OPINION & EDITORIAL
Holistic admissions necessary for minority progress
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Greenfield:
- YouTube debate almost progress (November 28, 2007)
- At ease, soldier: America must loosen military grip on foreign policy (November 14, 2007)
- Vouchers don't solve MPS woes, but incentives can (October 31, 2007)
- Gas tax hike would keep America's engine running (October 17, 2007)
- Holistic admissions necessary for minority progress (October 3, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Education system fails black pupils (October 8, 2007)
- UW's lack of diversity result of poor public schools (March 15, 2007)
- The race for System diversity (September 4, 2006)
- The pitfalls of holistic admissions (November 13, 2007)
- UW admissions policy lacks transparency (February 6, 2007)
by Ryan Greenfield
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
I don't mean to shock anyone, but Wisconsin is a pretty white state. It's telling that the University of Wisconsin, which itself is nearly 90 percent white, seemed like an oasis of diversity when I first moved here from my Green Bay suburb. This is not to say that Wisconsin doesn't have fantastic traditions. Between our worship of all things football, our consumption of brats, cheese curds and beer, and our polka fests, cranberry fests and summer fests, Wisconsin is a German-American's dream come true. Additionally, it's understandable that UW is largely white because state law requires that 75 percent of students come from the state.
But it's important to keep in mind that Wisconsin is simply not representative of the country, much less the world. It lacks the racial and ethnic diversity that most graduates of this university will someday encounter. This gets to the heart of the question: Does race matter anymore? Is race something we should take into consideration at all, or should we all emulate Stephen Colbert's mantra and pretend we just "don't see race?"
Some would argue that we have reached the point where society should be colorblind. Ward Connerly, a former member of the Board of Regents of the University of California system, has been campaigning to persuade states to put referenda on their ballots banning the use of race-based preferences or affirmative action in college admissions. He's currently targeting nine more states with amendments to be placed on their 2008 ballots. These amendments would be disastrous to the aim of diversity and subvert the discretion of colleges in devising admissions policy.
Mr. Connerly has already been successful in passing these initiatives in California, Washington State and Michigan. A report in the New York Times Magazine last weekend illustrated some of the challenges of maintaining diversity when preferences cannot be given to minorities. For example, in 1997, the year after the amendment banning racial preferences in California was approved, there were 221 African American freshmen at UCLA. Last fall, the number plummeted to 100. Clearly colorblind policies are not an option if universities consider diversity an important goal.
There are also compelling economic reasons for maintaining a diverse campus. Diversity is a big attraction for campus recruiters, but UW-Madison is one of the least diverse schools in the Big Ten Conference. Alcoa, General Motors and other companies have stopped recruiting on campus in recent years because of the lack of diversity here.
Proponents of affirmative action often claim that it helps rectify the legacy of slavery and racism in the history of the United States. Admission preferences may make some small step toward accomplishing that, but it is also worth acknowledging the disparities that exist currently. Many minority students attend segregated urban schools that lack the course selection and extracurricular activities offered in wealthier, suburban schools. Minority students are also more likely to live in poverty and come from single parent homes.
A new study described in an article in yesterday's issue of The Badger Herald suggests these inequalities are particularly dire in Wisconsin. According to the 2007 National Assessment of Education Progress, the gap between reading scores for white and black fourth and eighth graders is larger in Wisconsin than in any other state in the union.
Mr. Connerly would argue that all racial preferences in college admissions undermine fundamental notions of fairness. He's correct in a way. It is unfair that any white student would be refused acceptance to the college of his or her choice in order to grant acceptance to someone who is less qualified. But life is full of unfairness. Some children grow up wealthy, some poor, some athletic, some nerdy, some naturally brilliant, and some just aren't the brightest crayons in the box.
Interestingly, opponents of affirmative action don't seem to get quite so worked up about admissions preferences for legacies and athletes. Surely these preferences are just as offensive as the racial ones, right? After all, whether you're a legacy or good at sports are not things you can control.
Affirmative action is by no means a remedy to racial injustice, and it's not a substitute for government policy that works to improve underlying inequalities, but universities simply have no other means to ensure diversity. A compelling interest of universities is to give its students exposure to people from different walks of life so they encounter people with views different from their own. Racial diversity inevitably leads to exposure to these varying perspectives that are so invaluable to gaining a well-rounded education.
Of course, universities should constantly debate how much diversity is necessary and make sure they aren't admitting any students who aren't likely to be able to handle the university's course load. But diversity is important, important enough to disadvantage some college applicants for the overwhelming benefit of the group.
Ryan Greenfield (rgreenfield@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science and economics.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 7:50am):
"Of course, universities should constantly debate how much diversity is necessary and make sure they aren't admitting any students who aren't likely to be able to handle the university's course load."
Ah... the soft bigotry of the Leftist raises its condescending nose.
Of course... *sniff*
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 8:06am):
What happened to a meritocracy?
Mike Pruden (October 3, 2007 @ 8:48am):
"It is unfair that any white student would be refused acceptance to the college of his or her choice in order to grant acceptance to someone who is less qualified. But life is full of unfairness."
"But diversity is important, important enough to disadvantage some college applicants for the overwhelming benefit of the group."
What if a minority from the inner city who had the same qualifications as you got admitted here and you, a white male from suburbia, didn't. Then I think you would be singing a different tune.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 9:47am):
It seems that the title to this article doesn't fit at all with the content. I assume the editor created the title. I would say that "Holistic admissions" is only possible when the applicant pool is small. Mr. Greenfield doesn't put on the facade that racial preference at a school where there are more than 10,000 applicants is "holistic." It is racial preference. It amounts to what was done at the University of Michigan, lowering standards for African Americans and Latinos and letting in fewer whites and Asain Americans.
So I guess the argument is that I should want whites and Asian Americans to be discriminated against for three reasons:
1) I will someday, oh my gosh- i fear it is true, work with people that have a different skin color than I do. Discriminating against some races will allow me to see all of these people in college.
2) Companies like to hire people from minority backgrounds and I should be able to benefit if companies think my school has a lot of minority students. Never mind, that if a company really had such a strong preference, I would probably never get hired in the first place.
3) Lets not forget that colleges are unfair in other ways: legacy and athletes. How does the saying go, three wrongs make a right? Never mind the somewhat arbitrary grouping of athletes with legacy students.
I guess I should ask: what level of social engineering is acceptable? Is it acceptable if UW had 30% minority enrollment? I mean, it wouldn't quite match the make up of our nation. Should we judge the correct percentage by our city, state or country? Do we look at college aged persons or the community in general? When the UW Admissions airbrushed minority students over white students in its admissions materials, was that in the interest of diversity or was that in the interest of appearing to be diverse?
What about the fact that there are studies indicating that those students who are most likely to take advantage of such affirmative action programs, tend to be well off financially. So we should allow the suburban African American admittance when he or she would very well attend another school. Shouldn't the program be aimed at those that are not likely to attend college? So, wouldn't it make more sense to base such a decision on finances and the high school that was attended at opposed to the color of someone's skin?
My race doesn't make me who I am. My race should not dictate what college I attend. There is a solution to these problems: No more admissions questions asking for your race.
-2L
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 12:34pm):
Lost in all this back-and-forth over who is being discriminated against is the uncomfortable but undeniable truth that college admissions are little more than a crapshoot. Sure, we like to think that GPA and ACT scores are an accurate way to predict success, but everyone knows they are flawed methods at best, with countless exceptions to the so-called "rules".
For all the concern over who gets into college, why are not more people discussing who actually thrives and succeeds once they've made it in? What the backgrounds of the students who end up graduating magna cum laude? What actually happens to the student who graduate magna cum laude once they leave? What did those Fortune 500 CEO's we love to reference in the University commercials actually do when they were students here?
Until we can acturately predict what makes a student sucessful in college, we will have a admissions policy that will generate nothing but criticism. I would think developing such a formula would be both financially and ethically rewarding, so much so that maybe the people posting on this list would be better off developing such a policy rather than simply complain over the one we have now.
--Another 2L
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 12:53pm):
I think everyone's assumption that attending Madison is somehow going to score you a better job than if you were to attend UW-Milwaukee.
Like it's a privilage to attend Madison and carry a 2.0 GPA... the real world is going to suck for you.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 1:22pm):
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Chief Justice John Roberts
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 1:46pm):
First off, 8:06, meritocracies don't exist. Everyone is helped by someone or something else in some way, even if they choose not to see it.
Second, 12:53, it is a privilege to attend UW-Madison and carry a 2.0 GPA. I graduated with higher than that, mind you. The prestige of a large flagship public university carries a lot of weight behind it.
Last, 9:47, if you're going to bring up Michigan, please bring all of that case to the table. I will assume that you are speaking of the points system they used. If that's wrong, you can pretty much disregard this paragraph. An equal number of points was available for being brown as were for being of a lower class background. The reality in the United States is that brown folks are poorer than white folks as a group. If you disagree, you're wrong. However, a poor brown person could not receive points for being a minority as well as being of lower socioeconomic status. This amounts to preference for poor whites. Now, let's look at the other "race neutral" points available in this system. Points for a good SAT score. That usually requires test prep classes and books and being able to take the racist test that is the SAT. A handful of points for being from the UP: how many people of color do you see from there? A chunk of points for going to a good high school: also predominantly whitened points. Some more points for taking honors and AP: hard for some people of color to do since they are usually funneled into lower tracks. Points were given for legacy. That's a lot going for white people in that point system. Now let's just look at the background. A whiny white person sued because some brown people got in over her. It's University of Michigan. They get tons of applicants. I'm willing to bet that a whole lot of white people who were "less qualified" got in before this person. That's not who this person decided to target. I'll give you credit for some things: race does not make who you are and race should not dictate what college you attend. It's that "should," however, that is the problem. Regardless of your desire for it to not make an impact, race matters...a lot.
Anonymous (October 3, 2007 @ 4:04pm):
"What happened to a meritocracy?"
Meritocracy has always been a myth. If it was real, you never would have gotten into UW in the first place because you don't have merit.
Anonymous (October 12, 2007 @ 7:59am):
There's nothing new in this column that hasn't already been said before. Note to Badger columnists: if you are going to write on a subject that has been played on time and again (e.g. affirmative action, death penalty) at least say something novel. Instead you are publishing the same tired, trotted out arguments that always get thrown about pro and con on this issue.
The only real change in AA in the last 25 years is that advocates have abandoned any and all arguments regarding redressing past wrongs committed against African Americans. Instead it is all about the holy grail of diversity. That's truly disengenous for administrators to suggest they are interested in diversity. After all, I bet if you scanned the political viewpoints and affiliations of the venerable UW-Madison Political Science Department you would find a dearth of right of center thinkers?
Shouldn't we get some diversity? Aye?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
