Rethinking Diversity

About a month ago, we at The Dartmouth Review posted an article on the divisive and iniquitous nature of affirmative action (see Affirmative Action Promotes Inequality). In it, we argued that affirmative action is and will always be a failed doctrine for one simple reason; it is simply an immense self-contradiction. By institutionalizing inequality in academia, the workforce, and society at large, liberals have birthed a system that enables the government to assign privilege to certain groups based on race and race alone. Inherent in this designation is a dichotomy that perpetuates racial self-consciousness and tension by elevating the interests of some over those of others. As result, we concluded that instead of promoting equality, affirmative action actually begets a “heighened sense of race consciousness” that prohibits progress and undermines the program’s original intent.

Apparently, no one at The Dartmouth bothers to check our website, for earlier week Kevin Francfort wrote an article much to the same effect. Entitled “Rethinking Diversity,” it makes a strong case for the need to drop considerations of race within admissions, arguing instead that diversity of opinion is much more important than diversity of skin color. No surprise there, but where the piece was most insightful was in its accompanying comments page. There, a Hannah Giorgis wrote: 

Click to read more ...

The Supreme Court to Hear Controversial Case out of Texas

Image courtesy of the Wikimedia Foundation

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear another controversial case, only instead of ruling on healthcare or immigration, they will now be passing jugement on a contested affirmative action policy. Becasue of its high political stakes, it is sure to garner national attention in the coming months. 

The facts of the case sound strikingly similiar to those of Gratz v. Bollinger, the 2003 decision that deemed the University of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policies unconstitutional. This time, however, its the University of Texas system that's underfire. In 2001, it adopted a policy that allowed the state university to automatically admit any Texan graduating within the top ten percent of his or her high school class. Abigail Noel Fisher applied for admission for the Fall of 2008. Finishing outside of the top tier of her graduating class, she had to compete with both out-of-state students and other students whose GPA did not warrant their automatic acceptance for the remaining spots. After being denied while observing "less qualified" minority applicants get in, she sued, claiming that she was discriminated against when competing for a spot because of her race. This, her counsel contends, violates the equal protection clause under the Constitution.

The nation's High Court has already ruled on this issue twice in the past ten years, striking down the University of Michigan's "minority point accumulation system," but later upholding its law school's policy of making race a factor within a "wholistic evaluation." With subsequent changes in the bench, however, the court may set a new precedent that looks less favorabely upon the consideration of race in admissions. Since then, Justice Samuel Alito has replaced Sandra Day O'Connor as a more reliable opponent to such policies. At the same time, affirmative action adovcate, Elana Kagan, has announced her decision to recuse herself. This leaves the possibility of a 5-3 vote against the University of Texas's policy. However the vote breaks down, this case is sure to be a high profile subject of controversy in the months ahead. 

--George Mendoza

Affirmative Action Promotes Inequality

Thomas Sowell: the strongest critic a program meant to help members of his race?

Last week, The New Yorker published a review of the new book describing the Obama marriage, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage. In true New Yorker fashion, author David Remnick produced a voluminous piece of esoteric aggrandizement, cobbling together five pages of irrelevant narratives and Oval Office anecdotes in an effort to applaud the President and First Lady. A read through the cumbersome and longwinded article reveals that under the auspices of writing a review, Remnick birthed a heinous heap of pro-Obama grandstanding that reeks of unabashed liberal partiality. Like much of what The New Yorker excretes, this is an article to be avoided at all costs.

Or is it?

Click to read more ...

Federal Court Upholds Affirmative Action (Kind of)

Breaking news in the national debate over Affirmative Action:

A divided federal appeals court has struck down Michigan's ban on consideration of race and gender in college admissions. (CNN)

The Michigan law, which prohibits state educational institutions from either discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to applicants based on "race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin," was enacted by a popular referendum in 2006.  Just today, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the measure was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment "Equal Protection" clause, specifying that it "irremissibly" burdened racial minorities.  It doesn't appear that the court's decision has any bearing on whether or not Affirmative Action itself is unconstitutional; rather, it ruled that the State of Michigan cannot prohibit the practice.  The full ruling is available here.

Dartmouth College's affirmative action policy for admissions seems to be rather difficult to track down.  However, the College this year honored with its MLK Social Justice award the original architect of the College's gender diversity initiative in the 1970s, who personally works as a consultant for schools trying to "better achieve their diversity goals;" furthermore, Dartmouth last year joined the QuestBridge program, which matches "underserved" students with universities.

-- Sam A. Ticker