• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Growing Evidence that College Preferences Harm Minority Students

    Once upon a time, those who favored racial and ethnic preferences in college admissions at least admitted that their goal was to help certain minority applicants who they argued were underrepresented due to a legacy of discrimination and other social ills.  This is an appealing and well-meaning goal, even if such government preferences tended to reward a subset of minority students who were not disadvantaged and harm other students who were less well off—and raised a host of other moral and constitutional problems.

    When the Supreme Court ruled squarely, in the 1980s and 1990s, that government could only use race-conscious measures to remedy its own past racial discrimination and could not do so to provide proportional representation or to address other social ills, the proponents of preferential treatment turned to other theories to justify the continuation of such programs.

    Thus, the diversity rationale was promoted for college admissions under the theory that an undefined “critical mass” of certain minority students was necessary for all students to learn important lessons.  In the case that approved this rationale, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Chief Justice Rehnquist effectively demonstrated in his dissent that what was really going on at the University of Michigan was a strict adherence to proportional representation.  But no matter.  Five justices approved the theory by which, at least in Michigan, black and Hispanic students (but apparently not Asians and Middle Easterners) could be used to help educate the rest of their classmates.

    But what should be the result if the growing social science evidence shows that the racial and ethnic preferences being employed in selective colleges significantly harm the minority students who receive them (in contrast to minority and other students who are admitted without preferential treatment)?  For those who have opposed racial preferences for moral and constitutional reasons and always thought that they were counterproductive, the evidence confirms their observations and points to the need for effective school choice and other strategies at the K-12 level to help more students reach their full potential.

    Those who have long supported discriminatory preferences face a real dilemma when data show that most who are admitted with SAT scores 150 points or more below a school’s mean perform, sadly, pretty much as expected. They tend to get poor grades, drop out of science and other difficult majors at much higher rates, have significantly lower bar passage rates, and drop out at a high rate.  Some of the same studies suggest minority students would graduate at the same rate, get the same grades, pass the bar at the same rate, etc., if they simply went to colleges that admitted them without preferential treatment.

    Such studies are summarized in two amicus briefs filed in the Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case the High Court will soon decide whether to hear.  The University of Texas has greatly increased its use of racial and ethnic preferences since the Grutter decision, even though the university president had previously bragged that a state-wide “ten percent” plan and other measures made a resort to more race-conscious preferences unnecessary.  The two amicus briefs on the harmful effects of preferences on minorities were filed on behalf of three commissioners on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (including me) and for Professor Rick Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and discussed in George Will’s recent column on the case.

    The Heritage Foundation will be sponsoring a debate on the Fisher case this Friday at 11:00 a.m., and my fellow civil rights commissioner, Gail Heriot, will discuss the social science data.  That data suggest that minority students are significantly harmed by preferences and that there would be more black and Hispanic college graduates, scientists and other professionals without such preferences.  The defenders of preferences will have to reply whether they will drop their support or whether they think it is worth the harm to these minority students so that other students may supposedly benefit.

    Though my position on these matters is reasonably well known, I will be the scrupulously “fair and balanced” moderator for our public event on Friday at Heritage, which is co-sponsored with the Federalist Society’s Civil Rights Practice Group.  Former Texas Solicitor General and counsel for the University of Texas, Jim Ho, will be joined by Loren Aikhan, who is counsel for the League of United Latin American Citizens.  The opposing view will be presented by law professor and Commissioner, Gail Heriot, and Center for Equal Opportunity President Roger Clegg.  Please join us in person on Friday from 11:00-12:30, or you can watch our live webcast at this link.

    Todd Gaziano is Director of the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, and was also appointed Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights upon the recommendation of House Speaker Boehner.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to The Growing Evidence that College Preferences Harm Minority Students

    1. Lloyd Scallan says:

      What must be realized is for every "minority" student omitted to any institution of higher learning replaces a possibly brilliant or exceptional white student that could be a huge benefit to all of society. Just to make the point, a white student that could have the drive and expertise to cure, say cancer or aids, will not be given the chance because of "political correctness" or the stupidity of "affirmative action". In the real world, can a mule run in and win the Kentucky Derby? That's not to say minority students can't accomplish great things. But, students with proven higher gpa or iq should be the one chosen, not another student with much lesser abilities, just because of their race.

    2. Leon Lundquist says:

      Guys! This is no joke. The recipients of Federal 'help' can be harmed by that help. My own case, in the 60s was a Great Society program called Upward Bound. I would have been far better off going through the High School since I had terrific high scores on the SATs. But instead I relied on Upward Bound Program, and they produced almost zero help for me (work study) and an inferior College. My siblings all got into major Universities without Federal 'help' but I was selected, and a genius, but I got worse than nothing compared to the help I would have got on normal lines. They wasted thousands of dollars on College Prep only to waste my time in the end.

    3. Daver says:

      One of the things I've never seen written about is the fact that within Obamacare there are many pages referencing who will and will not be admitted to Medical Schools in the future based on reverse discrimination.

      I guess it goes to Sotomayor's comments that a female Latina justice would make inherently better judgments than a non-minority justice might make–but for the medical field.

      I'd guess this part of Obamacare is easily severable–but when a bill contains so many obvious flaws, wouldn't it just be preferrable for us all–not to have to adopt it, to find out what's in it, and just scrap it?

      Racial discrimination of any kind–hurts everyone.

      • carol,az says:

        I support your premise Dave based on race.
        A foreign-born student educated at Occidental College where all records were expunged.
        Passed through the system to Columbia U., NYC, that no one remembered,but paid for by us.
        Onward to Harvard Law where it was also reported he even taught Constitutional Law
        Reported, having ownership of several CT, based SS #'s. that no one will speak about further.
        One known job based on the race , and run by ACORN. After blatant fraud and mis-use of public funds is once again operational under new logos and new Czar and more Stimulus money.
        He describes it as class warfare. I describe it as the biggest cover up in American history .

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×