Affirmative Action, Inc.

By Jeffrey Hart | Friday, April 25, 2003

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Michigan case began on April 1, and most discussion was at the Constitutional ('equal protection') level, or revolved around the applicable provisions against discrimination in the 1964 Civil Rights legislation; or took the entirely pertinent form of the question, 'Is it tolerable policy to create a permanent race-based entitlement regarding college and university admission for black Americans?'

(Where affirmative action is concerned, blacks are the subject; Asians are irrelevant, so really are Hispanics.)

Little analyzed have been the less transcendent reasons why more than sixty corporations have now supported amicus briefs favoring the admissions policies of the University of Michigan (and against the claim of Jennifer Gratz). The private sector for very practical reasons wants to hire American blacks, and it is convenient for it to have the university admissions process do its screening.

The black population in the United States numbers some thirty-five million, and wields large purchasing power. Blacks are less likely to tune in a TV news team that is all white, and so less likely to view its advertising. No TV commentary today, no advertising, no sitcoms, no anything wishing its share of the black audience is going to be all white or close to it. The providers of products across the board need to sell to black customers, and they want black managers, salespeople, and other personnel for highly practical reasons. They will hire blacks, and they want the best they can get.

It saves them a lot of trouble to know that a black applicant has, for example in the present Michigan case, been admitted to that selective program. That is, this black applicant has been screened up against other blacks. It is irrelevant whether Jennifer Gratz rates higher. The employer wants to know about successful blacks. The employer has its quota, and the university helps with its own quota, or the equivalent. The market has determined this policy. Affirmative action is a practical competitive necessity for employers.

Analogously, the military academies support affirmative action. They want black officer candidates. An army with ninety percent white officers would be highly dysfunctional. The medical schools claim that black graduates are more likely to practice in underserved black neighborhoods; and so on.

Accepting this argument, it is not obvious why the admissions process at the most selective institutions, Michigan, Harvard, et al, must have seven percent (plus) in every class, rather than the 1.5 percent plus it is estimated that they would get without affirmative action.

Why would it be outrageous for a black applicant rejected by Michigan to go to Southern Michigan or Wayne State, or one rejected by Harvard to go to the University of Massachusetts or Boston University? This is exactly the kind of redistribution that happened in California after Proposition 209 was passed. Berkeley and UCLA had fewer blacks, Davis more. For the employer, relevant screening would have occurred. The admitted black would have been college material.

Thus, under this arrangement, after affirmative action was banned nationally, screening would still take place. Jennifer Gratz would have been admitted to Michigan rather than being bumped by a black enjoying a fat twenty points for race. That black student would have gone to a less demanding institution, but still rank well among black employment prospects. The practical need would be met. Blacks would be evaluated by medical schools in competition with other blacks.

There is no reason, moreover, why employers cannot do their own screening for aptitude, instead of relying on educational institutions. They could devise relevant tests, etc.

The socialization, 'learning to get along at college' arguments are vaporous. The students might learn not to get along. The opposite of getting along happens. Self-segregation is frequent. Affirmative action breeds contempt and stress. Athletes and alumni preferences are irrelevant. Black alumni have children. Athletes are often black. A racial entitlement is the focus here, and the scandal.

Now comes the whopper, the unmentioned whopper. Why are the supporters of affirmative action not setting a time limit to it, ten years say, after which it would be banned? After all, virtually all the beneficiaries of affirmative action now are middle-class. Why not set a time limit? Is it assumed that black test scores will never rise to equivalence with white and Asian scores? Do advocates of affirmative action tacitly believe the Bell Curve argument is correct? That is, on IQ tests, the largest group of blacks is concentrated at the highest point of the curve, and is fifteen points back of the highest point on the white/Asian curves. Do they assume that this means the 1.5 plus admissions at Michigan or Harvard would therefore be the ceiling... forever? That would be a respectable argument for a permanent racial entitlement ... that is, an entitlement forever. If that is what proponents believe, why don't they just say so?

Still, in America we say we believe, and most of us do believe, that opportunities reside not in groups but in individuals. And therefore that race-based entitlements are illegitimate, indeed deplorable. In the Michigan case it is obvious that Jennifer Gratz was egregiously discriminated against, and should have been admitted. Let us return to fairness and decency.

Affirmative Action, Inc.

Article Tools

Related Articles