Higher-Ed High-Jinks | Center for Equal Opportunity

Two items this week from the wacky world of higher education.

First, Inside Higher Ed had an interesting article last month about a paper delivered at the American Sociological Association. The paper concluded that “when academic background is controlled for . . . while Asians are more likely to apply to and enroll at selective colleges than are all other groups, black and Latino applicants are slightly more likely to apply to and enroll in selective colleges than are white students.” Accordingly, the authors conclude that the way to increase the number of black and Latino students at selective schools is not through college admission policies—the obvious one that comes to mind, of course, is racial preferences—but by improving those students’ K–12 education.

I agree with the paper’s authors that the problem is with the pipeline—that a disproportionate number of black and Latino students are not academically competitive—and kudos to the authors for their willingness to say so. (You can see that they are nervous about doing so by reading their rather defensive quotes.) And the authors are also correct that some of that problem is because of the K–12 system—and the solution to that (the authors don’t say this, but conservatives do) is not more spending or more diversity but more choice for parents in where to send their children—but let’s not kid ourselves: That’s not the biggest problem.

The big hole in the pipeline is this set of numbers, which I’ve cited before: More than seven out of 10 black Americans, more than six out of 10 American Indians, and more than five out of 10 Latinos are born out of wedlock—versus fewer than three out of 10 whites and fewer than two out of 10 Asians. See any connection between those figures and how well the different groups are doing socioeconomically and educationally? As any parent—Tiger Mom or not—can tell you, raising a child is extremely labor intensive and important. It takes two parents, especially for boys. And growing up in a home without a father correlates with—and, common sense suggests, causes—all kinds of social problems, including but not limited to bad educational outcomes. There are other cultural problems too, such as the idiotic belief that studying hard is “acting white,” but this is the biggest.

* * *

Next, recently our friend Ward Connerly sent me and a couple of other people an e-mail with this arresting subject line: “BAMN has a class at UC Berkeley.” The class is described at this link . And here is Ward’s accompanying e-mail:

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the “Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary” (BAMN), this is a far-left group that has been a major opponent of ours across the nation. … As Regents of the University of California, John Moores and I can attest to the despicable tactics of this group. … The tactics of BAMN are consistent with their name; they will use “any means necessary” to preserve preferences and illegal immigration. BAMN has its roots as a communist, Saul Alinsky-type organization. … They are not pro-equality; they are the exact opposite. …

It is extraordinarily inappropriate and truly outrageous that this organization should be given a class at UC Berkeley to facilitate the achievement of their objective. … We need your help to mount a national effort to call attention to this blatant abuse of taxpayer resources. I very seriously doubt that the UC Regents will involve themselves in this controversy. As John Moores once said, the Regents are “like furniture” when it comes to getting involved in many relevant issues. And, [Governor] Jerry Brown has aligned himself with them. …

Ward is right: This situation is indeed “extraordinarily inappropriate and truly outrageous.” And yet, it is also not surprising.

* * *

One last item, not about higher education: The federal Environmental Protection Agency issued a press release last month regarding the successful resolution of a complaint it had filed against the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. The complaint asserted “that CDPR’s annual renewal of the registration of methyl bromide … discriminated against Latino school children based on the health impacts of this pesticide. [EPA’s analysis] raised concerns that there was an unintentional adverse and disparate impact on Latino children resulting from the use of methyl bromide …. This concern was based on the high percentage of Latino children in schools near fields where methyl bromide was applied ….”

My question is this: What possible difference does it make that the schoolchildren here were Latino? Apparently EPA thinks that whether pollution is permissible or not will hinge to some degree on the race and ethnicity of its victims. That is, if your children are hurt by pollution but are the same color as a lot of children who are not hurt by pollution, then there’s no legal problem; but if your children are hurt by pollution and they are the same color as a lot of other children who are hurt by pollution, then there’s a legal problem.

I began by saying that the world of higher education was wacky, but the same is obviously true of the EPA’s world.

Visit our Website at www.ceousa.org

Related posts: