Much has been bandied about regarding affirmative action, some pros and some cons. But much emanates from ideological views mired in bias and steeped in politics. Hence, is the public aware of key underlying issues? Let’s step back a moment and reflect from a broader perspective: one from the vantage point of history, the other from the reality of privilege and exceptionalism.
Higher education has always represented a very distinct and privileged sliver of the American public, one that has promoted national progress as it has also advanced international prominence. This is guided by higher education which nurtures leadership through the advancement of government, private enterprise, business, medical progress, education, specialized professions, and the courts.
Such progress has expanded in the U.S. since the founding of its first university in 1636, namely Harvard University. To a great degree, Harvard set the precedent for the future. Soon after, the College of William and Mary (1693) and Yale (1701), among early universities, added requisites about who could enter the hallowed halls of education, though several continue in contention.
Now, above and beyond the undisputed entry requisites of 1) strong academic records, 2) high test scores as well as 3) favorable recommendations, other criteria entered the fray. One of the first and most notable was donor and legacy admissions, dating back to colonial days. Notwithstanding, such practices continue to circumvent normalized criteria in over half our universities today, inclusive of many public institutions. This remains baffling, as it formalizes a protected group, namely children of the ruling class. As these vestiges continue, they fully represent preferences for elites, primarily whites.
In juxtaposition, barely half a century ago, the evident lack of educational opportunity gave impetus to Brown (1954). Follow-up education legislation mid-sixties (e.g., ESEA) aligned against the preponderance of white students that permeated our universities, as racial admissions were deemed essential for equity and the promotion of diversity. This was when “affirmative action” as a new reality transformed into a new label. It also became an antidote to white privilege.
What is important to underscore in today’s debates is that because there existed preferential treatment for centuries, affirmative action came to upend the unbalanced applecart of discrimination. Controversy arises because in proclaiming to abolish discrimination—that which grants privileges to certain groups—the High Court has determined to only eradicate affirmative action, ignoring the blemish of legacy protecting whites, thus pushing us backwards. If equity is to prevail, let’s eliminate ALL preferences, not just minority access. The basic question is: “Who is being blamed and for what purpose?”
More to the point. When attending Harvard, I met many legacy students and we openly discussed affirmative action. Though viewed from opposite sides, legacy was contributing a higher proportion of students than racial selection. Looking back, it was the racial student that had to meet more minimal entry standards. Yet, we eventually ranked equally high in both academic achievement and overall performance.
If the above seems self-serving, let’s focus on objective data. Two university presidents, one from Harvard and the other from Princeton—Derek Bok and William Bowen, respectively—examined data regarding affirmative action and achievement in their seminal book, The Shape of the River (1998). After extensive review of data from many universities across multiple decades, conclusions asserted that race selection for college and university admissions had proven quite favorably. Different from expectations, racial students performed very well, with others easily surpassing comparable peers. Bottom line: though racial students had been underestimated, they excelled when provided valuable resources and opportunity.
Education Secretary, Miguel Cardona asserts that legacy admissions and other types of special treatment have long denied well-qualified students of racial backgrounds a level playing field. As an example, USC admitted that 14% of last year’s students had family ties to alumni or donors. Stanford reported similar results. At Harvard, recent data indicates that legacy recipients were eight times more likely to be admitted, with 1-in-4 (28%) being legacy. This is nearly eight times greater than recipients of affirmative action!
Need more be said? The evidence is plain, though it congers up rage, as the High Court has again failed the American public. If the law of the land claims to assert fairness, then let it squarely focus on the culprit. The recent decision has been appalling as it also has been disingenuous!