Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
A new study from the Center for Equal Opportunity shows that the University of Wisconsin Law School systematically discriminates against white applicants. According to the Center, hundreds of applicants to Wisconsin’s law school were “rejected in favor of students with lower test scores and grades, and the reason is that they have the wrong skin color or their parents came from the wrong countries." (HT: WSJ law blog).
The study itself is heavy with statistical jargon, but one thing that jumped out at me was the "odds factor," i.e., controlling for grades, test scores, residency, and gender, the odds ratio favoring black over white applicants was 61 to 1 (by way of comparison, the relative odds of a smoker dying from lung cancer vs. a non-smoker is 14 to 1).
The University of Wisconsin is, of course, a state institution and, therefore, bound by the 14th Amendment: "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court allowed state universities to pursue race-conscious policies provided they're "narrowly tailored" (61 to 1, how's that for "narrowly tailored?).
Grutter involved the University of Michigan Law School -- it's no surprise that law schools have lead the way in trashing equal protection. In his dissent in Grutter, Justice Thomas pointed out that "blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators," and he quoted the words of Frederick Douglass -- words that every university admissions officer should have stamped on his forehead:
"What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! ... And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! ..."
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
Adam, they've always been desperate to "create" diversity in Madison.
For example...
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
Mark Belling Fan: Adam, they've always been desperate to "create" diversity in Madison.
For example... · Sep 15 at 12:32pm
Fascinating! It never ceases to amaze me that universities -- alleged institutions of higher learning -- spend so little time promoting intellectual diversity. Presumably because they don't want it. What they want is a "diverse" campus of people who all believe the same thing.
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
It sounds as if Scott Walker has some work to do.
Jan '11
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
Would it be reasonable to assume that governments could extrapolate from such decisions to other, more substantial areas of the social compact, i.e., health care, taxation, etc. using the same articulation of that rationale?
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
In the Orwellian world we inhabit, all law school applicants are equal, but some law school applicants are more equal than others!
Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington are often-neglected treasures of American political thought.
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
I'm fine with income-based affirmative action, though within very specific, limited parameters. A mindless obsession with diversity(in any form) should not be the sole goal of every human endeavor. It is far-sighted to give poorer people who have worked hard a dividend so that the country can unleash their human capital; it is unjust to give middle-class blacks and Hispanics privileges that middle class whites and Asians do not receive.
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
It is also important to point out that the real markers of future success, in this century, have little to do with "diversity." They are a stable two-parent family which gets the kid up in the morning, drives him to piano class and math tutoring, and is immersed in the kid's life. A lot of white kids, and very many black kids don't have that.
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
Interesting. My view is that a university should aim to have financial aid policies so that their admissions process can be needs-blind (just as it should be color-blind), but I'm not sure I see any advantage in going further. Could you elaborate on the point?
Ps - other than your first sentence, I agree with everything you wrote.
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
Agreed -- assuming Walker can get anyone to work for him. Odd coincidence that one of his former aides just had her house raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Jun '10
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
The University is doing these poor saps a favor... the benevolent masters are saving the applicants from having to endure law school taught by a bunch of relativists who hate everything the applicants and their families hold dear.
Seriously though, if the University is insisting on operating their admissions this way, just how much is a degree from the UW law school going to be worth in a few short years? And, if they persist in operating this way, who would want these same people as professors?...Waste of time, waste of money.
Sep '10
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
Still more than a law degree from Marquette?
Snap!
Jun '10
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
The argument for income-based affirmative action is based on an assumption that lower income kids don't have access to enrichment programs, better quality schools, music lessons, SAT prep courses, tutors, etc. etc and are thus unable to compete with richer kids. That may be true for many, but it's still a huge assumptioin. Family wealth is not a substitute for good parenting, nor can it make up for all types of family dysfunction that impact the success of children. And if AA is someday based on income, all types of accounting tricks and loopholes will be found for hiding income and placing a family in the favored AA category.
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
My Jesuit high school routinely implemented a program where it would go out to underserved school districts in San Jose and go recruiting. These students were expected to maintain high standards and attend "get up to speed" extra classes and homework sessions taught by Jesuit staff in order to stand a chance of continuing. I remember hearing that this program was brutal, but it worked. This was affirmative action in that it brought opportunity to socioeconomic minorities, but there was no set number that had to be admitted, candidates passed a rigorous interview process, and were held accountable to a higher work ethic than the rest of us.
By income-based AA and "parameters," I mean that universities can be creative in how they assimilate students with different educational backgrounds and how they choose to incorporate high school background, ability in local context, etc in their admission process without discriminating by race. Of course, devising such a system would be difficult. A lot of it would be going out and raising money to set up workshops, alternate learning opportunities, and information sessions in undesirable places. It's far easier and lazier to do racial quotas. But it's doable.
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
Also, this type of private/parochial school faith-based solution will probably not find favor in government settings.
Oct '10
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
I agree, the current affirmative action is nothing more than an ethnic spoils system. A serious program would be income-based (perhaps with incentives for graduates to return to their community of origin, to boost local social capital and prevent "brain drain"? That's always a hard problem to solve).
Sep '10
Re: Equal Protection Denied By . . . Law School
If a school admits that they settle for less than the best and the brightest, why would you ever want to hire one of their graduates?