The case for a new affirmative action
The case for a new affirmative action
Bruce Wydick Thursday, July 19, 2001 ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle
LAST MONTH, the University of California Board of Regents unanimously voted to rescind its 1995 ban on affirmative action. Though the decision was hailed by many civil rights advocates, it had no legally binding authority because Proposition 209, passed a year later, banned racial preferences in all state institutions. Fortunately, the decision was largely symbolic. Why fortunately?
Because the ban on racial preferences has started to force California policymakers to address fundamental problems in our society related to disturbing inequalities in educational opportunity. The use of racial preferences in admissions, in many ways, was like placing attractive wallpaper over a decayed social infrastructure. By calibrating the admissions process, both whites and underrepresented minorities could feel good about creating a policy that appeared to "level the playing field."
But when the wallpaper was torn off, enrollment of underrepresented minority groups to the most prestigious UC campuses plummeted. The ban on affirmative action rudely awakened us to a discomfiting reality: Far too few students from underrepresented minority groups are rigorously prepared for college. The problem with racial preferences is that they mask profound inequalities in opportunity, while they can perpetuate the very stereotypes they seek to overcome. Economists have learned much in recent years about the roles of perception, stereotype and stigma in labor markets.
By lowering the admissions bar for underrepresented minority groups (and thus raising it for whites and Asian Americans), race-based admission policies inadvertently perpetuate labor market discrimination against targeted groups. This phenomenon is consistent with data from recent research on affirmative action and the wages of college graduates. A tempting policy alternative is to scrap the SAT, and heavily weigh high school academic rank in admissions. Politically, the use of high school academic rank is certainly more palatable than more overtly race-based policies.
Yet, the irony is that such policies actually rely upon, and seek to exploit, racial imbalances and inequalities between high schools to achieve racial balance in colleges. Moreover, such policies fail to rectify the vast discrepancies in college preparation between top-ranked graduates from different high schools. We must stop looking for cheap, cosmetic fixes to our deeply rooted social problems.
The central issue is while many gifted white and Asian students are affluent, a disproportionate number of gifted students from underrepresented minority groups are severely disadvantaged, and for myriad reasons, do not end up on a track genuinely preparing them for college. We need a policy that doggedly pursues the college preparation of gifted students from disadvantaged communities.
It is time for California to offer a new contract to these students: If you are willing to work to prepare yourself for college, we as a society will provide the resources to ensure that you are prepared. Substantial increases in resources directed toward disadvantaged communities for after-school tutoring programs, accelerated summer school programs in literature, mathematics and science, and bridge programs between California universities and schools in disadvantaged communities should be key components of this new contract.
Recent census numbers for California reveal that our state is becoming one of the most ethnically diverse areas in the world. Our universities train our leaders. Without proper leadership, many in California will remain behind, watching others prosper. It is time for a New Affirmative Action. Bruce Wydick is an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the University of San Francisco.
©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 27
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page