In Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950, Charles Murray compiled an inventory of 4,002 significant figures over 2,750 years who pursued excellence and accomplished great things in the arts and sciences. His inventory overwhelmingly consists of white European males, as do other authoritative and respected inventories.
Murray made the case that no significant non-European figures and events had been omitted from the major inventories. What was known about great works of other cultures was included, and it was white Europeans who did the research and tried to preserve records of those accomplishments, not the non-European cultures doing all the complaining.
In response to charges that European accomplishment in the sciences is exaggerated and that sources used to compile inventories are biased against non-European countries (about 97 percent of significant figures and events in the sciences are Western), Murray encouraged critics to augment the list of “giants†with non-Europeans, with one caveat: You must use the same rules by which European figures and events were included.
Murray writes:
If the definition of “significant event” or significant person†is relaxed to permit a dozen new non-European entries, hundreds of new entries will qualify for the European list, and the relative proportions assigned to Europe and non-European will not change. They may become more extreme, because the reservoir of non-trivial European accomplishments that did not get into the inventory is so immense.
In other words, even if standards for evaluating great scientific accomplishments are lowered to include more non-Europeans, Europeans would still dominate because there are vastly more European figures and events that didn’t make the list the first time around. Murray noted that the West was “as a rule, prodigiously productive.â€
Human Accomplishment, one of my favorite books, came to mind after I read about the University of Wisconsin System’s (UW) new “holistic review” admissions process. UW will consider non-academic qualities, such as race, income, and personal statements, to admit more black students because diversity “enhances the education of all students.”
To unmask the real face behind the holistic disguise, consider these questions: Why would adding weight to personal statements mean that more black applicants would be admitted? If the majority of applicants are white, wouldn’t a holistic review of all applicants yield a greater number of white admittees?
Such questions are not meant to be answered because they’re not meant to be asked.
In response to a decrease in black enrollment, the University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA) is also adopting a holistic admissions process that places more emphasis on race, despite a state law prohibiting the use of race in public hiring and admissions. Commenting on UCLA’s decision to add weight to personal achievements, blogger John Rosenberg, who frequently writes about discrimination, wrote:
[T]here is no reason to think that black or Hispanic applicants are better at personally achieving (or overcoming adversity, if that’s what personal achievement really means) than Asians or Arabs or whites or anyone else. Short of a preferences-equivalent thumb on the scale (such as granting more weight to personal achievements having to do with overcoming racism or growing up in a non-English speaking home), the proportion of minorities admitted because of their “personal achievements” should reflect their proportion of the applicants who meet the newly lowered academic threshold.
Charles Murray said the same thing about significant figures and events in the sciences. If holistic admissions standards are applied to all applicants objectively and consistently — and not just to “minority” applicants — wouldn’t it follow that more white applicants who didn’t make the cut the first time would be admitted under the relaxed standard?
But such discussions are academic. The goal of holistic review is not to admit more whites; it is to admit more lesser qualified blacks in order to “diversify” college campuses. How do I know that, you ask? If there were enough (however white liberals define enough) qualified blacks, that is, black students who meet UW’s grade and SAT score requirements, holistic review would be unnecessary.
It’s a shame that objective and consistent standards are considered unfair at best and racist at worst, but don’t be fooled by the so-called holistic review (as if my readers would be). It won’t be fair to applicants who’ve made the grade nor will it be applied consistently to white or Asian applicants who haven’t. Holistic review is just another race preference policy.
You never hear about schools trying to raise standards. Never. Always lower and lower for the blacks. Nobody wants to deal with the academic achievement gap. Nobody wants to touch the crisis of fatherless black children and unstable homes. Just leave it alone, say white liberals, and judge them by different standards. They’re not like us.
{ 26 comments }
So I’m confused. This “holistic approach” is supposed to increase ‘diversity’ because instead of breaking an application into sections and weighing each section individually the entire thing will be judged as a ‘whole?’ Is that right?
Well isn’t that just a way of getting around giving the section on ‘race and ethnicity’ (which includes gender and religion as well, I believe) more points than the section that says the applicant received a perfect score on the ACT? Isn’t that what we’re doing here?
I am by no means saying that all–or even some or most–minority students are of a lower standard academically speaking, but it seems to me that his process is LOWERING admission standards. I’ve seen the result lowering standards. The University I attend admitted something close to 98% of it’s applicants this year JUST to get it’s numbers up close to 4,000 students. As a result, we’ve seen a drop in academic standards, a rise in theft, a rise in vandalism and a rise in other “crimes” under the school code. Now perhaps these two things aren’t connected, but I suspect that they are.
Beyond the simply fact that lowering standards is a bad thing, your point is a very good one: if we lower all standards, won’t that just include ‘white kids’ who fall below the average student at UCLA (or wherever else that adopts this silly approach). I think it will.
The main point, that everyone seems to be missing is that racial preferential admissions/hiring policies don’t work, in fact they make the problem worse.
If they would face that fact, then the next logical step is to say, well if it isn’t working, what would work? And the answer to that would be, clear and equitable guidelines. The truth is if you devalue black education (by lowering the standards) you discourage black achievement because it doesn’t mean as much.
Results are driven by expectations, not exceptions.
Lowering educational standards is always a bad thing.
It seems to me that lowering standards cheapens the contribution made by achievers in the past.
I remember my high school counselor explaining my ACT results to me. I honestly don’t remember what my score was, but she told me I should do fine at the University of Wisconsin, but I would probably have a difficult time at one of the Ivy League colleges. I am white..this had nothing to do with race.
The whole point of going to college is to graduate and get a good job. But, if you are given admission perks and fail, you end up with a big bill while you’re out looking for work in another field.
I love this article by Thomas Sowell. He says “Racial preferences reduce the prospects of black students graduating.”
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1635
I say he’s right, but the same thing would apply to anyone of any race. If your scores show that you’re going to struggle, you’re probably going to struggle and possibly fail unless you have extraordinary drive and commitment.
I think people need to be realistic about their abilities and their choices. Some people shouldn’t go to college at all. I have great respect for people who are skilled tradesmen/women and who do a fine job supporting themselves and their families with skills learned at trade schools or on the job.
>>Some people shouldn’t go to college at all. I have great respect for people who are skilled tradesmen/women and who do a fine job supporting themselves and their families with skills learned at trade schools or on the job.>>
Amen to this!
There are so many factors – is someone stupid because s/he isn’t interested in the great classics or politics? _Should_ all children be expected to go to college? Is intellectualism _better_ than … sports and NASCAR? Certainly teachers think so, but the fact is, they’re usually among the “intellectuals”. How many of them haul their own trash to the dump? or do their own plumbing?
“No Child Left Behind”…what does this really mean to us as a society? I see it as not allowing the perception that a child whose home life isn’t supported by educated or even literate parents will also necessarily be illiterate and that’s ok to give permission to just pass the kid on up through the grades even if they don’t meet the standards. Why don’t minorities achieve the levels they need to achieve in order to be competitive? Hackles bristle if you mention the possibility that blacks and mexicans are less intelligent – but if genetic intelligence isn’t the issue, what is? where are the barriers? what about the asians? they have a culture/language barrier, but they’ve done so well that their % in California colleges is limited, just as whites are. Continually lowering standards for minorities is _so_ insulting – as if they just plain _can’t_ do any better. Why aren’t blacks/hispanics offended?
If we don’t figure out what the basic problems are, we’ll never solve them. And don’t give me the “we were slaves” routine – there are too many who have succeeded for that to work.
Since the other thread is closed and Walt was curious about whether I’d spent a lot of time in humanities courses: I have both a BBA and MBA in finance.
Hope you pass by this thread, Walt.
Well, my degree is now worth less (worthless?) Why bother with any standards at all? We should just be like Europe and let everyone in.
“(about 97 percent of significant figures and events in the sciences are Western), ”
While this is likely true, I think it’s two different questions.
Regardless of what theory of economic history once accepts, the white Europeans won and obviously advancements are built on one another – “on the shoulders of giantsâ€
Minorities were obviously discriminated against in the recent past, and my not have been given as much credit for accomplishments, such as that black “porter†who went to the North Pole with Admiral Perry or what’s his name who climbed Mt. Everest with Hillary – but even this accomplishments depended on the technology and help of the most advanced societies.
I see no problem with increasing the number of “token†accomplishments of minorities to perhaps 10% to serve as a role model for minorities – which would have to be a better role model than hip hop gangsters.
Giving a minority an automatic 10% entry to college today is an entirely different question.
And these Areocentric or Native American studies trying to claim they were really great civilizations, destroyed by the white man, seems like denial of reality using any objective standard.
Murray makes clear the standard is who or which country discovered something or was “first,” not who or which country improved on someone else’s discovery or who tagged along. Do yourself and me a favor, and this is very important: read Murray’s book before you comment on it. It’s over 600 pages, very detailed, meticulously researched, and well-written. Nitpicky comments on a blog don’t do it justice, nor will they edify anyone here. – Admin
I’m for just removing the block that says “race”….
It would be _so_ easy – just change the form!
I think, statistically, adding additional admission criteria, like personal statements, would not change the percentage breakup of races except to the extent that the filter of race was applied to those statements. This makes the criteria race, not the statements.
I happen to love, by the way, that you choose these hot-button topics to discuss.
You’re right, though. How ‘come standards never go up?
LaShawn wrote;”If holistic admissions standards are applied to all applicants objectively and consistently — and not just to “minority†applicants — wouldn’t it follow that more white applicants who didn’t make the cut the first time would be admitted under the relaxed standard?”
I never stopped and thought about this before, but you are so right. Given the fact that there are vastly more whites (in absolute numbers), living in poverty in the US, there would be a great many whites vying for the holistic approach/hard luck stories category along with minority applicants. So, if it was simply a question about the degree of suffering on an individual level, a consistently applied holistic approach may not work to increase black enrollment.
For example, you may have many many refugees from Asian countries who are now denied admission to top Cailfornia colleges because they are overrepresented when admitted through rigoroous academic standards alone, but if their 2390 SATs get topped off with stories of tragedy and deprivation, they will surely be unbeatable.
Hmmm…
Equal opportunity is the prize, not the mindless agenda that seeks equality of outcome by tinkering with standards. The latter, in effect, reduces the outcome for every student to the level of the least competent student. This is criminal. Or should be.
Whoops! Sorry for the double post. Tried to correct my misspelling, and submitted the same thing twice. My education must have been dumbed down. LOL
Duplicate post gone!
– Admin
Preach it, La Shawn!!!
SueK (#6)~
The basic problem, as far as I’m concerned, is unstable home life. Fix that, you fix the other problems. Two parent households are better able to provide for physical necessities of food, clothing and shelter, but also support for their academic needs. More support outside of the classroom for academics, the student will be much more likely to perform well in school. Perform well in school, and you are more likely to perform well on tests like the ACT & SAT. Perform well on those tests, and you meet the appropriate academic standards at respectable institutions of higher education (both public and private). Problem solved. This problem can’t be fixed overnight, and I don’t know how to fix these broken families, but that is where I think it HAS to start.
suek~
That’s the beauty of my theory – it will work for anyone in a poverty situation, regardless of skin color. I am currently student teaching at a low-SES, majority-minority school in Texas. I sat in on parent/teacher conferences, and most guardians/concerned relatives (not all are actual parents) showed up. Some parents are involved, at least to the point to talking to their child’s teacher. However, a lot of the kids with the worst problems (academic and otherwise) are the ones who didn’t show up. One student lives with grandparents, and they both work all the time, and don’t speak English (don’t get me started on the immigration aspect – that’s for another thread). He wears brand-name clothes, but he can’t read on grade level – no one lives in the home with him that can help him with his school work. Another student, one of the best in this class, is also from a home without English-speaking adults – the student translated for her mother during the conference.
Like I said, the solution is stable, two-parent households where at least one parent takes the necessary time to work with their child on academics. Part of a stable household is no illegal drug use or excessive use of alcohol. Again, creating these kinds of households is the solution, but I have no idea on how to make it happen.
You do have a point about child development and academic success. Did the mother consume alcohol or drugs during the pregnancy? Did the mother get proper nutrition during the pregnancy? Did the child get proper nutrition during early life? My research paper was on students at-risk for reading problems – the research shows that students who fall behind early tend to stay behind. Early interventions work for most children at-risk for reading problems, but they need to be identified early and that often doesn’t happen. Once identified, they need to actually get that extra help. Kids that are at-risk are usually those that aren’t read to as small child, and have little or no exposure to the printed word. Personal observation has shown me that those students who have difficulty reading are going to have problems in every academic area. If you can’t read, not only will you score poorly in reading, but also writing, science, social studies, and yes, even math. If you can’t read at grade level, you can’t read your grade level textbooks in any academic content area. It’s a big problem, and the solution is a strong support network for the children at home. Teachers aren’t some magic bullet to fix these problems.
On the Minnesota school’s different community meetings, I think it’s OK to have the meetings for the blacks, Hispanics, Somalis, etc., as long as they have another meeting for “Everyone else,” so that EVERYONE has an opportunity to meet and express their views. Sure, you could crash one of the other community meetings, but if your views are in opposition to the popular views AT THAT MEETING, will they even be heard or recognized by the leaders? Of course not. You may speak for a large group of people, but as a gate-crasher, you’ll be dismissed as a rabble-rouser and trouble-maker. Only if you’re silent will you be welcomed.
You can’t possibly have enough meetings to cover every ethnic and/or racial group individually, but you can cover the largest groups, and then have a catch-all group meeting.
I certainly don’t disagree with you that a stable home life is a factor, but that’s a factor in the white population as well. I don’t know about the hispanic population, or the asian population. I’m inclined to think that they’re less likely to have babies outside of marriage, and more likely to be stable. My suspicion is that the home life just doesn’t place enough emphasis on the work that needs to be done. There is also – going back to your stable home life – the likelihood that in a single parent home, it’s pretty tough to come home after a day’s work, fix dinner, do whatever needs to be done and still hassle the kids to get homework done. Your assumptions and mine don’t even begin to address the drug/gang problems that exist.
I wonder if there’s a way “back” for young adults if they decide they want to change their lives? I seem to remember something about age and ability to learn…that if some things weren’t learned before age ?? that ability to really process the information was reduced. That’s one of those dragged-up-from-the-recesses-of-my-mind things, so I’m not very sure about it. Convincing k-8 age kids that their future depends on the work they’re doing in school can be tough.
Sort of a PS: my eldest son is engaged to be married to a woman with three daughters. Her eldest daughter was 14 when their relationship started, and was getting Ds and Fs in school. He was convinced that she could do better, and told her he’d pay her $100 for each A she got. She got straight As the next semester, and has been a straight A or B student since. He pays her every semester. Pricey, but effective!
“Do yourself and me a favor, and this is very important: read Murray’s book before you comment on it. It’s over 600 pages, very detailed, meticulously researched, and well-written.”
I wasn’t trying to offer a book review on a book that I have not read completely. (The book did come out a couple of years ago, and I am sure I heard him on NPR for an hour or something and looked at the book but not read it)
I was only trying to point out the arguments, I think are different.
At first I thought the argument was an argument my analogy – such as the murder/abortion analogy. At least everyone believes murder it wrong, but not everyone buys the analogy.
The problem with a Murray analogy is that you are starting with Murray, and all of his books are controversial.
At second quick glance – and I admit I only spend a few minutes and not much thought typing out posts – it looks like you are only a borrowing one small idea from Murray – his idea about holistic standards also helping white-males.
Any argument is strong when it is based on FEWER assumptions, and there is no need to base any of your augment on Murray’s entire book – just his one small idea
Murray does have a lot of scientific critics, beyond the ideologists who just yell racist.
Enough with the ‘holistic review’, I just want the facts. If blacks/hispanics can’t gain admission based on the standards applied to the majority we need to address this problem. Thank God there is a cure for ignorance: education.
Speaking of education, I’m finishing a book by one of my favorite authors, Thomas Sowell. In Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Sowell puts a nuclear bomb in the whole issue of teaching ‘race pride’, and injecting ‘cultural sensitivity’ into education and detonates it, splattering all this nonsense into smitherines.
Sowell is so darn lucid and thorough in his research (as he always is), that this book should be required reading in every highschool, and especially every college African and/or African American studies department.
Sowell has done the research, and the research says that being ‘culturally sensitive’ does NOT help blacks achieve. Teaching and expecting excellence found in the majority population (white or whatever the majority of a particular country is) is what causes achievement. Likewise, ‘keeping it real’ is actually keeping it real dumb, and this destructive black cultural identity is actually a result of the Southern redneck culture which was imported from Europe.
Lowering standards only aids those who believe that blacks and other poorly performing minorities are inferior. Success in America has nothing to do with the color of ones skin or cultural background. It has everything to do with embracing hard work and applying oneself, no matter one’s cultural background.
True, there will always be those among us who will hate us for the color of our skin, etc. But this is no excuse for not reaching for excellence and being judged by the same standards as the majority population. Blacks are capable of this. Sowell has the facts to prove it. But facts are like cryptonite to those who preach victimhood.
For some reason, my comment from tonight didn’t go to #21, but to #17, so it’s out of order to the rest of the thread
Yeah, there were some server issues yesterday that wreaked havoc with the timestamps. All should be well now. – Admin
La Shawn,
Dr. King was quite clear in his speeches and writings that Affirmative Action and its progeny of whatever name were not only laudable, but required to achieve full equality in a racist society. He wrote and I quote:
“The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have “his due.” There is nothing abstract about this. It is concrete as having a good job, a good education, a decent house and a share of power. It is, however, important to understand that giving a man his due may often mean giving him special treatment. I am aware of the fact that this has been a troublesome concept for many liberals, since it conflicts with their traditional ideal of equal opportunity and equal treatment of people according to their individual merits. But this is a day which demands new thinking and the re-evaluation of old concepts. A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.”
For conservatives to place an overarching burden on the black family without a concomitant responsibility on the society lets those responsible for the facilitation of prejudice off the hook.
I am not delusional when I state the continued and persistent existence of racism. By racism I mean the traditional anti-minority kind, not the reverse racism that only exists in the minds of some conservatives.
Anything less than a full-throated defense of Affirmative Action is a denial of the suffering, segregation, and enslavement of generations of African Americans.
I welcome your response and the opportunity to dialog with you. Your blog is provocative and well maintained.
Well written, Skepticalbrotha. I disagree with your conclusions, but appreciate that kind of sincerity and civility.
Racism is a plague not reserved only for white people. It infects members of every race. To deny that is to deny reality.
And as a conservative, I can state that I’m fully aware that “traditional” racism still exists, and must be combatted.
Where we differ is in regard to the solution. At this point in history, the legal roadblocks to equality of opportunity have been removed. What’s left is to break down the “hearts and minds” racism that remains. I see Affirmative Action programs as roadblocks to this goal. Such programs separate people rather than allowing them to come together.
Affirmative Action is also insulting to minorities, in that it is an insidious form of institutional racism. Such programs have at their root the assumption that minorities cannot compete, cannot succeed, cannot win without a legislated head start. How terrible that is to make such negative assumptions about people’s capabilities.
RedBeard,
Tim Wise, a white anti-racism educator has an intersting take on racial preferences and Affirmative Action. He wrote and I quote:
“Ask a fish what water is and you’ll get no answer. Even if fish were capable of speech, they would likely have no explanation for the element they swim in every minute of every day of their lives. Water simply is. Fish take it for granted.
So too with this thing we hear so much about, “racial preference.” While many whites seem to think the notion originated with affirmative action programs, intended to expand opportunities for historically marginalized people of color, racial preference has actually had a long and very white history.
Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous) slaves as the only unfree labor in the colonies that would become the U.S.
Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed virtually any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians and American Indians could not.
Affirmative action for whites was the guiding principle of segregation, Asian exclusion laws, and the theft of half of Mexico for the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny.
In recent history, affirmative action for whites motivated racially restrictive housing policies that helped 15 million white families procure homes with FHA loans from the 1930s to the ’60s, while people of color were mostly excluded from the same programs.
In other words, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that white America is the biggest collective recipient of racial preference in the history of the cosmos. It has skewed our laws, shaped our public policy and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live.”
I believe Wise to be essentially correct in his assesment and that this society fails to measure or correct the inimical effects of generations of institutional racism against people of color.
Affirmative Action as currently constructed is not a cure all, but it opens the doors of opportunity to disadvantaged groups that otherwise would remain closed. To close those doors now is an endorsement of prejudice and discrimination in the name of a doctrine of color blindness that isn’t genuine.
Thanks for your comments Red, its been a pleasure.
You’ll get no argument from me about all those past wrongs (except, perhaps, the characterization of the southwestern U.S. asstolen land), but the clear historical record of wrongs does not justify more wrongs in an attempt to balance the books. If someone stole a chicken from my great-grandfather in 1906, should I be entitled to a government-mandated free chicken in 2006? On what legal or moral basis?
Those doors of opportunity you mentioned are now open to all, in every legal sense. The only impediments now are those inside each of us, and those cannot be changed by legislating a new set of discriminatory laws.
Again, we seek the same results. We only differ on the means to the end.
Comments on this entry are closed.