WhoIsJohnGalt
07-17-2004, 08:12 PM
The Affirmative Action Myth
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
By Marie Gryphon
•The Affirmative Action Myth
The Supreme Court decided one year ago that racial preferences at public universities are legal, as long as they aren’t too mechanically applied.
But this has proved cold comfort to affirmative action supporters besieged by evidence that preferences can’t deliver the results desired. With the constitutional issue resolved, Americans are asking whether affirmative action helps students in the first place.
Just what is affirmative action supposed to do? Educators trumpet the virtues of “diverse” campuses, but their enthusiasm dates suspiciously to a 1972 court decision suggesting diversity as a legal justification for preferences.
Ordinary Americans are more practical. Those sympathetic to affirmative action assume that it offers concrete benefits to disadvantaged students. They hope that preferences will narrow our nation’s painful racial divide along such metrics as income, literacy, home ownership and health.
But affirmative action in this sense is a myth. Admissions preferences do not offer practical empowerment to struggling citizens. They do not bridge society’s racial chasms. They do not address real social problems.
For one thing, affirmative action does not send more minorities to college. Most four-year colleges and universities in America are not selective; they take anyone with a standard high school education and a Pell grant. This means that race-based preferences are relevant only to the 20-30 percent of American colleges that enjoy substantially more applicants than places. Students attending these schools have many other college options.
Marie Gryphon, a former practicing attorney, is an education policy analyst at the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
By Marie Gryphon
•The Affirmative Action Myth
The Supreme Court decided one year ago that racial preferences at public universities are legal, as long as they aren’t too mechanically applied.
But this has proved cold comfort to affirmative action supporters besieged by evidence that preferences can’t deliver the results desired. With the constitutional issue resolved, Americans are asking whether affirmative action helps students in the first place.
Just what is affirmative action supposed to do? Educators trumpet the virtues of “diverse” campuses, but their enthusiasm dates suspiciously to a 1972 court decision suggesting diversity as a legal justification for preferences.
Ordinary Americans are more practical. Those sympathetic to affirmative action assume that it offers concrete benefits to disadvantaged students. They hope that preferences will narrow our nation’s painful racial divide along such metrics as income, literacy, home ownership and health.
But affirmative action in this sense is a myth. Admissions preferences do not offer practical empowerment to struggling citizens. They do not bridge society’s racial chasms. They do not address real social problems.
For one thing, affirmative action does not send more minorities to college. Most four-year colleges and universities in America are not selective; they take anyone with a standard high school education and a Pell grant. This means that race-based preferences are relevant only to the 20-30 percent of American colleges that enjoy substantially more applicants than places. Students attending these schools have many other college options.
Marie Gryphon, a former practicing attorney, is an education policy analyst at the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/