Had one child go through the process last year, and one will this year. This looming decision obviously impacted admissions last year, and to hear the various admissions staff members at elite institutions discuss it last year, I have every confidence that they have workarounds planned for when this SCOTUS decision hits. These people come across as - by and large - deeply ideological and committed to race-based admissions no matter what. They see it as noble, and see those looking to move the process closer to merit-based as fairly synonymous with evil. Affirmative Action isn’t going away in college admissions -- it will just take on a slightly different form.
Yes, just look to California, where race-based affirmative action has been illegal for almost 30 years. This has had essentially no effect on public college admissions.
Affirmative action needs to go. As Thomas Sowell says, it just results in a mismatch between students and universities. DIE methodology can go away as well.
I applaud the work done by FAIR to change affirmative action by race, we should not forget sexism. With DEI policies, women are openly given special treatment in most aspects of our society.
Yes. Everyone focuses on that shiny thing called race. Probably because the mismatch between qualified and unqualified is so large. But open unapologetic discrimination against heterosexual white males is a much bigger problem. If they want to create a generation or two of true misogynists, this is how you do it.
I have three young granddaughters and I fear the world they will face.
“FAIR believes that diversity along many dimensions is a desirable goal in institutions of higher education.”
Once you concede that you’ve given them license to invent other ways of discriminating. Equal standards for all is not only moral, constitutional but pragmatically essential. Certain groups will not reform if continuing the current path has no cost.
I suspect Thomas Sowell would agree. It's putting the cart before the horse. What no one wants to talk about is the devastating effect these policies have on young heterosexual white men & asians.
I suppose it depends on whether one is referring to capital-D "Diversity" as in racial diversity, equity and inclusion or to the dictionary definition, which is the quality of being made up of distinct characteristics, qualities, or elements. It also depends on the aim.
I can't speak for FAIR. Diversity is defensible when the purpose is to spread the benefits of an elite education beyond the core group of mostly East Coast elites by whom and for whom the Ivies were originally created. As Hmmm said, factors to consider when assembling a diverse entering class include socioeconomic class, geography, religion, politics, interests and so on, provided that admission standards are applied uniformly.
Where schools go astray is when they justify diversity on the ground that it will somehow enhance the experience of, let's say, the stereotypical country-day- and prep-school educated WASPs from the Northeast who used to dominate elite institutions well into the 1950s.
No. The reason to admit, for example, the white son of a disabled veteran and switchboard operator from Chillocothe, Illinois (in other words, my husband's freshman roommate at Stanford) is so he'll enjoy vocational and social opportunities after graduation that would likely have been unavailable to him had he gone to State U. There's little doubt that a Stanford education and degree helped my husband's roommate secure a job with Raymond Loewy. If it hadn't been for Stanford's commitment for diversity even in the late 50s, that seat in the freshman class might have gone to another legacy like my husband or the daughter of a socially prominent family.
One reason for rejecting the justification that diversity is means enhancing the experiences of students from the dominant classes is that it runs counter to human nature. People tend to most like people who are most like them. Naturally, in any student body there will be individuals who, but virtue of their personality, temperament and history, will be more likely to befriend people from backgrounds unlike theirs. If that should happen naturally, it's nice for all concerned. But it's unfair to burden students with the expectation that they will be some sort of goodwill ambassador for their race or socioeconomic class.
I was probably a geographic diversity admit to MIT in the 70s. I was highly qualified in terms of raw potential (IQ 149), but waaaay behind my peers academically due to mediocre local public schools. Never heard of APs or calculus, for instance. I caught up, but almost drowned. First year help—or at least a warning!!— might help outcomes.
Fair question. For myself, I can see that all other things being equal, a student body that is diverse in terms of class, geography, religion, politics, interests, and so on — and yes, including race and ethnicity — can make for a more rewarding experience in a residential education setting. It could even serve to some extent the kind of function national service plays in other countries, increasing national unity through intercommunal interaction and exposure. But opposite results — increasing tension and mutual hostility — are also possible. And homogeneity has its advantages, too. It’s hard to say that diversity goals should ever trump academic merit and potential in the admissions process, especially at elite universities.
Didn’t claim that, and didn’t claim that diversity should be prioritized over other things. But not everything lends itself to keenly (?) quantitative metrics.
One of the familiar arguments in favor of considering race in admissions is that diverse viewpoints improve the quality of the educational experience. Improve it for whom?
I call this the broccoli case for affirmative action in education. Just as regular servings of broccoli improve one's nutrition, so sprinkling minorities onto campuses full of the offspring of the white upper and upper middle classes will make Geoff and Becky's college experience more meaningful.
It's enough to make one think that university presidents are trying to validate critical race theory's pernicious principle of interest convergence, which holds that whites only ever help people of color when whites also stand to gain something from it.
Is there some reason proponents don't defend racial preferences by acknowledging the obvious, which is that a degree from, say, Harvard, guarantees the holder great social mobility and exclusive social and vocational opportunities? What's wrong with saying that members of racial minorities are as ambitious and eager to get ahead in life as whites?
Could it be that such admissions would offend the racial essentialism inherent in the broccoli defense of considering color when deciding who to admit to highly competitive colleges and universities?
Had one child go through the process last year, and one will this year. This looming decision obviously impacted admissions last year, and to hear the various admissions staff members at elite institutions discuss it last year, I have every confidence that they have workarounds planned for when this SCOTUS decision hits. These people come across as - by and large - deeply ideological and committed to race-based admissions no matter what. They see it as noble, and see those looking to move the process closer to merit-based as fairly synonymous with evil. Affirmative Action isn’t going away in college admissions -- it will just take on a slightly different form.
Yes, just look to California, where race-based affirmative action has been illegal for almost 30 years. This has had essentially no effect on public college admissions.
Affirmative action needs to go. As Thomas Sowell says, it just results in a mismatch between students and universities. DIE methodology can go away as well.
https://unskool.substack.com/p/die-methodology-is-exactly-as-bad
I applaud the work done by FAIR to change affirmative action by race, we should not forget sexism. With DEI policies, women are openly given special treatment in most aspects of our society.
Yes. Everyone focuses on that shiny thing called race. Probably because the mismatch between qualified and unqualified is so large. But open unapologetic discrimination against heterosexual white males is a much bigger problem. If they want to create a generation or two of true misogynists, this is how you do it.
I have three young granddaughters and I fear the world they will face.
“FAIR believes that diversity along many dimensions is a desirable goal in institutions of higher education.”
Once you concede that you’ve given them license to invent other ways of discriminating. Equal standards for all is not only moral, constitutional but pragmatically essential. Certain groups will not reform if continuing the current path has no cost.
Basic human nature.
I suspect Thomas Sowell would agree. It's putting the cart before the horse. What no one wants to talk about is the devastating effect these policies have on young heterosexual white men & asians.
"FAIR believes that diversity along many dimensions is a desirable goal in institutions of higher education. "
Why?
I suppose it depends on whether one is referring to capital-D "Diversity" as in racial diversity, equity and inclusion or to the dictionary definition, which is the quality of being made up of distinct characteristics, qualities, or elements. It also depends on the aim.
I can't speak for FAIR. Diversity is defensible when the purpose is to spread the benefits of an elite education beyond the core group of mostly East Coast elites by whom and for whom the Ivies were originally created. As Hmmm said, factors to consider when assembling a diverse entering class include socioeconomic class, geography, religion, politics, interests and so on, provided that admission standards are applied uniformly.
Where schools go astray is when they justify diversity on the ground that it will somehow enhance the experience of, let's say, the stereotypical country-day- and prep-school educated WASPs from the Northeast who used to dominate elite institutions well into the 1950s.
No. The reason to admit, for example, the white son of a disabled veteran and switchboard operator from Chillocothe, Illinois (in other words, my husband's freshman roommate at Stanford) is so he'll enjoy vocational and social opportunities after graduation that would likely have been unavailable to him had he gone to State U. There's little doubt that a Stanford education and degree helped my husband's roommate secure a job with Raymond Loewy. If it hadn't been for Stanford's commitment for diversity even in the late 50s, that seat in the freshman class might have gone to another legacy like my husband or the daughter of a socially prominent family.
One reason for rejecting the justification that diversity is means enhancing the experiences of students from the dominant classes is that it runs counter to human nature. People tend to most like people who are most like them. Naturally, in any student body there will be individuals who, but virtue of their personality, temperament and history, will be more likely to befriend people from backgrounds unlike theirs. If that should happen naturally, it's nice for all concerned. But it's unfair to burden students with the expectation that they will be some sort of goodwill ambassador for their race or socioeconomic class.
I was probably a geographic diversity admit to MIT in the 70s. I was highly qualified in terms of raw potential (IQ 149), but waaaay behind my peers academically due to mediocre local public schools. Never heard of APs or calculus, for instance. I caught up, but almost drowned. First year help—or at least a warning!!— might help outcomes.
> Diversity is defensible when the purpose is to spread the benefits of an elite education beyond the core group of mostly East Coast elites
Who would benefit from such a purpose?
Why, anyone who is ready, willing and able to do so.
No, I mean why would university administrators want this?
Why would east coast elite children want this?
Fair question. For myself, I can see that all other things being equal, a student body that is diverse in terms of class, geography, religion, politics, interests, and so on — and yes, including race and ethnicity — can make for a more rewarding experience in a residential education setting. It could even serve to some extent the kind of function national service plays in other countries, increasing national unity through intercommunal interaction and exposure. But opposite results — increasing tension and mutual hostility — are also possible. And homogeneity has its advantages, too. It’s hard to say that diversity goals should ever trump academic merit and potential in the admissions process, especially at elite universities.
| can make for a more rewarding experience in a residential education setting
The universities have keenly quantitative metrics for the costs/benefits of this "rewardingness", surely, instead of being just asserted.
Didn’t claim that, and didn’t claim that diversity should be prioritized over other things. But not everything lends itself to keenly (?) quantitative metrics.
If "they" claim diversity is "more rewarding" but won't put data meat on the bones, one should be skeptical.
One of the familiar arguments in favor of considering race in admissions is that diverse viewpoints improve the quality of the educational experience. Improve it for whom?
I call this the broccoli case for affirmative action in education. Just as regular servings of broccoli improve one's nutrition, so sprinkling minorities onto campuses full of the offspring of the white upper and upper middle classes will make Geoff and Becky's college experience more meaningful.
It's enough to make one think that university presidents are trying to validate critical race theory's pernicious principle of interest convergence, which holds that whites only ever help people of color when whites also stand to gain something from it.
Is there some reason proponents don't defend racial preferences by acknowledging the obvious, which is that a degree from, say, Harvard, guarantees the holder great social mobility and exclusive social and vocational opportunities? What's wrong with saying that members of racial minorities are as ambitious and eager to get ahead in life as whites?
Could it be that such admissions would offend the racial essentialism inherent in the broccoli defense of considering color when deciding who to admit to highly competitive colleges and universities?