No. 540 April 6, 2005 Routing The Affirmative Action Myth by Marie Gryphon 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 impor- tance 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