复旦大学：《英语论辩与思辨》课程阅读材料_The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action

The sad irony of Affirmative Action Gail heriot N 2003, THE SUPREME COURT held that the University of Michigans law school could substantially relax its admissions standards in order to admit a"critical mass"of African-American and Hispanic students Many observers interpreted that decision-Grutter v. Bollinger-as an open-ended embrace of affirmative action. The University of Texas was among the many universities emboldened to ramp up its use of race-preferential admissions policies. In 2003, the university already had in plac ce an admissio ns policy designed to raise the number of under-represented minority students attending its flagship campus in Austin by admitting the"top 1o% of the graduates of each Texas high school without regard to SAT scores. Soon after the grutter de cision, however, the university announced that it was still dissatisfied with the diversity of the student body at Austin, 2r% of which was composed of under-represented minorities(16. 9%0 Hispanic and 4.5%0 African- merican), and that the school would be implementing race preferences to boost that diy n of the stu- dent body composed of Hispanics and African-Americans rose to 25% The result was a lawsuit. The plaintiff-Abigail Fishe oman from Texas whose academic credentials were good, but not quite up to the standards that whites and asians must meet in order to gain admission. They were, however, above those necessary for African- American and Hispanic students. Fisher, who is white, was rejected and wound up attending the less prestigious and ( for out-of-state stu- dents)more expensive Louisiana State University. Her case--Fisher u University of Texas-was argued before the Sur preme Court in o It will be decided sometime in the coming months GAIL HERIOT is a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a memberof the U.S. Commission on Civil rights Copyright2013.allrightsreservedSeewww.Nationalaffairs.comformoreinformation

78 Ga il Her iot is a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. See www.NationalAffairs.com for more information. The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action Gail Heriot I n 2003, the Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan’s law school could substantially relax its admissions standards in order to admit a “critical mass” of African-American and Hispanic students. Many observers interpreted that decision—Grutter v. Bollinger—as an open-ended embrace of affirmative action. The University of Texas was among the many universities emboldened to ramp up its use of race-preferential admissions policies. In 2003, the university already had in place an admissions policy designed to raise the number of under-represented minority students attending its flagship campus in Austin by admitting the “top 10%” of the graduates of each Texas high school without regard to SAT scores. Soon after the Grutter de￾cision, however, the university announced that it was still dissatisfied with the diversity of the student body at Austin, 21% of which was composed of under-represented minorities (16.9% Hispanic and 4.5% African￾American), and that the school would be implementing race preferences to boost that diversity. Under the new policy, the proportion of the stu￾dent body composed of Hispanics and African-Americans rose to 25%. The result was a lawsuit. The plaintiff—Abigail Fisher—is a young woman from Texas whose academic credentials were good, but not quite up to the standards that whites and Asians must meet in order to gain admission. They were, however, above those necessary for African￾American and Hispanic students. Fisher, who is white, was rejected, and wound up attending the less prestigious and (for out-of-state stu￾dents) more expensive Louisiana State University. Her case—Fisher v. University of Texas—was argued before the Supreme Court in October. It will be decided sometime in the coming months

Gail Heriot. The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action The Court may decide Fisher on narrow grounds. There are several mensions along which the University of Texas's race-preferential ad- missions policies are more aggressive than those in Grutter. For exampl Grutter permitted Michigan to use racially preferential admissions poli- cies to admit a"critical mass"of African-Americans and Hispanics to its overall student body. Texas, however, takes the position that it needs "critical mass"not just in its student body as a whole, but in each class- room,program, and major. Under the "top 109policy, Texas had likely already achieved a"critical mass"of minorities across its student body. Classroom-level"critical mass, "however, requires much more extensive references; it could conceivably justify racial discrimination in course registration and other more aggressive discriminatory practices Affirmative-action supporters worry, however, that the Court will take the opportunity to cut back severely on Grutter. They point to changes in the Court's personnel-most notably Justice Sandra Day O Connor's replacement with Justice Samuel Alito-as cause for con- cern. Since Grutter was a 5-4 decision, it may not take much to swing the Court in the opposite direction The biggest change since Grutter, though, has nothing to do with Court membership. It is the mounting empirical evidence that race preferences are doing more harm than good-even for their supposed beneficiaries. If this evidence is correct. we now have fewer African- American physicians, scientists, and engineers than we would have had using race-neutral admissions policies. We have fewer college professors and lawyers, too. Put more bluntly, affirmative action has backfired. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MISMATCH How could such a miscalculation about the effects of affirmative action occur?As University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor, Jr, describe in their impor tant, recently released book, Mismatch: How Afirmative Action Hurts Students It,'s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won,'t Admit It,one consequence of widespread race-preferential policies is that minority students tend to enroll in colleges and universities where their entering academic credentials put them toward the bottom of the class While academically gifted under-represented minority students are hardly rare, there are not enough to satisfy the demand of top schools. Whe the most prestigious schools relax their admissions policies in order to 79

Gail Heriot · The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action 79 The Court may decide Fisher on narrow grounds. There are several dimensions along which the University of Texas’s race-preferential ad￾missions policies are more aggressive than those in Grutter. For example, Grutter permitted Michigan to use racially preferential admissions poli￾cies to admit a “critical mass” of African-Americans and Hispanics to its overall student body. Texas, however, takes the position that it needs “critical mass” not just in its student body as a whole, but in each class￾room, program, and major. Under the “top 10%” policy, Texas had likely already achieved a “critical mass” of minorities across its student body. Classroom-level “critical mass,” however, requires much more extensive preferences; it could conceivably justify racial discrimination in course registration and other more aggressive discriminatory practices. Affirmative-action supporters worry, however, that the Court will take the opportunity to cut back severely on Grutter. They point to changes in the Court’s personnel—most notably Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement with Justice Samuel Alito—as cause for con￾cern. Since Grutter was a 5-4 decision, it may not take much to swing the Court in the opposite direction. The biggest change since Grutter, though, has nothing to do with Court membership. It is the mounting empirical evidence that race preferences are doing more harm than good—even for their supposed beneficiaries. If this evidence is correct, we now have fewer African￾American physicians, scientists, and engineers than we would have had using race-neutral admissions policies. We have fewer college professors and lawyers, too. Put more bluntly, affirmative action has backfired. The Consequences of Mismatch How could such a miscalculation about the effects of affirmative action occur? As University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor, Jr., describe in their impor￾tant, recently released book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It, one consequence of widespread race-preferential policies is that minority students tend to enroll in colleges and universities where their entering academic credentials put them toward the bottom of the class. While academically gifted under-represented minority students are hardly rare, there are not enough to satisfy the demand of top schools. When the most prestigious schools relax their admissions policies in order to

NATIONAL AFFAIRS WINTER 2013 dmit more minority students, they start a chain reaction, resulting in a substantial credentials gap at nearly all selective schools. For example, according to data released by the University of Texas in connection with Fisher, the mean SaT scores(out of 24oo)and mean high-school grade-point averages(on a 4.0 scale) varied widely by race for the entering class of 2009. For Asians, the numbers were 199I and 3.07 whites were at 1914 and 3.04; Hispanics at 1794 and 2.83; and African Americans at 1524 and 2. 57. The SAT scores for the Asian students placed them in the 93rd percentile of 2009 SAT-takers nationwide; the African- American students, meanwhile, were at the 52nd percentile This has the predictable effect of lowering the college or pro school grades the averag s /ill outpem theirs, most students perform inority student earns. And the reason is simple: While some students erform their entering credential just as some students will underperfor in the range that their entering credentials suggest. No serious supporter of race-preferential admissions denies this. In their highly inFuential defense of affirmative action, The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions(discussed later in more detail), former Ivy League university presidents William Bowen and Derek Bok candidly admitted that low college grades for affirmative-action beneficiaries present a"sobering picture. "This is an understatement: The average African-American first- year law student has a grade-point average in the bottom Io% of his or her class. And while undergraduate GPAs for affirmative-action benefi ciaries aren't quite as disappointing, that is in part because, as explained below, affirmative-action beneficiaries tend to shy away from subjects like science and engineering, which are graded on a tougher curve than other subjects Oneexample that helps illustrate the consequences of mismatch-how lower entering academic credentials depress both academic performance and grades, and how lower-than-average academic performance and grades in turn harm professional ambitions -is the field of academia In 2003, too late to be cited to the Court in Grutter, Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber published Increasing Faculty Diversity: The Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students. The authors'mission was to determine why more members of minority groups are not at- tracted to careers in the academy. The authors'conclusions, reached after extensively questioning 7, 612 high-achieving undergraduates at

National Affairs · Winter 2013 80 admit more minority students, they start a chain reaction, resulting in a substantial credentials gap at nearly all selective schools. For example, according to data released by the University of Texas in connection with Fisher, the mean SAT scores (out of 2400) and mean high-school grade-point averages (on a 4.0 scale) varied widely by race for the entering class of 2009. For Asians, the numbers were 1991 and 3.07; whites were at 1914 and 3.04; Hispanics at 1794 and 2.83; and African￾Americans at 1524 and 2.57. The SAT scores for the Asian students placed them in the 93rd percentile of 2009 SAT-takers nationwide; the African￾American students, meanwhile, were at the 52nd percentile. This has the predictable effect of lowering the college or professional￾school grades the average minority student earns. And the reason is simple: While some students will outperform their entering credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students perform in the range that their entering credentials suggest. No serious supporter of race-preferential admissions denies this. In their highly influential defense of affirmative action, The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions (discussed later in more detail), former Ivy League university presidents William Bowen and Derek Bok candidly admitted that low college grades for affirmative-action beneficiaries present a “sobering picture.” This is an understatement: The average African-American first￾year law student has a grade-point average in the bottom 10% of his or her class. And while undergraduate GPAs for affirmative-action benefi￾ciaries aren’t quite as disappointing, that is in part because, as explained below, affirmative-action beneficiaries tend to shy away from subjects like science and engineering, which are graded on a tougher curve than other subjects. One example that helps illustrate the consequences of mismatch—how lower entering academic credentials depress both academic performance and grades, and how lower-than-average academic performance and grades in turn harm professional ambitions—is the field of academia. In 2003, too late to be cited to the Court in Grutter, Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber published Increasing Faculty Diversity: The Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students. The authors’ mission was to determine why more members of minority groups are not at￾tracted to careers in the academy. The authors’ conclusions, reached after extensively questioning 7,612 high-achieving undergraduates at

Gail Heriot. The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action 34 colleges and universities, pointed to race-preferential admissions as he culprit. "It is a fact, "Cole and Barber wrote "that in virtually all selective schools.. where racial preferences in admission is practiced, the ma- of African American students end up in the lower quarter of their class. " Lower grades sap the academic self-confidence of African American students at elite schools, according to the authors, which in turn causes them to abandon their freshman interests in academic ca reers. Their counterparts at non-elite schools, on the other hand, are more likely to persist and to ultimately succeed. These counterparts enyoy school, in part because they correctly perceive that they are good at it, and they want to stay on campus to pursue careers in academia Cole and Barber found that the effect of grades on career ambitions was in fact substantial. The authors noted that among African-American students with GPAs at or near 2.6, only about 4% wanted to become col- lege professors. Among those with GPAs at or near 4.o, however, the number was over 2000 These findings build on long-established observations about the im- portance of grades and perceived achievement. Indeed, as early as 1966 University of Chicago sociologist James Davis published research dem- onstrating that a student who attends a school that is out of his academic league is often put at a professional disadvantage. In "The Campus as a Frog Pond: An Application of the Theory of Relative Deprivation to Career Decisions of College Men, " Davis controlled for entering aca- demic credentials and compared students at schools of different academic ank, examining their career choices to see which pursued "high perfor- (in law, medicine, science, etc. ) He found that college GPA correlated more strongly to career choice than did the academic rank of the school attended. He explained this finding in terms of the "theory of relative deprivation, under which students can be expected to measure their own potential in comparison to their immediate class- mates, generally using one another's grades as"the accepted yardstick. Davis put his conclusion in somewhat quaint terms. "Counselors and parents might well consider the drawbacks as well as the advantages of sending a boy to a fine college, if, when doing so, it is fairly certain he will end up in the bottom ranks of his graduating class, he wrote Davis's research spawned a cottage industry in sociological studies on the hazards of being a"small frog" in a"big pond

Gail Heriot · The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action 81 34 colleges and universities, pointed to race-preferential admissions as the culprit. “It is a fact,” Cole and Barber wrote, “that in virtually all selective schools. . .where racial preferences in admission is practiced, the ma￾jority of African American students end up in the lower quarter of their class.” Lower grades sap the academic self-confidence of African￾American students at elite schools, according to the authors, which in turn causes them to abandon their freshman interests in academic ca￾reers. Their counterparts at non-elite schools, on the other hand, are more likely to persist and to ultimately succeed. These counterparts enjoy school, in part because they correctly perceive that they are good at it, and they want to stay on campus to pursue careers in academia. Cole and Barber found that the effect of grades on career ambitions was in fact substantial. The authors noted that among African-American students with GPAs at or near 2.6, only about 4% wanted to become col￾lege professors. Among those with GPAs at or near 4.0, however, the number was over 20%. These findings build on long-established observations about the im￾portance of grades and perceived achievement. Indeed, as early as 1966, University of Chicago sociologist James Davis published research dem￾onstrating that a student who attends a school that is out of his academic league is often put at a professional disadvantage. In “The Campus as a Frog Pond: An Application of the Theory of Relative Deprivation to Career Decisions of College Men,” Davis controlled for entering aca￾demic credentials and compared students at schools of different academic rank, examining their career choices to see which pursued “high perfor￾mance” careers (in law, medicine, science, etc.). He found that college GPA correlated more strongly to career choice than did the academic rank of the school attended. He explained this finding in terms of the “theory of relative deprivation,” under which students can be expected to measure their own potential in comparison to their immediate class￾mates, generally using one another’s grades as “the accepted yardstick.” Davis put his conclusion in somewhat quaint terms. “Counselors and parents might well consider the drawbacks as well as the advantages of sending a boy to a ‘fine’ college, if, when doing so, it is fairly certain he will end up in the bottom ranks of his graduating class,” he wrote. Davis’s research spawned a cottage industry in sociological studies on the hazards of being a “small frog” in a “big pond

NATIONAL AFFAIRS WINTER 2013 Further support for Cole and Barber's conclusion comes from an nexpected source: First Lady Michelle Obama's 1985 senior thesis at Princeton University, titled"Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community. "The future first lady mailed a questionnaire to 400 randomly selected black alumni; though the response rate was not overwhelming, the responses of the 89 black alumni who completed the questionnaire gave reason for concern. Black alumni were asked whether they felt"much more comfortable with Blacks, ""much more comfortable with Whites, "or"about equally comfortable with Blacks and Whites"in various contexts during three different periods in their lives-before attending Princeton, while students at Princeton, and af- ter leaving Princeton Those who argue that race-preferential admissions foster integration might be surprised by Obama's findings In the category of "Intellectual Comfort, "the number of black alumni who said that they felt "much more comfortable with Blacks "than with whites in an intellectual set- ting went up upon attending Princeton. In their pre-Princeton years, 26% of the respondents were at greater intellectual ease with fellow blacks than with whites; during their Princeton years, however, the number climbed to 37%. This sense of alienation from white students did not appear in other categories of interaction: For"Sporting Comfort, " the change was in the opposite direction(26% felt more comfortable with fellow blacks prior to Princeton, compared with 25% who felt more comfortable with fellow blacks while at Princeton). In the categories of Dating Comfort"and"Business Comfort, " the proportions of respon dents who felt"much more comfortable with Blacks"were unchanged It is difficult to see how reducing the "Intellectual Comfort"that black students feel with whites can lead to greater black achievement. Yet this is just one of the many perverse effects of affirmative action and the academic mismatch it causes SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Minority students' lack of interest in academic careers offers one ex ample of the consequences of mismatch, but the strongest evidence comes from the fields of science and engineering. Contrary to what many might expect, college-bound African-American and Hispani students are just as interested as white students in majoring in science and engineer ring. Indeed, empirical studies show that they tend to be a

National Affairs · Winter 2013 82 Further support for Cole and Barber’s conclusion comes from an unexpected source: First Lady Michelle Obama’s 1985 senior thesis at Princeton University, titled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” The future first lady mailed a questionnaire to 400 randomly selected black alumni; though the response rate was not overwhelming, the responses of the 89 black alumni who completed the questionnaire gave reason for concern. Black alumni were asked whether they felt “much more comfortable with Blacks,” “much more comfortable with Whites,” or “about equally comfortable with Blacks and Whites” in various contexts during three different periods in their lives—before attending Princeton, while students at Princeton, and af￾ter leaving Princeton. Those who argue that race-preferential admissions foster integration might be surprised by Obama’s findings. In the category of “Intellectual Comfort,” the number of black alumni who said that they felt “much more comfortable with Blacks” than with whites in an intellectual set￾ting went up upon attending Princeton. In their pre-Princeton years, 26% of the respondents were at greater intellectual ease with fellow blacks than with whites; during their Princeton years, however, the number climbed to 37%. This sense of alienation from white students did not appear in other categories of interaction: For “Sporting Comfort,” the change was in the opposite direction (26% felt more comfortable with fellow blacks prior to Princeton, compared with 25% who felt more comfortable with fellow blacks while at Princeton). In the categories of “Dating Comfort” and “Business Comfort,” the proportions of respon￾dents who felt “much more comfortable with Blacks” were unchanged. It is difficult to see how reducing the “Intellectual Comfort” that black students feel with whites can lead to greater black achievement. Yet this is just one of the many perverse effects of affirmative action and the academic mismatch it causes. Science and Engineering Minority students’ lack of interest in academic careers offers one ex￾ample of the consequences of mismatch, but the strongest evidence comes from the fields of science and engineering. Contrary to what many might expect, college-bound African-American and Hispanic students are just as interested as white students in majoring in science and engineering. Indeed, empirical studies show that they tend to be a

Gail Heriot. The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action little more so. But these are difficult majors that many students aban- don. Significantly, African-American and Hispanic students jump ship at much higher rates than whites It is not surprising that students with lower entering academic creden- tials give up on their ambitions to get degrees in science and engineering more often than students with higher academic credentials. What some do find surprising is this: Three in-depth studies have demonstrated that part of the effect is relative. An aspiring science or engineering major who attends a school where his entering academic credentials put him in the middle or the top of his class is more likely to persevere, and ultimately to succeed, than an otherwise identical student attending a more elite school where those same credentials place him nearer to the bottom of his class. Put differently, a student's chances of success in science or en gineering are increased not only if his entering credentials are high, but also if those credentials compare favorably with his classmates' The earliest of these studies-titled"The Role of Ethnicity in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions"-was published in 1996 by a team of scholars led by Dartmouth psychologist Rogers Elliott. It found that the single most important cause for minor- ity attrition from science at the selective institutions studied was the relatively low preparation of black aspirants to science in these schools. The authors were careful to use the word"relatively "It wasn, t just enter ing credentials demonstrating highly developed ability at science that mattered, but comparatively high credentials. A student who attended a school at which his math SAT score was in the top third of his class was much more likely to follow through with an ambition to earn a degree in science or engineering than was a student with the same score who at- tended a school at which that score was in the bottom third of the class The problem for minority students was that, as a result of affirmative action, being in the top third of the class was relatively rare Elliott and his co-authors cited the extraordinary record of histori- cally black colleges and universities, which graduate far more than thei share of black engineering and science majors, as further support for their findings. Unlike at other colleges and universities, credentials gaps are not an issue at the historically black institutions. As one fac Ity member at a historically black school-North Carolina Central University's Walter Pattillo, Jr -told Science magazine in 1992: " The way we see it, the majority schools are wasting large numbers of good 83

Gail Heriot · The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action 83 little more so. But these are difficult majors that many students aban￾don. Significantly, African-American and Hispanic students jump ship at much higher rates than whites. It is not surprising that students with lower entering academic creden￾tials give up on their ambitions to get degrees in science and engineering more often than students with higher academic credentials. What some do find surprising is this: Three in-depth studies have demonstrated that part of the effect is relative. An aspiring science or engineering major who attends a school where his entering academic credentials put him in the middle or the top of his class is more likely to persevere, and ultimately to succeed, than an otherwise identical student attending a more elite school where those same credentials place him nearer to the bottom of his class. Put differently, a student’s chances of success in science or en￾gineering are increased not only if his entering credentials are high, but also if those credentials compare favorably with his classmates’. The earliest of these studies—titled “The Role of Ethnicity in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions”—was published in 1996 by a team of scholars led by Dartmouth psychologist Rogers Elliott. It found that the single most important cause for minor￾ity attrition from science at the selective institutions studied was the “relatively low preparation of black aspirants to science in these schools.” The authors were careful to use the word “relatively.” It wasn’t just enter￾ing credentials demonstrating highly developed ability at science that mattered, but comparatively high credentials. A student who attended a school at which his math SAT score was in the top third of his class was much more likely to follow through with an ambition to earn a degree in science or engineering than was a student with the same score who at￾tended a school at which that score was in the bottom third of the class. The problem for minority students was that, as a result of affirmative action, being in the top third of the class was relatively rare. Elliott and his co-authors cited the extraordinary record of histori￾cally black colleges and universities, which graduate far more than their share of black engineering and science majors, as further support for their findings. Unlike at other colleges and universities, credentials gaps are not an issue at the historically black institutions. As one fac￾ulty member at a historically black school—North Carolina Central University’s Walter Pattillo, Jr.—told Science magazine in 1992: “The way we see it, the majority schools are wasting large numbers of good

NATIONAL AFFAIRS WINTER 2013 students. They have black students with admissions statistics [that are very high, tops. But these students wind up majoring in sociology or recreation or get wiped out altogether. a more recent study by University of Virginia psychologists Frederick Smyth and John McArdle(now at the University of Southern California)confirmed Elliotts findings. And the effects were not subtle In"Ethnic and gender Differences in Science graduation at Selective Colleges with Implications for Admissions Policy and College Choice, Smyth and McArdle found that, among a sample of under-represented minority students at 23 universities who intended to mathematics, or engineering, 45% more of the women and 35%more of the men would have succeeded in attaining their goals if they had at- tended schools where their entering credentials had been about average Another study-this one by richard Sander, co-author of Mismatch and UCLA statistician Roger Bolus-pulled data from nine University of California campuses. The authors came to a similar conclusion "Minority attrition in science is a very real problem, they wrote, "and the evidence in this paper suggests that negative mismatch' probably plays a role in it. Their multiple approaches to the data yielded con- sistent results: "[S]tudents with credentials more than one standard deviation below their science peers at college are about half as likely to end up with science bachelor degrees, compared with similar students attending schools where their credentials are much closer to, or above, he mean credentials of their peers he evidence that mismatch has hurt African-American and Hispanic tudents chances of having careers in science or engineering was high lighted in a report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 20l0. The data and methodology of the research have not been challenged. The researchers' conclusions have not been rebutted. Nevertheless. the find ings have been ignored by colleges and universities. Indeed, one of the arguments that the University of Texas makes before the Supreme Court in the Fisher case is that there are not enough minority students study- ing science and engineering to make those classrooms racially diverse As a result, it claims, greater race preferences in admissions are needed But Texas's race-preferential admissions will likely aggravate rather than alleviate this problem. The more colleges and universities engage in pref- erential treatment, the fewer the African-Americans and Hispanics who will graduate with degrees in science and engineering 84

National Affairs · Winter 2013 84 students. They have black students with admissions statistics [that are] very high, tops. But these students wind up majoring in sociology or recreation or get wiped out altogether.” A more recent study by University of Virginia psychologists Frederick Smyth and John McArdle (now at the University of Southern California) confirmed Elliott’s findings. And the effects were not subtle. In “Ethnic and Gender Differences in Science Graduation at Selective Colleges with Implications for Admissions Policy and College Choice,” Smyth and McArdle found that, among a sample of under-represented minority students at 23 universities who intended to major in science, mathematics, or engineering, 45% more of the women and 35% more of the men would have succeeded in attaining their goals if they had at￾tended schools where their entering credentials had been about average. Another study—this one by Richard Sander, co-author of Mismatch, and UCLA statistician Roger Bolus—pulled data from nine University of California campuses. The authors came to a similar conclusion. “Minority attrition in science is a very real problem,” they wrote, “and the evidence in this paper suggests that ‘negative mismatch’ probably plays a role in it.” Their multiple approaches to the data yielded con￾sistent results: “[S]tudents with credentials more than one standard deviation below their science peers at college are about half as likely to end up with science bachelor degrees, compared with similar students attending schools where their credentials are much closer to, or above, the mean credentials of their peers.” The evidence that mismatch has hurt African-American and Hispanic students’ chances of having careers in science or engineering was high￾lighted in a report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2010. The data and methodology of the research have not been challenged. The researchers’ conclusions have not been rebutted. Nevertheless, the find￾ings have been ignored by colleges and universities. Indeed, one of the arguments that the University of Texas makes before the Supreme Court in the Fisher case is that there are not enough minority students study￾ing science and engineering to make those classrooms racially diverse. As a result, it claims, greater race preferences in admissions are needed. But Texas’s race-preferential admissions will likely aggravate rather than alleviate this problem. The more colleges and universities engage in pref￾erential treatment, the fewer the African-Americans and Hispanics who will graduate with degrees in science and engineering

Gail Heriot. The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action And the evidence keeps piling up. Recently, Duke University econo- mists Peter Arcidiacono and Esteban Aucejo and duke sociologist Ken Spenner found evidence supporting the mismatch thesis when research- the major choices of undergraduates enrolled at Duke. In their article in the IZA Journal of labor Economics, "What Happens After Enrollment? An Analysis of the Time Path of Racial Differences in GPA and Major Choice, "they found that black undergraduates were much less likely to persist with an entering goal of majoring in engineering, the natural sciences,or economics than white students were. Approximately 54% of black males switched out of these majors, while only 8% of white males did. Once again, the problem was not lack of interest in science and en- gineering among black students: Indeed, before starting at Duke, more black students than whites indicated an initial interest in majoring in these subjects. Instead, the differences in attrition were best explained by entering academic credentials. These authors also dispelled the common belief that affirm action beneficiaries"catch up"after their freshman years with the better-credentialed fellow students. What happens instead is that many transfer to majors where the academic competition is less intense and where students are g tive to their peer groups does not nded on a more lenient curve. Their GPAs increase but their standing rel This effect is by no means confined to affirmative-action beneficia- ries. White children and grandchildren of alumnI o receive preferences have the same experience, earning lower grades than white non-legacies at the end of their first year. While the gap narrows over time, it is only because legacy students, too, shift away from the natural sciences, engineering, and economics and toward the humanities and social sciences. It is exceedingly unlikely that anti-legacy bias, lack of legacy role models on the faculty, or any other argument commonly advanced to explain racial disparities in science explains the legacies collective drift toward softer majors. If it is the wrong explanation for leg. acies, it is overwhelmingly likely to be the wrong explanation for under epresented minorities, too. The study created a firestorm at Duke. Unfortunately, the admin stration, instead of taking the research to heart, focused on pacifying indignant students, alumni, and faculty members who were insulted by the results In an open letter to the campus responding to demands that the university condemn the study, provost Peter Lange and other

Gail Heriot · The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action 85 And the evidence keeps piling up. Recently, Duke University econo￾mists Peter Arcidiacono and Esteban Aucejo and Duke sociologist Ken Spenner found evidence supporting the mismatch thesis when research￾ing the major choices of undergraduates enrolled at Duke. In their article in the IZA Journal of Labor Economics, “What Happens After Enrollment? An Analysis of the Time Path of Racial Differences in GPA and Major Choice,” they found that black undergraduates were much less likely to persist with an entering goal of majoring in engineering, the natural sciences, or economics than white students were. Approximately 54% of black males switched out of these majors, while only 8% of white males did. Once again, the problem was not lack of interest in science and en￾gineering among black students: Indeed, before starting at Duke, more black students than whites indicated an initial interest in majoring in these subjects. Instead, the differences in attrition were best explained by entering academic credentials. These authors also dispelled the common belief that affirmative action beneficiaries “catch up” after their freshman years with their better-credentialed fellow students. What happens instead is that many transfer to majors where the academic competition is less intense and where students are graded on a more lenient curve. Their GPAs increase, but their standing relative to their peer groups does not. This effect is by no means confined to affirmative-action beneficia￾ries. White children and grandchildren of alumni who receive legacy preferences have the same experience, earning lower grades than white non-legacies at the end of their first year. While the gap narrows over time, it is only because legacy students, too, shift away from the natural sciences, engineering, and economics and toward the humanities and social sciences. It is exceedingly unlikely that anti-legacy bias, lack of legacy role models on the faculty, or any other argument commonly advanced to explain racial disparities in science explains the legacies’ collective drift toward softer majors. If it is the wrong explanation for leg￾acies, it is overwhelmingly likely to be the wrong explanation for under￾represented minorities, too. The study created a firestorm at Duke. Unfortunately, the admin￾istration, instead of taking the research to heart, focused on pacifying indignant students, alumni, and faculty members who were insulted by the results. In an open letter to the campus responding to demands that the university condemn the study, provost Peter Lange and other

NATIONAL AFFAIRS WINTER 2013 administrators stated that they "understand how the conclusions of the research paper can be interpreted in ways that reinforce negative ste- reotypes. "They assured students that there are no easy fields of study at Duke and took the position that, insofar as the mammoth problem identified in the study exists, it could easily be solved through student counseling and a few tweaks to the science curriculum. Evidently, business will remain as usual at Duke. Potential affirmative- action recruits with an interest in science and engineering will continue to be told that duke is the school for them they will not be told that their chances of success in their chosen fields would be greater at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Nor will they be told that if they switch majors to disciplines like African and African-American Studies, Art History, English, Sociology, and Womens Studies, they are less likely to enjoy lucrative careers or indeed to get jobs at all. In securi- ties law, this would qualify as actionable fraud. In higher education, it is considered forward thinking THE MISSING BLACK LAWYERS The problem of relative performance and credential mismatch does not end with college graduation. It extends to professional schools as well, and is particularly evident at America's law schools Shortly af- ter Cole and Barber's book was published, Mismatch co-author Richard Sander published a study of law schools titled"A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools. " His findings were simi- lar. Outside of historically black colleges and universities, up and down the law-school hierarchy, the average African-American student had an academic index - a combination of gPa and LSaT score-more than two standard deviations below that of his average white classmate. Indeed, at some law schools, there was no overlap between the entering credentials of African-American students and those of white students (Sander did not study Hispanic students). These gaps in entering creden- tials affect student performance: Sander's research demonstrated that more than half of African-American law students had first-year GPAs in the bottom Io% of their classes. Even critics of Sander's ultimate conclu- sions agreed that these findings were both true and troubling Only slightly more controversial was Sander's finding that this effect was almost entirely the result of affirmative action. When African- American and white law students with similar entering credentials

National Affairs · Winter 2013 86 administrators stated that they “understand how the conclusions of the research paper can be interpreted in ways that reinforce negative ste￾reotypes.” They assured students that there are no easy fields of study at Duke and took the position that, insofar as the mammoth problem identified in the study exists, it could easily be solved through student counseling and a few tweaks to the science curriculum. Evidently, business will remain as usual at Duke. Potential affirmative￾action recruits with an interest in science and engineering will continue to be told that Duke is the school for them. They will not be told that their chances of success in their chosen fields would be greater at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Nor will they be told that if they switch majors to disciplines like African and African-American Studies, Art History, English, Sociology, and Women’s Studies, they are less likely to enjoy lucrative careers or indeed to get jobs at all. In securi￾ties law, this would qualify as actionable fraud. In higher education, it is considered forward thinking. The Missing Black Law yers The problem of relative performance and credential mismatch does not end with college graduation. It extends to professional schools as well, and is particularly evident at America’s law schools. Shortly af￾ter Cole and Barber’s book was published, Mismatch co-author Richard Sander published a study of law schools titled “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.” His findings were simi￾lar. Outside of historically black colleges and universities, up and down the law-school hierarchy, the average African-American student had an academic index—a combination of GPA and LSAT score—more than two standard deviations below that of his average white classmate. Indeed, at some law schools, there was no overlap between the entering credentials of African-American students and those of white students (Sander did not study Hispanic students). These gaps in entering creden￾tials affect student performance: Sander’s research demonstrated that more than half of African-American law students had first-year GPAs in the bottom 10% of their classes. Even critics of Sander’s ultimate conclu￾sions agreed that these findings were both true and troubling. Only slightly more controversial was Sander’s finding that this effect was almost entirely the result of affirmative action. When African￾American and white law students with similar entering credentials

Gail Heriot. The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action competed against one another, they performed very close to the same. Race-based admissions were thus creating the illusion that African- Americans are somehow destined to be poor law students. The truth is that, if they were attending schools where their credentials matched the average student's, they would be just as likely to do well. Strangely, however, African-American and white students with identical entering credentials were not performing similarly on the ba exam. Sander showed that the likely reason is that they are not attending the same schools. The African-American students were more likely to be at law schools that are more theoretical in their approach and where teaching to the bar exam"is considered declasse. Rather than benefit- ing from the more competitive learning environment these schools offer, African-American students were falling behind their white aca- demic counterparts who were attending somewhat less competitive schools. Sander's critics, on the other hand, had no explanation for why white students perform better on the bar exam than African-American students with identical credentials Under Sander's calculations. if law schools were to use race-neutral ad mIssions p olicies. fewer African-American students would be ad mitted to law schools. But since those who were admitted would be attending schools where they were very likely to do well, fewer would fail or drop out. In the end, more would pass the bar exam on their first try (1,896 versus 1, 567 successful African-American first-time test takers among the graduating class of 2004) and more would eventually pass the bar (2, I so versus 1, 98I among that same class)than under current admissions practices Sander's research was criticized by proponents of race-preferential admissions on the ground that it was just one study, and Sander agreed that more research would be desirable. He used the best and most re- cent data available at the time, and his calculations have been verified by others, but surely confirming the results with a different and more recent database would have been useful. In a report issued in 2007, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights urged grant-making agencies to fund research into this issue and requested that state bar associations cooper ate with this research Unfortunately, something closer to the opposite has happened. In order to confirm his initial findings, Sander assembled an ideologically divers team of investigators and sought data from the State Bar of California

Gail Heriot · The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action 87 competed against one another, they performed very close to the same. Race-based admissions were thus creating the illusion that African￾Americans are somehow destined to be poor law students. The truth is that, if they were attending schools where their credentials matched the average student’s, they would be just as likely to do well. Strangely, however, African-American and white students with identical entering credentials were not performing similarly on the bar exam. Sander showed that the likely reason is that they are not attending the same schools. The African-American students were more likely to be at law schools that are more theoretical in their approach and where “teaching to the bar exam” is considered déclassé. Rather than benefit￾ing from the more competitive learning environment these schools offer, African-American students were falling behind their white aca￾demic counterparts who were attending somewhat less competitive schools. Sander’s critics, on the other hand, had no explanation for why white students perform better on the bar exam than African-American students with identical credentials. Under Sander’s calculations, if law schools were to use race-neutral admissions policies, fewer African-American students would be ad￾mitted to law schools. But since those who were admitted would be attending schools where they were very likely to do well, fewer would fail or drop out. In the end, more would pass the bar exam on their first try (1,896 versus 1,567 successful African-American first-time test takers among the graduating class of 2004) and more would eventually pass the bar (2,150 versus 1,981 among that same class) than under current admissions practices. Sander’s research was criticized by proponents of race-preferential admissions on the ground that it was just one study, and Sander agreed that more research would be desirable. He used the best and most re￾cent data available at the time, and his calculations have been verified by others, but surely confirming the results with a different and more recent database would have been useful. In a report issued in 2007, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights urged grant-making agencies to fund research into this issue and requested that state bar associations cooper￾ate with this research. Unfortunately, something closer to the opposite has happened. In order to confirm his initial findings, Sander assembled an ideologically diverse team of investigators and sought data from the State Bar of California