Happy Opposites DayHere's the deal: I pretend that affirmative action is dead. You pretend you've got something better.
Posted Friday, Dec. 10, 1999, at 3:30 AM ET
Third-graders have long known of "Opposites Day," the fictional day once a year when everything means its opposite. But it took the deeper wisdom of adults to use this notion as a way of ending the bilious debate over affirmative action. Three big states--Florida, Texas, and California--have implemented a solution that has been heralded by conservatives and liberals, by Ward Connerly and the New York Times. The key to agreement over affirmative action, it turns out, is for everyone to say the opposite of what they mean.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponIn California, Connerly led the successful referendum campaign against affirmative action. Govs. Jeb Bush of Florida and George W. Bush of Texas are Republicans who have campaigned against minority preferences. All three states now forbid traditional affirmative action in admissions to state universities. Instead, they use versions of what I'll call a "high-school quota" plan. Texas guarantees admission to any senior graduating in the top 10 percent of his or her high-school class. In Florida, it's anyone graduating in the top 20 percent. In California, it's the top 4 percent.
The New York Times explains that this is "a sensible way to increase minority enrollments without relying on a strategy that takes race into account." Guaranteed admission has restored minority enrollments at Texas' Austin campus, for example, to levels not seen since 1996, when a federal court struck down the state's affirmative action program. As Mickey Kaus has noted, this whole scheme only works because, nearly half a century after Brown vs. Board of Education, America's high schools are still severely segregated. If high schools were integrated, taking the top 10 percent from each high school would produce the same racial mix as taking the top 10 percent of state high-school graduates as a whole. Since most blacks attend overwhelmingly black high schools, the result is much closer to that of taking the top 10 percent of each race.
It's doubly crazy to argue on any day besides Opposites Day that the high-school quota system has nothing to do with race. First, the purpose is explicitly racial. The whole point is to increase minority enrollment. That is why it was invented, and that is why the Bush brothers brag about its success. Second, the mechanism--piggybacking on a racially skewed arrangement (high schools)--would never pass muster with liberals or conservatives not desperately eager to look the other way.
Most of the civil rights litigation of the past few decades, in fact, is about this kind of piggybacking discrimination rather than the explicit kind. When do traditional job qualifications, such as a test or membership in a guild, amount to racial discrimination? That sort of thing. You only have to imagine a state policy applying the high-school quota system to, say, basketball scholarships--and explicitly being praised by state officials as a way to increase the number of white basketball players--to realize how empty the claims are that this arrangement avoids the alleged evil of racial preference.
Conservatives have always claimed to want admissions decisions based solely on so-called "merit-based" criteria such as SAT scores. They think it immoral to give college places to minority students who wouldn't be admitted under a merit-based policy, since this means taking away those places from white students with higher grades and SATs. But admitting black students who wouldn't be admitted under a merit-based policy is precisely what high-school quotas do. Texas had a fully "merit"-based admissions policy between 1996 and 1998. Sadly, very few minorities were admitted. Along came high-school quotas and minority admissions returned to pre-1996 levels. Meaning that the number of whites who were denied places they deserved on "merit" also returned to the same level anti-preference conservatives had been complaining about for 20 years.
Defenders of high-school quotas might argue that I'm missing the point. That this system, unlike traditional minority preferences, judges each student's performance in context. It compares achievements with the environment in which they were achieved. Moreover, it ensures that students from all backgrounds have an equal bite of the apple. All are reasonable arguments. But weren't these the arguments for affirmative action in the first place? That is, one idea behind affirmative action was always that "merit" must be judged relative to environment, so as to combat persistent historical inequalities.
Put differently, conservatives such as Bush were goaded into action by the obvious unfairness of a state-subsidized university system that more or less denies access to blacks and Hispanics. Naturally enough, conservatives dare not make this dangerous idea too explicit. They cannot afford to admit that they don't really want the results they fought for during the 21 years since University of California Regents vs. Bakke. But at heart, I suspect a large percentage of conservatives share the liberals' discomfort with an all-white educational system paid for by the state. In other words, George Bush and his supporters aren't unaware of what they're doing, namely fighting--gasp!--for racial justice. They just can't admit it.
So liberals and conservatives agree to pretend that affirmative action is dead, and that this marvelous new discovery--high-school quotas--doesn't amount to the same thing. And they lived happily ever after. Happy Opposites Day.
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
The readers respond:
It is not true that the Texas, Florida and California plans, which guarantee the top 10 percent of each high school graduating class admission to a state university, has been "heralded" by Ward Connerly, as reported in this article. Mr. Connerly strongly criticized Gov. Jeb Bush's Florida plan in a Nov. 18 Wall Street Journal op-ed article, "Why I'm Still Fighting Preferences in Florida." "Part of me applauds Mr. Bush for trying to reach a compromise on this issue," he wrote. ". . . But some things can't be compromised, and equality under the law is one of them. Mr. Bush's initiative falls short in several areas." Slate should correct this misrepresentation of Mr. Connerly's views.
--{{John Archer
#2:mailto:archer_jo@leg.wa.gov}}(To reply, click here.)
I'm surprised that Bruce Gottlieb is so troubled by the Texas-California-Florida quasi-affirmative action collegiate admissions plans. If one accepts the need for a corrective (or, depending on how one views it, is willing to live with a mere palliative), why not design one that operates in direct proportion to how segregated a state's schools are?
Of course, affirmative action has never been intended as a corrective (or palliative) for segregation. Yet there is surely some considerable connection between segregation, school quality, and student performance. One could argue that, absent school segregation, any kind of affirmative action admission plans are that much less necessary. Thus, three states now have automatically self-adjusting policies. Surely that's not such a terrible outcome.
--Josh Pollack
(To reply, click here.)
I say let's give the states which are trying this some time. We need to gather some data on its results and compare it to results under affirmative action. One attraction I see is that this [10-percent] system does account more for class than the affirmative action system. [Under affirmative action,] the minority student with professional parents who finished in the middle of his class ranking could leverage affirmative action to gain college acceptance. Under this system, she cannot, but can fall back on parental resources to attend a private school. The poor white kid in Appalachia and the poor minority kid in the ghetto can now work hard in their own school and be guaranteed a chance to continue their studies. Previously, only the ghetto kid, using affirmative action, could.
No system is perfect. If this one unites liberals and conservatives, so be it. Give it some time, then reassess.
--Will
(To reply, click here.)
Giving preference to class standing is better than affirmative action for this reason: A number of companies have made statistical studies over the years on who to hire that will be the most creative and therefore make the company the most money. For example, should the company hire all PhD chemists from MIT, because that school has the reputation for the best scientific-based education? Interestingly enough, it was learned, for example, that a chemist from Millsaps College, Miss., graduating in the top 10 percent of his class, is just as likely to come up with a significant invention as one from MIT.
--Weintritt
(To reply, click here.)
Regarding the high-school quota system: it's also worth noting that this system encourages segregation.
Imagine the options for a middle-of-the-road minority student at a primarily white high school. By remaining at this school, the student may not be able to obtain college admission. But by transferring to a primarily-minority high school, the student may be able to perform in the top 10 percent.
--Jon
(To reply, click here.)
Dear Jon,
If your example occurred, it would encourage integration, not segregation [ie., because whites also could get preference by transferring to minority schools].
--Rick
(To reply, click here.)
In reality, it takes more work and more character for poor student "X" to finish in the top ten percent of his or her public school class and obtain a mediocre SAT score than it does for rich kid "Y" to finish in the bottom half of his private school class and score slightly higher on the SAT. Unlike affirmative action, high school quotas avoid giving an advantage based on something other than merit in those situations where student "X" is white and student "Y" is a minority.
--Walter L. Williams
(To reply, click here.)
The [10-percent] compromise is part of the genius of the political system's ability to solve difficult and emotional problems. Affirmative action based explicitly upon race offends people [because] rich minority children will receive preferences over poor whites. Apportioning seats in the state university by school [district] is no different than the usual political log rolling used to spread road money around a state for public works. (Historically much of this would be based on rural vs. urban distinctions.)
The political system facilitates this kind of sensitivity, as opposed to some abstract legalistic approach to [what is a] political problem. This kind of political solution is far superior to some naked exercise of state power based on overt racial considerations, with all the raw emotions elicited by this kind of "solution."
--Kevin Shannon
(To reply, click here.)
(12/13)