On Jan. 10th, the University of Michigan began reviewing applications for admission under a new system that excludes all considerations of race. This new method of review is the result of Proposal 2—a ballot initiative passed by 58 percent of Michigan’s voters on Nov. 7th, which outlaws the use affirmative action in all decisions regarding state hiring and public institutions of higher education.
It should not be remarkable that a state-funded institution is complying with the mandate of a clear majority of the voters of a state. However, given University President Mary Sue Coleman’s initial reaction, such compliance does come as somewhat of a surprise. Only one day after Proposal 2 passed, a defiant Coleman addressed a group of Michigan students, faculty, and community members announcing that she was, “deeply disappointed” about the passage of the proposal. “We will find ways to overcome the handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for greater diversity,” she proclaimed, making it clear that she was willing to use taxpayer dollars in attempt to subvert the will of a majority of the state’s taxpayers. And Coleman even seemed confident about her ability to do so; quoting Susan B. Anthony she assured the crowd that, “failure is impossible.”
However, less than three months later, Michigan has, at least temporarily, been shackled with the “handcuffs” of the voters’ will; for the time being, Michigan is using a race-neutral policy, though prospects for future legal challenges are unclear. This is a major victory for opponents of affirmative action. Perhaps because of the drama surrounding the Democratic takeover of congress and the large number of hot-button social issues on ballots around the country, Proposal 2 did not receive the same level of national attention that affirmative action issues have garnered in recent years. But, while affirmative action may have temporarily moved from the top of the agenda, this is still an important initiative and one that should serve as a model for other states.
Arguments opposing affirmative action based on individual rights and the lack of fairness inherent in the double standards racial preferences create, have been made countless times, and are convincing to many people. However, there is another strain of arguments about the drawbacks of race-based affirmative action policies: one that focuses on the cumulative effect that such policies have on race-relations. The thought is that systems of racial preferences breed animosity among many white students who feel they are being treated unfairly, minorities who succeed on their own merits are surrounded with a stigma, and white students who fail on their own have a crutch to cling to: they can blame affirmative action, and consequently blame and resent minority groups.
This is why Dr. Carol Swain,
Vanderbilt professor of law and political science, says that it is time
to move away from race-based affirmative action policies. In her 2002
book The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenges to Intergration,
Swain points out that, “affirmative action policy has outlived whatever
usefulness it may have had in the past, and that the continuation of
the policy in its present form threatens the racial peace and repose
of an increasingly race-conscious population.” Swain’s arguments
about the role that affirmative action has played in catalyzing the
growth of the white nationalist movement are convincing. It also seems
that even among people who haven’t been drawn into extremist groups,
feelings about affirmative action policy—particularly affirmative
action in higher education-- seems to aggravate racial tension. Nowhere
is the effect more clear than on internet message boards where anonymous
handles allow users to express their feelings about race relations in
a forum where political correctness does not apply.
In reading through one such site, Lawschooldiscussions.org-a forum for perspective and current law students at law schools- I came across both fierce debates and snide comments regarding racial preferences. Some of these debates may be constructive. What is more worrisome is the evidence these forums present of racial tensions that lay dormant under the service and come out in the responses to the posts of other users. If a student announces they got into a school with numbers that are below average for that school, inevitably someone will ask, “Are you a URM?-” URM, of course, standing for Under-Represented Minority. In a thread called “define black people,” posters lamented the fact that, “Only those with operational melanin cells may get URM status.”
This forum also presents some
insight into the psychological impact that affirmative action policies
have on minority applicants. In announcing their acceptances, minority
students often feel the need to include their status as a URM as part
of the explanation of their acceptance. A user who had just been accepted
to New York University Law School summed up her profile announcing her
GPA, her score on the Law School Admissions Test: “3.3, 169,
URM (sorry not as helpful to you probably).” Her unsolicited acknowledgement
that she is being held to different standards is evidence that double
standards have unfortunate consequences for those on both sides of them.
Obviously affirmative action
policies are no justification for white nationalism, and many of the
reactions to such policies are inappropriate. However, as long as these
polices continues, it is likely that these reactions will continue.
This is largely because, despite the fact that the responses are inappropriate,
there is an underlying principle that many of them are grasping on to:
affirmative action does negatively effect the lives of
Looking at the another site
related to law school admission, lawschoolnumbers.com
(LSN), provides evidence that URM status can make or break a borderline
candidate at top law schools. The data on this site is certainly not
perfect—it is only a sample of the total population of law school
applicants, and it self-reported, meaning that there is opportunity
for fraud. However, keeping this caution in mind, LSN is an interesting
source of data: it allows users to see other applicants’ grade point
averages, LSAT scores, and “soft factors,” which include extra-curricular
activities, work experience, and race, and to connect these variables
with the decision that each law school makes regarding their application,
What you find on LSN is evidence of the individuals that affirmative action impacts—both those who benefit from it and those who miss out on opportunities they otherwise might have had. Looking at the data from the past two cycles for Yale Law School— widely considered to be the most prestigious law school—it is clear the role that race is playing in shaping who gets through the ivy gates. Over that time period almost two-thirds of the students who were admitted to Yale with an LSAT that was below the median percentile, and all the applicants who reported being accepted with an LSAT score below the 25th percentile were self-reported members of minority groups. But, someone might respond, these applicants likely had very desirable characteristics that caused the admissions committee to look beyond their LSAT scores, but law school admissions is widely acknowledged to be largely numbers driven—with ones LSAT score being the single most important variable.
In her speech, President Coleman assured the crowd, “You have my word as president that we will fight for what we believe in, and that is holding open the doors of this university to all people.” No one is denying that’s an honorable goal, but the questions becomes: is that what affirmative action does? Looking at the impact of affirmative action it actually seems like it pulling people in the door at the expense of shutting it on some other individuals. But the really ironic thing is the, because of the unintended consequences of affirmative action policies, the doors is hitting some of those people on the way in.
Though undoubtedly formed with the best of intentions, affirmative actions should be reconsidered. Proposal 2 is a step toward truly leaving the door open to all people.
Comments