Recently the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding race-based admissions at the University of Texas. This case has the potential to radically alter or even eliminate racial preference policies in higher education, and for the better, according to Russell K. Nieli, author of “Wounds That Will Not Heal: Affirmative action and our Continuing Racial Divide.”
Nieli argues that race-based employment and university admissions policies are detrimental to America’s social harmony. In fact, affirmative action policies accomplish the exact opposite of what their supporters claim.
Although some motivations behind affirmative action are noble, it ultimately harms not only the individual benefactors of racial preferences, but also society as a whole. By preferring certain races over others, such policies do not treat all races with fairness and reciprocity, which should be the standard for preserving social harmony in America’s racially diverse communities.
Drawing on extensive social science research and evolutionary psychology, Nieli criticizes social policy and the claims of racial preference supporters, particularly regarding university admissions.
Many of the studies that he evaluates were originally intended to prove the benefits of race-based admissions policies and were funded in large part by Ivy League universities, only to prove the exact opposite of what higher educators hoped to justify. In summarizing this research, Nieli shows that “social science research has not always been kind to supporters of affirmative action.” He exposes the harm that affirmative action has caused in universities.
It creates “social distance” between the benefactors of racial preference policies and Asian and white students, causing more racial self-segregation on campuses. Rather than facilitating more racially and ethnically diverse friendships among students, “preference policies reinforce negative stigmas and negative stereotypes about the competence of their intended beneficiaries.”
When white and Asian students realize that many of their black and Hispanic classmates are not admitted based on academic merit, they tend to look down upon them and doubt their academic competence. This is not the picture of inter-racial harmony that proponents of affirmative action relate.
The damage is not only social, however, but also academic. By what is known as “upward ratcheting,” many minority students are admitted into universities in which they are not as qualified to academically succeed. When this is the case, either these students receive inflated grades or suffer from lower grade-point averages.
The former harms the academic integrity of institutions, and the latter damages the future career prospects of minority students. Research shows that the earnings of Ivy League graduates remain significantly lower for blacks and Hispanics than whites and Asians. This is not the case of graduates from second- and third-tier institutions where minority students are admitted based on academic merit and are thus more academically compatible with their white and Asian classmates.
The lack of academic compatibility is also an issue in graduate programs: for example, in recent medical school admissions, admitted whites had a GPA average of 3.63 while blacks only held a 3.29. Such upward ratcheting ultimately harms minority students –– especially blacks –– and even discourages them from pursuing careers in college teaching, the natural sciences, and law.
Though it is estimated that eliminating racial preference policies would cut 16% of blacks from admission to law school, it would increase the number of black lawyers by 8% because those blacks admitted would actually be able to pass the bar exam, unlike the current situation in which many blacks are unable to pass the bar. Ultimately, affirmative action fails to achieve diversity in distinguished career paths –– one of the stated goals of affirmative action policies.
In analyzing affirmative action research, Nieli achieves his self-stated goal: “to warn of the harm that this disastrous rejection of the color-blind ideal of the civil rights movement continues to do to our civic unity and our overall national health.”
By approaching the issue from a scientific perspective rather than one of political theory, he crafts a universally appealing argument, able to convince persons of varying partisan backgrounds. To achieve such an appeal, he purposefully avoids constitutional arguments, religious arguments, and even allusions to abstract ideals such as justice. He approaches the issue of race with the delicacy necessary in our society while not being afraid to state that affirmative action is harmful to all parties.
Some readers may become frustrated with his work’s unexpectedly short conclusion. Though he thoroughly explicates the problem of affirmative action, he does not present a clear solution. He believes that a change must take place, but he does not address the specifics of such a change, as he claims it is not in the scope or purpose of this work. “The verdict of social science research” will be the catalyst for such a change, he argues, thus he aims to persuasively present the facts that disprove affirmative action policies. Nieli successfully accomplishes his goal and knowingly tasks the reader with finding a solution.
As the cultural and political debate on affirmative action becomes more heated, Nieli’s work proves to be not only an invaluable source of information, but also a persuasive outline for those who wish to argue and win the case against racial preference policies in America today. This is the pathway to reforming policies and changing the cultural mindset toward affirmative action, and an essential step towards healing the wounds that continue to divide citizens.
elangston@hillsdale.edu
