August 11, 2009--Affirmative Action In Action

If there is a third rail in what remains of the Culture Wars it is affirmative action.

This was on full display, often smoldering just below the surface, during the confirmation process for now Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Her vote on the New Haven fire department affirmative action case, where she joined the majority in finding that minorities’ rights were violated by the nature of the examination and promotion process, convinced conservatives that she would be a judicial activist.

And, it was further claimed, that she was not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court because she herself had been the beneficiary of affirmative action. How else would she have been admitted to Princeton and then, after graduating with undoubtedly inflated grades, how else could she have been admitted to Yale Law School and then subsequently been appointed to the federal bench? And so on.

This is a more nuanced subject that the hot rhetoric on both sides of the issue would suggest. First, a little history:

The term "affirmative action" was introduced by President Kennedy in 1961 as a method to redress discrimination that persisted in spite of civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees. After his death, it was enforced for the first time by President Lyndon Johnson who said, “This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek… not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result." [Emphasis added.]

For many, this assertion about the equality of results was inflammatory since to opponents this could only mean that they would have to be realized via quotas and by ignoring the fact that minorities and women (who turned out to be the major beneficiaries of affirmative action—something frequently and conveniently overlooked in our heated racial politics) were either genetically inferior (there was and still is a lot of this feeling loose in the land) or incapable of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. The inequities that were undeniable were more the result of laziness and a failure to seize the opportunities that existed than any systemic forms of discrimination.

Things get even more complicated when we recall that though affirmative action initially was to focus primarily on education and jobs, and that its policies required that active measures be taken to ensure that blacks, other minorities, and women enjoyed the same opportunities for promotion, salary increases, school admissions, and scholarships that had been the nearly exclusive province of whites and men, from the outset, affirmative action was envisioned as a temporary remedy that would end once there was a level playing field for all Americans.

While arguments swirl about the meaning of “level playing field” and when we will know it has been achieved, does having an African-American president and a Latina Supreme Court justice suggest we are there? Or close? Does the fact that at least half the students in America’s law and medical schools are women suggest that it might be time to begin to ratchet back affirmative action admission programs? Does the fact that boys in public schools now lag behind girls in achievement test scores mean that the field is leveled? Or leveling?

While you ponder these vexing questions, be assured that various, under-reported, extra-legal kinds of affirmative action practices are proceeding full speed ahead.

For example, in the state of Illinois, the New York Times reported the other day that, quote, “Top officials of the University of Illinois developed a sophisticated shadow admissions process for applicants who were supported by politicians, donors, and other prominent sponsors.” (Article linked below.)

As a former senior university administrator I can assure you that Illinois is not alone in acting in this perverse-affirmative way. It is rampant. And it is even more on display at virtually all of our most elite private colleges and universities. This is something not widely spoken about, but between 10 and 15 percent of places in their freshmen classes are reserved for children of alumni. Especially for children of those alums who have been the best citizens of their alma maters. Read, major benefactors. Read, those who sent in the biggest checks.

Harvard has its notorious Z-List of legacy admits; and at Yale, children of alumni are admitted at the rate of about 30 percent of those who apply, much higher than from the pool of non-legacy applicants, and they make up about 15 percent of the total undergraduate student body.

To be fair, not all legacy admits have lower high school GPAs and lower SAT scores. But there is clear evidence that many, many do. Ironically, one of Yale’s most famous alums, George W. Bush back in 2004 called on Yale to end it practice of admitting legacies with lower qualifications. Forgetting, for the moment, that that is precisely how he managed to get admitted in spite of doing poorly in prep school. And forgetting that after doing C+ work at Yale he somehow managed to get into Harvard’s MBA program. If it hadn't been for father President George H. W. and grandfather Senator Prescott, George W. would have been left to commute to Midland Texas Community College.

So, let’s keep searching for the meaning of “level playing field,” but while we’re at it, let’s stop demagoguing this issue. It has served many very, very well—from the George Bushes to the Sonya Sotomayors.