Restoring LBJ’s Original Vision of Affirmative Action

May 26, 2011, 4:01 pm

Former Emory University president William M. Chace’s cover story on affirmative action in The American Scholar garnered a strong rebuke earlier this week from Mark Bauerlein in the Chronicle’s Brainstorm blog. Bauerlein correctly points out that Chace’s contention—that racial preference policies have facilitated “the graduation of thousands of young men and women who otherwise would not have passed within the gates of a college or university”—overstates the case. Admissions preferences allowed thousands of black and Latino students to attend more selective universities than they would otherwise have done, but the choice is not between “Yale and jail.” More likely, it is between Yale and the University of Connecticut at Waterbury.

As affirmative action is a contentious and thorny issue, I’ll weigh in to take issue with both Bauerlein and Chase. Affirmative action still matters a great deal even if it only prevents a “slide down the ladder” from Yale to Waterbury, as Bauerlein puts it, because the experiences at different colleges can alter a student’s trajectory. As I’ve noted elsewhere, controlling for various factors, attending a selective institution is associated with increased rates of graduation and increased wages, particularly for low-income and minority students. And selective institutions disproportionately provide entree into America’s leadership class.

Instead, I think Chace’s chief mistake is to ignore the role of class in discussing the issue of racial affirmative action. The problem begins when he describes Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 commencement address at Howard University, in which Johnson famously declared, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” Chace suggests, as others have, that Johnson’s speech provides a justification for university admissions preferences based on race.

But as I outline in my book, The Remedy, Johnson’s speech, written by Richard Goodwin and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, never mentioned the idea of using racial preferences, and media reports at the time explicitly noted the omission. Instead the speech called for a number of race-neutral class-based programs to provide better jobs, housing, education, and health care. Johnson’s subsequent executive order (11246) called for federal contractors to take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.” In an interview, Moynihan told me, “It always seemed to me that you would take care of this race problem in the context of a class problem.”

Likewise, Chace cites large gaps in math and verbal SAT scores between blacks and whites as a rationale for continued affirmative-action programs. On average, black students scored 209 points lower on the critical reading and math sections than white students in 2008. But Chace never probes the question of why blacks score lower than whites on average. Research that does examine this issue points primarily to the role of economic disadvantage. In a 2010 Century Foundation study, for example, Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl found that controlling for socioeconomic factors, the black/white gap on the combined math and verbal sections of the SAT shrinks to 56 points, while the gap between rich and poor is seven times larger, at 399 points.

Fortunately, as David Leonhardt noted in a perceptive New York Times column yesterday, some colleges—such as Amherst—are beginning to take steps to directly address socioeconomic diversity alongside race. As Leonhardt notes, this represents a departure for higher education, which is much more attuned to issues of race. It’s striking that in 2003, just as the University of Michigan was defending the use of racial affirmative action in the U.S. Supreme Court, more freshmen entered from families making more than $200,000 a year than from the bottom half of the income distribution. Amherst’s attention to class inequality is welcome—and very much in keeping with LBJ’s original vision of affirmative action.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

rogerclegg

I agree with the author that wealth-based preferences are much more defensible than race-based preferences as a matter of policy and fairness, and would add that they are much more defensible legally as well. And in that regard I would point out that the justification that Mr. Kahlenberg gives for race-based affirmation action in paragraph two is legally a nonstarter. The Supreme Court has allowed university admission preferences only because of the asserted “educational benefits” of student body “diversity”; but of course nobody really believes in that bogus rationale, which is why two minutes into any discussion of this topic we’re always talking about slavery, Jim Crow, being “hobbled by chains,” etc.
drjeff

This is the United States of America. We do not have classes. We have wealthy individuals and poor individuals. And, in most cases, these labels are temporary: wealthy individuals are many times more likely to move DOWN the economic ladder during the subsequent 10 years than poor ones, who are many times more likely to move up. (Source: IRS statistics.)

Talking about “class” as if it’s an actual thing reinforces the (tired, dying) European idea that you are eligible for a job because of who you ARE, rather than the American idea that it’s about what you can DO.

If every word I’ve said is not true, then how on Earth could Barack Obama be our President now?
markbauerlein

I agree with an income-based form of affirmative action, too, Richard. But your note that “sliding down the ladder” out of the selective institution sphere does do significant harm to minority students over-states the case. As I understand it, the slide isn’t so far as to drop them off the selective-institution list entirely, but only one or two tiers downward.
mxb22

Colleges may have legitimate needs for flute players, physics majors, and wide receivers, but how can they, with a clear conscience, prefer any particular demographic? Presuming the college has a selective admissions policy, it’s not possible to prefer a black student without discriminating against a non-black student, and not possible to prefer a poor student without discriminating against a non-poor student. But what did those non-preferred students do to deserve their non-admission? What do you say to them? Do you tell them they were turned down because, as individuals, they didn’t qualify for admission, or was it because they were classified, as a group, as somehow privileged and therefore less deserving? For a public school to prefer one group over another is an odious form of discrimination because the administrators who do so believe they are being virtuous when, actually, they are only being exclusive.
barbarapiper

I’m not exactly certain what your point is about Obama becoming president. He was the son of two highly educated parents – his mother had a PhD and his father did graduate work at Harvard — and he attended the Punahou School, an exclusive private prep school in Hawaii. What’s not consistent with the backgrounds of other recent U.S. presidents?
eserfeliz

While I agree in principle with the premise that it would be wonderful if we lived in an America that is color blind and where every child starts at the same point, the reality is that there are too many children being disadvantaged by factors beyond their control, such as school districts based on their parents property tax assessments, single or zero-parent homes, parents working too many jobs, and socioeconomic factors. While these problems are also color-blind, African Americans have the dubious distinction of being the only race that did not come here under their own free will. Decades were spent where the laws of this country condoned and supported slavery; it matters not that our country would later flourish from their forced labour. And I can concede the point that most African American schoolchildren do not know first-hand what it means to be a slave, but the contention that America’s past has no effect on them now is severely flawed.

This is not a defense of affirmative action. As long as affirmative action exists, there is no equality. However, until education in America is truly equal and gives children the education and the skillset that they require to compete in the new global marketplace, then all of America’s children will suffer accordingly.

You can make assumptions about LBJ’s intentions (which you have done almost zero research on, I can see), however, your arguments are so off-base that I don’t know if you stand as an authority on affirmative action, race, or class issues in any way. LBJ’s “vision” of civil rights was tempered by other political forces, namely, Jim Crow and segregation. Perhaps he didn’t explicitly state the words “race” or “negro”, however, it is painfully obvious which segment of the population the Civil Rights Act was aimed at. If you still can’t figure it out, perhaps you should read up on President Johnson’s support for organizations such as SNCC against politicians in the Deep South, and THEN talk to people about President Johnson’s “original vision”.
regradford

All of this misses the point. No legal challenge to legacy admissions at the Ivies and select public institutions like the UVA and UC Berkeley. No legal challenge to lowered NCAA admissions in football and basketball where predominately black athletes (a) generate millions for their institutions and (b) are unlikely to graduate. After the Hopwood decision, a black Texas legislator cynically wanted to ban all NCAA admissions but the Republican committee chair never allowed a vote. The legislator appealed to Gov Bush but he would not allow a support the measure. The legislator knew the Republicans would never ban these admissions because of the revenue black athletes generate. He called the anti-affirmative action foes bluff – -and won.

Alan Bakke was rejected by 12 medical schools primarily because he was older when applying. No legal challenge for Age Discrimination. The Dean of the UC Davis med school had five set-aside sets for legacy admissions. No legal challenge to those admissions. Bakke pursued his case against the one group he knew a victory was likely – -blacks and Hispanics.

See a pattern? America remains, to a great extent, a social caste system and the people at the bottom of the caste – -African Americans – -are the only group that less privileged whites feel they can challenge when it comes to affirmative action (this especially includes NCAA basketball and football players. By challenging these admissions, less privileged whites would – - in effect – -be challenging privileged whites and they know the high costs of such irrational behavior).

Blacks were not discriminated against because they were poor, they were discriminated against because they were black (regardless of socioeconomic status). The remedy? Race-based affirmative action. Or, like the Texas black legislator called for, legally end NCAA admissions. And legacy admissions. Never will happen!!

All of this talk talk about class-based affirmative action is “much ado about nothing”.
rick1952

Kahlenberg ends paragraph two stating: “…the experiences at different colleges can alter a student’s
trajectory. As I’ve noted elsewhere,
controlling for various factors, attending a selective institution is
associated with increased rates of graduation and increased wages, particularly for low-income and minority students. And selective institutions disproportionately provide entree into America’s leadership class.”

So, I argue that we need to speak up in a clear and vigorous manner in support of improving educational opportunity for those in the low-income demographic of our society, especially those who are trapped in highly segregated pre-college educational systems in our nation’s major cities? Are you willing to make that argument to the Supreme Court? Or, will you decline to make that argument because the beneficiaries will predominately be African-American and Hispanic? Each time I read your responses to Affirmative Action commentaries, I hear an argument in defense of perpetuating the status quo, not an argument for correcting the extreme injustice of the status quo by extending opportunity to those who have been most discriminated against in our society. We are only going to be able to correct the status quo if we improve educational opportunity for those who are most often denied quality educational programs by virtue of their segregation in communities of concentrated poverty. Too often, those who are trapped in this way are African-American, Hispanic and Native American.
jbarman

Meanwhile, Alabama’s and LSU’s 4-year graduation rates are are 37.6% and 26% respectively. It could have been worse. If the young man had committed to Boise State, he would have had a 5.7% chance at graduating in four years.

Source: collegeresults.org
bwolverton

noted, thanks, steve_a
steve_a

The Winthrop study apparently only looked at the effect of recruits rated 3-star and above. If they had looked at the effect of 5-star and/or blue-chip recruits only, they might have seen a correlation between recruiting and on-field success. Alabama and LSU might get more 5-star and blue-chip recruits.
steve_a

Thanks for the story, Brad. I find the proliferation of HS sports on ESPN to be inappropriate glorification and a little distasteful.
_perplexed_

Can someone explain why Landon Collins was wearing pads? Is signing day that rough? Are we so sick that is is what entertains us?
jboncek

IMHO, ESPN exploits children to make bucks.
tumblrsfinestnyc

college football is at a all time high now………love it
http://fashion-identity.blogspot.com/
http://tumblrsfinestnyc.tumblr.com/
12052592

Could this person capitalize on a racist stereotype any more?
Socratease2

I know, when I saw baby cage fighting on ESPN11 the other night, I was both appalled and relentlessly fascinated by the ability of these lil warriors to get after it and show no mercy until the opponent needs a major diaper change. Now that’s entertainment.
old nassau’67

Observations:
1. Lady Gaga’s got real pipes. She’s got great phrasing and voice. She’s a pro.
2. I’d like to see the disparity between the SAT’s and GPA’s of these recruited athletes and those of that college’s ‘regular’ students.
3. I wish Winthrop had researched academic as well as athletic performance. The NCAA is constantly trying to paper over, with this rule and that regulation, the simple fact that many recruits cannot master, or even meet, their college’s scholastic requirements.
Brian Abel Ragen

Geisel/Suess _was_ a doctor. I was on the dais at Princeton when he was awarded the degree. In response the graduating seniors began chanting “I do not like green eggs and ham / I do not like them, Sam-I-AM!” I cannot think of another American poet whose work would be known and loved by all the members of that or any other graduating class.