The op-ed below by UT President Bill Powers was in today's WSJ, per an email I
got from the University. luridtransom is onboard with the Liberal View that diversity in
education is good and valuable and noble and whatnot. But we can't swallow the
idea that a state university's policy of preferring applicants of one race over
another can be squared with Equal Protection, even if the policy is narrowly
tailored, whatever that may mean. And isn't strict scrutiny just a way to
justify the outcome in the first place?
What luridtransom especially can't accept is the idea that you can include racial
preference in an admissions standard without a de facto quota. Powers
says: "Our policy doesn’t strive to achieve a quota or demographic target."
Well, that's nonsense. Of course you start with the result you want (% minority
enrollment) and work backwards from there in deciding how much weight you need
to give race in your admissions policy. And that's a "quota or demographic
target." How could you do it otherwise?
Perhaps the ends justify the means. But if that's your argument, Liberal Scholars, just say it. Quit lying about the means.
Bill Powers: An Admissions Policy That Prizes
Diversity
History repeats itself Wednesday in an eerie but ironic way, as the
University of Texas goes before the Supreme Court to defend its consideration
of race in admissions. UT last did so 62 years ago, when Heman Sweatt, an
African-American postal worker from Houston, challenged the university’s
consideration of race.
Sweatt, of course, had been denied admission because of his race. The
university lost that case—but America won. UT became one of the first flagship
universities in the former Confederacy to integrate, and Sweatt paved the way
for the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision integrating all of
public education and forever banishing the fiction of separate but equal.
This time, UT finds itself back in court superficially for the same
reason—considering race in admissions—but with just the opposite motivation.
While our 1950 policy aimed to keep certain people out, our 2012 policy is aimed
at permitting more of their grandchildren to enter.
The crux of this week’s case, Fisher v. The University of Texas,
isn’t whether diversity is good. The vast majority of Americans now understand
that diversity isn’t only acceptable but desirable in all aspects of life,
especially education. In my 38 years in the classroom, I often have seen how a
diverse classroom enriches discussion, provides valuable insights and offers a
deeper learning experience. After all, how can a homogenous environment prepare
students to be effective citizens of a diverse world?
Rather, the question at the heart of this case is whether any consideration
of race, no matter how slight, is constitutional. In 2003, the Supreme Court
ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that the educational benefits of a
diverse student body are so compelling that race can be considered as one of
many factors. In the opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the
constitution “does not prohibit the [University of Michigan] Law School’s
narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling
interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student
body.” Surely nine short years have not obliterated this logic.
If the fiction dispelled by the Sweatt case was that education could be
separate but equal, the fiction that will be dispelled by Fisher is
that minority students are being admitted at the expense of more qualified white
students. There are no unqualified students admitted to UT—to the contrary,
admission is more competitive than ever.
About three-fourths of our students are automatically admitted by virtue of
their high-school class rank. Even for those students we use a holistic review
to determine whether they will be admitted to a particular college or school.
For the rest, we employ an entirely holistic review in which race is one of many
factors along with leadership, extracurricular activities, awards, work
experience, family-income level and community service.
As a result, UT is fully compliant with Grutter and earlier
decisions that acknowledge the importance of diversity and permit race to be one
factor among many. Our policy doesn’t strive to achieve a quota or demographic
target.
Diversity benefits all students, as the
court rightly affirmed in Grutter, but that is only the beginning of
its benefit to society. Preparing young people to lead in an increasingly global
civilization also pays dividends for employers, organizations, governments,
communities and everyone who is served by our graduates as they leave the
academy to make a difference in the world.
