Unpopular, Polarizing, and Ineffective
WSJ columnist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Jason Riley writes a long-form piece on affirmative action claiming they are unpopular, divisive and harmful. “When it comes to skepticism of affirmative-action policies, the issue isn’t whether today’s college students are ‘left-wing activists who aren’t in touch with the real world’ but rather whether that description better applies to New York Times journalists and other liberal elites…intentions matter less than results. In practice, racial preferences have proved unpopular, polarizing—and ineffective, to boot. It’s time to end them.”
He begins with popular opinion, stating that, “If, as many who follow this issue expect, the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and the companion case, SFFA v. University of North Carolina, it will not only strike a blow for constitutional color blindness but also align with public opinion as expressed in polling and at the ballot box.”
He gets to the heart of the matte of equality vs. equity when he writes that “Support for the equal treatment of blacks isn’t the same thing as support for racial quotas, statistical parity, or double standards, and lawmakers at the time made that clear… it’s clear that group preferences cannot be reconciled with the imperative to treat all individuals equally.”
Riley goes through the history of civil rights law, and then to the case. “Whether Harvard and UNC practice discrimination is barely even disputed in the two lawsuits. Both schools have admitted in briefs that race and ethnicity are being used as a ‘plus factor’ for applicants from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds but not others… Some five decades into this affirmative-action experiment, it’s clear that schools are violating the plain language of both the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.”
So why do universities practice racial discrimination? Riley says, “These policies help elite schools protect their brand, which is enhanced by showcasing a diverse student body, regardless of how that diversity is achieved. These institutions want a campus that ‘looks like America,’ even if it means that they must consciously admit students more likely to struggle and less likely to graduate…black students have struggled academically, dropped out at higher rates, or been forced to switch to easier majors.”
He goes on that “it’s well known that racial preferences in college admissions harm whites and Asians and foster racial resentment and campus unrest; it’s less well understood how they harm their intended beneficiaries as well… Racial preferences…diminish individual achievement. They allow others to take credit for black accomplishments, and they falsely imply that black upward mobility can’t or won’t occur without officially sanctioned favoritism.”
He ends by asking a basic question of all of us: “Liberal proponents of affirmative action tell blacks that there is no shame in racial favoritism—but who among us longs to be that diversity hire or token minority on campus?”
