Center for Equal Opportunity

The nation’s only conservative think tank devoted to issues of race and ethnicity.


Last update07:19:18 AM

Back You are here: Home Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action

Skin Color Determines “Who Gets In”

A new book by Rebecca Zwick, Who Gets In?, has some interesting data on, among other things, the effect of racial preferences on university admissions.  According to the discussion this week in Inside Higher Ed:

What she found is that an admissions system based solely on grades and test scores would result in significant increases in Asian [and white] enrollments and declines in enrollments of underrepresented minority [i.e., black and Latino, and sometimes American Indian] students. …

Model for Impact of Different Admissions Models at Colleges That Admit Less Than 10% of Applicants



If Decisions Based Only on Grades/Test Scores

If Race-Based Affirmative Action Added

If Socioeconomic Affirmative Action Added











More than one race










The article notes, “Zwick is a major proponent of affirmative action, but some of the data in the book may well be useful to those trying to eliminate the consideration of race in admissions.”  You bet.  And of course the Center for Equal Opportunity has done many, many studies (scroll down to the bottom of this page on our website for more information) that likewise document the heavy weight schools are giving to race in their admissions.

*          *          *

The lead editorial in the New York Times on Monday this week bemoaned “Segregation in New York Schools.”  Of course, there are no segregated public schools in New York or anywhere in this country in 2017:  Segregated means telling kids of one color that, because of their color, they cannot attend schools with kids of a different color, and that doesn’t happen.  What we have are racial imbalances, but those imbalances are labeled “segregation” if they are of a sort that the Left doesn’t like. 

But the silliness of the editorial continues beyond its title.  The Times is unhappy not only with imbalances that can be traced only to residential living patterns, but also if they are a result of school choice.  In particular, the Times doesn’t like the fact that sometimes school choice is limited by a student’s ability to pass some sort of academic requirement.  Can’t have that! 

No doubt if parents of certain colors are, statistically speaking, more likely to become informed about where the good schools are and to put their children in those schools — well, that too would be “segregation.”  The Times admits that its criterion for whether the choice system is working or not is whether it meets the racial quotas that its editorial writers want.

*          *          *

I was on the Samantha Bee show last week, to defend the practice of disenfranchising felons until they have shown they have turned over a new leaf.  Ms. Bee is not my favorite television personality, but she was kind enough to invite me and introduce me as “the leading voice” on our side of the aisle.  Here was my basic message to her:

If you aren’t willing to follow the law yourself, then you can’t demand a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote.  The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis after a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf, not automatically on the day someone walks out of prison.  After all, the unfortunate truth is that most people who walk out of prison will be walking back in. 

I suppose if Jesus felt obliged to eat with sinners and tax collectors, I should be willing to talk with Samantha Bee.

*          *          *

Speaking of the felon voting issue, a bill that would automatically reenfranchise felons has passed both houses of the Nevada state legislature.  Here’s hoping that Nevada governor Brian Sandoval will veto it when it’s presented to him, as Nebraska governor Pete Ricketts did last month.  The Center for Equal Opportunity had urged Governor Ricketts to take that action, by the way, and we have done so with Governor Sandoval as well.

*          *          *

Samuel Johnson famously said, “People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed.”  And so in that spirit, let me remind you of the mission statement of the Center for Equal Opportunity:

The Center for Equal Opportunity is the nation’s only conservative think tank devoted to issues of race and ethnicity. Our fundamental vision is straightforward: America always has been a multiethnic and multiracial nation, and is becoming even more so; this makes it imperative that our national policies not divide our people according to skin color and national origin; but rather, these policies should emphasize and nurture the principles that unify us. E pluribus unum. . . out of many, one.

We work to promote a colorblind society, one within which race and skin color are no longer an issue and so accordingly we oppose admission, hiring, and contracting policies that discriminate, sort, or prefer on the basis of race or ethnicity. We oppose racial gerrymandering. We oppose bilingual education, because it segregates students by national origin, encourages identity politics, and fails to teach children English — the single most important skill they can learn and the most important social glue holding our country together. And, whatever one believes to be an acceptable level of immigration, all should agree that those coming to America must become Americans, and this means that assimilation is not a dirty word, but a national necessity.

When you think about it, what — besides protection from foreign enemies — is more important to our country’s long-term health than making sure Americans are not divided into racial or ethnic enclaves, but instead share fundamental common values and see each other and themselves as, first and foremost, Americans? And can there be any doubt that we need to attend to this with more care than we have in recent years? Doing so is the mission of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

It seemed to be a good time for such a reminder. Sad to say but there are still racial and ethnic divisions, and of course it is always important to ensure the assimilation of our immigrants.  The path forward is not identity politics (of Left or Right); or multiculturalism; or institutionalized discrimination of the politically correct kind — or lowered standards — to ensure predetermined racial results.  The right policy remains colorblind equal opportunity and the principle of E pluribus unum, of sharing fundamental common values and seeing and treating each other as Americans first.

Keeping an Eye on College Admission Officers

Ashley Thorne, executive director of the National Association of Scholars, recently posted an essay on Minding the Campus (“Dismissing the Reality of Affirmative Action”) that was both kind and accurate regarding the word of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

The Gallup Organization and Inside Higher Ed co-hosted a conference in Washington on September 15, “Not out of the Woods:  Colleges, Diversity and Affirmative Action after a Year of Protest and Court Battles.”  Most of those in attendance were university officials of one kind or another. 

Ms. Thorne, who attended the whole conference (I did not), said those officials were

determined to ignore the results of a Gallup survey for IHE showing that nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose affirmative action in college admissions. About 75 to 100 attendees, mostly college administrators, focused on reaction to the Supreme Court decision last June 23rd— Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin – in which the court upheld racial preferences. Educators and student affairs administrators found the survey results mysterious but chalked them up to white privilege, bias, and ignorance.

She continued:

Only one person on the conference program represented the opinion of the public to this audience. That was Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, who spoke in the opening session on the court’s decision. Inside Higher Ed editor Scott Jaschik introduced him saying, “For those who think you’re safe, Roger’s watching you.”

I’m grateful to Mr. Jaschik for inviting me, even if I was the only one on my side of the aisle there, and I could not have asked for a better encapsulation of the message I wanted to send those attending:  You’re being watched.
Ms. Thorne then summarized what I had to say — which I will do, too, in a moment — and concluded:

[Mr. Clegg] said his organization will bring FOIA requests and lawsuits against colleges that use racial preferences without jumping through all the necessary hoops.

The room seemed tense after Clegg spoke, but his fellow panelists and the audience basically ignored the substance of his remarks and did not refer to him again the rest of the day. After that panel, the atmosphere settled into one of complacency and the assumption that everyone agreed that racial diversity has educational benefits.

Even during his panel, another speaker, Art Coleman (Managing Partner and Co-Founder, Education Counsel) said, “Forget the law.” He said if you want to do the “educationally right thing,” you should figure that out first, then the law. The University of Texas, he said, had told the Supreme Court what the law should be.

All accurate, as I said.

More on What I Said

On my panel were, in addition to Art Coleman, Art Rodriguez (dean of admission and financial aid at Vassar College), and Harold Levy of the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.

I began by agreeing with Art Coleman that it is important to keep in mind that none of the Court’s decisions on the use of racial preferences in university admissions — Bakke, Gratz, Grutter, and Fisher I and II — has reversed any of the other decisions.

And those decisions, while unfortunately keeping the door open for racial preferences, have also put constraints on their use.   In a word, schools must document that the use of such preferences is the only way to achieve the “educational benefits” of a “diverse” student body.  I had elaborated on those constraints for IHE here (Fisher II), as I had earlier for the Chronicle of Higher Education here (Fisher I).

And despite Mr. Coleman’s rather inartful suggestion that schools “Forget the law,” he’s actually made clear over the years that they should not do so, and has himself described the hoops that need to be, and should be, jumped through.  He’s not the only left-of-center person to recognize this reality; Mark Yudof and Rachel Moran made the same point, post–Fisher II, in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

I corrected Mr. Coleman’s suggestion that all of the justices accept the purported “educational benefits” of “diversity” as being a “compelling” enough interest to justify racial discrimination.  There’s certainly no reason to think that the Chief Justice, let alone Justice Alito, let alone Justice Thomas, would be unwilling to overturn Grutter.

I also corrected Mr. Coleman’s suggestion that treating people without regard to skin color somehow deprives them of their “dignity,” to use Justice Kennedy’s word of the moment, which Mr. Coleman had quoted.

And then, as Ms. Thorne notes, I structured the rest of my remarks around the three choices that schools now have in the wake of Fisher II with regard to the way they use admission preferences on the basis of race and ethnicity.

The first and best choice is simply to end the use of racial preferences.  This is not a complete pipe dream:  Most schools, indeed, do not use preferences, if for no reason other than the fact that they are not terribly selective.  One hopes that some schools, whose use of preferences in only marginal, might be persuaded to take the pledge and adopt colorblind admissions.  Consider, after all, the strong pros for that approach, and the strong cons against continued discrimination; Ms. Thorne summarized what I said this way:

  1. Not factoring race into admissions is what most people favor, as the Gallup poll showed.
  2. There are no legal problems with not using racial preferences.
  3. It is fairer. Poverty and privilege come in all colors. Using skin color as a proxy for disadvantage is unjust.
  4. It avoids the costs of discrimination, including stigmatization, resentment, mismatch, and encouragement of an unhealthy obsession with race that spills over into protests. 

The second choice schools might adopt is to continue to use racial and ethnic admission preferences, but to do so in a way that is legal — that is, that jumps through the hoops that the Supreme Court has set out.  On this point, I noted that the courts might be headed to requiring extensive documentation of the necessity for using racial preferences before they can be used, analogous to the “disparity studies” now required prior to using such preferences in government contracting.  Professor George La Noue, of the University of Maryland/Baltimore County, is an expert on the latter and has made this point; I also noted that these studies can be expensive and must be frequently updated.

The third choice available to schools is, I noted, the worst choice but the one that many would, alas, make:  To use racial preferences illegally.

Morality aside, the problem with breaking the law here is that you’ll be caught.  Our organization, the Center for Equal Opportunity, has filed many, many FOIA requests with universities over the years, and that’s not going to change.  We will ask for all documents related to the various hoops that schools are supposed to jump through:  for example, the studies mentioned above that Justice Kennedy wants done, the consideration of race-neutral alternatives, the periodic review of racially preferential measures, and so forth.  Schools that respond that they have no such records are admitting that they have not jumped through those hoops; you cannot do all this without a paper trail.

And they’ll be sued. CEO will turn over this information to a litigating organization, or to Edward Blum’s lawyers, or at least to friendly members in a state legislature, and the fun will begin.

Brisk Business Likely

Initial indications are that we’ll have plenty of business.  Inside Higher Ed had a story recently on its latest survey of college and university admission directors, and it contains much of interest.

For example, “in a potentially notable finding, a significant minority of college admissions directors now say (in contrast to past surveys but consistent with the views of many advocates for Asian-American applicants) that their colleges generally admit only Asian applicants with higher grades and test scores than other applicants.”  That is, four out of ten directors at both public and private schools indicated that they believe Asian-American applicants are held to a higher standard at “some” places; and 41 percent of public-school respondents and 30 percent of private-school respondents admitted that this was the case at their own university or college.  That is, indeed, “notable.”

Another juicy tidbit has to do with the Supreme Court ruling in Fisher II.  The new IHE report notes that the Court “cited the research the school did over the years to show why it needed to consider race in admissions — and the decision said that colleges need to have conducted such studies to consider race.” But, the report continues, the recent “survey results suggest that relatively few colleges have done or plan to do such studies.”  Indeed, “only 13 percent of colleges said they conducted studies similar to those the Supreme Court cited as making the Texas approach legal. And only 24 percent said they planned to either start or continue such studies.” And this, the report correctly notes, “could make some colleges vulnerable to lawsuits.”

To look at it another way, three out of four schools interpret Fisher as giving them a green light to engage in admissions discrimination for the foreseeable future, and only 4 percent said they planned to change admissions practices in light of the Court’s ruling.
Trustees and alumni should take note of this, by the way.  No matter how sympathetic one is to political correctness, it’s irresponsible for a school to break the law and set itself up for a ruinous lawsuit.

Which brings us back again to my main message for the college officials:  You’re being watched.  If you use racial preferences, we’ll find out.  You’ll then be required by the FOIA laws to document that you have jumped through the hoops that the Supreme Court has set out; and if you can’t do that, you will be sued, and you will lose.

Answering Linda Greenhouse’s Question

Linda Greenhouse recently had a meandering New York Times column about Fisher v. University of Texas – in which  the Supreme Court is considering a challenge to racial and ethnic preferences in student admissions –  in which she unhappily concedes that the “diversity” rationale is the only way that universities can legally justify their use of such preferences. And she poses the core question that follows this way: “If diversity is the only acceptable rationale for taking account of race, as the court insists, then what is the rationale for diversity?”

Luckily (or unluckily) for her, I answered this question earlier on ScotusBlog.  It’s a detailed answer, but I think an important one, and I hope worth devoting this week’s email to:

Here’s the basic question in Fisher:  Just what is it that we expect African-American and Latino students to say to white and Asian-American students that will provide the latter with such compelling “educational benefits” that racial discrimination by the government is justified to make it more likely that these conversations take place?

The purported existence of such conversations – which is what the “diversity” justification boils down to – is the only justification for admission preferences that the University of Texas is using or can use.  The Court has rejected the remedial justification in this context (and rightly so); it has rejected the role model justification (and rightly so); there is nothing else left (and rightly so).

So we need to think carefully about what these conversations might be.  Now, I am going to discuss why I think it is hard to imagine anything that will fit the bill, but those who disagree ought to spell out what oral observations they think do fit the bill.  Fair enough?

For starters, I say “oral” because they really ought not to be something that could just as easily be read, since then the observations might simply be assigned as class reading.  It would be better if the lessons were not simply about equality or tolerance or treating other people as human beings, if it is likely that such straightforward lessons have already been learned (at home or grade school or church or on Sesame Street) or can be learned elsewhere (say, at work).   And the observations should really be about something that only black and Latino students are likely to know.

So it can’t be an observation about growing up poor, because there are poor people of all colors; and of course the overwhelming majority of, say, African Americans who are admitted to our more selective schools – that is, the ones likely to weigh race and ethnicity – are from middle- or upper-class backgrounds (eighty-six percent, according to the race-preference Bible, The Shape of the River).

It can’t be an observation about growing up as a slave, or under Jim Crow, or during the Civil Rights Era – because the eighteen-year-old students getting these preferences in 2012 were born in, let’s see, 1994, thirty years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  True, these students may have faced other discrimination – but then, so may have Asian students and Middle Eastern students (and, for that matter, the European-American students who’ve recently applied to college).   One reason that, say, Justice O’Connor might have assumed that all black people and all white people live in different worlds growing up was that, for her when she was growing up, there was a lot more truth to that than there is today.

If it’s not socioeconomic disadvantage or history, then perhaps there is a particular African-American perspective on calculus, or a Latino perspective on economics.  I mean, to be compelling it must have something to do with something weightier – less stereotypical – than food or rap music.  No?

Well, there must be something that middle-class eighteen-year-old African Americans and Latinos can tell eighteen-year-old whites and Asians that they are incapable of thinking of or reading about on their own.  Perhaps whites and Asians have never heard of racial profiling or the Trayvon Martin case, for example.

Whether the lesson schools are trying to teach is that African Americans have a particular point of view or, rather contradictorily, that African Americans don’t have a particular point of view – both are urged with equal vigor, even though the former relies on stereotyping and the latter seems rather obvious in a country that includes Condoleezza Rice and Whoopi Goldberg, Bill Cosby and Snoop Dogg, Herman Cain and Barack Obama  – it is odd that schools use racial essentialism in admissions and expect students to use it when listening to someone.  At least, it is odd if students are being taught not to judge other people by their skin color.

What’s more, schools have to have faith not only that these observations can be made, but that they will be made.  That is, they can’t know for sure what observations (if any) a black or Latino student might make in class; it is even harder to predict what observations that student will make outside of class.  So they have to have faith that those observations will be offered – and that a lot of counterproductive statements won’t be offered – as well as that the benefits from them being offered will justify something as ugly as racial discrimination.

Perhaps it’s not so much what the student says as it is how he or she says it.  That is, what schools are really hoping that whites and Asians will learn from “diversity” is that African Americans and Latinos are just as smart as they are (by the way, is there any evidence that, in a country whose laws and popular culture systematically condemn racial bigotry, this is a widespread problem?).  Of course, if it is of compelling importance that this point get made, it would be foolish to create a campus where the white and Asian students are systematically required to have better academic qualifications than the black and Latino students – which is exactly what schools are doing, of course.

Now, how compelling do these “educational benefits” have to be?  At a minimum, they have to be compelling enough to outweigh the costs of using racial preferences.  In fact, they must significantly outweigh those costs, since if something does as much harm as good, or even just a little more good than harm, the benefits can hardly be compelling.

So here’s a list of the costs of using racial preferences in university admissions: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it mismatches African Americans and Latinos with institutions, setting them up for failure; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school and encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership – an untenable legal regime as America becomes an increasingly multiracial, multiethnic society and as individual Americans are themselves more and more likely to be multiracial and multiethnic (starting with our president).

By the way, the social-science evidence that there are compelling educational benefits that outweigh the costs is underwhelming, as discussed in the amicus briefs filed in Fisher by Abigail Thernstrom et al., Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., Gail Heriot et al., the Pacific Legal Foundation et al., (including my organization), and a group of economics and statistics scholars.  My point in this post is that, simply as a matter of logic, it could hardly be otherwise.

*          *          *

Finally, we hope that all of you who were in the way of this weekend’s big snowstorm are safe and warm!

We’re Watching You, College Officials

The Pope Center for Higher Education Policy asked me to write about my recent appearance at a conference in Washington, D.C., at which I warned college officials that the Center for Equal Opportunity was watching their use of racial and ethnic preferences in admissions.  Here’s the essay that I sent the Pope Center and that it published (there’s also a link here):

The Gallup Organization and Inside Higher Ed co-hosted a conference in Washington on September 15. They called it “Not Out of the Woods: Colleges, Diversity and Affirmative Action after a Year of Protest and Court Battles.” Most of those in attendance were university officials of one kind or another.
I was the sole participant who takes a negative view of racial preferences in college admissions, which I regard as both legally defective and educationally damaging, among other pernicious defects.

Two subjects were up for discussion: the legal environment for racial preferences in college admissions following the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Fisher v. University of Texas and a Gallup poll showing low levels of approval for racial preferences among the public. I spoke mainly on the former, but as to the latter, Ashley Thorne of the National Association of Scholars observed in this essay that “Educators and student affairs administrators found the survey results mysterious but chalked them up to white privilege, bias, and ignorance.”

I was introduced by Scott Jaschik of Inside Higher Ed who explained that my organization (the Center for Equal Opportunity) opposes racial preferences and then added, “For those of you who think you’re safe, Roger is watching you.” He’s right.

In my presentation, I argued that, following Fisher, college officials have three options.

First, they can choose not to use racial preferences at all.

Second, if they do consider a student’s race in admission decisions, they can do so in ways that are narrowly tailored to some legitimate objective (not merely to fill an arbitrary quota), showing that they have first tried race-neutral options. That is, they can follow the legal constraints that have been put on using racial preferences.

Third, they can use racial preferences illegally. But schools that appear to do that will be scrutinized, hit with Freedom of Information Act requests, and possibly sued.

I went on to explain why colleges should drop racial preferences: They are not only legally problematic but widely unpopular with the public, as the poll showed; using race as a proxy for disadvantage is unjust and inaccurate; and schools that don’t use preferences avoid a host of problems including stigmatization, resentment, mismatch, and the encouragement of an unhealthy obsession with race.

My arguments were not greeted with wild applause. As Ashley Thorne (who stayed for the entire event, which I could not) wrote in her essay, “The room seemed tense after Clegg spoke, but his fellow panelists and the audience basically ignored the substance of his remarks and did not refer to him again the rest of the day. After that panel, the atmosphere settled into one of complacency and the assumption that everyone agreed that racial diversity has educational benefits.”

An excellent example of that complacency was this statement by one of the members of my panel, Art Coleman(managing partner and co-founder of the Education Counsel):“Forget the law.” If you want to do the “educationally right thing,” he declared, you should figure that out first, then the law. The University of Texas, Coleman stated, had told the Supreme Court “what the law should be.”

I agreed with Coleman that it is important to keep in mind that none of the Court’s decisions on racial preferences in university admission—Bakke, Gratz, Grutter, and Fisher I and II—has reversed any of the other decisions. And those decisions, while unfortunately keeping the door open for racial preferences, have also put constraints on their use. Schools must, the Court has held, document that the use of such preferences is the only way to achieve the “educational benefits” of a “diverse” student body.

And despite Coleman’s rather inartful suggestion that schools “forget the law,” he himself has actually made clear over the years that they should not do so, and has himself described the hoops that need to be, and should be, jumped through. Colleges that don’t comply with the law risk lawsuits.

I corrected Mr. Coleman’s suggestion that all of the justices accept the purported “educational benefits” of “diversity” as being a “compelling” enough interest to justify racial discrimination.  There’s certainly no reason to think that the Chief Justice, let alone Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, accept the claim that diversity produces any educational benefits, much less ones so substantial as to justify discrimination against American students who are not classified as being in a “diverse” group.

I also disputed Coleman’s suggestion that treating people without regard to skin color somehow deprives them of their “dignity.” I think it’s the other way around.

Morality aside, the problem with breaking the law here is that schools will be caught.

My organization, the Center for Equal Opportunity, has filed many, many FOIA requests with universities over the years, and that’s not going to change. We will ask for all documents related to the various hoops that schools are supposed to jump through: for example, the studies that Justice Kennedy wants done, the consideration of race-neutral alternatives, the periodic review of racially preferential measures, and so forth.

Schools that respond that they have no such records are admitting that they have not done what the law requires of them. They cannot blissfully engage in racial preferences without a paper trail, no matter how much officials may believe that they’re “doing the right thing.”

Trustees and alumni should take note of this. No matter how sympathetic one is to political correctness, it is irresponsible for a school to break the law and set itself up for a ruinous lawsuit.

Which brings us back to my message for college officials: You are being watched.

Some Advice for University Officials — and Happy Thanksgiving!

Yale launches five-year, $50 million initiative to increase faculty diversity

Each campus protest is different, and the demands in each are different, too. Some are illegal (racial quotas for faculty hiring), some are themselves otherwise racist and divisive (demands of acknowledgment of “white privilege”), some might even be worth considering (though even a reasonable demand should not be considered if violently or otherwise illegally made).

But here’s an easy one from Dartmouth: If protestors assault other students and deliberately keep them from studying — the only thing students are really supposed to have to do at a university — then the president should call in the police, and the thugs should be arrested by the latter and expelled by the former.

My friend Hans Bader also notes that what happened at Dartmouth was not just a disruption but a racist disruption, and that black-on-white racial harassment has been recognized by the courts as a violation of the law, just as white-on-black racial harassment is.  (For those who would like to look that up, he cites Bowen v. Missouri Dept. of Social Services, 311 F.3d 878 (Eighth Cir. 2002), and Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233 (Fifth Cir. 1998).)  So where are the education reporters, to say nothing of the Obama administration officials, who profess to be so concerned about campus racism?

Yale to Spend $50 Million on Faculty Diversity – Yale has announced  that it will spend $50 million over the next five years in order to improve its faculty’s “diversity.” 

One expects that this money will be used not to increase the number of Republicans, conservatives, or evangelical Christians, but to make more hiring and promotion decisions based on race, ethnicity, and sex.  As the Chronicle of Higher Education noted in its story, “Yale faced criticism last month for a lack of racial diversity among its faculty members. According to … The Yale Daily News, a poster put up on the campus called attention to statistics reflecting a much higher representation of minorities among undergraduate students than among professors.” 

But as I noted in my post to the Chronicle article:  “I hope that Yale’s (my alma mater’s) general counsel is involved, since it is illegal to weigh race, ethnicity, and sex in the hiring and promotion of faculty. The ‘diversity’ exception that has been carved out of the law for student admissions does not apply to employment discrimination law. More here.”

*          *          *

To make sure that Alexander Dreier, Yale’s general counsel, was involved, I sent him this letter:

Dear Mr. Dreier,

I just read an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about Yale’s decision to spend $50 million on faculty diversity.

We hope and expect that your office is in the loop on this, and that you can help caution your colleagues that it is illegal to weigh race, ethnicity, and sex in the hiring and promotion of faculty. The "diversity" exception that has been carved out of the law for student admissions does not apply to employment discrimination law.  [Cite provided.]

We hasten to add that widening your recruitment nets and ensuring that all candidates are treated nondiscriminatorily is of course fine – but discrimination in the politically correct direction is likewise illegal.

Many thanks,

Roger Clegg
President and General Counsel
Center for Equal Opportunity
YLS, 1977

I received this response:

Dear Mr. Clegg:

Thank you for your message and your interest in Yale's faculty recruitment efforts.  Yale does not discriminate in the hiring or promotion of faculty based on race, ethnicity, sex or any other protected characteristic.  The university believes that an excellent faculty is a diverse faculty and will continue to use lawful means to attain excellence along all relevant dimensions.

Kind regards,

Alexander E. Dreier
Vice President and General Counsel
Yale University

I thanked Mr. Dreier for his “prompt and reassuring response.”

Obama Administration Weighs in on Fisher IIPredictably, the Obama administration has filed an amicus brief in Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas, defending the university’s use of racial  and ethnic preferences in admissions, and it has asked to participate at oral argument. Neither the brief nor the oral-argument request is a surprise: It did both the last time around, too, when the case was before the Supreme Court.  And to show how strongly the administration feels, no fewer than twelve lawyers signed the brief, six from the Justice Department and six from a variety of other agencies.  

The brief’s basic idea is that students learn so much from other students and that being exposed to a diversity of ideas is essential in education, and so therefore we must have a diversity of student skin colors, since how we think is determined by what our skin color is. Of course, this is not true; what’s more, it is flatly at odds with the University of Texas’s use of race here, since the schol is arguing that it has to use racial preferences precisely because poor blacks do not provide the same kind of diversity that well-to-do African Americans do (that is, it is trying to justify the use of racial preferences on top of its policy of admitting the top ten percent of all high-school graduates by arguing that this policy doesn’t yield enough high-SES African Americans).

The administration says the case is of particular interest to the federal government because the federal government itself needs diversity:  The military can’t have a lot of white guys bossing around people of color, law-enforcement officials must reflect their communities, and there must also be diverse doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs — well, maybe not Indian chiefs.  But even if all this were true — and it is not — then why do the schools from which the federal government hires have to be diverse?  The federal government, after all, doesn’t hire from only one school. 

Finally, I found especially odd this stirring passage from the brief, trumpeting the need for students to “develop — through exposure to people from a multitude of backgrounds, perspectives and experiences — a capacity to appreciate their fellow citizens as individuals, not as representatives of a particular group, and to forge relationships and pursue shared goals that transcend stereotypes and prejudice.” 

Odd, that is, to read how we must use racial essentialism to teach the message that racial essentialism is a bad thing.

*          *          *

It wouldn’t be right to send an email so near to Turkey Day without some ornithological reference, and I’m happy to oblige.  The University of North Dakota recently—but after a long, long fight—changed its mascot from the “Fighting Sioux” to the “Fighting Hawks.”  I wrote a short piece on this, which I titled, “Ice People Privilege Non-Vegan Macroaggressors.”

I would add that, what’s worse, those getting unprivileged are Native Americans — and right at Thanksgiving, no less!  Read all about it here.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours — and without regard to race, color, or national origin!

Racial Preferences in Higher Education

A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court handed down its disappointing decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, and race and higher education continue to be in the news.  This past week has seen controversy over student housing ads expressing a preference of “people of color” and separate student sections in courses for minority students, and there’s been a call this week for “diversity” to be graded in school rankings by U.S. News & World Report — all bad ideas, in my humble opinion, and each showing in its own way why politically correct racial discrimination should not be part of higher education, despite the Supreme Court’s pronouncement.

Here’s what I wrote about the Fisher decision at the time in Minding the Campus.  I thought it was important to make the point that, while the decision was disappointing, the fight is not over.

The Supreme Court today upheld the University of Texas’s use of racial preferences in student admissions.  The vote was 4-3, with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor (Justice Kagan was recused).  Justice Alito wrote a powerful, 51-page dissent, which he read from the bench.

Needless to say, for those of us opposed to racial discrimination in university admissions, the decision is disappointing, for all the reasons that Justice Alito explains.  But the silver lining is that today’s decision is a narrow one.

As the Court says, UT’s program “is sui generis” and the way the case was litigated “may limit its value for prospective guidance.”

Justice Kennedy also warns the university repeatedly in his opinion that it has an ongoing duty to minimize its use of race.  Race is, the Court says, only a “factor of a factor of a factor” at UT; was considered contextually; does not automatically help members of any group; and could in theory help the members of any group, including whites and Asian Americans.

Now, much of this may be quite false as a matter of what really happens at the University of Texas, but other schools are now obliged to jump through the hoops that the Court says UT jumped through.

So look at it this way:  Barring a decision by the Court that overruled Grutter v. Bollinger and said that schools may never use racial preferences because the “educational benefits of diversity” are not compelling, lots of schools would continue to use such preferences, even if the Court had left the door open only a tiny crack.  If the Court had said, “You can use racial preferences only if the school can prove XYZ,” then every Ivy League president would swear that, what do you know, we have found XYZ.”  And it doesn’t matter what XYZ is.

That’s what the law was before today’s decision, and it remains what the law is after today’s decision.  Sure, it would have been better if the Court had given the opponents of racial preferences more ammunition than it did today to attack those XYZ claims, but we still have plenty of ammunition from the Court’s earlier decisions.

The bottom line is that the Court’s decision leaves plenty of room for future challenges to racial preference policies at other schools, and at UT itself for that matter.  It’s interesting that in the run-up to the decision, there was much discussion even among liberals that maybe indeed there are better approaches to student admissions that UT’s.  Here’s hoping that those discussions continue, prodded along by lawsuits and FOIA requests to ensure that all of Justice Kennedy’s hoops have been jumped through.

So the challenges to racial preferences will continue; cases already filed against Harvard and the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill that had been on hold will now proceed.  And the Supreme Court has also made clear that states are free to act on their own to ban racial preferences, through ballot initiatives or legislation.  The struggle goes on.

I had a similar take on National Review Online here.  You can listen to me talk about the case on this Federalist Society teleforum; I also was interviewed on a Chinese-American radio station, and I was quoted in the New York Times, Washington Post, and elsewhere.

*          *          *

And just before the decision, Columbia president Lee Bollinger had an essay in the New York Times favoring racial preferences, which I responded to in National Review Online

[Bollinger’s essay] makes three points, which can be briefly stated and refuted: 

  • As the book Mismatch and others have documented, while the number of African Americans and Latinos admitted to a couple of California universities may have gone down in the wake of banning racial preferences there, the number of students who have graduated in the University of California system has gone up dramatically.
  • Exposure to different viewpoints can be an educational positive, but it doesn’t justify something as ugly as racial discrimination, with all its costs, and in all events there is no reason to use race as a proxy for having a different viewpoint. 
  • As for using racial discrimination to achieve racial balancing, this is nothing more than the “discrimination for its own sake” that Justice Powell explicitly rejected decades ago in his Bakke opinion.

*          *          *

Finally, I should note that, no surprise, Justice Kennedy’s lame opinion did nothing to persuade the overwhelming majority of Americans that racial discrimination in university admissions is a bad idea. 

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Fisher decision, a poll of the public by Gallup, with questions drafted with Inside Higher Ed, finds that the general public disagrees with the Court and college leaders. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of those surveyed by Gallup between June 29 and July 2, 2016, said they disagreed with the decision. The ruling was backed by 31 percent, and 4 percent had no opinion.

You can read IHE’s article here, which gives details on how deep and wide the public’s disapproval is. Note also that the article has a sidebar about a September 15 conference (I’ve agreed to be a panelist at the latter). 

I’m quoted at the end of the IHE article:

Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which opposes the consideration of race in admissions, said he was not surprised or alarmed by the poll results. “Americans have been brought up to believe that it’s a bad thing to treat people differently because of their skin color or where their ancestors came from,” he said. “None of this is surprising.”

Clegg said that public colleges and universities that feel secure in considering race in admissions should also remember that voters or legislators can pass laws that bar them from doing so. And in fact, that has happened. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right (in some circumstances) of the University of Michigan to consider race in admissions. In 2006, the state’s voters barred public universities in the state from considering race in admissions–and that ban stands.

Asked about greater public support for considering athletic ability or alumni status than race in admissions decisions, Clegg acknowledged that the motivations of colleges for wanting to favor athletes or alumni children were not “the noblest” of all college motivations.
But he said that he agreed with the public that it’s better to consider those factors than race. “Discriminating against people on the basis of skin color is uniquely ugly, and I am not surprised and not bothered by the fact that more Americans should be offended by that than because applicants can throw a football well.

*           *           *

As I said, the fight will go on against racial preferences in higher education.

The Washington Post’s Not-So-Fine Op-Ed


An op-ed in the Washington Post recently calls on K–12 schools to improve their racial and ethnic mixes in order to close academic achievement gaps — most specifically, that is, to help black students learn better by making sure they go to schools with plenty of white students in them. It’s a fine op-ed, except for just a few problems: 

  • The terms “integration” and “segregation” are not defined, which is a problem since they are typically misdefined by liberals, as a matter of both law and policy.
  • There is no discussion of where the racial achievement gaps might come from, which is odd in a piece devoted to eliminating them. To be fair, probably the issue is avoided since it might require acknowledgment that a big part of the problem is cultural, especially out-of-wedlock birthrates and peer pressure that asserts working hard is “acting white,” and of course such an acknowledgement would be unthinkable.
  • Likewise, there’s no discussion of why or how “integration” would end these disparities, let alone much acknowledgment of significant evidence to the contrary.
  • There is a consistent conflation of race and income, as if, for example, all whites are rich and all blacks are poor.
  • There is no discussion of the legal problems with assigning students to schools on the basis of their skin color, let alone the moral and policy problems with doing so.
  • There is no discussion of the educational and economic costs of sending children to schools which are not the closest to them.
  • Finally — and this is likely a mistake by an editor rather than the author — there is no claim that the benefits of integration help white as well as black students, the jump-page headline to the contrary notwithstanding.

But, as I say, otherwise it’s a fine op-ed, and no doubt the Obama administration will take it to heart, which is the author’s avowed purpose in writing it.

Hillary and Racial Profiling:  Hillary Clinton has apparently decided to endorse federal legislation banning racial profiling, as she did when she was a senator. I’m no fan of racial profiling in traditional law enforcement contexts — the Center for Equal Opportunity opposes race-based decisionmaking in all contexts — but the legislation that has been proposed is bad, as I explained in this Senate testimony.

A Very Brief Reply to Theodore Johnson:  Missteps by the Washington Post and Hillary Clinton in this area are, I am afraid, to be expected.  ButNational Review recently ran a long article by Theodore Johnson on “Civil-Rights Republicanism,” some parts of which were profoundly wrongheaded. 

In particular, Mr. Johnson thinks it’s a good idea for Republicans to condemn policies that do not discriminate on the basis of race by their terms, in their intent, or in their application, but simply because they have a disproportionate racial result. But there are no policies — none — that do not have a disproportionate racial result for some racial or ethnic group. 

Mr. Johnson likewise thinks that policies should be chosen and then sold to the electorate in part based on racial results and appeals, rather than simply on the basis of whether the policy is a good one or a bad one:  Support this policy because it will tend to help your racial group, oppose that policy because it will tend to hurt your racial group. I say no. In fact, I say hell no.

The Junk Science behind “Unconscious Bias” Studies:  The claim that unconscious bias is everywhere is, well, everywhere these days. But Andrew Ferguson has an excellent article about problems with replicability in the behavioral sciences generally and with unconscious bias in particular.  Here’s what he has to say on the latter:

Perhaps most consequentially, replications failed to validate many uses of the Implicit Association Test, which is the most popular research tool in social psychology. Its designers say the test detects unconscious biases, including racial biases, that persistently drive human behavior. Sifting data from the IAT, social scientists tell us that at least 75 percent of white Americans are racist, whether they know it or not, even when they publicly disavow racial bigotry. This implicit racism induces racist behavior as surely as explicit racism. The paper introducing the IAT’s application to racial attitudes has been cited in more than 6,600 studies, according to Google Scholar. The test is commonly used in courts and classrooms across the country. 

That the United States is in the grip of an epidemic of implicit racism is simply taken for granted by social psychologists—another settled fact too good to check. Few of them have ever returned to the original data. Those who have done so have discovered that the direct evidence linking IAT results to specific behavior is in fact negligible, with small samples and weak effects that have seldom if ever been replicated. One team of researchers went through the IAT data on racial attitudes and behavior and concluded there wasn’t much evidence either way. 

“The broad picture that emerges from our reanalysis,” they wrote, “is that the published results [confirming the IAT and racism] are likely to be conditional and fragile and do not permit broad conclusions about the prevalence of discriminatory tendencies in American society.” Their debunking paper, “Strong Claims and Weak Evidence,” has been cited in fewer than 100 studies.

*          *          *

Finally, Inside Higher Education ran an article about a recent study on race and the SAT, the gist of which was that — since some groups tend disproportionately to do poorly on the SAT, since the SAT is not that great a predictor for them, and since schools will nonetheless probably continue to use the SAT anyhow — therefore it’s a good idea to use racial preferences in order to counteract the politically incorrect SAT results.  The author of the article was good enough to send me the study and ask me to comment on it beforehand, and to quote me at the end of the article.  Here’s the full text of what I sent him (he quoted the first paragraph):

If a test is unreliable for certain races — and this has long been alleged and long been refuted for the SAT, by the way — then a school is perfectly  justified in not using it, but it should try to find other measures  that are reliable.  What it should not do is admit students who are less well qualified under any measure in order to reach a particular racial result. 

The suggestion is that there is something about race qua race that prevents some races from doing well on the SAT:  There is no "proxy," the author says, that can be identified instead.  One doubts that this author would identify the factor as genetic inferiority.  Instead he might posit societal discrimination — but of course this justification for racial preferences has long been rejected by the Court, and it is hard to see why this explanation could account for a growing gap, when any reasonable person would concede that there is less societal discrimination now than earlier.

I would suggest that there are such proxies, and that they are cultural:  The too-widespread belief that academic achievement is "acting white," and the extremely high percentage (72 percent) of African Americans that are born out of wedlock (and more than 6 out of 10 for Native Americans and more than 5 out of 10 for Latinos, versus fewer than 3 out of 10 for non-Hispanic whites and fewer than 2 out of 10 for Asian Americans).

I also have to note the timing.  There are frequently studies that  seek to prop up the use of racial preferences that just happen to be  released during the run-up to Supreme Court's consideration of affirmative-action cases.  It calls into question the objectivity and reliability of such studies. 

Trump Talking Points for Fisher

As we await the Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas–Austin, challenging the school’s use of preferences for African Americans and Latinos in admissions, I was thinking about what I would like to hear Donald Trump say when asked about the opinion (I know what Hillary Clinton will say).  Normally, I would hope that the Republican nominee, at least, would be supportive of the expected Court decision rejecting or at least limiting such preferences, but it’s more complicated with Mr. Trump. 

The trouble is that, if he said the right thing, then the response of the Left, the media, and others would be, “Well, there you go.  We always said that those opposing affirmative action are bigots, and sure enough, Donald Trump — whom we all know to be a bigot — opposes affirmative action.”  Not helpful.

So here’s a response from Mr. Trump that would better advance the ball:  “The Court’s decision is a yuuuuuuuuuge disappointment.  I think it’s very important for schools to be able to get the Mexican perspective in classroom discussions, as well as of course the perspective of the blacks.  There’s a time and a place for everything.  I mean, I don’t want the Mexican perspective when it comes to the lawsuit against Trump University, so I don’t want a Mexican judge there.  But it’s different in the classroom.  So, sure, schools should be able to admit the right number of the Mexicans and the blacks to get their perspective, since they think about things differently.  And on this I’m sure that Hillary and I agree.” 

And then the press could ask Secretary Clinton whether in fact she agreed with Mr. Trump on this and, if not, then exactly what her disagreement was.

Diversity without Discrimination – And speaking of the Fisher case, there’s an interesting article in the College Fix here, headlined, “Texas A&M sees 114% growth in diversity without affirmative action, it admits students based on merit.”  This is in contradistinction to the Aggies’ rival, the tea-sips at the University of Texas, whose use of racial preferences in admissions has, as noted above, been challenged in a case that that the Supreme Court will decide any day now. 

The principal argument made by the plaintiff in Fisher is that UT has had and can have plenty of diversity without discrimination; the College Fix article seems to say the same thing.  Go Aggies!  Gig the ‘Horns!

Meet That Quota! – Last week the Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration’s Education Department sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter on “gender equity” in career and technical education. The accompanying press release ties this in with the White House’s “United State of Women” summit, which immediately raises eyebrows: Why is this “significant guidance” regarding, supposedly, complying with the law being timed to coincide with a political event? 

Oh, well. As you might expect, the principal bogeyman here is not having enough females in auto repair programs and not enough males in nursing programs — that sort of thing. It’s made clear that mere equal opportunity is not enough if there aren’t equal results accompanying it, and that you better get your numbers right.

Some examples: States must “meet negotiated targets for participation and completion rates of males and females in programs that are nontraditional for their sex“; “Despite efforts to increase enrollment of male and female students in fields that are non-traditional for their sex, disparities persist in certain fields”; and so let’s “tak[e] proactive steps to expand participation of students in fields where one sex is underrepresented.”

There are also a couple of warnings about “implicit bias” and “ambient bias.”

One way to ensure that the numbers come out right is to take the beloved (to the Obama administration) “disparate impact” approach to civil-rights enforcement. Even though the language of Title IX prohibits only actual “disparate treatment” on the basis of sex, the educrats and their rules and regulations look askance at any policy that has a disproportionate effect. It doesn’t matter if the policy is nondiscriminatorily written, intended, and applied.

Thus: “Recipients also may not use any test or criterion for admission to a school or degree program that has a disproportionately adverse effect on individuals of one sex unless certain criteria are met” — i.e., “A school may use such a test or criterion for admission [only] if it is shown to predict validly success in the education program or activity in question and alternative tests or criteria that do not have such a disproportionately adverse effect are shown to be unavailable” (emphasis added).

Here’s a specific example the letter helpfully gives: “A community college requires students who wish to enroll in its construction management program to have taken classes in construction technology in high school. Few female students are enrolled in the college’s construction management program. Each year a number of female students who express interest in the program are not able to enroll because they did not take classes in construction technology in high school. [OCR will] prohibit schools from using admissions criteria that have a disproportionate adverse effect on students of one sex unless the criteria are validated as essential to participate in the program and are shown to predict success in the program.”

Gotta meet those quotas, interest and qualifications be damned.   

*          *          *

A recent Washington Postcolumn complained about racial disparities and preschool suspensions.   It relied on an article by a couple of professors (Skiba and Williams) but, the suggestion of that article to the contrary notwithstanding, there is plenty of evidence that at least part of the reason “black students are suspended at higher rates [is] because their behavior is worse.”   See this article from the Journal of Criminal Justice.  And see also this discussion, by an attorney who used to work at the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Note that the Journal of Criminal Justice article addresses a number of earlier articles by Skiba.  Conversely, the Skiba & Williams article did not cite the JCL article, though to be fair it’s not clear which one first appeared (since both were 2014 articles).  

After bringing all this to the Post columnist’s attention, I urged him in the future to reach out to experts with a different view.  I told him that I’m open to the possibility that school discipline policies can be improved (conservatives have been among the critics of zero-tolerance policies, for example), including for preschoolers, but we shouldn’t be so quick to play the race card.

We’ll see.

*          *          *

In the wake of the Orlando mass shooting, and the fact that the killer was America-born but obviously not America-loyal, I thought I would repost my top-ten list of what we should expect from those who want to become Americans — and those who are already Americans.  It’s a list, then, of what assimilation means:  We don’t all have to eat the same foods and listen to the same music, but we do have to have some common values if our multiracial, multiethnic, multifaith society is to work.

The list was first published in a National Review Online column, and it is fleshed out in Congressional testimony:

1. Don’t disparage anyone else’s race or ethnicity.
2. Respect women.
3. Learn to speak English.
4. Be polite.
5. Don’t break the law.
6. Don’t have children out of wedlock.
7. Don’t demand anything because of your race or ethnicity.
8. Don’t view working and studying hard as “acting white.”
9. Don’t hold historical grudges.
10. Be proud of being an American.

Madness in the Groves of Academe

I recently participated, at ScotusBlog’s kind invitation, in its symposium on the Fisher II case, and you can read my contribution to it here.  There were no surprises in the arguments made in favor of the University of Texas’s racial discrimination in student admissions, but I did want to address briefly one particularly outrageous claim, since I’ve seen it made elsewhere. 

The argument was (and variations on it have been) made that, if you oppose universities’ giving a preference on the basis of race or ethnicity, it follows that “if an applicant wrote an admissions essay about volunteering for an Asian-American charity or growing up in Ferguson, then that essay would presumably have to be disregarded or discarded.” 

This is false and silly. That is, counting it in someone’s favor that she did charitable work is not the same thing as counting it in her favor that she has a particular skin color. Duh. If someone shows leadership qualities by being president of the African-American Club, it’s fine to count that in his favor if you’re looking for someone with leadership qualities, assuming that you would do the same for the president of the Irish American Club or whatever. Sheesh.

*          *          *

On the front page of its Metro section recently, the Washington Post had a story headlined (in the hard copy), “Racial disparity in degree selection.”  It reports on a new study that has found that blacks and Latinos are more likely to earn bachelor’s degrees in low-paying majors rather than the better-paying STEM disciplines. 

The story cites “centuries of racial discrimination, uneven budgetary support for K-12 education and poor academic advising and student support” as possible reasons for all this; it talks about students who do well in high school but lose interest in science fields because suddenly in college they are struggling; and cheerfully notes a recent “$18 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to increase diversity in biomedical research” at a nearby university. 

My posted response:

Too bad there’s no mention here of the “mismatch” problem: If a university has “affirmative action” admissions, this means that they will be admitting black and Latino students with lower academic qualifications than the rest of the student body, and so they will do worse than the other, better qualified students. In STEM studies, in particular, they are more likely to become discouraged and switch majors than had they gone to a school where their academic qualifications were on par with everyone else’s. This is a well-documented phenomenon, but it’s politically incorrect so I guess the Post did not want to discuss it. See, e.g, this study.

*          *          *

“Federal Investigation Finds No Anti-Asian Bias in Princeton Admissions” –  That’s the headline of this Chronicle of Higher Education news story a week or two ago, but it’s not true. 

Princeton does not deny that it weighs race in admissions, and the Obama administration did not find to the contrary. It just found that the discrimination was not illegal. The administration took the university at its word that there were amorphous “educational benefits” in “diversity,” and that the use of skin color was “narrowly tailored” to achieve these benefits because, for example, the school avoided the most blatant sort of quotas.  

The way that Princeton and the Obama administration have interpreted the law will not, I suspect, be the way the Supreme Court will interpret it in Fisher II.  Again, here’s my suggested approach.  So stay tuned.

*          *          *

Old Thoughts on a New Argument – An observation after reading this article in The Atlantic today about Asian American students:  I am starting to see more and more the suggestion that Asian Americans ought to be more accepting of racial preferences in university admissions, because while it is true that schools may now generally consider Asian Americans as a whole to be “overrepresented” — and thus on the wrong end of “diversity” policies — this would not be so if schools started to look at Asian American subgroups that are “underrepresented.” Thus, the continued use of racial and ethnic preferences would be a good thing for those of Hmong ethnicity even it is a bad thing for those of Chinese ancestry.

Now, it is certainly true that it is wrong for schools to make generalizations about Asian Americans, and indeed conservatives have long pointed out the bureaucrat-led artificiality of the Latino/Hispanic category, which includes lots of subgroups that have little in common. But the same thing is true of whites and blacks as well. 

What’s more, the same thing will be true within all these subgroups: You can’t make valid generalizations about all German Americans or all Vietnamese Americans, just as you can’t make valid generalizations about all African Americans (by the way, to make just one point regarding the latter, most in this group who get into the more selective schools do not come from lower SES backgrounds).

So the conclusion that ought to be drawn is that schools should consider applicants as individuals, and make no generalizations about what they will add to the campus just because they belong to this or that racial or ethnic group or subgroup. And that is what conservatives have been saying for a long time.

*             *             *

There’s a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about how the State University of New York system is making a “big push to strengthen diversity” there.  Predictably, law and fairness are the first casualties, as I explain my response:

Re “stepping up efforts to recruit more minority faculty members,” it’s illegal to classify applicants, hire, or promote on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex, whether it is done for politically correct or incorrect reasons. It is also, of course, unfair and divisive, and a disservice to the students and the university, to hire anyone except the most qualified individuals. More here.

As for “State funding formulas that base a portion of allocations on graduation and retention rates for minority and other students,” that’s likewise an unconstitutional racial classification: Why should the state favor students of some colors over students of other colors when it comes to helping students succeed?

*          *          *
I’ll close with two other items from the groves of academe.

The first one I’ll call “Ethnic Self-Image, Academic Performance, and Life.”  It’s better to think of yourself principally as an individual rather than as a member of a racial or ethnic group.  That seems to me to be the message buried in this news story.

The second one has to do with “Hispanic-Serving Institutions.”  No, that’s not another name for Mexican restaurants — it’s bureaucratese for colleges and universities with lots of Latino students. And guess what?  The president recently proclaimed “National Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week”

So, my question is, which of the following sentences in the president’s proclamation is sillier?:

(a) “Roughly one-quarter of students in our Nation’s public schools today are Hispanic, yet less than one-fifth of Hispanics in the United States have a college degree.” 
(b) “By working to provide many Hispanics with the chance they deserve to get a higher education, HSIs embody this truth and pull the country we all call home a little closer to its founding ideals: that all 2 [sic] of us are created equal and all of us should have the chance to make of our lives what we will.” 

It’s a tough choice, I know. 

Answer (a) is tempting because it embodies a complete non sequitur and, if it did not, the disparity between one-fourth and one-fifth is not exactly a chasm. But there’s a lot to like about answer (b), too:  All 2 [sic] of us are created equal (those other people, not so much).