U. of Wisconsin Is Accused of Bias Against White Applicants

No, they are to be judged by the color of their money, according to another article in this same day’s online Chronicle; see “Cutthroat Admissions and Rising Inequality: A Vicious Duo”. As that article points out, a college education is the route out of the bottom part of the socioeconomic spectrum, but folks in the loftier portions know how to game that system with wealth to  make sure they get into the colleges that will keep their families in that part of the spectrum and others out of it. And guess who disproportionately inhabits the bottom part?

Step back and look – We have created a seemingly permanent underclass of people of color in this country, and haven’t found a way to fix that problem. We’d better, since (okay, let’s quote another notable in addition to MLKJ) a house divided against itself cannot stand, and we’ve certainly done a lot of dividing and not very much uniting. What are the solutions? Affirmative action based on socioeconomic class? Where that has been done, it has had some very mild impact also on racial and ethnic disparity, but only very mild, and as soon as it starts doing something about that latter problem you then start hearing the complaints about backdoor approaches to racial/ethnic affirmative action. (And that is a startlingly inconsistent position – How can one condemn approaches to addressing socioeconomic disparities that happen to give a “backdoor” advantage to some racial and ethnic groups while turning a completely blind eye to the elephant in the room, namely, the socioeconomic disparity that allows those from other racial and ethnic backgrounds to preserve a frontdoor approach to perpetuating an advantage? Pretending that the elephant is not there is what allows groups like CEO to rile folks with their selective statistics. Are they simultaneously telling people what the campus demographics are at places like UW-M compared to the general population and asking how things got that way? When pressed, their answers tend to fall along the lines of, “Heck, that’s the way it is, I didn’t cause it,” or that old saw about not addressing one wrong by committing another while never offering any other workable solutions to addressing the one.)

Sandra Day O’Connor is absolutely right that affirmative action must, eventually, put itself out of business (though it should be emphasized that not long ago she did clarify that she hadn’t intended to set a legal 25 year deadline on that, but just express a heartfelt wish; my heart is firmly with her on that). Affirmative action is not a permanent solution to anything. It would be great if people who object to it could find some others that work in practice. Better schools to help prepare everyone who can do the work actually go to college? Great idea, but the current round of newly elected governors seems intent to balance their budgets on the backs of public education, and, again, that’s a problem that people in the higher socioeconomic strata (which includes mine, though I don’t happen to have any children) can easily buy their way around. Better enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws? Sure; a century and a half of experience in this country tells us how that can be gamed.

As much as anyone, I long for a better solution than affirmative action, but until one is found I can only echo a colleague of mine who once said in a forum debating the outlawing of it that “It is really sad when one sees a useful tool discarded in favor of an unimplementable utopian ideal.”

I’m with you, megginson.  If you want to advertise your awesomeness as a non-racist, start by not perverting the message of MLK.

Racial preferences in admissions to highly elective programs are near- universal. They’re so extreme as to create nearly non- overlapping applicant pools, where the best candidates in one pool would not be admitted from the other pool.

I do not believe “We have created a seemingly permanent underclass of people of color in this country…”  I contend that we continue to support the underclass, regardless of color, simply because we have implemented progressive policies that encourage dependence on handouts rather than initiative.  If we continue on this course, affirmative action will not affect the outcome at all.

The point that is always missing is that the folks that are admitted meet the admissions requirements. Just because someone is admitted with a lower score doesn’t mean they weren’t eligible for admission. Of course there are also Whites admitted with lower scores but that’s never an issue. It’s those minorities takings seats away. And my guess is that Wisconsin has a student population that is probably 75% white. If they are discriminating, they are doing a really bad job of it. They should take lessons from the South pre 1960s.  They were no Blacks at Alabama, Arkansas, Missippippi, etc…Now that’s discrimination done right.

@chronicle-a482ce0bf766f521f958c9bce8865c98:disqus ”academic ability” 
Oh you mean like ACT score or SAT scores?  Good because those have no correlation whatsoever with income, race, or gender. However if you do think you might not score well on an college entrance exam, no problem since there are prep camps available for only a thousand $ or so.

“We all work for what we get in life”

Yeah Paris Hilton worked real hard for what she got in life.

”  Handouts and “help” 

Welfare less than $20 billion per year.
Agriculture subsidies $30 billion
Education $30 billion (mostly student aid)
Corporate over $70 billion

Actually I did mean ability to perform academically. Any way you want to define that is fine with me. Universities have different standards based on what they feel is an important indicator. What I am suggesting is that if you can do the work and are of sound character you should be able to attain a higher education regardless of any race or class. This should have een put behind us long ago. 

@chronicle-a482ce0bf766f521f958c9bce8865c98:disqus ”What I am suggesting is that if you can do the work and are of sound character you should be able to attain a higher education regardless of any race or class.”

I agree, all who qualify need only to walk past the rainbows and unicorns to the University of Infinite & Affordable Admissions and sign up.

I am pointing out that, to allocate limited resources, they use a income-biased exam, (so much so you may as well just use a tax form). This WILL lead to race-biased admission, correcting for this is only sensible.

“you can’t change that”

But you can correct for that bias.

Apples and oranges. 

Just so you know, I also support  removal of all subsidies from welfare, agriculture, education and corporations.  The federal government has no business giving away my money to who they think are deserving.  That is my right, not theirs.  It is not provided for in the constitution, therefore is not permitted.  It is reserved by the states to handle as they see fit.

@ Robert_wyatt

Don’t try to be condescending.

Public schools were financed by the local communities and much of the funding still comes from the local community.  When the feds got involved, they took control of the schools.  There are many who are fighting to regain control of their schools by wresting control from the feds.  Some are even advocating the abolition of the cabinet level Department of Education.

Many public colleges were land grant colleges developed for the improvement of agriculture and teachers.  They were funded by the states, not the federal government.

Most of the private schools developed from major christian determinations who saw a need to educate people.  There was no need for the Feds to get involved, yet they did and look what we have now.   THere are 3 colleges remaining in the states that refuse to take the feds money.  They do not have any problems filling the seats.

You did get one thing right.  The constitution provides for the common defense.  I committed 20 years of my life to protect this country.  I think I have contributed enough to the common defense.

So yes, it is my money.  I earned it.  I did not get paid to not go to work as they pay farmers not to plant crops.  I don’t have to go to Somolia to understand the roles of the citizen, state and federal government. Somolia is just another apples and oranges comparison.

Here’s the thing — You can’t take MY tax money to provide a service (like a state college system for my kids) and then pass policies that give me a far lower probability of being able to access that service for which I am paying in comparison with others who have also met the requirements.
This was the argument behind the legal challenge in VA which alleged that it was easier for your child to win admission to William and Mary if he was male than if she were female.  Why should a family with 3 daughters that pays taxes not be able to access higher education in the state with the same probability as a family with 3 sons — when both groups are paying into the same system for the same reasons?  Namely to provide their child with an education.
We DON”T pay taxes so that the government can engage in levelling the playing field, carrying out social engineering policies or otherwise experiment with the money that we earn and work hard for.  What if you were paying taxes for something like fire or police service and then you were told that the fire or police department has decided to only answer 1/5 phone calls from your neighborhood, vs. all the phone calls from another neighborhood?  If the university wants to be charitable or meet some social engineering goal which the taxpayers didn’t vote for, then it shouldn’t be done with taxpayer money.