It's the provocative question that polite people don't like to ask in the presence of their friends of different races. Who really has it tougher? Black person A or white person B or Asian person C, Latino person D or multi-racial person E?
Part of why that question remains so provocative is because while many of us may believe we know the answer (and may be willing to cop to it in the comfort and privacy of our homes out of earshot of the political correctness cops), we also acknowledge that there are endless qualifiers to that question.
Statistically, black men are more likely than others to find themselves on the losing end of our criminal justice system (a fact even Ron Paul acknowledged in the last GOP debate, which is saying something). Unless of course it's 1995, you're rich, and your name is O.J. Simpson. Racial minorities are often held to higher academic and professional standards when it comes to receiving promotions at the upper echelons of their fields. Unless of course your name is Clarence Thomas and a conservative president needs to prove he's not a bigot.
When the word "unless" enters the equation, it makes it easier for people to argue that the equation itself should not exist. Welcome to the 2011 debate over affirmative action.
As recently reported in the New York Times, a legal battle that's likely headed for the Supreme Court could soon mark the end of affirmative action as we know it in higher education. (Click here to see a list of the most important legal battles in America's war over affirmative action.)
Let me state this for the record: I don't believe that I should receive an opportunity for a job or admission into an institution of higher learning over someone more qualified simply due to the color of my skin, and wouldn't want to. By the same token I wouldn't want to lose a job or admission to an institution of higher learning due to factors equally beyond my control, such as my last name or my class status, yet that kind of missed opportunity happens to people like me all of the time. (To clarify, by "people like me" I mean those of us who were not born wealthy, well connected and fabulous.)
And therein lies the dilemma in whether to end affirmative action as we know it. Colleges and universities weigh a variety of factors that have little to do with merit, in making admissions decisions. The findings of a recent survey conducted by Inside Higher Ed confirmed what many of us already know: admissions officers feel pressured to admit students from wealthy families, specifically over students who may require financial aid. This finding simply reaffirmed one of America's most embarrassing dirty little secrets: that many of the criteria used to determine admissions in higher education -- the gateway to the American Dream -- overwhelmingly benefit those born into privilege. And even in 2011, the majority of people born into privilege in this country are not racial minorities.
On the most obvious level there is the issue of legacy admissions, benefiting those whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents or other relatives attended an institution of higher learning. The second President Bush evoked the ire of affirmative action proponents when his administration famously filed a brief encouraging the Supreme Court to declare the University of Michigan's admissions process unconstitutional for the manner in which race was considered. This despite the fact that his father and grandfather's previous attendance at Yale played a much greater role in his admission than his lackluster academic record. (As a quick comparison like many black Americans, none of my grandparents, all of whom were farmers and picked cotton, had the opportunity to attend college, although considering my great-grandmother was born into slavery they did reasonably well for themselves.) But there are countless other ways in which the college admissions process is rigged to benefit the privileged.
"Internship" is code for work done for very little money and often for free. The more prestigious the internship, the more likely it pays nothing. That's great for those kids whose parents can afford to subsidize junior's summer internship at a fashion magazine, or an international charity founded by a celebrity in a foreign country. That's not so great for the average kid who has to work at Starbucks or the Gap for the summer to help out the family -- if they can even get those jobs in the current economic climate.
Then of course there are all those extracurricular activities that don't pay for themselves. If a student lists playing the violin or flute on his application, mom and dad must have paid for private lessons because music programs are being cut left and right in public schools. If an applicant lists "fluent in multiple languages" on an application, mom and dad probably paid for a private tutor, and as far as standardized test scores go? There's not a single self-respecting parent on the Upper East Side who doesn't have a tutor for that too.
My point? Those born into privilege start the college admissions process miles ahead of those not born into privilege. If there is one flaw in affirmative action as it stands now, it's not that it benefits too many racial minorities. It's that it doesn't benefit enough other people from non-privileged backgrounds.
President Obama's daughters will have opportunities in their lives that most of us will only dream of. I'm not alleging that the President and First Lady will pick up the phone and call in favors on their behalf. They won't have to. Just as both President Bushes did not have to call in favors for their children or President Clinton has not had to call in favors for his daughter. By virtue of their names and family connections, there are doors that will swing open for them at colleges, graduate schools and jobs that may be closed to many of us. Or at the very least will require one hell of a strong key to unlock.
What I find mind boggling is why so many invest energy and litigation trying to remedy being "cheated" out of opportunities by a system that they view as "unfairly" benefiting a few minority students, when the entire system unfairly benefits a group of privileged people it keeps recycling generation after generation. Where's the outrage in that? Not to mention the court challenge? Where's that "Occupy Admissions" movement? Maybe people simply assume it's a lost cause. Well, maybe it is. But here are a couple of remedies worth considering before we give up altogether.
The next time a wealthy person attempts to buy his son or daughter's way into his or her alma mater, may I suggest that instead of the college or university using that big check to build another useless recreation center and smacking that person's name on it, how about as a rule only using such contributions to subsidize the attendance of a less privileged student (or two or three or more)?
And a more extreme solution? In some Olympic sports routines are weighted differently based on their complexity. If someone attempts a complicated move and nails it they are graded on a different scale than someone who attempts a relatively easy routine. Why not apply the same thinking to admissions? If someone attended prep school, interned for Madonna's Raising Malawi Foundation at 15, traveled to the United Kingdom to intern for David Cameron at 16, while taking private cello lessons in his spare time (with an instructor who once played for the New York Philharmonic), good for him. His application should receive every consideration. But if the goal of education in this country is to create an equal playing field and equal opportunity, then I would argue that that application should actually not receive as much consideration (or as many "points" per the University of Michigan case guidelines) as the one next to it from the kid who has the same grade point average, similar SAT score, who spent summers working two jobs to help support his family, and whose only shot at the American Dream is that college admissions slot -- and the financial aid to make it possible.
Because you know what? The Malia and Sasha Obamas of the world will ultimately be just fine. It's the Malia Washingtons and Sasha Smiths of the world that we have to worry about.
Keli Goff is the author of "The GQ Candidate" and a Contributing Editor for Loop21.com where this piece originally appeared.
www.keligoff.com
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
Terrell Halaska: The Great Education Reads of 2011
Did you just pick CSU Northridge out of a hat? You might as well had exchanged it for Cal State Long Beach or San Jose State. What is an " intellectual wasteland " anyway?According to the NSF( National Science Foundation ) even Northridge leads among master's level universities ( by Carnegie classification ) in the production of future grads who will doctorates in science and engineering better than Amherst or Williams. Oh yes, we can talk about student body size if you want. According to the California Department of Labor , there are more grads of San Jose State who work as engineers and programmers in the Silicon Valley compared to Stanford. After all the CSU system has always produced the backbone of the professional workforce in California. What do you mean that legacies are in the top 1% of students in this country? No one is going to believe to you. If there are 1.2 million SAT examinees in this country, are you going to tell me that Ivy legacies belong to the top 12k students in this country? If you are going to tell me that Harvard legacies are in the top 1% of the student body at Harvard , then the Harvard student body will laugh at that proposition. There are more Harvard legacies than the top 16 students at Harvard ( the size of the Harvard freshman class is 1600 on the average ).
George Bush went to college before elite schoold became more of a meritocracy than an aristocracy .
In elite schools that lower their standards to admit alumni children , the lowering is usually only by a small degree and is much much less than the degree to which standards are lowered to admit minorities.
My father got into Harvard even though noone in his family had gone there.
Your reply to silverwolf remind me of an assertion made by parents who defend legacy preferences in the NYT online blogs who claim that their legacy children deserved to be at Harvard because they were inducted to Phi Beta Kappa or had a happy time when the got into Harvard. More than half of applicants to Harvard with perfect SAT scores are denied admission at Harvard something that I had said b4. What that means is every that for every student in the entering freshman 2011 class at Harvard and also in the past freshman classes there was someone else who had an equal or better
or better SAT score that was denied admission to Harvard because they were not considered useful to the survival of Harvard. The natural conclusion to that is very simple, it means that for every legacy student enrolled at Harvard there is always someone who had better or equal SAT scores who were denied admission at Harvard because they were not considered useful to the survival of Harvard unlike the legacy admit. And everyone of these rejected applicants in favor of an enrolled legacy had the potential to be Phi Beta Kappa and be happy at Harvard. Therefore your assertion is wrong.
Leo Cruz aka biaknabato
ako ay Pilipino
ako ay Pilipino
Leo Cruz aka biaknabato
ako ay Pilipino.
SAT scores were denied admission. You are admitted to Harvard based on your usefulness to the survival of Harvard whether the parent, student or Harvard knows it or not. That is the basic premise of admissions of any private school in this country or in the world for that matter. Go to a public university if you want your grades and SAT scores to be really appreciated since they put heavy emphasis on grades and SAT scores as a basis of admissions.Blacks are at Harvard not because the school loves them but they don't want to be accused of being racist , they don't want denounciations in the media or protests at Harvard Yard or be worried that some foundation is not going to give them money because they have too few blacks.
Even the legacy students at harvard typically have SATs in the top 1%
Since that's not happening right now, expect at least another 20 years of having to need these programs as a way to catch those with potential who had less than equal beginnings.
Ms. Goff, we need a follow-up in 20 years, after school reform.
Of course, if Texas has its way with its anti-science curriculum proposition, in 20 years there'll be a Affirmative Action program for Texans. (It may be too late by then to save them, however.)
But as the father of a high school senior I see one flaw in your weighted application idea. While you say the kids of privilege will "ultimately be just fine," if their applications and accomplishments are given less weight than those of hard-working kids who didn't have the opportunities that come with money, can't being "just fine" also include admission to an upper-tier university?
Just as kids born into poor families don't choose their circumstances, kids born into privileged families didn't choose that either. But if those privileged kids get good grades and do the internships and learn the languages and the musical instruments, etc., why should their accomplishments and applications be given less weight? You're essentially penalizing a teenager for having rich parents.
Unfortunately, college admissions, especially at the top schools, is a zero-sum game. If Harvard, for instance, only accepts 2,000 freshmen every year, every slot someone else gets means one less slot available to you.
I don't know what the answer is. My son certainly wasn't born into privilege and he works part-time to save money for college. I would hope that a college will look at the entire body of work and effort to consider him and any other worthy candidate. But I'm not sure it's fair to an equally qualified kid to make less of his resume, simply because his parents helped make that resume happen.
Hospitals colleges and the Military should be integrated affairs, but it's quite obvious that the racial issue of Affirmative Action will never go away because many African- Americans like me don't trust the majority White population to act in a racially responsible way because of systemic racially capitalistic system set up. And colorblindness is does not exist because it assumes that there was never a racial history between African- Americans and the majority White Population that involved discrimination based economics, politics and violence.
Harvard: 50% female admissions
NYU: 61% female admissions (and five gender choices on the application as well- go figure).
Ironic, since affirmative action was meant for minorities when Kennedy proposed it 50 years ago. But like any good government bureaucracy, it just keeps rolling along finding this year's disaffected.
Either get with the times or stop clicking the keys.
Affirmative action ends when White male privilege is no more...then and then only...
Many White males will never give their power or privilege because to them they created America and Minorites are screwing it up with our demands for social justice and "social justice" to these people mean A.A. and the Civil Rights and Housing acts. That's why conservative appeals of we will end of these things and judge them on merit.
On the African, Chinese, Native American, etc's backs. Wouldn't be an American without cheap/free labor in its beginnings.