The Affirmative Action Myth by Marie Gryphon

No. 540 April 6, 2005 Routing

Executive Summary

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent deci- Affirmative action produces no concrete bene- sion to uphold university admissions preferences, fits to minority groups, but it does produce several affirmative action remains a deeply divisive issue. significant harms. First, a phenomenon called the But recent research shows that college admissions “ratchet effect” means that preferences at a handful preferences do not offer even the practical benefits of top schools, including state flagship institutions, claimed by their supporters. Because preferences can worsen racial disparities in academic prepara- do not help minority students, policymakers and tion at all other American colleges and universities, administrators of all political persuasions should including those that do not use admissions prefer- oppose their use. ences. This effect results in painfully large gaps in Affirmative action defenders frequently and cor- academic preparation between minority students rectly tout the importance of college to the goal of and others on campuses around the country. improving life prospects. But preferences at selec- Recent sociological research demonstrates tive schools have not increased college access. They that preferences hurt campus race relationships. cannot do so because most minority students leave Worse, they harm minority student performance high school without the minimum qualifications by activating fears of confirming negative group to attend any four-year school. Only outreach and stereotypes, lowering grades, and reducing col- better high school preparation can reduce overall lege completion rates among preferred students. racial disparities in American colleges. Research shows that skills, not credentials, can Nor do preferences increase the wages of stu- narrow socioeconomic gaps between white and dents who attend more selective schools as a minority families. Policymakers should end the result of affirmative action. When equally pre- harmful practice of racial preferences in college pared students are compared, recent research admissions. Instead, they should work to close the shows that those who attend less selective insti- critical skills gap by implementing school choice tutions make just as much money as do their reforms and setting higher academic expectations counterparts from more selective schools. for students of all backgrounds.

______Marie Gryphon is a lawyer and a policy analyst with the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. In the wake Introduction healing. This study shows that this claim is of the Supreme untrue. Administrators and policymakers of In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2003 all political persuasions should therefore Court’s decision decision upholding admissions preferences,1 oppose racial preferences in universities. upholding affirmative action remains a deeply divisive issue. Ward Connerly has called it the civil admissions 2 rights struggle of our time. This tendency to The Resurgence of preferences, frame the argument over preferences in Preferences affirmative action terms of fundamental values is common to both sides of the debate. Because our nation’s In the late 1990s racial preferences appeared remains a deeply history with respect to race is so painful, the to be on the decline. Critics of preferences per- divisive issue. resulting argument is heated, personal, and suaded voters in California and Washington ultimately unproductive. that such policies were harmful and divisive, Overwhelmingly, such debates turn on and the voters in those states approved initia- considerations of “fairness” or “merit,” as if tives banning racial preferences at public uni- there were one best way to admit students to versities.5 A federal appeals court struck down college. For those who favor little or no role for affirmative action at the University of Texas, government in higher education, however, holding that preferences violated the U.S. these are red herrings. There is no “fair” way to Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection admit students to elite public institutions at under the law.6 the expense of taxi drivers and construction But the tide has swiftly turned since the workers. Subsidies to particularly talented and Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger capable students are especially difficult to jus- to uphold racial preferences at the University of tify. In the private sphere, on the other hand, Michigan School of Law.7 Whereas the Court institutions deserve broad latitude to create struck down the university’s “mechanistic” the educational environments they deem approach to affirmative action in its under- effective for their institutional mission. graduate school in a related case,8 it upheld the The most broadly appealing argument law school’s nonquantified, “individualized” against racial preferences in college admissions approach to preferences.9 As a result of these is that they are uniquely harmful, both legally cases (collectively “the Michigan Cases”), racial and socially. In public universities, preferences preferences in public colleges and universities have broken down constitutional protections are unambiguously legal as long as they are against classification by race—protections that implemented without numbers, weights, or form a still insecure bulwark against habits of stringent guidelines.10 racial abuse and oppression that have festered Supporters of affirmative action seized this for centuries.3 Erosion of the legal doctrine of opportunity to reaffirm existing preferential racial neutrality is a high price to pay for a sys- programs and reinstitute programs previously tem of preferences that moves only a few thou- abandoned or struck down. The University of sand students a year from one college to anoth- Texas system, which had dropped affirmative er, but it is a price the Supreme Court has action under a now-obsolete court order, imme- unwisely chosen to pay.4 Preferences are only diately announced a plan to resume considera- permitted, not required, however, and policy- tion of race in its admissions process for the class makers should reassess whether the benefits of of 2005.11 Virginia Tech, which briefly aban- racial classification in schools outweigh the doned preferences due to legal concerns, reinsti- costs. tuted their program pending the Supreme This Policy Analysis addresses support for Court’s decision in the Michigan Cases.12 racial preferences on the narrowest possible The California General Assembly passed a ground: the claim that they benefit formerly bill last summer to reintroduce preferences oppressed racial groups and promote racial in the University of California system.13 Gov.

2 Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill only owned database assembled with the permis- because he believed a constitutional amend- sion of a handful of the nation’s most selective ment would be necessary to override colleges and universities, Bowen and Bok offer Proposition 209, which banned preferences a “graphic and quantifiable” defense of The in the state in 1996, and supporters of pref- Myth: that the “net social benefits” of prefer- erences are now seeking to pass an amend- ences at selective schools are “impressive,” and ment there restoring affirmative action.14 In are achieved at “a tolerable cost.”22 Their work Washington State, Gov. Gary Locke has was cited at length in amicus curiae briefs filed asked the legislature to pass a bill restoring with the Supreme Court in 2003 by dozens of preferences there as well, though that meas- elite colleges and universities in the Michigan ure has not yet come to a vote.15 Cases.23 Administrators at the University of Michigan Despite the academic establishment’s uncrit- quickly altered the school’s undergraduate ical defense of preferences, recent research con- admissions program to allow consideration of firms what many academics, policymakers, and race in the same way that its law school does.16 students have quietly suspected: this view of Ohio State University also tweaked its affirma- affirmative action is a myth. Preferences do not tive action system to comply with the Court’s offer substantial benefits to preferred racial ruling,17 and University of Minnesota president groups, and they do impose social, psychologi- Minority under- Robert Bruininks expressed relief that his cal, and practical costs on students of all back- representation in school’s affirmative action program already grounds. college is caused complied with the new ruling.18 Because legal barriers to racial preferences Preferences Do Not Send More Minority by public schools’ in state universities have been eased, it is Students to College failure to prepare more important than ever for policymakers Affirmative action defenders frequently minority to consider whether these policies, even if and correctly tout the importance of college to legal, offer the benefits that supporters claim. the goal of improving life prospects. Bowen students. and Bok comment at length about the importance of a college education.24 They write, The Myth “The growing numbers of blacks graduating from colleges and professional schools, and The myth about preferences is perpetuat- the consequent increase in black managers ed by some of America’s most influential aca- and professionals, have led to the gradual demic and political leaders.19 It holds that emergence of a larger black middle class.”25 racial preferences in selective universities They are right. Few things foster professional benefit minority students in concrete ways, success more reliably than a college education. and that without preferences colleges would College has helped many minority students become “re-segregated,” depriving American achieve middle-class lives. students of the educational benefits of a NAACP attorney William Taylor’s remarks diverse student body.20 It also holds that the are typical of efforts to connect racial prefer- social and psychological costs of preferences ences at elite schools to the issue of college are modest—as University of Michigan dean access: “There can also be little question that Earl Lewis writes—that affirmative action “is affirmative action policies of colleges and uni- not about the weakening of standards or the versities [have] played a large role in the major fraying of interracial relations.”21 increases in minority college enrollment that William G. Bowen, the former president of we saw during the 1970s and 1980s.”26 But Princeton, and Derek Bok, the former presi- preferences have not increased college access. dent of Harvard, became standard-bearers of In fact, Thomas Sowell observes that black col- “The Myth” with the publication of their lege enrollment increased at least as quickly in book, The Shape of the River. Using a privately the 1950s and early 1960s, prior to the estab-

3 lishment of affirmative action policies, as it set.”34 Dean Herma Hill Ray of UC Berkeley’s did afterwards.27 Boalt Hall described affirmative action as a way The reason that affirmative action does of choosing “between two equally qualified not affect college access is that most four- persons.”35 But that is not true. Preferences for year colleges and universities in America are minority applicants to such flagship schools not selective; they take anyone with a stan- are enormous, and they generate painfully dard high school education. Preferences are obvious gaps between racial groups on campus policy only at the 20–30 percent of American in terms of academic preparation. colleges that have substantially more appli- Brookings Institution economist Thomas cants than places.28 Students attending those J. Kane estimated the size of preferences at schools have many other college options. selective schools and found that black appli- The reason that minority students do not cants enjoyed an enormous advantage over get college degrees as often as white students white and Asian applicants to selective is not competitive admissions policies. schools. The preference was, on average, Rather, the problem is that most minority equal to the combined effect of 200 points on students leave high school without the mini- the SAT and over one-third of a grade point mum credentials necessary to attend any (on a 4.0 scale), and was generally larger at four-year school, selective or not.29 the very most selective institutions.36 Freshmen must be “college ready” at Preferences this large inevitably produce almost all four-year colleges. That means that large gaps in average academic preparedness students must be literate, have a high school between students of different races on college diploma, and have taken certain minimum campuses. University of Pennsylvania sociolo- coursework. Overwhelmingly, minority stu- gist Douglas Massey and his colleagues write, dents are not college ready. Political scientist “While we are not privy to actual admissions Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute found processes, we do know that they operate to that only 20 percent of black students and 16 produce a freshman class composed of two percent of Hispanic students leave high very distinct subpopulations. On one hand are school with these basic requirements.30 whites and Asians and on the other are Minority underrepresentation in college is Latinos and blacks.”37 caused by public schools’ failure to prepare These differences in preparation cause minority students. It is a failure that affirma- minority students to receive low grades. African- tive action does not remedy. “College-ready” American college students earn grade point minorities are already slightly more likely to averages about two-thirds of a letter grade below attend college than their white counterparts.31 their nonminority peers.38 They are far more For no group Even if affirmative action were ended, every likely to drop out, and those who graduate fin- other than minority student affected by the policy change ish, on average, in the bottom 25 percent of their would have a college opportunity at some college class.39 preferred racial four-year school.32 University representatives often equate minorities (and racial preferences with the preferences given varsity athletes) Preferences Are Not “Plus Factors” to children of alumni and consideration of Elite public and private universities claim other “diversity” factors such as musical tal- are preferences so that affirmative action is only a light “thumb ent. Attorneys for several selective institu- large as to leave on the scale”—a “plus factor” for deciding tions write, “Admissions officials give special between candidates with virtually equal quali- attention to, among others, applicants from that group visibly fications.33 University of Minnesota general economically and/or culturally disadvan- and consistently counsel Mark Rotenberg says that the school taged backgrounds, those with unusual ath- at the bottom of uses race as “a plus factor together with many letic ability, those with special artistic talents, other factors in building a class that will meet applicants who write exceptionally well, their college class. the diversity objectives that [its] Regents have [those] who show a special dedication to

4 public service, and those who demonstrate reflected in an admissions essay are all unavail- When genuinely unusual promise in a wide variety of fields.”40 able to researchers. As a result, researchers equivalent But it is not true that racial preferences are attributed wage premiums to “equally quali- comparable in size to the boost one gets from fied” students who attended more prestigious students were being a violinist or the child of an alumnus. schools, when in fact the students were not compared, stu- For no group other than preferred racial equally qualified at all. dents attending minorities (and varsity athletes) are prefer- But recent research has shown that this ences so large as to leave that group visibly part of The Myth, like the others, is untrue. less selective and consistently at the bottom of their col- Attendance at a more selective school does schools made just lege class.41 not raise students’ future incomes, regardless The point system formerly used by the of race.45 as much money as undergraduate program at the University of Economists Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger students who Michigan offers insight into the relative developed an ingenious method to solve these attended more weights given to various nonacademic admis- problems and compare students who were sions factors. Special talent in music or other truly alike.46 They “matched” several thousand selective schools. extracurricular activities were worth a maxi- students nationwide on the basis of selectivity mum of 5 points in the system, whereas of the schools that accepted and rejected them membership in a preferred racial group was and compared members of the matched worth 20 points, conferring an advantage groups only to each other. This was possible equal to the difference between a “B+” grade because only 62 percent of students in the point average and a “C+” average.42 sample chose to attend the most selective school that accepted them.47 Preferences Do Not Increase Earning Thus, Dale and Krueger were able to com- Power pare students who were accepted by a top tier No contention is more central to The Myth school and actually attended that school to than that preferences are a catalyst for upward students who were accepted to that same top financial mobility. Moderate supporters of school but chose instead to attend a less affirmative action tolerate the social costs of selective school. Comparing students with preferences because they hope that prefer- identical acceptances takes into account (and ences will improve the concrete well-being of “controls for”) all of the factors that colleges minority students after graduation. take into account when they accept students. Indeed, research used to suggest that Dale and Krueger found that when gen- attending a more selective college was related uinely equivalent students were compared, to substantial, though not huge, financial students attending less selective schools made gains.43 Generally, studies indicated that just as much money as students who attended attending a school with an average SAT score more selective schools.48 The idea that a selec- 100 points higher would increase a student’s tive university will make you rich is just future earnings by 3–7 percent.44 another part of The Myth. But those studies suffered from a serious methodological problem. They were unable to Preferences Are Not Popular take into account many of the factors that col- Affirmative action supporters frequently leges look at when deciding which students to claim popular support for their cause among admit. Academic researchers generally have elite college students, graduates, and faculty. only high school GPA and SAT scores at their Bowen and Bok, for example, find that disposal, so they must compare students with admissions preferences are popular on the the same grades and scores and assume that basis of surveys showing that college alums the students are otherwise the same. Teacher thought their institutions ought to place recommendations, the difficulty of the high even more emphasis on diversity.49 school attended, and student motivation as But they got the “right” answer by asking

5 the wrong question. Students and faculty do value diversity, but that does not mean that The Harm they support differential admissions standards in order to achieve racial balance. Most The foregoing suggests that many bene- polls suggest that students and faculty are fits attributed to preferences do not exist. But closely divided on the issue of preferences but The Myth is worse than useless. It perpetu- that majorities of both groups do not sup- ates a policy that is harmful to students of all port them. backgrounds, especially minority students. A poll of Berkeley students taken at the time That is the argument against preferences that Proposition 209, which banned prefer- that their supporters assail most energetical- ences in state university admissions, was on the ly. Bowen and Bok optimistically asserted ballot in California showed that most students that their findings “have essentially disposed opposed affirmative action.50 New York Times of the ‘harm-the-beneficiary’ line of argu- columnist James Traub reported, “Berkeley ment. There is no empirical support for it.”57 students, it turns out, are like most Americans: This epitaph has proved premature. Recent they want diversity without the zero-sum cal- research contradicts this claim on the basis of culus that inevitably accompanies affirmative far more sophisticated methods than those Most polls action.”51 Similarly, a Roper poll found that used by the former university presidents. suggest that UC faculty members were split on the issue, students and with 48 percent opposing admissions prefer- Dropout Rates ences and only 31 percent expressing sup- Black students are less likely than white faculty are closely port.52 students to graduate from any institution of divided on Aware of these polls, economists Harry higher learning.58 Latino students also grad- 59 the issue of Holzer and David Neumark, who support uate at relatively low rates. That persistent preferences, make a more cautious statement, problem depresses the wages of minority preferences but that “public opinion polls still indicate public workers and is of concern to policymakers that majorities of support for some forms of affirmative who seek to close the socioeconomic gaps action.”53 They are right, but only those forms between racial groups. Opponents of affir- both groups do of “affirmative action” that do not involve pref- mative action have long contended that pref- not support erences (such as outreach and remediation) erences increase minority dropout rates.60 them. command support. Prof. Stephen Cole reports, Bowen and Bok argued on the basis of SAT “Surveys suggest that a majority of both stu- scores alone that equally qualified students are dents and faculty are opposed to policies in actually more likely to graduate if they attend which race trumps qualifications.”54 more selective schools.61 However, their analy- Moreover, in highly charged university sis assumes that the average minority student environments, faculty members are some- with an SAT score of 1250 at the University of times afraid to admit that they oppose pref- Michigan is as academically prepared as the erences. Berkeley professor Martin Trow average minority student with the same SAT writes, “Very few academics wish to offend score at Yale. That is unlikely. The student both the senior administrators who govern accepted to Yale probably presented additional their careers and budgets and the well-orga- evidence, such as advanced placement work or nized affirmative action pressure groups that an excellent essay, that made their application will quickly stereotype faculty members as more attractive by reflecting skills likely to be ‘racists’ or, at very least, ‘right-wingers.’”55 useful in college.62 Bowen and Bok admit that Thomas Sowell recalls “bitter fights” that SAT scores alone do not reflect differences have erupted among faculty members about between students as well as instruments that whether affirmative action policies should be combine several measures of preparedness.63 decided by secret ballot, because whether the Moreover, like efforts to predict the effect votes were public might affect the results.56 of college selectivity on wages, predicting the

6 effect of selectivity on dropout rates is made tistical analysis of applicant data.”65 Bowen Students are difficult by the presence of unobserved fac- and Bok are aware that their work is rudi- most likely to tors, such as motivation, that effect student mentary. “In due course,” they write, “we outcomes.54 The techniques used by Bowen expect others, using more sophisticated graduate at and Bok cannot take these differences into econometric techniques, to expand the analy- colleges 66 account. sis presented here.” attended by peers Sociologist Robert Lerner, now commis- Economists did subsequently analyze the sioner of the National Center for Education question of dropout rates in more detail and of roughly equal Statistics, observed, “Despite its size, The got very different results than Bowen and academic Shape of the River includes largely cursory sta- Bok. Economists Audrey Light and Wayne strength. Figure 1 Graduation Rates by Student Preparation and School Selectivity

Lowes t Scoring Below Average 60 Above Average Highest Scoring

30 Percentage Completing College 20

0 Least Below Above Most Selective Average Average Selective

School Selectivity (based on school average test score)

Source: Audrey Light and Wayne Strayer, “Determinants of College Completion: School Quality or Student Ability?” Journal of Human Resources 35 (2000): 315.

7 Strayer were able to better predict university likely to drop out. Academically, students feel completion patterns among students of dif- like a poor fit at college if their classes are ferent abilities.67 They did this by using either too easy or too difficult for them.75 methods that took into account unmeasured student qualities, as Dale and Krueger did in Status over Substance their study about wage rates.68 Too often today, Americans view college When student differences were held equal, as a zero-sum status competition rather than Light and Strayer found that the likelihood a learning opportunity. Status-conscious of graduating from college depended on how parents have so personalized this process close the “fit” was between a given student that one selective school has banned them and his or her classmates in terms of academ- from student campus tours so that students ic preparedness. They write: “Our estimates feel free to ask their own questions.76 reveal that the ‘match’ between student abili- Washington Post education reporter Jay ty and college quality does have a causal effect Mathews observes, “We are talking about col- on college completion.”69 leges the same way we talk about wine or left- Light and Strayer divided both students handed pitchers or American Idol contestants. and schools into four categories based on This is fashion and marketing and branding, America’s standardized test scores, and predicted the not real value being added to our lives, or to highest-achieving probability that students in each score cate- our children’s lives.”77 minority students gory would graduate from colleges in each Parents love to talk about their children’s selectivity category.70 Their results are shown accomplishments, and admission to a selec- are being robbed in Figure 1. tive school is an accomplishment to the of the recognition Light and Strayer found that the least pre- extent that only those who excel academical- they deserve. pared students were most likely to graduate if ly can achieve that goal. But a myopic they attended the least selective schools. Their parental focus on bragging rights ill-serves graduation rates are lower at more selective students by transforming what should be a institutions.71 The most prepared students learning opportunity, a chance to build new exhibited the opposite pattern: their chances skills and better oneself at no cost to any one of graduating were highest at the most selec- else, into a winner-take-all competition.78 tive schools. Students with middling levels of Partly as a result, discussions of affirma- preparedness did best at colleges of middling tive action tend to focus on notions of “fair- selectivity, with their graduation rates tailing ness” and “merit” rather than concrete evi- off slightly both at nonselective schools and at dence, as if college admission were a cash highly selective schools. prize or a commendation for good behavior. Although minority college attendance has Sowell writes, “Discussions of college admis- increased rapidly in recent decades, minority sions opportunities often proceed as if the graduation rates have not kept pace.72 Re- issue is the distribution of benefits to various search that suggests how graduation rates applicants, when in fact the issue is selecting may be maximized is thus important to poli- those applicants who can best master the cymakers who seek to close racial gaps in edu- kind and level of academic work at the par- cational attainment and earnings. Light and ticular institution.”79 Strayer’s findings suggest that students are Affirmative action exacerbates our cultur- most likely to graduate at colleges attended by al tendency to look at college selection in peers of roughly equal academic strength.73 terms of prestige because preferences only Affirmative action may increase minority promote equity if selective colleges are objec- dropout rates by mismatching students and tively “better” than others, rather than mere- schools.74 Massey and his colleagues also find ly better fits for some students. Having pro- that a student’s sense of being a poor fit at moted for decades the notion that prestige his or her school makes the student more matters, selective schools now generate

8 resentment by apportioning this prestige dents with identical previous grades and test according to race. scores.83 Even from the perspective of status, affir- Nuanced, difficult-to-measure aspects of mative action harms minority students. In our academic preparedness (the same ones that stratified system, the college a student attends confounded economists before Dale and says quite a lot about her level of academic pre- Krueger) play some role in the phenomenon of paredness. But at elite schools, admission now underperformance, but they cannot explain it signals two different levels of achievement— entirely. one for white and Asian students, and another Critics of preferences have long argued that for black and Latino students—which dimin- double standards in admissions are harmful ishes the cachet of admission for the latter to preferred students’ self-esteem in competi- group. Berkeley linguistics professor John tive situations, and thus contribute to under- McWhorter writes, “I was never able to be as performance. Shelby Steele observed, “The proud of getting into Stanford as my class- effect of preferential treatment—the lowering mates could be. After all, growing up [middle of normal standards to increase black repre- class], how much of an achievement can I truly sentation—puts blacks at war with an expand- say it was to have been a good enough black ing realm of debilitating doubt, so that the person to be admitted, while my colleagues doubt itself becomes an unrecognized preoc- had been considered good enough people to be cupation that undermines their ability to per- admitted?”80 form, especially in integrated situations.”84 One of the self-defeating effects of affir- Until recently, little research was available mative action is that, in a university culture to support or refute this view. But two sepa- that attaches inordinate social value to cre- rate studies, one by sociologist Stephen Cole dentials, preferences dilute those credentials of the State University of New York at Stony for minority students who would be admitted Brook and Elinor Barber and another by to selective schools without them.71 To the Massey’s Pennsylvania group, confirm what extent that an acceptance letter from a “top seems to be intuitively true about prefer- school” is a trophy signifying an extraordi- ences.85 Preferences harm students’ self- nary accomplishment, America’s highest- images, and this harm has practical costs in achieving minority students are being robbed terms of grades and graduation rates. of the recognition they deserve. Both studies build on earlier work by Stanford University sociologist Claude Steele, Stereotype Threat and Underperformance who coined the term “stereotype threat” to Most critically, recent research shows that refer to the decline in performance suffered by affirmative action impedes academic achieve- members of groups who become afraid of con- Double standards ment by undermining minority students’ firming negative group stereotypes.86 Steele confidence.82 This hypothesis is one of many tested his theory by giving standardized exams in admissions that researchers have generated to explain the to groups of white and African-American are harmful to mysterious phenomenon of minority under- undergraduates at Stanford University. preferred performance in college. Testers told some groups that the exam The term “underperformance” does not evaluated psychological factors related to students’ refer to differences in minority college grades testing, and that it was not a measure of abil- self-esteem in 87 and graduation rates that can be explained by ity. They told other groups that the exam competitive available measures of preparedness, such as measured their intellectual abilities, and in high school grades and SAT scores. Rather, some instances had them indicate their race situations, and “underperformance” is what researchers call on the exam.88 The African-American stu- thus contribute the tendency of African-American and Latino dents who had been implicitly “threatened” students to obtain lower college grades and with the stereotype of minority academic to underperfor- graduation rates than white and Asian stu- inferiority did markedly worse on the exam mance.

9 Diminished than black students in the other groups.89 elite universities. The group found that diffi- confidence Steele and colleague Joshua Aronson con- cult-to-measure socioeconomic factors and clude, “Making African-Americans more con- finer-grained measures of academic prepared- caused minority scious of negative stereotypes about their intel- ness played some role in the performance gap. Ivy Leaguers to lectual ability as a group can depress their test They also determined that vulnerability to 90 abandon performance relative to that of whites. They Claude Steele’s stereotype threat is related to also find that stereotype threat can be triggered the lower grades earned by minority students. their academic by “quite subtle changes of environment” and Massey and his group found that those aspirations at that reducing stereotype threat “can dramati- black and Latino freshman particularly sus- cally improve blacks’ performance.”91 ceptible to stereotype threat received grades twice the rate of Cole and Barber established a connection that were on average .122 points lower on a 4.0 comparable between stereotype threat and racial prefer- scale than minority students who felt less 92 97 nonminority ences in a book published in 2003. Titled threatened. This is not as small a difference Increasing Faculty Diversity: The Occupational as it may appear to be: It is one-third of the students in state Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students, their entire black-white GPA gap of .36 at the sam- universities. book sought to determine why there are so pled schools and more than half the gap of .22 few minority college professors and how that persists after background and academic their numbers might be increased.93 preparation are held equal.98 Cole and Barber found that high levels of Even if minority students who were not academic self-confidence were critical to a particularly vulnerable to stereotype threat student’s decision to follow up on an interest were wholly unaffected by it, the Pennsylvania in a career as a professor. They also found group has shown that stereotype threat that minority students at highly selective explains at least half of the mystery of minori- universities suffered from lower academic ty underperformance at elite colleges. If, as self-confidence than their counterparts at seems likely, even minority students who are less selective schools. This diminished confi- not especially vulnerable feel threatened to dence caused minority Ivy Leaguers to aban- some extent, stereotype threat becomes the pri- don their academic aspirations at twice the rate mary explanation for underperformance. of comparable nonminority students in state This finding is consistent with the fact that universities.94 African and Caribbean immigrants do not Cole and Barber concluded that stereo- underperform in American colleges.99 Because type threat is activated among high-achiev- they do not carry the heavy psychological bag- ing minorities by racial preferences at selec- gage of slavery and segregation with them to tive schools. Preferences ensure that minority school, they are far less vulnerable to stereotype students as a group will be less prepared than threat than African Americans.100 their peers.95 Even minority students who do Stereotype threat may do even more harm not need preferences respond to an environ- than lowering grade-point averages. Massey ment characterized by the relative academic and colleagues found that susceptibility to weakness of minorities by worrying about stereotype threat increases the likelihood of confirming a negative stereotype.96 dropping or failing a first semester class, Stereotype threat is not merely a personal events that are related to the likelihood of problem affecting feelings of satisfaction or dropping out of school.101 school friendships. As Steele’s early work sug- Feelings of insecurity worsened by double gested, it has concrete effects on minority standards in university admissions are no achievement in academic settings. small cost to be paid for the cause of practi- To try to understand the mystery of minor- cal benefits. Stereotype threat, always present ity underperformance, Massey and his col- to some extent in academic settings, is exac- leagues at the University of Pennsylvania erbated by affirmative action. It has measur- researched the histories of students attending able costs to minority students in the form of

10 lower levels of academic achievement and the ity students about confirming these abandonment of at least one academically negative suspicions.104 ambitious career goal: that of college professor. Preferences generate distrust between racial groups that works against the mission Isolation and Stigma of diversity in education: promoting mutual Nearly as bad as the problem of underper- respect and understanding between students formance is the harm that preferences do to of different backgrounds.105 race relations among America’s highest- achieving young people. Thomas Sowell The Ratchet Effect writes, “Even in the absence of overt hostility, Although only 20–30 percent of colleges black students at M.I.T. complained that and universities use racial preferences, they other students there did not regard them as enlarge gaps in academic preparedness be- being desirable partners on group projects or tween white and minority students at other as people to study with for tough exams.”102 colleges because of what researchers call the Law professor Eugene Volokh relates the “ratchet effect.” The ratchet effect ensures that story of a law student who claimed that he the policies of a handful of elite public and pri- and his friends chose classes with high vate schools have harmful effects at colleges all With selective minority enrollments because they believed along the selectivity continuum. schools educating that competition for good grades would be The ratchet effect begins at Harvard only a few less severe.103 Such preconceptions can con- College. Harvard has long been able to attract tribute to feelings of social distance between an extremely high percentage of the tiny thousand of the peers of different races. number of black and Latino students who approximately Massey and his colleagues surveyed thou- graduate from high school each year with 106 100,000 black and sands of students attending selective schools truly Ivy League credentials. As a result, the to find out how they felt about members of academic gap between white and preferred Latino students other racial groups in general, and affirma- minority students at Harvard is among the who receive BA tive action beneficiaries in particular. They smallest anywhere. African-American fresh- found that all students generally had positive men at Harvard have average SAT scores that degrees each year, feelings about members of other racial are only 95 points below those of their non- affirmative 107 groups. However, white and Asian students minority peers. Not surprisingly, the action is the tail had notably cooler feelings towards “affirma- African-American graduation rate at Harvard tive action beneficiaries” than others of any is the highest in the country.108 that wags the race. The researchers conclude: But Harvard’s gain is a loss for the rest of dog. the Ivy League. To remain as racially diverse as Such perceptions of distance from Harvard, Princeton must employ preferences “affirmative action beneficiaries” carry large enough to produce a freshman class with important implications for the general a 150-point black-white SAT gap.109 Columbia tone of race relations on campus tolerates a 182-point gap.110 Because every Ivy because [many students believe] that League school other than Harvard has attract- without affirmative action most black ed and admitted those minority students who and Latino students would not be would, under race-neutral standards, be well- admitted. To the extent that such qualified to attend schools like Wellesley and beliefs are widespread among white NYU, these schools must in turn admit students at elite institutions, they will minority students whose grades and scores not only increase tensions between more nearly match those of white and Asian whites and minorities on campus; they students at schools such as the University of will also increase the risk of stereotype Virginia or the University of Texas.111 Those threat by raising anxiety among minor- flagship state university systems then come

11 Figure 2 The Ratchet Effect of Racial Preferences in Admissions

Difference between Difference between SAT scores of Mean SAT scores African-American African-American African-American of colleges and white SAT and white SAT students scores with racial scores without preferences racial preferences

ca. 1400 ca. 1400 200 0 No cases

ca. 1200 ca. 1200 200 0

ca. 1000 ca. 1000 200 0

ca. 800 ca. 800 200 0

ca. 600 ca. 600 ? 0

Note: SAT scores are from before the 1994 recentering, which raised all scores by approximately 100 points. Reprinted with permission from Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber, Increasing Faculty Diversity: The Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), p. 207. Selective schools enjoy their under tremendous political pressure to counterparts. Sowell describes the down- exclusive cachet employ preferences also, since if they do not, stream effect of preferences in the University and don’t want to they will lose their successful minority appli- of California system: “Thus, San Jose State cants to even more selective institutions. University had 70 percent of its black stu- admit a larger The result, pictured in Figure 2, is what dents fail to graduate [during the 1980s], just cross section of Thomas Sowell has called the “mismatching” like Berkeley, though it is doubtful that the 112 white and Asian of minority students and colleges. The minority students at Berkeley would have ratchet effect ensures that even colleges that failed at San Jose State. That is the domino students in order do not have preferences struggle with large effect of mismatching.”113 to achieve racial gaps in academic preparedness, because their With selective schools educating only a white and Asian applicants are far stronger few thousand of the approximately 100,000 diversity. than their African-American and Latino black and Latino students who receive BA

12 degrees each year,114 affirmative action is the selective than integrated.”116 Much contem- Selective schools tail that wags the dog. Preferences at elite pri- porary debate centers on whether these pri- should focus on vate schools exacerbate the political pressure orities are now reversed—whether these same on much larger flagship state institutions to schools would rather be integrated than aca- outreach use racial preferences to avoid becoming demically selective.117 But one thing is cer- designed to racially homogeneous. These public institu- tain: affirmative action has been their way of build real tions often choose to respond to this pres- avoiding this uncomfortable choice. sure by adopting preferences, which con- One reason that elite schools defend racial academic skills tribute to painfully large academic gaps preferences so heatedly is that alternative and confidence between racial groups at many nonselective methods for producing diversity, such as public and private institutions. Texas’s guarantee of admission to the top 10 among students percent of students from every state high of all back- school or lotteries among qualified students, grounds. Why The Myth? would make the nonminority students at those schools a less elite group. This is so Given the falsity of The Myth, it is natural to because those alternative policies admit many wonder why the educational establishment vig- nonminority students with lower grades and orously embraces it. Many scholars who pride scores as well as minority students. Attorneys themselves on the fearless pursuit of truth are for several selective colleges contend that end- mute about problems with affirmative action. ing affirmative action “would compel them to The answer may be that the academic establish- trade selectivity to obtain diversity.”118 ment wants to free itself from the taint of his- Selective schools enjoy their exclusive torical racial prejudice while retaining its exclu- cachet and don’t want to admit a larger cross sive status in American society. section of white and Asian students in order to achieve racial diversity. Because they value Moral Redemption of Schools their status so highly, they instead subject Affirmative action programs are the pri- their students and the larger society to harm- mary way that college administrators offer an ful policies that mix far less qualified pools of institutional apology for the exclusionary minority students into student bodies other- policies of decades past.115 Affirmative action wise composed of very highly qualified white is thus an expressive act as much as a policy and Asian students. Then, they dissemble decision. about the size of academic disparities that are Institutions that have discriminated in nonetheless obvious to students and teach- the past should acknowledge and remedy ers.119 those wrongs. But racial preferences are a Legal theorist Charles R. Lawrence III poor vehicle for doing that. The academic notes that affirmative action is a conservative establishment’s desire to redeem its institu- policy in the sense that, by maintaining sepa- tions from past sins does not justify such a rate admissions standards, it allows for more harmful policy. Instead, selective schools racial mixing while protecting the exclusivity should focus on outreach designed to build of selective schools.120 Instead of creating real academic skills and confidence among educational environments that embrace a students of all backgrounds, and should greater variety of students of all races, prefer- work hard to ensure that the students they ences “do not challenge . . . conventional do admit have the support they need to suc- selection processes or standards of merit.”121 ceed in demanding academic programs. Rather, they bolster popular support for flagship state universities and other top schools Preservation of Academic Elitism whose mission is “the education and legit- There was a time when, as one author imization of an intellectual and professional wrote, “selective colleges would rather be elite.”122

13 Supporters of preferences decry the possi- sions preferences, but some of them would bility of making schools less selective by be attending schools that are currently below admitting more students of all types. They the radar of top management training pro- warn that alternative admissions plans such grams and investment banks. as Texas’s “top 10 percent” strategy produce In the absence of preferences, companies “a spurious form of equality that is likely to would have to do one of two things. They damage the academic profile of the overall would either have to admit that they are will- class . . . far more than would anything ing to consider minority graduates from less accomplished through race-sensitive admis- selective schools even if they only recruit white sions policies.”123 Racial preferences are pop- and Asian applicants from the Ivy League, or ular among schools that (for better or worse) they would have to consider applicants of all want to preserve their exclusive cachet. races from a wider variety of schools. This last option may be the wisest in light of Dale and Cover for Companies Krueger’s finding that a student at a less selec- University administrators often cite strong tive school will be just as successful in time as support for admissions preferences by indus- her counterpart from a “top school.” try as evidence that preferences are beneficial. Ending It is true that much of corporate America has preferences does leapt to the defense of college admissions pref- The Way Forward not amount to erences in recent years. Indeed, 65 multina- tional companies including Nike, Microsoft, Racial preferences in college admissions can- abandoning the and American Express filed an amicus brief not offer the benefits their boosters have dream of real with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court promised, and they harm American students of to uphold the University of Michigan’s affir- all races by impeding learning and generating racial equality 124 mative action programs. General Motors unnecessary suspicion and distrust between and healing in stated in a press release that the “elimination groups. Whereas private universities have a America. of affirmative action in leading educational right to pursue unwise admissions policies if institutions would deprive businesses of the they wish, policymakers should not allow selec- well-trained minority candidates who are tive state institutions to follow their example. essential to our nation’s economic success.”125 Although the Supreme Court has ruled that But as we have seen, preferences do not preferences are constitutional, they can and improve the skills or wages of minority grad- should be banned at public institutions be- uates. Rather, corporations support admis- cause they are bad public policy. sions preferences because they are trying to Ending preferences does not amount to avoid civil liability for both “discrimination” abandoning the dream of real racial equality and “quotas” at the same time. Affirmative and healing in America. Affirmative action action by colleges helps corporations dis- supporters sometimes deride opponents by guise the fact that they, too, must employ saying effectively, “Well, we’re doing something preferences to achieve diverse workforces. By about this terrible problem of inequality in giving less prepared minorities the same alma American society. What do you want to do?”126 maters as more prepared peers, affirmative Although good intentions cannot excuse a action at selective schools makes workplace harmful policy like racial preferences, the ques- preferences less obvious. tion is a good one. What follows are sugges- Corporations thus encourage affirmative tions for improving the educational opportu- action at schools where they recruit gradu- nities and achievements of minority students. ates, and schools that hope to place students with these companies have an incentive to Acknowledge History oblige them. Companies could recruit high- All policymakers, particularly those who achieving minority students without admis- oppose the use of racial preferences in admis-

14 sions, should acknowledge the role that workers of different races and controls for all America’s shameful history of slavery and of the nondiscriminatory variables that segregation have played in producing current might account for wage differences, such as disparities between white and minority stu- years of education, years of experience, hours dents, particularly African Americans.127 worked, prevailing wage rates in the city Prof. John McWhorter observed a sense of where the worker is located, and so on. Any cultural distance on the part of African- residual wage gaps between racial groups American students toward academic endeav- remain a mystery. They may result in part or that results from “whites having denied from discriminatory practices in the labor education to blacks for centuries.”128 He market and in part from unmeasured differ- writes, “It is not the fault of black Americans ences in workers. that they have inherited anti-intellectualism Studies show that no other factor explains from centuries of disenfranchisement, fol- this residual gap as much as academic skills lowed by their abrupt inclusion in American measured by tests. Sociologists George Farkas society before they had time to shed the inter- and Keven Vicknair reanalyzed existing study nalization of their oppressor’s debased view data by controlling results for performance on of them.”129 standardized tests and found that the test Only in the past few decades have minori- results explained the entire remaining wage ties, and particularly African Americans, been gap between black and white workers.131 offered a genuine chance to excel. But the In a separate study, economists Derek opportunity to succeed carries with it the Neal and William Johnson used scores on the possibility of failure, and minority students Armed Forces Qualification Test taken prior are afflicted by a crisis of confidence due to to college or workforce entry to measure skill. centuries of oppression and negative stereo- They found that performance on the AFQT typing. McWhorter writes, “Black America explained the entire wage gap between black today is analogous to a wonderful person and white women and almost three quarters prevented by insecurity from seeing the good of the gap between white and black men, State flagship in themselves.”130 even without controlling for educational universities and Acknowledging our history is an impor- attainment.132 other elite tant prerequisite to taking the next overdue College graduation is important. Most step in our relationships with each other as studies do find a “sheepskin effect” associat- schools can have Americans: acknowledging that lack of skills, ed with holding a college degree, although very diverse not present-day racism, explains the vast selectivity does not seem important. But student bodies majority of current income and education actual skills, not credentials, matter most gaps between whites and minorities. To nar- when it comes to raising the wages of minor- while avoiding row these gaps, we must acknowledge the his- ity workers. affirmative torical role of racism, and then move on to Neal and Johnson emphasize that the aca- address the current problem. demic skills measured by exams like the action’s negative AFQT can be taught. Outcomes on these consequences if Focus on Skills, Not Credentials tests are powerfully related to parenting they are willing Dale and Krueger have shown that affirma- styles, education of parents, books in the tive action cannot close the earnings gap home, and quality of education.133 In fact, to admit more between white and minority workers because the skills gap can be measured in academic students of graduates of selective schools don’t make more terms: African-American students are, on money than their counterparts elsewhere. What average, the equivalent of four academic differing abilities can narrow that gap, however, are solid academ- years behind white students. That gap can be and talents from ic skills as measured by standardized tests. narrowed, but only if policymakers recognize all racial Traditional labor market discrimination that it is the primary culprit producing cur- research starts with a random sample of rent inequalities. backgrounds.

15 Affirmative Effort and high expectations are critical. dents of differing abilities and talents from all action cannot Thomas Sowell notes that Asian-American racial backgrounds.138 students routinely outperform whites with Some opponents of affirmative action are solve the the same standardized test scores, both in appalled by the idea of less academic stratifica- American college and in their later careers.134 We can tion between colleges. Law professor Jeffrey dilemma of racial narrow socioeconomic disparities by having Rosen, for example, supports affirmative action high expectations of all students, not just only because he believes that if it were ended, inequality. some of them. African-American students colleges would “lower academic standards and those who want to help them succeed across the board” in order to maintain racial should overcome a tendency to focus only on diversity.139 Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom credentials—“getting that piece of paper”— worry that elite schools will give up on “main- and concentrate on building the skills that taining intellectual standards” to avoid reduc- lead to labor market success.135 ing minority enrollments.140 Members of the American academic elite are attached to their Rethink College Tracking schools and to what they represent, but present Even if admissions preferences were ended little evidence that less exclusive admissions tomorrow, America’s most selective schools overall would be more harmful to student would retain between one-third and two- learning than racial preferences are, or than less thirds of their black and Latino students.136 diverse student bodies would be. This does not amount to resegregation, par- The current pigeon-holing of students on ticularly since the remaining minority stu- the basis of academic merit came about only dents would be academically competitive in the years following World War II, when the with their peers. But if this amount of racial GI bill and rising incomes increased college diversity is not enough, it may make sense to access for the middle class, and standardized reevaluate the current practice of tracking testing was popularized.141 As recently as the students very narrowly into different colleges 1950s, admission to college was not academ- based on academic preparedness. ically competitive. Harvard accepted three Affirmative action defenders present a out of four applicants during that period, choice between racial preferences on one hand and its students had credentials virtually and academic exclusivity on the other. But this indistinguishable from the top half of many is a false dichotomy, and opponents of prefer- state universities.142 ences should not fall victim to this straw man Academic elitism is not a 300-year tradi- argument. In fact, colleges can enjoy racial tion in American colleges. It is a 50-year diversity without double standards if they are experiment. Originally conceived to break willing to maintain less exclusive admissions down an old-boy network based on inherited policies for students of all races. wealth and social connections, it is worth Simply educating students of differing rethinking whether—in an era that regards abilities at the same college is not the cause of college as a coming-of-age social experience— most of the problems generated by racial pref- such rigid sorting of students along academ- erences and catalogued in this study.137 ic lines remains a good idea. Rather, problems such as stigma and stereo- Careful study may show that tracking in type threat result from the creation of isolat- college is academically beneficial enough to ed communities of minority students in selec- preserve at the cost of relatively homogeneous tive schools that are substantially and visibly student bodies at highly selective schools.143 less prepared than their classmates. State flag- But that is not self-evident. Administrators ship universities and other elite schools can and policymakers balancing the harms of have very diverse student bodies while avoid- racial preferences against the benefits of ing affirmative action’s negative conse- diversity should reassess selectivity’s costs and quences if they are willing to admit more stu- benefits.

16 Fix the Pipeline ences fail to narrow racial disparities in income Nothing is more important to the project and educational attainment, they harm stu- of racial equality in America than increasing dents of all backgrounds. Only no-fuss integra- the numbers of black and Latino students tion and a focus on building real skills will lead who leave high school prepared for suc- to success. cess.144 The NAACP agrees, for example, that racial disparities in Virginia’s state universities “stem directly from continuing inequali- Notes 145 ties in Virginia’s public schools.” 1. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). School choice can help by rescuing minority children from failing public schools that 2. See generally Ward Connerly, Creating Equal: do not prepare them for college. Studies My Fight against Race Preferences (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000). show that, while all students benefit from school choice, African-American students 3. “Race-based diversity programs, it seems to me, benefit the most, for reasons that are not well are deeply corrosive of this project [of creating a understood.146 One thing is clear: we can nar- colorblind society].” Eugene Volokh, “Diversity, Race as Proxy, and Religion as Proxy,” UCLA Law row the critical skills gap by empowering par- Review 43 (1996): 2076. ents to choose their schools.147 Universities that want to assist in this effort 4. See Grutter, 539 U.S. 306. can sponsor programs that help minority high 5. See Abigail Thernstrom and Stephan Thern- school students prepare for college. Econo- strom, eds., Beyond the Color Line: New Perspective on mist Bruce Wydick found that intensive col- Race and Ethnicity in America (Stanford: Hoover lege preparation programs are the only way to Institution Press, 2002), p. 295. increase minority representation in selective 6. Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), schools without harming minority graduates cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996). in the entry-level labor market.148 Since the passage of Proposition 209 in 7. Grutter, 539 U.S. 306. California, which banned preferences at state 8. See Gratz v. Bollinger, 439 U.S. 244, 255–56 schools, the University of California system has (2003). instituted programs that provide tutoring and counseling to local students who might not 9. See Grutter, 539 U.S. 303. otherwise get the assistance they need. John 10. See Marie Gryphon, “Court Evades Duty on Briggs, head of UC Riverside’s writing pro- Affirmative Action,” Washington Times, July 29, gram, says about the university’s effort, “What 2003. affirmative action is supposed to be about is making a concentrated effort to increase the 11. See Matt Flores, “UT Plans for Affirmative Action; Proposed Policy Would Affect Admissions pool of available students, and that means bet- Starting in Fall 2005,” San Antonio Express-News, ter preparation and better counseling.”149 December 2, 2003.

12. See “Kilgore Puts Spin on Admissions Conclusion Ruling,” Virginian-Pilot, June 30, 2003. 13. See “Universities Could Consider Race, Affirmative action cannot solve the Ameri- Gender in Admissions under Bill,” Associated can dilemma of racial inequality.150 Preferences Press State and Local Wire, May 26, 2004. are designed to harness what their boosters 14. See Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto message thought would be the formidable power of pres- to the California General Assembly, http://www. tige in getting ahead. But those who hope to ride leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2351-2400/ credentials into the sunset of racial equality have ab_2387_vt_20040929.html. saddled the wrong horse. Not only do prefer- 15. Florangela Davila, “Bills to Include Race in

17 College Criteria Die in Committees,” Seattle Times, 31. Audrey Light and Wayne Strayer, “Determinants February 24, 2004. of College Completion: School Quality or Student Ability?” Journal of Human Resources 35 (2000): 316. 16. Laura Berman, “U-M Changes Its Admissions, But Is Money Very Well Spent?” Detroit News, 32. Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai, “Racial August 31, 2003. and Ethnic Preferences in Higher Education Admissions Policies: An Empirical Overview,” in 17. Sarah Freeman, “Minority Applications Are Diane Boothe and Julian C. Stanley, eds., In the Down at University of Michigan under New Eyes of the Beholder: Critical Issues for Diversity in Undergrad Policy,” Associated Press State and Local Gifted Education (Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, 2004), Wire, February 9, 2004. p. 244.

18. Kristina Torres, “Ruling Is a Relief in 33. For a discussion of the difficulties admissions Minnesota,” Saint Paul Pioneer Press, June 24, 2003. officers encounter when selecting students at “the right tail” of distributions of academic qualifica- 19. Supportive leaders include former Stanford tion, and an ultimate defense of objective meas- provost and national security advisor Condoleezza urement, see Robert Klitgaard, Choosing Elites Rice. See Neil A. Lewis, “Bush Adviser Backs Use of (New York: Basic Books, 1985). Race in College Admissions,” New York Times, January 18, 2003. 34. Greg Gordon et al., “Educators Await Court Ruling on Affirmative Action,” Star Tribune, June 20. President Bill Clinton, for example, warned 23, 2003. that Proposition 209, which banned racial preferences in California, would “resegregate” the 35. See Stephan Thernstrom, “Diversity and state’s universities. Thomas Sowell, Affirmative Meritocracy in Legal Education: A Critical Action around the World: An Empirical Study (New Evaluation of Linda F. Wightman’s ‘The Threat to Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 159. Diversity in Legal Education,’” Constitutional Commentary 15 (1998): 20. 21. Patricia Gurin et al., Defending Diversity: Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan (Ann 36. Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, eds., Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), p. 59. The Black-White Test Score Gap (Washington: Brook- ings Institution Press, 1998), Introduction, p. 37. 22. Foreword by Glenn Loury, in William G. Bowen, See also, Thomas J. Kane, “Racial and Ethnic Pref- and Derek Bok, The Shape of the River (Princeton: erences in College Admissions,” in Jencks and Princeton University Press, 1998), p. xxi. Phillips, eds., pp. 451–52.

23. See for example Brief of Amherst et al., Amici 37. Douglas Massey et al., The Source of the River, Curiae Supporting Respondents, Grutter, 2002 U.S. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), Briefs 241 (2003); Brief of Harvard University et al., p. 198. Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Grutter, 2002 U.S. Briefs 241. 38. About half of this difference is attributable to the lower entering qualifications of minority stu- 24. Bowen and Bok, pp. 9–10. dents in terms of grades and test scores. The rest, referred to as “underperformance,” can be partly 25. Bowen and Bok, p. 10. but not entirely explained by other information available to admissions officers (such as recom- 26. Testimony of William L. Taylor, U.S. House of mendations and difficulty of high school). See Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Claude M. Steele and Joshua Aronson, “Stereotype Subcommittee on the Constitution, April 3, 1995, Threat and the Test Performance of Academically www.house.gov/judiciary/2100.htm. Successful African Americans,” in Jencks and Phillips, eds., p. 402. 27. Sowell, pp. 118–19. 39. Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thern- 28. Bowen and Bok, p. 15. strom, “Reflections on the Shape of the River,” UCLA Law Review 46 (1999): 1605. 29. Jay Greene, “Public High School Graduation and College Readiness Rates in the United 40. Brief of Harvard University et al., Amici Curiae States,” Manhattan Institute Education Working in Support of Respondents, Grutter v. Gratz, 2002 Paper no. 3, September 2003, p. 10. U.S. Briefs 241, 20 (2003).

30. Ibid., p. 9. 41. Sowell, p. 190.

18 42. See Gratz v. Bollinger. Department of Education, 2004), Supplemental Table 19-2. 43. See for example Dominic Brewer and Ronald Ehrenberg, “Does it Pay to Attend an Elite Private 60. See, for example, Stephan Thernstrom and College? Evidence from the Senior High School Abigail Thernstrom, America in Black and White Class of 1980,” Research in Labor Economics 15 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), pp. 409–11. (1996): 239. 61. Bowen and Bok, p. 61. If Bowen and Bok real- 44. Stacy Berg Dale and Alan B. Krueger, ly believe this to be true, then their comment on “Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More Texas’s top 10 percent strategy, which admits stu- Selective College: An Application of Selection on dents from even very academically weak Texas Observables and Unobservables,” Quarterly Journal schools based on high school class rank, is an odd of Economics 117 (November 2002): 1492. slip of the tongue. They write that, by admitting less-prepared minority students, “this approach 45. See Stacy Berg Dale and Alan B. Krueger, could well have the effect of lowering minority “Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More graduation rates from college.” See ibid., p. 273. Selective College: An Application of Selection on Observables and Unobservables,” NBER Working 62. In an appendix, Bowen and Bok present a Paper no. 7322, http://www.nber.org/papers/w73 slightly more complex regression that they claim 22, for a breakdown of effects by race. controls for high school grades. Unfortunately, grades are only controlled in an extremely rudi- 46. See generally Dale and Krueger, Quarterly mentary fashion: Bowen and Bok simply separate Journal. those students who were in the top 10 percent of their class from those who were not. Because 47. Dale and Krueger, Quarterly Journal, p. 1505. most minority students attending the sampled schools were not in the top 10 percent, it would be 48. Ibid., p. 1523. interesting to know whether dropout rates were higher among those in the 40th percentile than 49. Bowen and Bok, Appendix Table D.8.4. those in the 20th, but Bowen and Bok do not provide this information. See Bowen and Bok, 50. James Traub, “The Class of Prop. 209,” New Appendix Table D.3.4. They also fail to control for York Times Magazine, May 2, 1999. other academic factors, such as number of advanced placement classes taken or quality of 51. Traub. high school attended.

52. Gail Heriot, “University of California 63. Bowen and Bok note that one institution stud- Admissions under Proposition 209: Unheralded ied created composite “academic ratings” that Gains Face an Uncertain Future,” Nexis, A Journal took into account difficulty of coursework, grades of Opinion 6 (2001): 166. received, and AP test scores, among other variables. They noted that this more holistic measure 53. Harry Holzer and David Neumark, “Assessing “predicted academic performance appreciably bet- Affirmative Action,” Journal of Economic Literature ter than did SATs alone. In addition, [they] 38 (September 2001): 483. reduced the black-white gap in grades [associated with underperformance] by about 15 percent.” See 54. Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber, Increasing Bowen and Book, n. 30. Faculty Diversity: The Occupational Choices of High Achieving Minority Students (Cambridge, MA: 64. Ibid., p. 58. Harvard University Press, 2003), pp. 3–4. 65. Lerner and Nagai, p. 238. 55. Martin Trow, “Preferential Admissions in Higher Education,” in Thernstrom and Thern- 66. Bowen and Bok, p. lix. strom, eds., Beyond the Color Line, p. 302. 67. See generally Light and Strayer, p. 299. 56. Sowell, p. 192. 68. Ibid., p. 304–6. 57. Bowen and Bok, p. xxxii. 69. Ibid., p. 301. Italics in original. 58. Ibid., p. 58. 70. Ibid., Table 2. 59. See National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2004 (Washington: U.S. 71. The data for the lowest scoring group probably

19 appear choppy because of the small number of 81. See Bruce Wydick, “Affirmative Action in test-takers at this level who attended any college. College Admissions: Examining Labor Market Effects of Four Alternative Policies,” Contemporary 72. Cole and Barber, p. 238. Economic Policy 20, no. 1 (January 2002): 12.

73. Cf. Kane, p. 443. Kane agrees with Bowen and 82. See generally Steele and Aronson. Bok that college selectivity increases the odds that a given student will graduate. However, he fails to 83. Cole and Barber, p. 248. See also Steele and control for unobserved variables in his analysis, or Aronson, pp. 402–3. even to caution against the conclusiveness of findings that fail to account for them. This is an 84. Shelby Steele, The Content of Our Character: A inexplicable omission for a researcher who, in the New Vision of Race in America (New York: Harper very same paper, controls for unobserved factors Collins Press, 1991), pp. 117–18. to determine the size of admissions preferences and emphasizes their importance in any discus- 85. See generally Cole and Barber. See also Massey sion of college selectivity and wage rates. et al.

74. Light and Strayer analyze a much broader uni- 86. Steele and Aronson, p. 401. verse of colleges than Bowen and Bok do. Virtually all of the schools sampled in The Shape of 87. See generally Steele and Aronson. the River are likely to be in Light and Strayer’s top two college selectivity categories, and their atten- 88. Ibid. dees are overwhelmingly likely to be in Light and Strayer’s top two categories of student prepared- 89. Steele and Aronson, pp. 422–23. ness. However, there is no reason to believe that dynamics within the top half of the national dis- 90. Ibid., p. 422. tribution are any different. See for example Dale and Kruger, p. 1516 (finding the wage dynamics 91. Ibid., p. 423. of the Bowen and Bok database similar to the less selective, more nationally representative NLS 78 92. See generally Cole and Barber. database). Light and Strayer did subsequently find in another study that unmeasured variables 93. Ibid. disproportionately affecting minority students did not affect dropout rates at the most highly 94. Ibid., p. 208. selective schools. See generally Light and Strayer, “From Bakke to Hopwood: Does Race Affect 95. Ibid., p. 205. College Attendance and Completion?” Review of 96. Massey and his colleagues write, “The threat Economics and Statistics, February 2002, p. 34. may be particularly salient in selective colleges However, this newer study is consistent with their and universities, where minority students are previous finding that the lower average prepared- widely perceived (rightly or wrongly) by white fac- ness of minority students by observed measures ulty and students to have benefited from a ‘bend- such as SAT scores did increase minority dropout ing’ of academic standards because of affirmative rates at these schools. action.” See Massey et al., p. 11. 75. Massey et al., p. 14. 97. Massey et al., p. 187, Table 9.1. 76. Jay Mathews, “Banning Parents from College 98. Massey et al., p. 187, Table 9.1. Tours,” Washington Post, June 15, 2004. 99. McWhorter, p. 115. 77. Jay Mathews, “12 Steps to Conquering Your Ivy Addiction,” Washington Post, March 30, 2004. 100. Ivy League schools have responded to the high academic performance of African and 78. See generally Paul Attewell, “The Winner-Take- Caribbean students by admitting them in dispro- All High School: Organizational Adaptations to portionate numbers relative to African-American Educational Stratification,” Sociology of Education 74, students. This has generated a debate about the no. 4 (October 2001): 267. ostensible purpose of preferences, as selective 79. Sowell, p. 151. schools take foreign students who “look black” but have not inherited the cultural legacy of 80. John McWhorter, “Losing the Race: Self- American racism. See Sara Rimer and Karen Sabotage in Black America,” (New York: Free Aronson, “Top Colleges Take More Blacks, but Press, 2000), p. 248. Which Ones?” New York Times, June 24, 2004.

20 101. Massey et al., pp. 188–93. ing Respondents, p. 13.

102. Sowell, p. 148. 119. “One of the unquantifiable, but by no means unimportant, consequences of affirmative action 103. See Volokh, n. 16. has been widespread dishonesty, taking many forms.” Sowell, p. 190. 104. Massey et al., pp. 143–45. 120. See Charles R. Lawrence III, “Two Views of the 105. McWhorter writes, “Many white college stu- River: A Critique of the Liberal Defense of Affirmative dents have told me that they left college with wari- Action,” Columbia Law Review 101 (2001): 928. er and more negative feelings about black people than when they arrived.” McWhorter, p. 46. 121. Ibid., p. 953.

106. Remarks of Abigail Thernstrom, Urban Insti- 122. Ibid., p. 962. tute Forum, “Is Affirmative Action Still Needed?” April 29, 2003, www.urban.org/urlprint.cfm?ID 123. Bowen and Bok, p. 273. =8387. Very few African-American students receive SAT scores this high. Cole and Barber write, “Only 124. See Brief for Amici Curiae 65 Leading one tenth of 1 percent of African-American stu- American Businesses in Support of Respondents, dents score 700 or above on the verbal SAT. Only 1 Grutter, 2002 U.S. Briefs 241. See also David W. percent of African Americans score 600 or higher DeBruin et al., “The Business Case for Diversity,” on the verbal SAT.” Cole and Barber, p. 203. The Black Collegian 34 (2003).

107. Thernstrom and Thernstrom, America in 125. See Melba Joyce Boyd, “The Color Line Black and White, p. 408. Redefined in the Twenty-First Century in the Wake of the Anti-Affirmative Action Suits against 108. “African-American College Graduation Rates: the University of Michigan: Guest Editor’s Blacks Do Best at the Nation’s Most Selective Comment,” Black Scholar 33 (2003). Colleges and Universities,” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 25 (1999): 122. 126. “Critics [of affirmative action have not] offered much constructive criticism. Although the 109. Thernstrom and Thernstrom, America in critics pay homage to the goal of equal employ- Black and White, p. 408 ment opportunity, they present no viable and immediate alternatives to affirmative action.” John 110. Ibid. E. Fleming et al., The Case for Affirmative Action for Blacks in Higher Education (Washington: Howard 111. Cole and Barber, p. 205. University Press, 1978), p. 100.

112. Sowell, p. 146. 127. Steele and Aronson, p. 402.

113. Ibid., p. 147. 128. McWhorter, p. 83.

114. Cole and Barber, p. 206. See Thernstrom and 129. Ibid., p. 150. Thernstrom, “Reflections on the Shape of the River,” pp. 1617–18. 130. Ibid., p. 29.

115. “The aims and values of an educational insti- 131. George Farkas and Keven Vicknair, “Appropri- tution are often revealed most vividly by the choic- ate Tests of Racial Wage Discrimination Require es it makes in selecting its students.” Bowen and Controls for Cognitive Skill: Comment on Cancio, Bok, p. 15. Evans, and Maume,” American Sociological Review 61 (1996): 557. 116. Bowen and Bok, p. 5, citing S. A. Kendrick, “The Coming Segregation of Our Selective 132. Derek A. Neal and William R. Johnson, “The Colleges,” College Board Review 66 (Winter 1967): 6. Role of Premarket Factors in Black-White Wage Differences,” Journal of Political Economy 104 117. In particular, Bowen and Bok warn that elite (1996): 874. schools will abandon selective admissions entirely if affirmative action is abolished. Bowen and Bok, 133. Ibid., pp. 887–91. pp. 286–89. See also Thernstrom and Thernstrom, “Reflections on the Shape of the River,” p. 1631. 134. Sowell, p. 162.

118. Brief of Amherst et al., Amici Curiae Support- 135. McWhorter, p. 161.

21 136. Thernstrom and Thernstrom, “Reflections students, and an even stronger effect on the on the Shape of the River,” p. 1599. achievements of high-ability minority youth.” Sowell, p. 143. 137. There is, however, evidence that dropout rates increase as a college accepts a wider range of atten- 144. Bowen and Bok agree that “vigorous efforts dees. See generally Light and Strayer. Administra- should be made to improve the academic prepara- tors considering a more inclusive admissions policy tion of minority students at all stages of the pre-col- should very carefully weigh this evidence and other legiate educational process.” Bowen and Bok, p. xliv. evidence suggesting that students of all races may perform better in academically homogeneous envi- 145. “NAACP LDF Refutes Virginia Attorney ronments. See Sowell, p. 143. General’s Statements on Affirmative Action,” Press Release, June 27, 2003, http://www.naac 138. The reason elite schools resist doing so is that pldf.org/printable.aspx?article=57. they are locked in competition with each other for the most highly qualified class, as defined by U.S. 146. See Jay P. Greene, Paul E. Peterson, and Jingtao News & World Report. The result is an academic Du, The Effectiveness of School Choice in Milwaukee: A Nash equilibrium: no elite school has an incentive Secondary Analysis of Data from the Program’s to be the first to abandon the practice of recruiting Evaluation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University the highest achieving students. John F. Kennedy School of Government, 1996). See also Jay P. Greene, William Howell, and Paul E. 139. Jeffrey Rosen, “How I Learned to Love Quotas,” Peterson, “Lessons from the Cleveland Scholarship New York Times Magazine, June 1, 2003, p. 54. Program,” in Learning from School Choice, ed. Paul E. Peterson and Bryan J. Hassel (Washington: 140. Thernstrom and Thernstrom, “Reflections Brookings Institution, 1998). on the Shape of the River,” p. 1631. 147. See Clint Bolick, “Schools that Work for 141. See Nicholas Lemann, The Big Test: The Secret Minority Students,” in Thernstrom and Thern- History of American Meritocracy (New York: Farrar, strom, Beyond the Color Line, p. 288. Straus and Giroux, 1999), pp. 58–60. 148. Bruce Wydick, “Affirmative Action in College 142. Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, Admissions: Examining Labor Market Effects of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in Four Alternative Policies,” Contemporary Economic American Life (New York: Free Press, 1994), p. 30. Policy 20 (2002): 21–22.

143. For example, Thomas Sowell points to 149. Traub. research suggesting that tracking is academically beneficial: “Schooling in [an academically] homo- 150. The phrase comes from Gunnar Myrdal, An geneous group of students appears to have a pos- American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern itive effect on the achievements of high-ability Democracy (New York: Harper, 1949).

22 OTHER STUDIES IN THE POLICY ANALYSIS SERIES

539. $400 Billion Defense Budget Unnecessary to Fight War on Terrorism by Charles V. Peña (March 28, 2005)

538. Liberating the Roads: Reforming U.S. Highway Policy by Gabriel Roth (March 17, 2005)

537. Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2004 by Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski (March 1, 2005)

536. Options for Tax Reform by Chris Edwards (February 24, 2005)

535. Robin Hood in Reverse: The Case against Economic Development Takings by Ilya Somin (February 22, 2005)

534. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Digital Rights Management: How Market Tools Can Solve Copyright Problems by Michael A. Einhorn and Bill Rosenblatt (February 17, 2005)

533. Who Killed Telecom? Why the Official Story Is Wrong by Lawrence Gasman (February 7, 2005)

532. Health Care in a Free Society: Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance by John C. Goodman (January 27, 2005)

531. Making College More Expensive: The Unintended Consequences of Federal Tuition Aid by Gary Wolfram (January 25, 2005)

530. Rethinking Electricity Restructuring by Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor (November 30, 2004)

529. Implementing Welfare Reform: A State Report Card by Jenifer Zeigler (October 19, 2004)

528. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Housing Finance: Why True Privatization Is Good Public Policy by Lawrence J. White (October 7, 2004)

527. Health Care Regulation: A $169 Billion Hidden Tax by Christopher J. Conover (October 4, 2004)

526. Iraq’s Odious Debts by Patricia Adams (September 28, 2004)

525. When Ignorance Isn’t Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy by Ilya Somin (September 22, 2004)

524. Three Myths about Voter Turnout in the United States by John Samples (September 14, 2004)

523. How to Reduce the Cost of Federal Pension Insurance by Richard A. Ippolito (August 24, 2004) 522. Budget Reforms to Solve New York City’s High-Tax Crisis by Raymond J. Keating (August 17, 2004)

521. Drug Reimportation: The Free Market Solution by Roger Pilon (August 4, 2004)

520. Understanding Privacy—And the Real Threats to It by Jim Harper (August 4, 2004)

519. Nuclear Deterrence, Preventive War, and Counterproliferation by Jeffrey Record (July 8, 2004)

518. A Lesson in Waste: Where Does All the Federal Education Money Go? by Neal McCluskey (July 7, 2004)

517. Deficits, Interest Rates, and Taxes: Myths and Realities by Alan Reynolds (June 29, 2004)

516. European Union Defense Policy: An American Perspective by Leslie S. Lebl (June 24, 2004)

515. Downsizing the Federal Government by Chris Edwards (June 2, 2004)

514. Can Tort Reform and Federalism Coexist? by Michael I. Krauss and Robert A. Levy (April 14, 2004)

513. South Africa’s War against Malaria: Lessons for the Developing World by Richard Tren and Roger Bate (March 25, 2004)

512. The Syria Accountability Act: Taking the Wrong Road to Damascus by Claude Salhani (March 18, 2004)

511. Education and Indoctrination in the Muslim World: Is There a Problem? What Can We Do about It? by Andrew Coulson (March 11, 2004)

510. Restoring the U.S. House of Representatives: A Skeptical Look at Current Proposals by Ronald Keith Gaddie (February 17, 2004)

509. Mrs. Clinton Has Entered the Race: The 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Proposals to Reform Health Insurance by Michael F. Cannon (February 5, 2004)

508. Compulsory Licensing vs. the Three “Golden Oldies”: Property Rights, Contracts, and Markets by Robert P. Merges (January 15, 2004)

507. “Net Neutrality”: Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace? by Adam D. Thierer (January 12, 2004)

506. Cleaning Up New York States’s Budget Mess by Raymond J. Keating (January 7, 2004) 25 26