A LIBERAL CRITIQUE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Richard Kahlenberg has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, evaluating the insanity of today’s affirmative action efforts by universities and colleges. Kahlenberg writes:
Given the evidence for the success of race-neutral alternatives, it’s difficult not to suspect that university officials who defend racial preferences are really after what Stephen Carter has called “racial justice on the cheap.” Racial preferences mostly benefit fairly privileged students of color; 86% of African-Americans at selective colleges were middle or upper class, according to Derek Bok and William Bowen in their book “The Shape of the River.”
There’s more. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s amicus brief in the Fisher case conceded that if it adopted a top 10% plan in North Carolina, racial diversity would increase somewhat. But the university complained that by admitting the top 10% of students from low-income high schools, the average combined SAT score would fall from 1317 to 1262. Is avoiding a possible slip in the annual US News & World Report rankings a strong enough reason to resort to racial preference in admissions?
Bottom line: Race conscious policies consciously discriminate against non-minorities based on their race (regardless of their income), disproportionately help out upper income minorities, and do little/nothing to help lower income minorities– all in the name of achieving “diversity” while simultaneously keeping SAT scores up. “Equal” protection of the laws? Give me a break.