Shaping the Campus: Diversity Versus Intellectualism

By Arthur J. Monaco and Andrew Culp | Wednesday, June 5, 1996

In 1978, the Supreme Court of the United States of America set the legal precedent for affirmative action in college admissions. The decision was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

Allan Bakke, a white male, contested the decision of the medical school of the University of California at Davis, where he was denied admission. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found the Medical School not only in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but — in the tie-breaking decision of Justice Lewis Powell — also in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Although the decision outlawed the use of racial quotas or set-asides, Justice Powell did not believe that race should be completely ignored. He thought that racial diversity could be important to a diversity of intellectual viewpoints on campus. As such, he left the door open for universities to still consider race as a factor in admissions decisions.

Justice Powell never intended to ensure proportionality of specific ethnic groups. Rather, he trusted individual universities to make the correct decisions in the name of intellectual diversity. The intent was to make race one of many things which could be examined in evaluating a student, to ensure a diverse intellectual make-up to the student body.

Although quotas were found unconstitutional, proponents of affirmative action took Bakke as a victory. 'Diversity' could now defend preferential treatment for minorities. The idea is that different minority groups bring different intellectual experiences to campus. A black student's experience is inherently different from that of a white student. The campus values all of these experiences, thus all ethnic groups need to be represented.

Opponents of this argument claim that it is a racist view to believe that black experiences are inherently different from those of whites. Some feel that socieoeconomic background is a better measuring stick for students' different experiences. Proponents, on the other hand, feel that people of different ethnic backgrounds, even if they are similar in socieoeconomic status, will have different experiences, each with value to the campus.

A second reason for use of preferrential treatment is to redress past discrimination. It is impossible to defend the position that discrimination never existed. But since it is difficult to gauge the effects of that discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled this practice illegal.

We now see colleges and universities using admissions policies to achieve targeted percentages for minorities, and attempting to redress perceived societal discrimination.

Affirmative Action

For years, the University of California system has admitted certain "underrepresented minorities" at a much greater rate than whites or Asians. They have continuously achieved targeted percentages of these minorities, proportional to their percentage in American society. For example, according to their own admissions statistics, in 1994 the UC Berkeley Law School admitted every black applicant with a 3.5 GPA or higher, and LSAT scores above the 90th percentile. White applicants with the same credentials were admitted at a 42% rate.

The system's violations were so blatant that after examination, the UC Board of Regents was horrified. Until recently, they had believed that their policies aimed toward diversity had only provided a slight edge to minority applicants. One Board member, Ward Connerly, a black male, wrote to another member, "I came to the conclusion that we are breaking the law. There is no other way to put it. We are breaking the law." Connerly has since taken up the fight to eliminate affirmative action completely in California. Rather than attempt to defend the system in court, the Board of Regents eliminated race-based admissions early this year.

Recently, the University of Texas was found guilty of granting preference to certain ethnic groups. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the University of Texas Law School in violation of the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the case of Cheryl Hopwood v. State of Texas. In its defense, the University of Texas cited historical instances of discrimination in Texas public schools, and the Law School itself. The Court, however, was unmoved. It never denied the existence of past discrimination, yet claimed that since the effects of this discrimination were impossible to gauge, it did not justify "discriminating" against white students. The Supreme Court may decide to hear the case on appeal.

The Ivies

Instances of affirmative action in terms of quotas or set-asides do not exist in the Ivy League. But what exactly is affirmative action? Does it merely stop with racial quotas? One admissions policy at Brown, for example, offers additional "minority readings" of minority applications. Brown students of the same minority background will read through the applicant's essays and recommendations to give the school a "better understanding" of his qualifications.

Dartmouth Dean of Admissions Karl Furstenburg points out that Dartmouth is a private college, not subject to the same standards as a public institution. Therefore, it has more leeway in its admissions policies. He is quick to comment that nothing like Brown's policy goes on at Dartmouth: "Every applicant to Dartmouth goes through the same process, and all of the reading is done in what I call a random fashion in that we never consider the students as a group."

As Dean of Admissions, Furstenburg reviews the application of every student admitted to Dartmouth. He maintains that socioeconomic background, rather than race, is used to help judge students. Socioeconomic background has been used in the "Mend it — Don't End It," campaign as a means of preserving some form of affirmative action. According to Furstenburg, socioeconomic background is just one of the many factors which can be used to gain a better understanding of the student. However, a rigorous look at Dartmouth admissions policies shows more than a casual use of "affirmative action," going well beyond socioeconomic background.

Although Dartmouth will release no numbers, it is likely that they follow the national trend of admitting higher percentages of minority students. For example, in 1994 Amherst admitted 19.2% of all applicants, but the admittance rate for blacks was 51.1%. According to a Consortium on Financing Higher Education survey in 1992, black students at Amherst average 178 points less on their SAT's than their white counterparts. At Dartmouth, the disparity is 218 points.

In June, admissions officers and representatives from Dartmouth leave Hanover. They visit various schools — some with recognizable names: Andover, Exeter, and Horace Mann. However, the vast majority of trips are made to schools one isn't likely to hear about every day: Barringer High in Newark, New Jersey, Benjamine Banneker High in Atlanta, Georgia, and Thomas Jefferson High in Brooklyn, New York. Dartmouth wants to encourage as many minority students to apply as possible. Vast resources are expended on trips to these inner-city schools.

"For us the affirmative action is more directed at the recruitment side of things. We try to generate a more representative pool of candidates so that when making the actual decisions you can base those decisions solely on the qualifications of the students," says Furstenburg. In other words, affirmative action has already played a major role. Before one application is reviewed, the applicant pool has been affected by these recruitment policies. Through minority recruitment, Dartmouth is making a conscious decision to attract a certain type of student. Without establishing a single quota, the applicant pool is changed to include more minorities.

Dartmouth takes affirmative action even further, offering prospective minorities who have been admitted many opportunities not given their white counterparts. The College holds a special "Perspectives on Dartmouth Weekend," which is a euphemism for what is really 'Minority Prospectives Weekend.' Dartmouth pays for transportation to and from Hanover for minorities, and only minorities. One Dartmouth '98, a white student, recalls that he and a black female were the only two students accepted to Dartmouth from his Long Island high-school. Although the school was in an affluent community, the female was provided with a free round-trip plane ticket to Hanover for "Perspectives on Dartmouth Weekend."

Hurt most by these policies are the working-class white students. These students are not heavily recruited by the College. Nor does the College pay for them to visit campus. These are big factors in a students decision to apply to, or ultimately attend, Dartmouth. Yet the College seems to care little about their under-representation on campus. Through its recruitment policies, Dartmouth is saying that their intellectual experience is less valuable than that of minorities.

Diversity

As a justification for these practices, the College uses the standard defense of "diversity." Yet it remains unclear for what type of diversity Dartmouth is striving. Strict racial diversity, in the form of preferential treatment to minorities, has been found illegal through Bakke. Instead, the College touts the idea of "intellectual diversity:" the argument that different racial groups bring different intellectual experiences to the campus. When these groups interact, the different experiences combine to enrich campus discussion.

However, United States courts have found this argument uncompelling. The Fifth Circuit Court noted that in Bakke, the only justice to mention 'diversity' in the majority opinion was Powell. Proponents of diversity have been basing their argument solely on the opinion of one Justice. Even dissenting Justices in Bakke recognized that the desire for "an integrated student body" did not serve as a legitimate basis for preferential treatment.

According to an article by Carl Cohen in the June 1996 issue of Commentary, the Supreme Court has ruled against an attempt at "diversity" in a 1990 decision involving broadcast media: "The interest in increasing the diversity of broadcast viewpoints is clearly not a compelling interest. It is simply too amorphous, too insubstantial, and too unrelated to any legitimate basis for employing racial classifications."

Finally, according to the same Commentary article, the Fifth Circuit Court stated that the use of diversity to justify preferential treatment "undermines the goals of the Fourteenth Amendment." According to the Court, making choices based on race "is no more rational on its own terms than would be choices based upon the physical size or blood type of applicants."

Intellectualism

Dartmouth President James Freedman has made much of his campaign for increased intellectualism at Dartmouth. Along with Dean of the College Lee Pelton, he has targeted certain things, such as fraternities, which he claims are a detriment to intellectualism. A long look, such as that taken by the UC Board of Regents, might show that racial preferences in admissions practices are a detriment to campus intellectualism. Rather than stressing "ethnic diversity" or "geographical diversity," might the College do better to look for a student who is intellectually competent and intellectually committed?

If the admissions officers desire an intellectually committed student, they could find them easily. Applications provide an insight into not only the students past record, but his potential for growth as well. The administration frequently speaks of intellectualism as open discussion. They cite the Greek system as segregating the campus. Yet Greek houses are more racially diverse than "affinity housing." By admitting individuals who are most committed to intellectual growth, the administration might be better able to achieve the intellectualism it strives so hard for.

This will also inevitably lead to a diversity of ideas. Students with a passion for learning are not likely to draw the same conclusions. Again, this will lead to the discussions so integral to genuine intellectualism.

The administration cannot even remain consistent in a definition of its own goals. While one day touting the intellectual student who engages in spirited discussions, Freedman will affirm Dartmouth's desire for the 'creative loner' the next day.

Does a diversity of colors really bring about the best intellectual atmosphere? The administration must decide if going to great lengths to bring a diversity of skin colors to Hanover really serves the interest of creating an intellectually diverse community. Then again, the Supreme Court may do it for them.

Shaping the Campus: Diversity Versus Intellectualism

Article Tools

Related Articles