← ‘U.S. News’ Praises Colleges for Admitting Only the Best Students

Trump, Obama, and Affirmative Action

May 5, 2011, 5:58 pm

Following a campaign to get President Obama to release his birth certificate, Donald Trump shifted the issue to release of Obama’s college transcripts. In a veiled reference to affirmative action, Trump told the Associated Press, “I’ve heard he was a terrible student, terrible. How does a bad student go to Columbia, and then to Harvard?” He challenged, “Let him show his records.”

Many supporters of the president understandably took this accusation—on top of the “birther” allegations—as yet another insult of America’s first black president. Some suggested it was outrageous—even racist—to suggest that Obama’s transfer from Occidental College to Columbia University and his admission to Harvard Law School wasn’t strictly based on merit.

Bob Schieffer of CBS News, for example, objected to Trump’s assertion that “We need to look at his grades and see if he was a good enough student to get into Harvard Law School. That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing.” DeWayne Wickham, likewise, wrote in USA Today, “If his factless assault on Obama’s citizenship isn’t proof enough of Trump’s racism, then his attempt to brand the president as the undeserving beneficiary of affirmative action in higher education—an old saw of modern-day bigots—should remove all doubt.”

Trump lost any credibility he had when he joined the “birther” movement, but I found the response to Trump’s comments on affirmative action troubling. Isn’t it inconsistent for those who are strong supporters of affirmative action—who say it would be a disaster to get rid of racial preferences—to also suggest that Obama could not possibly have benefited in college and law-school admissions from the fact that he is black?

The truth is that Barack Obama may well have benefited from affirmative action—and that, if he did, he stands as a great symbol of the policy’s success. According to research by Anthony Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose, who support race-based affirmative action, the policy triples the number of African-American and Latino students at most selective 146 colleges and universities compared with the proportion who would be admitted under a system of admissions based on grades and test scores. That is, roughly two-thirds of African-American and Latino students benefit from affirmative-action policies at selective institutions.

Indeed, Obama himself suggested in a 1990 letter that he probably was a beneficiary of affirmative action. Obama wrote in the Harvard Law Record, “As someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative-action programs during my career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative-action program when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized.”

If we stipulate that Trump and Obama are right—and that Obama was among the two-thirds of African-Americans enrolled in places like Columbia University and Harvard Law School who would not have been there but for affirmative action—didn’t Columbia and Harvard Law place among the best bets in academic history? Shouldn’t supporters of affirmative action highlight the likelihood that Obama—who went on to graduate from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, serve as president of the Harvard Law Review, be elected to the U.S. Senate, and serve as president of the United States—benefited from the policy?

For years I’ve argued that affirmative-action programs should be sharpened to focus on class rather than race, so that poor whites and Asians would benefit, and wealthy African-Americans and Latinos would not. Obama could very well have qualified under the class approach: While his parents were highly educated and Obama attended private school, he was also raised by a single mother who at times received food stamps. (By contrast, Obama’s children would not benefit.)

But the proper defense of affirmative action—whether based on race or class—is not to deny that the policies have an impact on actual individual admissions decisions, but rather to embrace the fact that these are calculated risks that often pay off tremendously.

Defenders of another affirmative-action policy, for the children of alumni, have great reason to deny that the 43rd president of the United States was admitted to Yale through a legacy preference, given George W. Bush’s low standing among American presidents. But shouldn’t those who believe in Barack Obama point to him as a proud affirmative-action success story, rather than deny that he benefited at all?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

sjdekrey

Great article. Having served as admissions director of a prestigious business school during the affirmative action days I am well aware of many successful graduates who did not have the grades or test scores. What this tells us and President Obamas case screams is that our “regular” admissions processes are grossly flawed.
open2ideas

Point well made, though given the program’s success, perhaps the time is over for race-based preferences (that still leaves economic preferences, which might be a more appropriate ‘correction’).

So, given your views, which many would support – why doesn’t the president release his transcripts?

On the campaign trail, the president called for transparency, something the press corp has noted sourly he has not delivered. Perhaps its the hypocrisy of what the transparent, post-ideology, post-identity president does versus what he says.

Your article assumes that ‘outing’ the president re:
affirmative action is the only possible basis for the requests for full
disclosure by the president.

Isn’t it just possible that some folks, I don’t speak for Donald Trump, are curious what he actually wrote? Afterall, we know and debated what the current Supreme Court Chief Justice wrote in his High School papers. As to George W., his grades were known, his Yale admission was broadly recognized as ‘legacy’, and the common media view was that he got out of Viet Nam and didn’t serve in the Guard. As the son of a wealthy past president – his silver spoon was prominent.

Isn’t there a ‘right to know’? How come the press has not pushed for the release? Isn’t it interesting how many people are ruffled by any mention of such a right when it comes to our current president – see how fast they tar them racists. Perhaps we should have one rule, equally applied for all those seeking public offices – just a thought.
electronicmuse

Trump “shifted the issue” because he is a jackass who played the “birther” canard for all he could get out of that. Now it is something else. And-let me play Nostradamus-I suspect it will be something else after this.

Since getting to attend College is the “outcome” of affirmative action, if we believe that attending College brings benefits, isn’t it simply a tautolgy to point out that someone benefitted due to affirmative action?

Yes, it should be class, rather than race based. Scientists have difficulty even identifying race, but socio-economic conditions can easily be determined. And yes, there is an ugly stain of racism running through the whole “birther,” and now “transcripter” crowd.
open2ideas

ElectronicMuse – don’t doubt there are racists or bigots out there, but getting beyond labels and looking at the principles, ‘right to know’ / full disclosure for political office seems important. I’d think academics should support that notion as empirical research depends on access to facts.

The only true way to be ‘post ideology’ is for all parties to drop the ad hominems and willful indirection to focus on the merits of underlying issues. Our right, as citizens, to critique our government depends on transparency. We should judge ALL administrations by their devotion to that principle.
clarinetsarethebest

This, I think, is far less insulting than the birth certificate demand, mainly because I’m sure I’ve seen President Bush’s Yale transcript online. Not to mention Al Gore’s Harvard grades and John Kerry’s Yale grades, which were also published. Do I think it’s an invasion of privacy? Yes. But asking to see politicians’ grades doesn’t appear to be targeted only at Obama.
http://twitter.com/timetraveler3 alisea williams mc

I agree with Open2ideas that there should be one rule concerning disclosure of personal information such as transcripts (although I myself don’t feel a need to see them). I am not sure that how well one has done in school correlates directly to how qualified one is to run for office or how potentially well one would serve in office. I’d hate for instance to see a congress of straight-A students.

In the case of Trump’s call for disclosure, however, the matter is not a question of whether President Obama was smart enough to become president (most Americans I suspect know that he was and is) but a question of whether black leaders who were affected by affirmative action policies are bonafide professionals. On the surface, this seems an unnecessary, ridiculous, and, yes, racist investigation, yet possibly lurking beneath the question is impassioned doubt that affirmative action policies were or are just or legitimate. Despite then, Obama’s rise, despite his successes, by certain Americans he himself will always wear a badge of illegitimacy, a scarlet letter if you will, and no amount of disclosures will satisfy what is essentially a deep seated distrust of race-based policies, on the one hand, and I think an abiding suspicion, on the other hand, that the American economic system (despite a touting of ideals to the contrary) cannot and does not provide equal opportunity for all. In this way, Obama and other black professionals are scapegoated for the system’s real shortcomings, and what could evolve into a fundamental critique of our economy instead stymies itself around race. That critique of affirmative action limits itself in this way is of course unfortunate. Donald Trump knows as well as other Americans our legacy of racism, our warring sentiments and discourses, which is to say he knew before he started his campaign against Obama just the chord that his allusions to affirmative action would strike with certain audiences. I view his campaign, as well as the movements that he is patronizing, as ultimately larger than a discrediting of our first black president although it certainly is too that. In what is arguably one of if not the most critical junctures in America’s economic history, Trump is inciting the masses to stake a claim to a dream they still hope is theirs.

One could I think put together a credible argument that some (though certainly not all) rejection of affirmative action policies is based in an imaginary nativism working in concert with racism. America and its bounty are for those who are legitimate Americans, and legitimate Americans achieve their place in society by their own efforts. The obvious problem with this perspective is that it discounts the legacy of racism–its lasting effects–to say nothing of ongoing racism. This view is ahistorical. And this brings me to why class-based affirmative action policies are not enough, but rather than repeat an argument that has been made many times and which ultimately failed as a defense of racial considerations I would instead agree with Sjdkey who writes, “‘regular’ admissions processes are grossly flawed.” I would go a step further to say that education itself is grossly flawed and grossly unequal. Affirmative action tried to achieve not fundamental change but procedural justice.

The nation fought its legacy of racism on an institutional level, and there were some wins and some losses. We also attempted to fight the legacy on moral and ethical levels though these strategies perhaps did not take into account the capitalist machine’s ability to turn deep critique into catch phrases, e.g. “judge people not by race but by the content of their character,” postage stamps, and holidays. Would that these strategies for addressing America’s legacy of racism had been matched by honest, thorough investigations into our nation’s troubled past, into its lasting effects, and by engagement of the reality of our various social inequities. In short, we need a more honest approach to education beginning at the elementary level. We need to introduce the young, as emerging democratic citizens, to a critical rather than a simply romantic view of America. I do realize that this would be a radically different kind of education, one that would nurture critical citizens not accepting of oversimplifications, not so easily accepting of systems as they find them, and not naive enough to rely too confidently on procedure. Until we can offer such an education, there will be an ongoing need for class and racial diversity of America’s college campuses, not one or the other but both.

While I do not agree with Mr. Kahlenberg’s belief that race-based affirmative action should be replaced with class-based policy, I do heed to his suggestion that the usual defenders of affirmative action should, in light of President Obama’s many successes, be all the more convinced of the policy’s efficacy rather than denying its influence. As a believer in the good of affirmative action, I would only add that it should be a measure not just for creating paths to upward mobility and participation but a mechanism as well by which we create a democratic forum of diverse perspectives.
Guest

Good article.

There is another perspective from which the entire process of accusation and defense is a waste of time. Admissions decision process and grades, whomever the recipient, are neither physical facts nor precisely defined or standardized social particulars. In the course of attending college, most individuals are likely to enjoy some favorable and unfavorable considerations based on factors other than an objective assessment of what one has learned and, while we don’t like to think about it, the scientific validity of the objective assessment is, itself, pretty low. Additionally, grades are not particularly good predictors of anything other than future grades. Add all this up and you get a “so what” or a “why would anyone care?” Trump is a PT Barnum kind of guy creating stagecraft. When a parrot “asks” the time, you feel embarrassed in glancing at your watch, but you do, momentarily.
drj50

If we had “one rule,” it would not include release of transcripts. Can you identify other political candidates or office holders who have done so? Or even been asked to do so?
open2ideas

Alisea – Enjoyed reading your comment. I know well reasoned thoughtful articles don’t ‘attract eyeballs’ as they say in the media biz, but it would be nice to think that maybe our civil dialog could aspire to be so.

While one exceptional case is hardly evidence of success of the program as a whole, I accept your points regarding affirmative action, it has had some success. Moreover, in a society that values freedom and fairness, one of the government’s primary roles is to ensure a level field (not outcomes). Social mobility, very low within the lowest economic quintile of our society, should be a national shame.

If accomplishment facilitated by any government program is to have any value or merit, there must be expectation. We, nor can any society, can’t afford gratuitous handouts to balm our conscience. A hand out requires hands that are reaching up. Government solves no ones problems. We, the people (not government in the form as deus ex machina), need to be mature about our investments in ourselves.
edwoof

If someone’s finger is going to be on the big red button, there is no information about that person that we should not be able to ask for and receive.
electronicmuse

And then what? Exactly what do we find out from Obama’s transcript-or any transcript, that propels some action point? We found out only belatedly that Ronnie was having “good days and bad days” under the tutelage of some quack astrologer, and Reagan’s finger was a lot itchier on the “big red button” that Obama’s ever could be. Reagan’s transcript would not have revealed either his superstition, or his incipient dementia, would it?

This argument about one’s schooldays exemplifies the quaint notion that “information is power” taken to a ludicrous degree. Hey, is that a play on words? How did I do in English 101?

Only a dyed in the wool academic would be interested in somebody’s transcript. The World has a way of “grading” us, and that should be sufficient when somebody clears the age of about 30, let’s say. Your accomplishments are your transcript. Gee, there are some people who do not even have transcripts!
electronicmuse

Exactly what would full disclosure of Obama’s transcript (or that of Bush, Reagan, Carter, et al) reveal? Donald Trump has no “underlying issues” at all. Jackass is as jackass does!
sinaoni

Great article. I will also contend that, the lower grades posted by students admitted by the affirmative action programs, were the results of impoverished environment rather than poor intelect. Given the same opportunity they might have performed equally well if not better. Trump, where is your college transcript?
mdanieltex

It could be argued that it illustrates the success of affirmative action; or, affirmative action might have knocked out an even more successful individual.
sinaoni

Would this “even more successful individaul” be born with silver spoon in his mouth or without? If without silver spoon, affirmative action might have knocked out an even more successful individual, if with silver spoon, affirmative action might have leveled the playing field. What do you think?
dskancer1953

It does not matter what skin color the man possesses, it is his honesty in question. Many that attended and graduated during the time he claimed to have attended and lectured have not seen or heard of him until he came into public office. No records no pictures no lectures. He came out of thin air. While you may dislike Trump, he has remained in public view. What is questioned is honesty from a seemingly dishonest person.
pjfmitchell

In my opinion, discrimination is always wrong. Affirmative advantage programs are discrimination based because they give one individual preference over another based on something other than merit.