Rethinking Affirmative Action

March 24, 1996|By Joan Beck.

Is affirmative action over--at least for deciding admissions to colleges and graduate schools? If so, what do we do now to help equalize not just opportunity, but educational outcome for minorities and disadvantaged young people?

The issue took on fresh urgency last week when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the University of Texas Law School's policy of giving preference to blacks and Hispanics in admissions. That is a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, according to a unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel.

The case, Hopwood vs. Texas, will probably go to the Supreme Court as the ruling is significantly different from the high court's 1978 decision in the Bakke case, which allowed racial discrimination along with other criteria for admissions in the interest of diversity on campus.

But the circuit court's ruling last week said that "any consideration of race or ethnicity by the law school for the purpose of achieving a diverse student body is not a compelling interest under the 14th Amendment." It disagreed with the argument that race shapes the characteristics of individuals and said, "To believe that a person's race controls his point of view is to stereotype him."

The new ruling does seem to allow schools to use affirmative action to make up for past discrimination at a particular institution. But legal scholars say this is hard to do in ways that would avoid legal challenge.

Legally, the decision affects only the 5th Circuit--Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. But it is being closely watched by public colleges and universities everywhere because of its potential impact.

The plaintiffs are four white applicants, including Cheryl Hopwood, who were turned down for admission to the University of Texas Law School, although their undergraduate grades and test scores were higher than those of blacks and Hispanics who were admitted.

It is hard to disagree with the court which said they were victims of racial discrimination, adding it is unconstitutional "to elevate some races over others, even for the wholesome practice of correcting perceived racial imbalance in the student body."

This open and official discrimination against whites and, increasingly against well-qualified Asians, is widely accepted and practiced in American colleges and graduate schools. It has been justified not only to make up for past racial discrimination and to diversify campuses, but to help bring more minorities into leadership roles and mainstream jobs and income levels in America.

These are admirable goals, of course. But racial discrimination against whites--which in practice often seems to go farther than contemplated under the Bakke decision--can't be justified, as the circuit court ruling holds. Stereotyping people by race is wrong, no matter who its victims are.

The courts and the nation do seem to be moving gradually away from requiring affirmative action as a way to bring minorities into full equality in American life. In 1994, an appeals court ruled against a blacks-only scholarship program at the University of Maryland. Last year, the University of California Board of Regents voted to end racial criteria in admissions--a move that would benefit Asians as much as whites--and a bill banning racial preferences in state government and state universities may be on the California ballot in November.

Even so setting admissions policies is difficult, even when efforts are made to be race-blind. Objective criteria--test scores and grades--don't sum up individuals adequately. There are many kinds of intelligence and aptitudes that can't be measured in numbers. Creativity, drive, moral convictions, skill in overcoming adversity, social consciousness, background, special talents all contribute to what people are and how well they will use a college opportunity.

What now? The solution, of course, is to help disadvantaged minorities become fully competitive before they are old enough to apply to college and graduate school. This is far more complicated than merely lowering the admission bar to higher education but would increase their chances of success once they are admitted.

Improving schools, especially in poor urban and rural areas, is an obvious step. This includes providing adequate funding, a problem in many states where schools are supported in large part by local property taxes and therefore vary considerably in the resources they have.

But schools can't do it all, nor can they make up entirely for dysfunctional or indifferent or inadequate parents or missing fathers or the lack of learning stimulation in the home, particularly in the earliest years of life.

Efforts to assure disadvantaged minorities an equal share of places in college and graduate school on their own competitive merit should ideally begin at birth, with reach-out programs, perhaps run by local school districts, to help parents do a good job as their children's first teachers.

There could be visiting teachers coming to the home every week, child-family centers where mothers and young children could go for child-rearing help and emotional support and easily accessible preschools that emphasize learning. Then, perhaps, all children would start to school with a good chance to succeed, able to do grade-level work and eventually ready to apply to college without needing special preferences.

It is essential, of course, that in moving away from affirmative action, we do not slip back into preferences for whites, even inadvertently. We must create a level playing field, with equal opportunity for all, in a society that is truly color blind.