Ross Douthat’s column in yesterday’s New York Times suggested that in building a diverse class, elite universities and colleges should make room for more white working-class conservatives from rural areas and Red States. For more than a decade, I’ve pushed for greater socioeconomic diversity on college campuses so one of my daughters understandably called me to celebrate the Douthat piece.
In fact, however, I think Douthat’s rationale is all wrong. Yes, we should have more working-class kids at selective colleges and universities, but not just to make the conversations more interesting and to build a future elite that understands working-class whites. More fundamentally, we should want more poor and working-class kids at selective institutions because a fair meritocracy requires consideration of economic disadvantage—a point surprisingly missing in Douthat’s analysis.
Douthat starts by invoking Pat Buchanan, who a number of years ago took the argument of diversity to its logical extreme to suggest that over-represented groups, like Jews and Asians, should make room for white Christians at selective institutions. To most fair-minded people, Buchanan’s argument exposed the fallacy of the pure diversity rationale—that admissions is all about power and giving each group its “fair share”in order to have all views represented on campus.
Indeed, the original idea behind affirmative action wasn’t that each group had a political right to a slice of the elite academic pie. Nor was it to provide African-Americans representation on campus so that white students could learn from black students—a notion introduced by Harvard University and written into law by Justice Lewis Powell in the 1978 Bakke decision. Instead, the strongest rationale was that as a matter of fairness, students who came from racially and ethnically disadvantaged groups faced extra obstacles, and an admissions officer, in order to more accurately measure long-term potential, should consider an academic record in light of the obstacles that a candidate has overcome. This meritocratic ideal, which seeks to identify diamonds in the rough, would never give a leg up to a wealthy Evangelical conservative because what matters is obstacles overcome, not whether a student enriches the conversation.
Of course, the fair admissions rationale for affirmative action always should have considered economic obstacles, and should do so especially today, now that socioeconomic disadvantages have become far more powerful than purely racial ones. A recent analysis by Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, published in a Century Foundation book I edited entitled Rewarding Strivers, finds that a full complement of socioeconomic obstacles predicts an SAT score 399 points lower than the most advantaged student’s (on a 400-1600 scale), while being African American predicts a score just 56 points lower. In practice, however, today universities provide far greater weight to race than class. Researchers Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford find that on average, the private elite universities they studied only give a 130-point SAT boost for low-income students, compared with a 310-point boost for African-American students.
But it’s even worse than that, as Douthat alludes to in his article. Comparing students of similar academic record, Espenshade and Radford find that being low-income increases the chances that black, Hispanic, or Asian students will be admitted to private institutions, but significantly reduces the chances that a white student will be admitted. With a similar academic record, a poor white has just an 8% chance of admissions, compared with a 28% chance for upper-middle-class whites, and an 87% chance for low-income blacks.
Highly talented poor kids of all colors deserve to get in not just because they will enhance the climate in elite schools (which they will); and not because Pat Buchanan thinks every demographic block deserves a proportionate share (which they don’t). High-achieving, low-income students deserve to have a seat at the table because they’ve worked hard and done well, despite what research suggests are very formidable obstacles. Elite private universities have recognized this in the case of poor blacks, which is all to the good. That low-income whites with comparable academic records have less of a chance of getting in than their more advantaged peers is shameful for institutions that normally pride themselves on being more fair-minded than conservative commentators.
12 Responses to Ross Douthat, White Anxiety, and Diversity
agpbloom - July 20, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Kahlenberg explains:”This meritocratic ideal, which seeks to identify diamonds in the rough, would never give a leg up to a wealthy Evangelical conservative because what matters is obstacles overcome, not whether a student enriches the conversation.”Yes, but this “ideal” was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. It reified categories of race, ethnicity and privilege that were not accurate in the first place. We became enslaved to our own creations: rigid categories.Too many fell through the cracks of this “meritocratic ideal,” especially those who did not fit the neat categories created by academic and government elites.Many “Evangelical conservatives” have been assumed to be “wealthy” by admissions bureaucrats whose decisions doomed them to inferior educational opportunities and then labelled and lampooned their ignorance while reparations were well underway for so-called disadvantaged categories of students.The damage has been done and the hour is really late.Unfortunately, the old habits of operation are not accommodating the adjustments to the economy that Kahlenberg acknowledges.It is a royal mess, and the casualties of affirmative action are everywhere.I fear that it will be a long time before our nation recovers from decades of reverse discrimination. A shame.
creach - July 22, 2010 at 7:34 am
“Of course, the fair admissions rationale for affirmative action always should have considered economic obstacles…” I could not agree more.
mlisaacs - July 22, 2010 at 8:20 am
The Tea Party movement is alive and well in rural Vermont, where I live. There is truly a brain drain here, where the best and brightest are prepared and encouraged to leave and not come back. The young people who remain are without jobs or job prospects. The rural poor are generational, just as they are in cities. Their families have lost their farms, lived hand to mouth, and been pushed into a financial hole from which their children will never dig out. These are the people who are angry and attracted to the Tea Party movement. And yes,many belong to evangelical churches because many of these churches offer a safety net thatsociety does not offer. There is talent in all populations of poor students. Diversity should focus on talent anda willing spirit to learn and not on race. Sadly, much of this begins with early childhood learning. No one wants to think 20 years ahead. Our Democracy is at stake if we do not educate the growing poor of all races. Anger willbecome the main subject that is mastered among the poor.
honore - July 22, 2010 at 9:52 am
ssssshhhhhhhh….please remember no mention of “race” is allowed, except in fluffy, feel-good-can’t-we-just-all-get-a-long Rodney King rhetoric…so sad, so very very sad
wilcherglobal - July 22, 2010 at 10:06 am
“It is a royal mess, and the casualties of affirmative action are everywhere.”Actually the “casualties” of affirmative action are indeed everywhere, in the black and Hispanic communities where those who were heretofore excluded from elite colleges and universities are now members of the Middle Class. Among such casualties is Gen. Colin Powell, a self-described beneficiary of affirmative action. Until the late 1960s, after Dr. King died, very few people of color were admitted to these institutions. Now we have two generations of casualties that are physicians, lawyers, educators, a governor and even the President. Now is not the time to end race based affirmative action programs. As I have argued before, race, which I would suggest is more historically and legally compelling than socioeconomic status, cannot be replaced by socioeconomic status. You need both if the goal is equal opportunity and a more diverse student body.
rick1952 - July 22, 2010 at 11:21 am
Affirmative Action has been a difficult topic virtually since its inception in the late 1960′s. While much evidence exists that skin color can impact postively or negatively the opportunities of persons in the USA (not just educational opportunity but things like access to and quality of health care, treatment in the criminal justice system, etc.) there is also compelling evidence that socio-economic status impacts these opportunities. However, it seems like there is nothing like race, and in particular dark skin color, that can so powerfully impact access to opportunity in negative ways.If Affirmative Action was such a powerful, distorting force in our society during the past 40+ years, then I have to wonder where are all of the affirmative action students admitted to higher education – how many campuses have enrollments of African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students that reflect what you might expect if all things were equal? Looking at the pre-college level, I have to wonder how it is that so many school districts all over the USA are so decidely segregated by race? I have to wonder how is it that poverty is concentrated in so many urban and rural school districts while affluence is concentrated in many suburban school districts. There is a lot of evidence, to borrow from W.E.B. DuBois, that a “talented 10%” can escape the negative consequences of having dark skin in the USA but for a substantial number of dark-skinned persons their skin color interferes with their opportunities to advance.We have to recognize and insist on individual responsibility, but there is more to it than that. For those who have not done so, I recommend reading “The Other Wes Moore” in which the author describes his life experience as a Black man growing up in a single parent household as contrasted with that of another who shares his name but not his opportunities. It is a complex story because even as race and class figure in the equation so do other factors like schools, jobs, access to non-predatory loans, etc. At one point in the book, the two Wes Moore’s discuss the idea of “second chances in life” and one Wes says to the other, “…second chances don’t matter much if circumstances don’t change…”I also recommend reading Larry Cuban’s “As Good As It Gets” for a cogent discussion of how race and socio-economic status impact educational opportunity using Austin, TX as a case study. Linda Darling-Hammond recently published “The flat world and educaion…” which also identifies how skin color and socio-economic status impact educational oppportunity along with clear principles for how we can improve the education of students of color despite prejudice based on skin color and/or socio-economic status.So, if we really want to engage in meaningful affirmative action, we need to get serious about providing truly effective educational programs beginning in pre-k right through high school for all children, not just the affluent children of the suburbs and the “talented 10th” in the urban and rural school districts of our nation. Then colleges would not find it necessary to engage in the kind of admissions evaluation that is so hotly disputed today.Of course, a commitment like this will take time and we still have to figure out what to do so as not to lose yet another generation of young people whose skin color and/or socio-economic status places them at a significant disadvantage in our society. In making admission college decisions, it is appropriate to recognize and take into account how those who have faced significant obstacles have overcome them to advance educationally. And it is especially so when skin color is one of the obstacles which is successfully overcome.
vcama - July 22, 2010 at 11:24 am
Agreed. This country’s elite universities should follow France’s example where socioeconomic background is placed far higher in admissions consideration than race or ethnicity.
wilcherglobal - July 22, 2010 at 11:46 am
Race is not simply a matter of skin color, as some inexperienced in the effects of discrimination would suggest. Race is an identifier, a determinant of where one lives, what job one has and what primary and secondary education one is prepared for. In the USA, it is a badge of privilege and conveys a presumption of superiority and advantage. For the non-privileged, race is a barrier to be overcome. Hence we have the debate about “white anxiety.” Those who are of the privileged race, but who do not share the benefits of this affiliation resent persons of color who have been included for a variety of reasons. This resentment is not new. The current debate comes from a belief that “anxious whites” should stand at the front of the line; that they are more entitled than the handful of disadvantaged minorities who gain admission to these elite institutions. I continue to argue that there is room for both, but that displacing minority students for poor, “Christian” whites is not an acceptable answer.
ohreally - July 23, 2010 at 3:02 pm
I’d add something to the “fairness requires accounting for obstacles” position in admissions. It’s not merely that students competetive for admission to selective institutions have attained at high levels in the face of these obstacles, but also that they have developed resourcefulness, perserverence, clariy of purpose and other strengths that make them an asset to the student body. In this age of valuing “well-roundednesss” shouldn’t we also consider resourcefulness (not to mention culture competence)? In that light, affluent white’s (I count myself among this group) have been getting admissions benefits for years because they did not have a demonstrable record of overcoming obstacles and developing resourcefulness and seriousness of purpose. I have–and I suspect we all have–seen students in this latter category who have compiled an excellent academic record, but when they meet the rigors of university education crumple in the face of setbacks or expect the institution to cater to them in ways they are accustomed to. Others lack a substantive purpose for seeking higher education. These students are unprepared for the university in real and consequential ways–I’ve seen when students used to highly resourced high schools were unable to navigate the rigors of rigorous and huge public research university. But because we don’t fully acknowledge the role of resourcefulness and perservence and its lack, these kinds of students have been taking slots from students with less stellar academic records but greater wherewithal. The real strengths students developed from facing obstacles and the weaknesses of not having developed resourcefulness are minimized by a system that favors academic measures, and in turn, those students with advantages in this realm. In short, it’s not the obstacles only that we should focus on, but the full breadth of attributes students bring and the role that obstacles play in developing them.
llevitt1 - July 26, 2010 at 7:45 pm
All this talk of inability to be admitted to “elite” institutions implies that education in those places is superior to that in “non-elite” institutions. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Because of the plenitude of excellent graduates from excellent doctoral programs in every area of the country, the lesser valued institutions are now offering curricula equal to those in the more valued ones, with faculty equal in experience, education, skill, and dedication. Hence admission to an elite institution should be a function of the ability to pay, all other things being equal, and we should be looking to the non-elite institutions to carry the load of educating those who cannot afford the astronomical prices but are equally educable; for that is what they areand should be doing.
jfetter - July 27, 2010 at 1:24 am
The basic questions we really should ask ourselves before tinkering with the system is: who does, in fact, benefit from it as it is now constructed, and for whom were the benefits intended? It is clear that affirmative action was intended to benefit poor members of minority groups who struggled against real discrimination. It was not intended for wealthy trust-fund babies who happen to be members of minority groups and whose idea of oppression is not getting the color of BMW they wanted for Christmas. The hard reality is that wealthy members of minority groups have the double benefit of affirmative action and the advantages that arise from their family’s wealth: good schools, safe neighborhoods, high-achieving piers, etc. Obama’s daughters will receive affirmative action when they apply to Harvard and Yale, Obama’s equivocating on the subject notwithstanding. Poor Whites, on the other hand, are faced with “reverse” discrimination in the admission process and the disadvantages that arise from living in poverty, broken homes, and so on. The question is not whether we should push out poor Blacks to make room for poor Whites but whether we should continue to give preferential treatment to rich Blacks, not to mention legacy students and children of major donors, at the expense of poor Whites. This ought to be a straightforward question of class, and the divisions of race, both cultural and institutional in the form of affirmative action, allow the olligarchs and other elites to divide the poor against one another and prevent them from organizing to demand fair treatment and genuine equality of opportunity. The Tea Party, a child of wealthy conservatives, does this on the right, and the obsession with race and political correctness in academia and government prevent the left from becoming a potent force for the working and, increasingly, unemployed class. If it were not for race, the extreme disparity between rich and poor in this country would have been remedied a long time ago, and it is well past time that we in academia who are not ourselves beholden to the olligarchs recognize that we have a duty, as a matter of justice, to help the working and unemployed classes become aware that racial categories are little more than a construct used by political and financial elites to prevent the formation of a class consciousness and, with it, a potent force for structural change in our economy. I’m amazed at how many self-described Marxists in academia are huge fans of affirmative action when it is so blatantly obvious that it generates racial animosity that dissolves solidarity among the poor and lower middle class.
chuck - July 30, 2010 at 7:08 am
I went to Stanford in the mid-70s, and I’m pretty sure there were better qualified candidates than myself. I have presumed that one advantage I had was being from an under-represented place – the state of Oklahoma. I was not really poor, nor rural, but was white. Point? I think the university did want geographical diversity, and despite the advantage it gave me, seemed a good thing anyway. With people from everywhere – it did broaden us. Also, in terms of “class,” The student body, overall, was fairly affluent, but there were very significant exceptions. As someone from a family of quite modest means, I was one of them. I think we did contribute something to the education there. The wealthier students were more sheltered, and I think we – “poor” [i.e. we basically had to work, and not travel, etc., during time away] – as it were, provided other models for people who had not struggled in the same ways.A vote for diversity for its own sake. In Oklahoma in the 60s and early 70s, the school system [and city, Tulsa] was pretty segregated. I first went to an integrated school in junior high. The experience with Black students was invaluable to us [whites], I believe, and I think it held true for Blacks as well. Nothing else could have broken down the barriers we faced better than having to get through school together.Granted, desegregation [at that time, our system was voluntary] has been nothing if not controversial, and difficult. And it is true that socio-economic factors are more important than race in college admissions. But I think the diversity that Stanford tried to achieve – and they struggled with this; I saw some minority, and rural kids fall by the wayside, just not ready – was definitely worthwhile. I just think being, as it were, “forced” together did contribute something significant to our educations.