Our Preference Should Be True Diversity
By Trevor Bothwell (01/17/03)
On Wednesday President Bush delivered a much-anticipated speech denouncing the use of racial preferences by college admission boards. Subsequently, the Bush administration submitted a legal brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, two white students who have filed suits against the University of Michigan, after being denied admission to the school due to the university's affirmative action policy giving preferential treatment to minority students.
In two separate lawsuits against UM, district court judges ruled that the College of Literature, Sciences, and the Arts and the University of Michigan Law School's race-based admissions policies were unconstitutional. According to Adversity.net, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman "disagreed with the university's contention that racial diversity is a 'compelling' state interest and described the school's admissions policies as an unconstitutional quota system … He called the University of Michigan system 'indistinguishable from a straight quota system.'"
As reported by the Washington Times, the president alluded to the university's policy that awards a 20-point bonus (on a 150-point scale used for admissions) to blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians just for being black, Hispanic, or American Indian. "To put this in perspective," the president stated, "a perfect [emphasis added] SAT score is worth only 12 points in the Michigan system," which means that a person's race is often the decisive factor for admission.
Predictably, President Bush's pronouncement elicited outrage from many Democrats, presumably due to the fact that even a modest reformation in the use of ubiquitous quota systems and racial preferences could destroy their façade that they actually care about minorities.
For starters, Jesse Jackson hopped to the mic to call President Bush "the most anti-civil rights president in 50 years." This from Mr. "Hymie-Town" himself. But hey, did we really expect Mr. Bush to be as committed to equality as America's First Black Prez (WJC)? Come on, now!
Rep. Richard Gephardt also swiftly announced that he intends to file a legal brief on behalf of the University of Michigan to support its dedication to advancing "diversity." As Michelle Malkin points out in her book, Invasion, this is the same man who is so dedicated to America's diversity that he vociferously supports the government's 245(i) program, which allows illegal aliens to eventually adjust their illegal status in order to become legal permanent residents (even if they have been previously connected to terrorist activity!). Unfortunately, President Bush has also voiced his support for this program inasmuch as it protects illegal Mexican immigrants, but this should at least serve to quell, not exacerbate, ridiculous accusations that he is not devoted to advancing civil rights.
Not to be outdone, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, America's most-wrinkled (er, most-recent) 2004 presidential candidate, said Mr. Bush "sided with the right wing of his party, and sent a signal that equal opportunity in higher education is a low priority for his administration." Interestingly, I was under the impression that the president's speech was intended to support these students' fight for equal opportunity.
And saving the best for last, Sen. John Kerry stated that "[t]he Bush administration continues a disturbing pattern of using the rhetoric of diversity as a substitute for real progress on a civil rights agenda." I must admit I'm more than a little confused here. Hasn't the Democrats' rhetorical version of "diversity" during the past decade gotten us into this current situation at Michigan?
While affirmative action programs are a reflection of our nation's consciousness and sensitivity to peoples of all races and cultures, this fact paradoxically stultifies the argument for an actual need for these programs in the first place. Whether Democrats will ever admit it or not, this nation has progressed beyond the years of Jim Crow; with the multitude of institutions and organizations in place today that fight for civil rights, how can anyone realistically believe that government-mandated discrimination will yield equality for all? If anything, inherent assumptions that the color of one's skin classifies a person as possessing a certain level of ability can only lead to further divisions between individuals and races.
It is regrettably true that some colleges in the U.S. have been found guilty of discriminating against minority applicants in the past. But far more often than not, minority candidates have been denied admission to colleges due to a lack of meritorious achievement rather than a lack of the "right" skin color. Just because some universities may believe that the "right" skin color now belongs to certain minorities, it shouldn't qualify that this is any more a justification for admission than it would be for rejection.
This argument, however, is underscored by the one interminable belief among today's current educators, whether at the college or elementary school level: all students must be considered "equal." Educators nowadays are either disallowed or unwilling to distinguish between those students who excel and thus deserve credit for their achievement, and those who put forth a minimal amount of effort and fail to achieve anything. By minimizing our demand for true academic excellence we can concentrate on more important things, like social engineering programs that guarantee all students will have the same opportunities, whether deserving of them or not.
There are many institutions of higher learning in this country that are geared toward students of modest intelligence or limited levels of high school achievement. Students who can do little more than sign their names can gain entrance to junior and community colleges, and there are a plethora of four-year institutions that aren't nearly as academically demanding as some of the nation's elite flagships. Thomas Sowell has argued for years against the use of affirmative action programs in education, citing that in many cases minority students who have been admitted undeservingly to select universities end up being expelled from or dropping out of school as a result of their inability to compete. In this scenario, racial preferences clearly end up working against those they claim to help.
Perhaps the most deplorable reality associated with race-based set-asides and preferences is that these programs have very little to do with the authentic academic advancement for minorities that their proponents claim to endorse. Liberals want a world where achievement is relative. Failure is casually dismissed not as the fault of any one individual, but as the result of a prejudicial society that discriminates against those who are "less fortunate," even if by less fortunate they really mean less motivated or concerned.
The consequences of this mentality are potentially disastrous. First, we have already been witnessing for some time the dumbing down of curriculum in today's primary and secondary schools. Schools conveniently lower academic expectations to give the impression that all students can learn at similar rates. And when it turns out that not all of our children progress or achieve equally, schools utilize social promotion measures, where students are passed to the next grade despite their failure to realize any tangible achievement, to perpetuate this myth. Colleges can only look forward to falling victim to this same fate by employing admission standards that are not based primarily on academic qualifications.
Second, pretending that racial makeup is as qualitatively valuable as intellectual competence (or even more so, when considering UM awards more admission points for heritage than a perfect SAT score) is sheer foolishness. This mindset gradually decreases the significance of the importance of a quality work ethic, and in concomitance contributes to an ideology of entitlement where one eventually expects to be rewarded for what one is as opposed to what one earns. The current dilemma surrounding the SAT, where it is being transformed from a reliable test of aptitude to a more subjective analysis of "achievement," is merely one consequence of this brand of thinking.
Finally, and certainly the most detrimental latent effect of racial bean counting programs like the one at the University of Michigan, will be the perpetuation of a race-obsessed society, where its attendant myths purport that opportunity and ability should be determined more by family background, history, and skin color rather than by each individual's everyday determination and accomplishment. To believe this is to buy into the validity of a discriminatory society, not to condemn it. Perhaps it's time for Democrats to begin buying wholesale into President Bush's "rhetoric of diversity."
(Printer friendly version) Email: Trevor Bothwell
