Update: In response to critics who question why I blog about race so frequently, I wrote a post titled Race Blogger.
Do You Hate Black People? is also responsive.
Don’t like it? Millions of other bloggers out there…
Later…My post on the battle for “preferred minority” status was reprinted at CNSNEWS.com.
————————————————–
If you have an SAT score of 1240 and a grade-point average of 3.2, your chances of being admitted to the University of Michigan undergraduate school are 9 out of 10.
If you’re black.
White or Asian? One in 10.
The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) has the goods on the University of Michigan (U-M), just in time for the November 7 election.
On that day, Michigan voters get to decide whether their state government will continue using skin color preferences to hire and admit blacks and hispanics, or use fair and consistent standards for everyone, without regard for the color of their skin, an idea that was the heart and soul of this nation’s so-called Civil Rights struggle.
If passed, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will put a serious damper on U-M’s skin game.
The folks at CEO, unlike an organization like the NAACP, for example, advocate equal rights for all. Somewhere along the civil rights way, signals were crossed and the message was muddled. Being judged on what you do was somehow misinterpreted to mean being judged based on your membership in a preferred (for now) minority group.
CEO found out the extent of those membership privileges. Check out these incredible numbers (bold emphasis added):
It is noteworthy that race and ethnicity are apparently more heavily weighted in undergraduate admissions now than in the system declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003.
In the most recent year for which data were available (2005), the median black admittee’s SAT score was 1160, versus 1260 for Hispanics, 1350 for whites, and 1400 for Asians. High-school GPAs were 3.4 for the median black, 3.6 for Hispanics, 3.8 for Asians, and 3.9 for whites.
In the four years analyzed, UM rejected over 8,000 Hispanics, Asians, and whites who had higher SAT or ACT scores and GPAs than the median black admittee—including nearly 2700 students in 2005 alone.
The black-to-white odds ratio for 2005 was 70 to 1 among students taking the SAT, and 63 to 1 for students taking the ACT. (To put this in perspective, the odds ratio for nonsmokers versus smokers dying from lung cancer is only 14 to 1.)
In terms of probability of admissions in 2005, black and Hispanic students with a 1240 SAT and a 3.2 high school GPA, for instance, had a 9 out of 10 chance of admissions, while whites and Asians in this group had only a 1 out of 10 chance.
These disparities are reflected in subsequent academic performance at the University of Michigan (UM), where blacks and Hispanics earn lower grades, and are less likely to be in the honors program and more likely to be on academic probation than whites and Asians.
Before Gratz. v. Bollinger, U-M used to assign 20 points, no questions asked, to “underrepresented minorities” seeking admission. Too blatant, said the court. Find a trickier, more subtle way to use skin color preferences, it asserted. Make skin a “plus” factor only, it advised.
Well, I don’t know how subtle it is, but whatever U-M is doing now certainly is tricky. The school still discriminates against whites and Asians and in favor of lower-performing blacks and hispanics, but instead of documenting the “plus” factor (by adding 20 points, for example), the school’s method is unwritten. Based on the numbers and admission rates uncovered by the CEO, U-M still is relying heavily on race to admit blacks and hispanics.
What’s wrong with that, you ask? Plenty. The double-edged sword of authority to discriminate in favor of one group can be used to discriminate against the same group if doing so suits political purposes.
How do skin color preferences harm blacks, you ask? Clegg says, and I concur:
Their classmates, professors, and future employers, clients and patients will all assume that they aren’t as smart as those who didn’t receive preferences. Moreover, the studies show that, as undergraduates, they will get lower grades and will be less likely to be in the honors program and more likely to be on academic probation; and, as medical students, they will not do as well on the licensing exam they take after two years.
Related posts:
- “Holistic Review” Just Another Disguise for Race Preferences
- California’s “Disadvantaged” Business Advantage in Jeopardy
- The End of Skin Color-Based Scholarships?
Sources:
