Affirmative action in education appears on the way out, if the tenor of questions during recent oral arguments before the Supreme Court is any guide. The ruling presumably will appear at the end of the court's current session next June, meaning that the college classes accepted for admission in August or September will be the last to be affected by affirmative action in its present guise.
Although I did not listen to all 5 or so hours of oral argument yesterday in the Harvard and UNC (and UT) cases presently before the US Supreme Court, from what I have read so far this morning about what was asked and answered (for that is what US Supreme Court oral arguments largely are or have become) suggests strongly that Prof. Brands is correct when he writes that “Much has been said on both sides of the debate. But a few things have not been said or not said very often.”
His last point: “If affirmative action, already a half-century old, somehow survives the scrutiny of the current court, ... [it] will effectively write into constitutional law the presumption that black students can’t compete on an equal footing with other students. Nothing could be more corrosive to the ambitions of the very people affirmative action is supposed to benefit.” That is an argument I heard first expounded by Prof. Leno Graglia of the University of Texas School of Law in the early 1970s and not said much since. Prof. Graglia’s public position then brought upon himself some academic criticism among so-called “elite” academicians and law students, some “elite” journalists, some not-so elite politicians, and others, elite or not; but did provoke thought and debate, and, as I recall, was a good example of why the notion of academic tenure is worth preserving regardless of how one may have personally come down on the issue he was arguing.
Another point that Prof. Brands makes well is that the legal issue of affirmative action in academic admissions affects a numerically few since it applies mainly to those perceived “elite” institutions of higher education in America who can practice saying “no” to most of those who seek admission to their student bodies. That thought may deserve another essay on modern economic principles as applied to college and university markets, but that is something to be considered at a later time. What Prof. Brands did not observe, or did not write that he observed, was that those oral arguments made yesterday were being made to a Court composed largely of members who are products of those elite institutions. Whether they benefited or not by their time there spent is perhaps in the eye of the beholder, but their proliferation there now and even more in the past is historically a product of politics. And, to Prof. Brands’ point, so is what happens in primary and secondary education. Which to the many, and I would argue to us all, is more important.
One of my students some years back told me about a case which she knows about personally because she and this student were classmates in high school. Her friend (whom we'll call Ms X) was only 1/4th Native American, but her parents were smart enough to register her with the tribe of her grandparent. She had never stepped foot on the reservation, didn't know a word of the language, was light-skinned, etc. Further, the family was upper-middle class. Ms. X was hardly "disadvantaged." However, since she was officially a Native American, she got numerous scholarship offers and after graduation, probably got numerous job offers.
"And it will effectively write into constitutional law the presumption that black students can’t compete on an equal footing with other students. Nothing could be more corrosive to the ambitions of the very people affirmative action is supposed to benefit."
Spot on. And that is precisely why I, and most conservatives have always opposed it, no matter how sympathetic and well-meaning the idea seemed to many. GWB was much maligned for saying it, but it is truly the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
I've taught in almost every kind of school there is (rich, poor, public, private, Title I, etc.) and there is no difference in intelligence or potential among the kids I have taught. The biggest predictor of educational success is parents who read to their children and instill the importance of education in them. That is something all parents can do, regardless of their ethnic or financial situation.
Thanks for a perspective I did not know I needed but was very helpful in opening a new line of reflection and consideration on an issue I thought I had my mind made up on. Looking forward to getting The Last campaign. Bill Rusen
Although I did not listen to all 5 or so hours of oral argument yesterday in the Harvard and UNC (and UT) cases presently before the US Supreme Court, from what I have read so far this morning about what was asked and answered (for that is what US Supreme Court oral arguments largely are or have become) suggests strongly that Prof. Brands is correct when he writes that “Much has been said on both sides of the debate. But a few things have not been said or not said very often.”
His last point: “If affirmative action, already a half-century old, somehow survives the scrutiny of the current court, ... [it] will effectively write into constitutional law the presumption that black students can’t compete on an equal footing with other students. Nothing could be more corrosive to the ambitions of the very people affirmative action is supposed to benefit.” That is an argument I heard first expounded by Prof. Leno Graglia of the University of Texas School of Law in the early 1970s and not said much since. Prof. Graglia’s public position then brought upon himself some academic criticism among so-called “elite” academicians and law students, some “elite” journalists, some not-so elite politicians, and others, elite or not; but did provoke thought and debate, and, as I recall, was a good example of why the notion of academic tenure is worth preserving regardless of how one may have personally come down on the issue he was arguing.
Another point that Prof. Brands makes well is that the legal issue of affirmative action in academic admissions affects a numerically few since it applies mainly to those perceived “elite” institutions of higher education in America who can practice saying “no” to most of those who seek admission to their student bodies. That thought may deserve another essay on modern economic principles as applied to college and university markets, but that is something to be considered at a later time. What Prof. Brands did not observe, or did not write that he observed, was that those oral arguments made yesterday were being made to a Court composed largely of members who are products of those elite institutions. Whether they benefited or not by their time there spent is perhaps in the eye of the beholder, but their proliferation there now and even more in the past is historically a product of politics. And, to Prof. Brands’ point, so is what happens in primary and secondary education. Which to the many, and I would argue to us all, is more important.
Jim Guleke
One of my students some years back told me about a case which she knows about personally because she and this student were classmates in high school. Her friend (whom we'll call Ms X) was only 1/4th Native American, but her parents were smart enough to register her with the tribe of her grandparent. She had never stepped foot on the reservation, didn't know a word of the language, was light-skinned, etc. Further, the family was upper-middle class. Ms. X was hardly "disadvantaged." However, since she was officially a Native American, she got numerous scholarship offers and after graduation, probably got numerous job offers.
"And it will effectively write into constitutional law the presumption that black students can’t compete on an equal footing with other students. Nothing could be more corrosive to the ambitions of the very people affirmative action is supposed to benefit."
Spot on. And that is precisely why I, and most conservatives have always opposed it, no matter how sympathetic and well-meaning the idea seemed to many. GWB was much maligned for saying it, but it is truly the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
I've taught in almost every kind of school there is (rich, poor, public, private, Title I, etc.) and there is no difference in intelligence or potential among the kids I have taught. The biggest predictor of educational success is parents who read to their children and instill the importance of education in them. That is something all parents can do, regardless of their ethnic or financial situation.
Thanks for a perspective I did not know I needed but was very helpful in opening a new line of reflection and consideration on an issue I thought I had my mind made up on. Looking forward to getting The Last campaign. Bill Rusen
Another excellent essay! I'll make a comment or two later.