Forums dot lukpac.org

Article edited by me for brevity, bolding mine. Full article can be found
here

U-M cannot validate its claims of success
September 7, 2004
BY JUSTIN SHUBOW

After all of the energy and money the University of Michigan has spent defending its admissions policies, you would think the school would offer evidence to show that undergraduate affirmative action is a success.

You would be wrong.

Sure, administrators brag about the number of black faces on campus, and sing praise to the mystical powers of "diversity." But they have provided scant evidence that affirmative action at the college level goes beyond mere cosmetic results.

Indeed, the piece of evidence that could settle the whole debate over the policy -- a study comparing the academic performance of undergraduate recipients of affirmative action with that of minority students who would have been admitted without it -- is missing from U-M's pro-affirmative action arsenal.

It is hard to believe that such a study is not feasible. Under Michigan's now-retired points-based admissions policy, it would have been very easy to determine the students for which affirmative action was the decisive factor in admissions. Researchers would only have had to subtract the 20-point bonus from minority enrollees' application scores (taking into account whether they would get the 20 points anyway because of socioeconomic hardship), and see whether they still met the admissions threshold of 100 points.

When I asked whether the university ever attempted such a study, spokesperson Julie Peterson said it would have been impossible since "the undergraduate admissions office does not have a method for tracking precisely what factors students received the points for." If this is true, one can only wonder why otherwise meticulous bean counters did not collect such data, even if just for internal use.

U-M is all too typical in either not performing or not publicly releasing an investigation of the academic outcomes of its undergraduate affirmative action recipients. As far as I can determine, not a single American university has ever released such a study.

This gaping absence is highly suggestive. Either the universities are silent because of what they have found, or they never looked for fear of what they might find. This secrecy or willful ignorance cannot bode well for the policy. In any area of life -- whether business, medicine or politics -- if a policy or experiment is found to be successful, its backers will usually shout the news from the rooftops. In the case of affirmative action, no news is bad news.

Similarly, most elite universities claim not to inquire into the ethnic origins of their black students, even though researchers have found that a large percentage (and at Harvard a majority) are immigrants from the West Indies or Africa or the children of such immigrants. In fact, when the editors of Harvard's black student guide wanted to investigate the composition of the black student body, university officials discouraged them from doing so.

But perhaps it is naive to expect university officials to look closely at whether affirmative action works in practice. As Upton Sinclair put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Fervent, uncritical support of affirmative action is a wise career move for any academic bureaucrat. Just ask Lee Bollinger, whose defense of affirmative action at U-M -- first as dean of the law school, then as university president -- was a major factor in his obtaining the presidency of Columbia University.

Affirmative action is a giant social experiment, and administrators have an obligation to ensure that the policy is working as intended. I suspect it is not.

The issue may be sensitive, the truth unpleasant, but no self-respecting university has an ostrich as its mascot.


I don't think that this is a question of denial. IMO the real reason these universities don't want to open this particular Pandora's box is that they don't want to be accused of discrimination in the classroom.

If we accept the premise that these affirmative action students are indeed doing poorly in class (if not flunking out), then how does one answer the inevitable charge that either overt (from professors and classmates) or covert (within the curriculum) discrimination is taking place? The SATs have already been accused of discriminating against disadvantaged minorites, due to the types of questions that are asked.

One result might be to overhaul both the courses and the classroom environment to be more politically correct, along with conducting sporadic classroom audits to ensure compliance. But the most likely result, IMO, would be to give these students more assistance, in the form of university subsidized tutors, and --if all else fails -- additional "affirmative action points" towards their grades, similar to what was done for their admissions. Why not? Why stop assisting them in this fashion once they are admitted?

Which leads to the inevitable affirmative action "end of the road" - a cradle to grave assistance policy. Allowing a member of a disadvantaged minority to fail is not an option, whether it's grade school, high school, college, work, or life in general. Because his failure is actually everyone's failure -- due to insidious, pernicious discrimination that our ancestors created and that we as a society allow to continue. If he succeeds, however, he gets the credit...plus a bonus for doing so in spite of the "obstacles."

This is what I said about affirmative action on this board a year ago, and it must be one of the few times I wasn't posting while legally impaired, because I still feel this way:

I'm incredibly ambivalent on affirmative action. On the one hand, I agree that in an ideal world, everyone would be judged solely on their merits. However, I do not believe we live in an ideal world. College admission and employment opportunities are definitely skewed toward those already "in the system." (As in the Michigan case, where "legacy" applicants were heavily favored, much more so than minority candidates -- and this in a system under fire for using affirmative action!) The only way to increase opportunity in both those areas is to use affirmative action to crack the door open and get more people "in the system," so that pool becomes more diverse. In short, I see affirmative action as the lesser of two evils, the greater one being letting college and employment be closed loops.

Now, if people get "in the system" via affirmative action and then flunk out, that's their problem -- they had their chance and blew it. I understand your point that some groups will attempt to paint this as a "discrimination" issue, but I don't think the fear of that should drive admissions policy.

Ryan

Rspaight wrote:On the one hand, I agree that in an ideal world, everyone would be judged solely on their merits. However, I do not believe we live in an ideal world. College admission and employment opportunities are definitely skewed toward those already "in the system."

The way I see it, the whole affirmative action issue gets confused by combining the ethical and the practical -- i.e., those who want to have their cake and eat it too by arguing that it is the right thing to do AND that it is a "competitive advantage" (quoting my employer).

That is what opens up the "Pandora's Box" (and generates articles like the one I quoted) because people then expect to see measurable results. The company I work for (which I'd rather not name here, but suffice it to say that it is one of the automotive "Big Three") crows about the "competitive advantage" of diversity, which is another way of saying that they expect it to directly improve the bottom line. Taking it a step further, their philosophy is that the minority job candidate is, in fact, more qualified than the other candidates who seem superior (at least on paper). The "minority" qualification is, as such, interpreted as a powerful "intangible" that trumps many of the qualifications found on a traditional resume.

When I point out that our German and Japanese competitors (who have been kicking our ass for the better part of 25 years) are among the least "diverse" companies on earth, the company's response is "well, these things take time, but eventually their policies will hurt them and our diversity will help us." Oh, really?

I get the impression that U of M (my alma mater, as it happens) is of the opinion that affirmative action improves the university -- through "intangibles" such as a more richly diverse student body. But it really stretches the boundaries of common sense to suggest that the academic performance of the student body as a whole is improved. Not that they're suggesting that (I have no idea), but I bet the thinking is the same as my employer's -- "these things take time...but eventually, yes."

IMO the supporters of affirmative action would be better off sticking to the ethics side of the debate.

Dob wrote:The company I work for (which I'd rather not name here, but suffice it to say that it is one of the automotive "Big Three")

Such broad and non-specific tripe won't be accepted here, fella.

Now as a special treat courtesy of our friends at the Meat Council, please help yourself to this tripe.

IMO the supporters of affirmative action would be better off sticking to the ethics side of the debate.

Sure. Unless they have some sort of objective data to back up the assertion that "diversity" helps the bottom line (or overall academic performance), claiming otherwise is silly. (In fact, it seems dubious on its face to me. The success/failure of a business or a school depends on the talent of those involved, not their color.)

(which I'd rather not name here, but suffice it to say that it is one of the automotive "Big Three")

I thought we were down to a "Big Two" since the DaimlerChrysler "merger." Does that narrow it down?

Ryan

Rspaight wrote:I thought we were down to a "Big Two" since the DaimlerChrysler "merger." Does that narrow it down?

I appreciate that you put "merger" in quotes...aka "marriage made in heaven" aka "blitzkrieg." But that issue isn't personal, since I don't work for DC. Or GM either...which should really narrow it down.

It's not that I'm afraid of criticizing the company in publc...I just think that using company-owned computers to do so is, uh, "pushing it." And I know for a fact that they monitor all electronic communications.

Here at home, however, all I have to worry about is monitoring by the US government. But we flatter ourselves if we think any of us are influential enough to merit such attention.

I think it is funny seeing white guys argue about affirnmative action!

As the resident black guy here, all i'll say is that the only way to a level playing field in which no one is discrimminated against is to eliminate institutionalized racism in our society, and that's never going to happen in our lifetime! Whites also tend not to acknowledge the level of racism in our society. In a recent poll-no, I no longer have the stats-70-something percent of whites think that racism has been resolved, while less than 25% of blacks believe that race is no longer a problem. What I found interesting is that 94% of whites still do not approve of interracial marriages.

The poll was released in USA Today last winter, and I forget who did the study.

The argument against affirmative action always relies on the idea that people in power are not racist.

It is usually assumed that those whom have benifitted from AA and "flunk out" cannot compete because ther were never really qualified. No one really stops to consider other factors that may be at play, ones that may lead right back to good-ol racism. You can put a black person in Harvard, but can you keep that person happy? Can you ensure that he will be in an accepting enviornment that will allow him to actually concentrate on learning? When California tried it's own AA a few years ago, they found that many of those students who got in under AA dropped out or did poorly because they did not feel comfortable or accepted at they school, or were not used to being around white kids, so they left.

I may be wrong, but I think these days "racism" exists less with skin color than with culture. For example, a very non-PC way to put it would be blacks who "act black" or "act white". Like it or not, I'm a lot more likely to associate with a black person who is articulate and well educated than someone who doesn't know their "ask" from "axe".

It's not just a "black thing", either. My college had/has LOTS of Asians. And no, I didn't really associate with many of them. But it wasn't because their skin looked different. It was because they were on totally different wavelengths socially, and really didn't have much of a grasp of English. In contrast, the mother of one of my best friends from high school was from Taiwan. Yeah, she looked different from "us", but socially she was really no different.

My attitude really isn't "these people are bad" but rather "I just don't have much of a reason to associate with these people." Make sense?

Heck, I think it was several years before I knew you were black, Grant.

Culture is a very good point, Luke! But, one would be well to remember that there is still something called "white" culture and "black" culture in this country. You're right, it isn't so much based on skin color, but there is still a relationship.

FWIW, I grew up in a predominantly white section of the country. If you were to talk to me on the phone, you couldn't place me. Everyone around me always spoke proper American english (if there is such a thing). In other words, I don't fit the stereotype. But, I Loooov that fried chicken and soul music!

How about watermelon?

Grant wrote:The argument against affirmative action always relies on the idea that people in power are not racist.

And the argument for affirmative action always relies on the idea that people in power are racist.

As with most polemic, "all or nothing" statements, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Grant wrote:You can put a black person in Harvard, but can you keep that person happy? Can you ensure that he will be in an accepting enviornment that will allow him to actually concentrate on learning?

For gosh sakes, Grant, we're not talking about Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier way back in 1947. Universities (for sure the public ones) have been integrated for how many decades now? Do you think that campuses are seething with racial tension? They seem extremely liberal and tolerant to me -- and very cosmopolitan.

If I were a tenured professor at a public university, I would in fact shade the grade of a minority student slightly higher (if I could) -- just to avoid any unpleasant and inconvenient accusations (or even rumors) of discrimination. Why take chances?

I don't know what you mean by "environment," but in my college days I was aware of a few students that basically holed up in their rooms (where they couldn't be bothered by anyone else) and (probably) studied all the time. They could've been alien coneheads, for all we knew. Did they miss out on all those "great" collegiate experiences that have been immortalized on stage and screen? Maybe...but should I feel that they've been deprived? Some people go to college with the single minded purpose of doing really well and they study their asses off. AA students especially should emulate that model.

Grant wrote:When California tried it's own AA a few years ago, they found that many of those students who got in under AA dropped out or did poorly because they did not feel comfortable or accepted at they school, or were not used to being around white kids, so they left.

This is just a "seat of the pants" observation, but the Asian and Indian kids seem to do just fine, and I'm sure plenty of them feel uncomfortable around white kids.

When students do poorly or drop out, the explanation is simple. They didn't study hard enough. But I can understand why some dropouts can't admit that -- the truth hurts.

lukpac wrote:How about watermelon?

Naww man! After spending a summer in east Texas, I got sick of them.

Hey Dob,

Racism is very ingrained into our society, and sometimes very difficcult for those not directly affected by it to recognize. The same goes for sexism.

Also, many indians and Asians have lighter skin color. There are many people who still equate civil beghavior and intelligence with the shade of your skin. It's ignorant, but it's still alive and well. Down here, in the southwest, there are the same racist attitudes between lighter-skinned Mexicans and darker-skinned Mexicans. Many of them will tell you that it is the same as with lighter-skinned blacks and darker ones. Bias and racism is everywhere. The saying among black people used to go that when the Vietnamese refugees came to theis country, the first thing the white man taught them was the word "nigger".

Grant wrote:Racism is very ingrained into our society, and sometimes very difficcult for those not directly affected by it to recognize.

In other words, it's subtle. For those of us that have observed blatant prejudice, it's only natural for us to assume that subtle prejudice is no big deal.

In grade school, the kids that got picked on mercilessly were a mildly retarded (that was the term in those days) boy and a couple of very quiet, rather large, tall, masculine looking girls (no black students in that school).

A few blacks did attend my "all boys" Catholic high school...some were popular (the athletes). However, the kid that received the most brutal treatment was a white kid whose "sin" was to look and dress rather effeminately (the rumor was that he was a "fag"). Many times I saw his books knocked out of his hands during class change and the crowd would gleefully kick them up and down the hallway. From the way everyone talked he was universally hated. AFAIK he stuck it out all four years and graduated.

My eastern European parents, running from Communism after WWII, ended up in Canada. They were labeled as "DPs" (displaced persons) and it was quite the insult back then. My older brother was about seven and he enrolled at the local public school, which was French, and he didn't speak French. Even the teachers treated him poorly, as they didn't want to be bothered with some DP that couldn't even speak the language when there were redblooded Canadian kids in the class that needed attention. My mother said the other kids used to spit on him, and he was once chased down and stabbed in the leg with a fountain pen. (I wasn't even born when all this happened).

Eventually, by studying hard at home, he did learn French (years later he earned a masters degree in French) and by the time he finished grade school he was one of the top students.

When I think about what these kids and what my own brother went through, it's hard for me to muster up much sympathy for the difficulties of overcoming "subtle" prejudice.

Grant wrote:There are many people who still equate civil beghavior and intelligence with the shade of your skin. It's ignorant, but it's still alive and well.

Similarly, my college educated parents, who spoke english but never lost their heavy accent, often complained to me about being treated as stupid because of that accent.