standards, the students are often overwhelmed and do very each member is subject to the exact same objective system to receive poorly.10 At the University of Washington in 1995, where afÞrmative a promotion, and afÞrmative action is unnecessary. Merit is the only action policies are heavily enforced in admissions policies, 70 percent means by which a promotion can be achieved. of whites and 65 percent of Asians graduated within six years. In that There is a corresponding feeling among military members that same time, only 29 percent of blacks graduated.11 Linda Chavez points everyone is Ògreen.Ó This, of course, reßects the color of the military out that blacks were thrust into the prestigious University of Maryland camoußage. What this means is that military members are not seen School of Medicine, even though their credentials were lacking. In the as black or white. The military has achieved the ÒcolorblindnessÓ that Þrst part of the program, the black graduation rate was only 68 percent, Martin Luther King envisioned, and that so many advocates of afÞrma- while 82 percent of white and Asian students graduated. In the second tive action call for. The basis for this success lies in the merit based sys- part of the program, a quarter of the blacks that graduated failed to pass tem of promotions. Minority members of the military earn promotions the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.12 based on the same standards as white members. Thus, their promotion AfÞrmative action is obviously not having the desired impact. In- is not viewed with suspicion, as happens in the educational admissions stead of creating a harmonious community of diverse students, universi- process. ties are producing copious amounts of undereducated minorities. As Another interesting correlation between the meritocracy of the Steele argues, nearly four decades of afÞrmative action have produced military and its effects on minorities is job satisfaction of minorities. a system of ÒpreferredsÓ and Ònonpreferreds.Ó13 Charles Murray sug- Black women Ð the group many advocates of afÞrmative action claim to gests through personal research that many blacks are pushed through be the most disadvantaged Ð have a much higher level of job satisfaction university systems and then hired based on their degree. Eventually, in the military than in civilian life. A University of Chicago study shows their employers realized that the new minority employees did not have that only 25 percent of civilian black women are happy with their jobs, adequate training or education.14 Because afÞrmative action creates a whereas a substantial 47 percent of military black women have achieved system of preference instead of challenging minority students, it is not a job satisfaction.8 Because the military does not provide preferential policy that has helped minorities. treatment based on minority status, minorities are capable of receiving AfÞrmative action doesnÕt eradicate discrimination, as was intend- promotions they duly deserve. This encourages conÞdence among mi- ed. Before the University of California voted to end afÞrmative action, norities, as well as stißing any reason for racial tension.