Rake columnist Clinton Collins states that I failed to answer a young law student that queried me about legacy admissions at elite universities [Free the Jackson Five, July]. In all fairness to Collins, there was quite a bit of cross talking during the discussion he recounted, so it is possible that he did not hear my response.
It is an odd game of absolutism Collins plays. He takes the position that all forms of discrimination are equal and that any preference given is therefore equally pernicious. Reason suggests this is untrue. Our society has rightly decided that among the varying and unequal forms of discrimination, racial discrimination is particularly abhorrent. As a result our laws prohibit such discrimination. There is, alas, no such law barring the practice of colleges admitting the children of alumni.
Further, the academic qualifications of legacy students generally match those of non-legacy applicants. At Harvard, Collins’ alma mater, the average SAT score of legacy students is just two points below the school’s overall average. Middle-class black students, on the other hand, score a combined two hundred points below their white and Asian peers on college admissions tests.
So Collins’ contention that the issue of preferences is not a question of brainpower is also wrong. It is precisely the question: Can black students compete academically with their white and Asian counterparts? Dear as my friend is, he and other race-preference supporters advocate a system that screams “black academic and intellectual inferiority.”
Collins also asserts that we need racial preferences so long as there is any hint of race prejudice in the world. Collins, however, is not a latter-day Coalhouse Walker and current affirmative action policies haven’t a thing to do with race prejudice; they are instead an effort to orchestrate diversity. Black students are not being denied entrance to universities due to race. Universities are bending over backward to enroll black students. Finding a paucity of eligible black students, they must lower standards in order to get a critical mass of black students on their university campuses. “Critical mass” is what the Supreme Court defined in Grutter v. Bollinger as “enough minority students to provide adequate opportunities for the kind of interaction upon which the educational benefits of diversity depend … ”
Rather than address the lack of competitiveness among black students during the discussion, Collins offered politically correct phrases like: “Not lowered standards; different standards.” What remains unclear is this: Where there is no evidence of racial discrimination in admissions, and if there is no shortage of brainpower, why must our students be evaluated using different standards?
Black youngsters achieve excellence in athletics, dance, and music through practice, dedication, and the high expectations of their family and peers. Shouldn’t we demand a similar dedication and hold equally high standards when it comes to academics? If I became frosty during the discussion, it is because I am admittedly angry that we can so effortlessly embrace the notion that black inferiority is perpetual and that our academic success is impossible without help. The one thing Collins got right is that both of us were raised to know better.
Leave a Reply