Late last month, the Supreme Court announced the death knell for affirmative action in college admissions. In my post last week, I outlined how using race as a major determinant for college admissions is morally problematic and how broad and crude categorizations of race should not be used, especially if we want to live in a society with less racism. I do not understand how affirmative action proponents talk about eliminating racism in society yet support the institutionalized practice of judging black people by a different standard, academic or otherwise. I have studied enough of the history of African-Americans to see the resilience and persistence of African-Americans. Their ability to overcome such obstacles was especially notable during the Civil Rights era in the 1960s. Apparently, I have more confidence that black people can move forward without special treatment than many prominent affirmative action proponents do.
Today, I want to put more emphasis on looking at affirmative action through a policy-based lens. One thing I think about is the tradeoff with affirmative action in play. The first thing I learned in my graduate school program for public policy is that there are always tradeoffs with any policy. In this case, the game of college admissions is a zero-sum game because there are only so many spots offered to a given college. If there are more spots going to black students, it has to crowd out someone else.
While there is some crowding out of white students, it also crowds out another demographic: Asian-Americans. It is no accident that the plaintiffs in the recent Supreme Court case, i.e., the Students for Fair Admission, were of East and South Asian descent. I came across a writer at the Left-leaning New York Magazine who was for affirmative action but at least intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the tradeoff. If you want to read more about how this penalty against Asian-Americans plays out and how an Asian-American with better metrics is less likely to get an acceptance letter than an African-American with lower scores, you can read this analysis from Duke economics professor Peter Arcidiacono. So why should Asian-Americans, many of whom did not have ancestors living in the United States for much of U.S. history, be punished for how certain white people in the past treated black people?
Before reaching my main point, I have to ask two questions. One is that if affirmative action is so vital for success, why is it there are still such racial issues with admissions nearly six decades after affirmative action existing? I find it rich that university admissions officers pretend to be the saviors that will bring about "diversity" when they are the gatekeepers that are part of the problem. The second question is how long such a policy needs to be in play. Much like I brought up last week, the affirmative action proponents do not have an objective way to determine when there is "adequate diversity, whatever that means. Plus, they admit that present and future discrimination are the only recourse to past discrimination, which means that in their minds, affirmative action should be a permanent institution.
Now to my main outcomes-based issue that I have with affirmative action, which is that affirmative action hides the real issues facing minority candidates for college. Affirmative action only focuses on admissions and does nothing about the trajectory of students after they are admitted. Look no further than the dropout rates in this country.
The truth is that African-American students have higher college dropout rates. One study found that 42% of Black students graduate within six years, which is below the 63% national average (Sarette, 2022). When I covered the topic of what is causing the college dropout rate, academic preparedness was one of the biggest factors. If students are not academically prepared in grades K-12, odds are they will not have the skills to succeed in college. Does it matter if a certain student gets accepted to a college only to drop out in the end? This is something that the dissenters on the SCOTUS case tacitly concede because none of them argue their minority opinion from the lens of purported educational benefits.
Affirmative action does not lead to the economic or social development of African-Americans because larger dropout rates in spite of affirmative action signal will make it more difficult for African-Americans to find good-paying jobs. This brings us to the idea of mismatch. The mismatch hypothesis posits that affirmative action results in minority students being placed in colleges for which they are otherwise unqualified, a hypothesis which could explain the higher dropout rates among Black students. I am not going to get into detail about the mismatch effect today. If you want to read more, you can either read what I wrote in 2015 or read what the Right-leaning Manhattan Institute wrote last year on the subject.
The Right-leaning Manhattan Institute also points out racial preferences in college admissions are so appealing because they represent the path of least resistance instead of making actual change. This segues into another unpleasant truth, which is that the academic achievement gap between races already exists well before college admissions. The racial disparities exist at a young age, whether it is recognizing letters and numbers or mastering reading and mathematics. These figures illustrate how at best, affirmative action is another example of "too little, too late." There are many factors that come into play well before college admissions that make success more or less likely, some having to do with educational attainment specifically and others having more generally to do with poverty.
Instead of obsessing over race, we should focus on obstacles towards educational attainment. One of the bigger relevant focuses should be on improving K-12 education so that students, but minority students in particular, can improve their academic participation. Another should be focused on alternative post-secondary options outside the traditional four-year college. I have brought up before that a four-year college is not for everyone. For some students, getting an associate's degree or going to a trade school could be a lucrative path. We need to drop the societal expectation that everyone needs to attend a four-year college to be successful.
In summation, affirmative action is not only an issue from a moral standpoint. At best, affirmative action is a fine example of "too little, too late." At worst, it holds back racial progress and helping all Americans, particularly African-Americans, achieve the American Dream. I may or may not get to this topic in the near future, but I will end with it as a thought. This Supreme Court ruling was overall a step in the right direction, but there is still work that needs to be done if we are going to have the American Dream be accessible for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment