Reaction Speech - Race-Based College Admission
Name: Ginni Beam
Topic/Title: Reaction Speech
Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience that college admissions should be based on merit, not race.
Thesis/Central Idea: College admission should be based on merit, not race.
Introduction
A. Review of Article
B. Preview of Main Points
1.The Need For College Admission To Be Based On Merit, Not Race
A. Race-conscious admissions disadvantage minorities
1. By stigmatizing them and sending a message of inferiority
2. By admitting underqualified students rather than focusing on preparing them
B. Race-conscious admissions disadvantage non-minorities by giving preference to minorities
2. A Plan to Replace or Eliminate Race-Conscious College Admissions
A. Eliminate race from college admission forms
B. Address underlying issues behind decreased minority attendence
3. The Practicality of Race-Neutral College Admissions
A. Eliminating race from college admission forms is feasible
B. Making college admissions race-neutral will bring about beneficial results
Conclusion
A. Summary of Main Points
B. Challenge to Act
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andre, Claire, Manuel Velasquez, and Tim Mazur. “Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy.” Santa Clara University. Dec. 2003. 6 Apr. 2010.
Gorman, Linda. “Affirmative Action and Highly Qualified Minority Students.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Dec. 2004. 9 Apr. 2010.
Haurwitz, Ralph K.M. “U.S. sides with UT in defending race-conscious admissions.” Statesman.com. 31 Mar. 2010. 6 Apr. 2010
Kelley, David. “Ban Government Racism, Not Discrimination.” The Atlas Society. 28 Feb. 2003. 6 Apr. 2010.
Koski, William. “Race Conscious College Admissions.” Stanford Law School. 16 Feb. 2010. 9 Apr. 2010.
Meyers, Jim. “Report: Affirmative Action Does More Harm Than Good.” Newsmax.com. 3 May 2005. 9 Apr. 2010.
Murray, Dennis J. “Race-Conscious Admissions Programs: The Court of Public Opinion.” Marist Poll. 6 Mar. 2009. 9 Apr. 2010.
Roach, Ronald. “Class-based affirmative action: battle over race-conscious approaches pushes idea to the surface - Affirmative Action Watch.” BNET. 19 June 2003. 9 Apr. 2010.
Schmidt, Peter. “Study Offers Mixed Assessment of Race-Conscious Admissions Policies.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 4 Mar. 2005. 6 Apr. 2010.
Since 1996, the Unversity of Texas at Austin has taken a student's race and ethnicity into account when filling slots that are not reserved for automatically admitted students. As documented in Ralph Haurwitz's article “U.S. sides with UT in defending race-conscious admissions” from Statesman.com on March 31, 2010, accessed on April 6, Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin challenged that policy, seeking to limit affirmative action at public colleges. In March 2010, however, the government asked a federal appeals court to uphold the current race-conscious admissions system at the University of Texas at Austin.
These kinds of policies seek to increase educational opportunities for minorities. Being a minority myself, I am especially sympathetic to this goal. The problem, however, is that these policies actually harm the minorities they aim to help, as well as non-minority students and the student body as a whole. In this speech I will explain why college admission should be based on merit, not race, and that the solution is the complete elimination of race from college admissions forms, a plan which is feasible and would lead to a truly diverse learning environment for students.
One of the problems with race-conscious admission is that it offers preference to certain races, but at the cost of sending the message that they are less capable of meeting academic qualifications than their non-minority counterparts, as well as stigmatizing them and devaluing their achievements. This is racism (defined in Webster's Dictionary as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities”). This message is heard and accepted both by other students (who buy into the belief that all minorities gain entry to universities primarily because they are members of under represented groups and not because they are qualified, leading to resentment and racial tension), and by the minorities themselves, who may question whether the rules were bent in their case, leading to feelings of inferiority, self-doubt, and incompetence, as detailed in Peter Schmidt's March 4, 2005 article “Study Offers Mixed Assessment of Race-Conscious Admissions Policies” in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Professor William Koski argues in “Race Conscious Admissions,” an article on Stanford Law School's website accessed on April 9, that minorities do need these advantages, not because they are academically inferior, but because they have access to fewer resources than do whites and thus may not perform as well on standardized tests, which are largely used in college admission. It is important to remember, however, that while there is a correlation between race and socioeconomic status, not all minorities are poor, and not all poor people are minorities. Preferential treatment programs unjustly ignore the claim of need, denying benefits to disadvantaged whites while giving benefits to minorities who do not need them. If, as Professor Koski argues, more resources are devoted to affluent schools than to poorer, more minority-heavy schools, the solution is to increase minority access to those resources—an issue that is unrelated to college admissions. Another solution is to develop a system of admissions that draws on scores from tests designed to measure natural intelligence and talent, not education or grades.
Another way that race-conscious admission policies disadvantage minorities is the potential for the admission of underqualified students. While this is certainly not always the case, minority students are sometimes “bumped up” into selective schools for which they're ill-prepared, and these students show poorer academic performance and graduation rates than if they had attended a less selective institution. In the article “Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy” on the website of the Santa Clara University, which I accessed on April 9, 2010, Claire Andre, Manuel Velasquez, and Tim Mazur reveal a high dropout rate among minority college students admitted under affirmative action programs. At U. C. Berkeley, for example, only 45 percent of black students admitted in 1984 had graduated by 1989 compared to 73 percent of whites. The high rate of failure that follows the award of educational opportunities to minority individuals unprepared to meet the challenges of higher education reinforces feelings of inferiority among members of these groups.
Clearly, race-conscious admissions programs programs do minorities no favors—which is perhaps why 64% percent of minorities themselves oppose race-conscious admissions policies, according to the January 2003 Marist Poll, along with 80 percent of all Americans. It is not only minorities who are harmed by these policies, however. Take Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, who were both denied admission to the University of Michigan, not because they were not qualified, but because they were white. The university used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The university gave underrepresented ethnic groups an automatic 20-point bonus on this scale (compared to a 12 points for a perfect SAT score). In 2003, the Center for Individual Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of Gratz and Hamacher, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled the university's point system unconstitutional. Admittedly, the odds of a white student being denied admission to a school decrease when the school is merely race-conscious, not actively trying to meet a minority quota. However, the ethics of any system that penalizes students for something they can't help—being white—are dubious. Additionally, programs awarding preference according to race may lead to the more qualified being overlooked while others only minimally qualified are chosen. The inevitable result is the lowering of academic standards in colleges and universities.
Having established that current race-conscious admissions policies present a problem for students of every race, the simple solution is to eliminate race from college admission forms altogether, making it no more relevant to college admission than a student's hair color or weight. Not only would students not be asked to reveal their race on college admissions forms, admissions officers would be explicitly forbidden to consider a student's race at all. Admitting a student in any way on merit of their race would be as unacceptable as denying them for the same reason.
When these policies are no longer in effect, an effort should be made to enact some kind of socioeconomic-based affirmative action admission program. Proponents of race-conscious college admission policies assert that without these policies, minority representation at the most selective four-year colleges tends to decrease. (This is not an unchallenged assertion, as the National Bureau of Economic Research says that the idea “that ending affirmative action would cause a diversion of highly qualified minority students away from the elite colleges and universities appear to be unfounded.” In other words, qualified minority students do not need special requirements in order to be accepted and therefore do not affect the ethnic composition of the student bodies in selective universities.) Either way, the answer is not to admit underqualified students. Instead, studies should determine why minority attendance declines without this sort of help. If it is indeed a matter of socioeconomic disadvantage, then that is an entirely separate issue to be dealt with accordingly. As Marie Gryphon, a lawyer and policy analyst with the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, says in “The Affirmative Action Myth,” an article posted on CATO's website accessed on April 6, “Minority underrepresentation in college is caused by public schools' failure to prepare minority students. It is a failure that affirmative action does not remedy.”
This plan is extremely practical. In fact, it had already been set in motion by the Texans I mentioned before who mounted a challenge to UT's current race-conscious policies. Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin argued that “before resorting to race-conscious undergraduate admissions policies, there must be a showing that race-neutral alternatives failed. Here, the university adopted race-conscious policies in spite of race-neutral alternatives, and they will continue on indefinitely.” This latest endorsement of the current policy from the Obama administration must be countered.
Additionally, the underlying causes of declined minority attendance must be investigated. Addressing the root cause will benefit minorities more in the long term than treating the symptoms. Economic or class-based affirmative action is one such proposed method (documented in Black Issues in Higher Education, June 19, 2003 by Ronald Roach). Funds for these investigations and interventions can be redirected from current race-based affirmative action programs. To quote Marie Gryphon again, “Policymakers should end the harmful practice of racial preferences in college admissions. Instead, they should work to close the critical skills gap by implementing school choice reforms and setting higher academic expectations for students of all backgrounds.”
With race no longer a consideration, focus can be shifted to things like a student’s high school grades and scores on standardized college entrance exams; recommendations from principals, teachers or counselors; leadership or service in the community and in school; and a student’s natural talent. By taking the focus off of race, schools will be free to focus on true diversity—things like original thoughts and minds, different cultures, unpopular viewpoints, intelligence, talent, and determination, instead of the .06% difference in genetic makeup that defines “race.” This is the diversity that counts, not a campus that “looks like America.”
I urge you to fight for an educational model in which students are accepted based on their capability, their dedication, and their commitment to excel—not accepted (or turned away) because of the color of their skin. Race-conscious college admissions are harmful to both minorities and non-minorities, and race should be eliminated from college admission forms. This feasible plan will bring about true diversity and push students from all races and classes to academic excellence. Thank you.
