- The Washington Times - Friday, November 12, 2004

For more than three decades, supporters of affirmative action have argued racial preferences in higher education were absolutely vital if blacks and other minorities were to obtain college and professional degrees.

In July 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to agree, at least with respect to University of Michigan law school admissions. Writing for the majority in Grutter vs. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified members of every race and ethnicity,” approving the use of explicit racial preferences to do so. “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” she wrote in the 5-to-4 decision.

A new study, however, debunks the myth that those preferences are necessary even now, providing stunning evidence affirmative action may actually hurt the chances of blacks to obtain law degrees.

Richard H. Sander, a law professor at University of California-Los Angeles, a self-described Democrat and a lifelong affirmative-action supporter, has recently completed the most comprehensive look ever at affirmative action’s effect on academic achievement of black law students. The study appears in the November issue of Stanford Law Review.

Looking at the performance of black and other students at 21 law schools in the mid-1990s, Mr. Sander notes in the introduction to his study, “There has never been a comprehensive attempt to assess the relative costs and benefits of racial preferences in any field of higher education.”

Mr. Sander focuses on what he describes as the “costs” and “benefits” of affirmative action to blacks. He is less concerned about the harm such programs may do to better-qualified white and Asian students passed over in the admissions process than about what happens to the less-qualified black students admitted in their place. He argues his data demonstrate blacks are harmed by the very programs aimed at helping them.

Most black applicants, he writes, “end up at schools where they will struggle academically and fail at higher rates than they would in the absence of preferences…. Perhaps, most remarkably, a strong case can be made that in the legal education system as a whole, racial preferences end up producing fewer black lawyers each year than would be produced by a race-blind system.”

Among first-year law students, Mr. Sander reports, 52 percent of blacks’ grades put them in the lowest 10 percent of their class. Only 8 percent of blacks earn grades in the top half of their class. And their performance does not improve with time.

About 19 percent of black students in this study dropped out without completing law school, compared with 8 percent of white students. Of those who completed law school, however, about half continued at the bottom 10 percent of their class. Consequently, only about 45 percent of black law school graduates pass their bar exams on their first attempt, compared with about 80 percent of white graduates.

Mr. Sander estimates that if black students were admitted through a race-blind process, so their skills were properly matched to the schools’ own admissions criteria, far more black students would do well, graduate and pass the bar. He estimates ending racial preferences could produce nearly 10 percent more black lawyers.

My Center for Equal Opportunity has published studies of 57 public colleges and universities and nine professional schools revealing the extent of racial preferences, which are both wide and deep. These affect not only the most elite schools but even less competitive colleges and provide a very substantial admissions advantage to blacks and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Latinos.

We have shown that, judging from their tests scores and grade-point averages, black students in particular are often admitted to schools for which they are poorly prepared, and from which we’ve reported they are less likely to graduate. But we’ve seldom had access to data to show how they performed in school. Mr. Sander has now provided that data — and the picture it paints is gloomy indeed.

Racial preferences not only harm whites and Asians passed over for admissions to colleges and professional schools in favor of less qualified blacks and Latinos, they do real harm to the very students they were intended to help.

Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide