North Carolinians are lucky to have an affordable public Ivy League’ school’ in our state, along with several elite “Southern Ivy League” universities. North Carolina students do not need Harvard. And it is not often that you hear Harvard and UNC mentioned in the same sentence. Until recently. The two have been intertwined in a court case against racial preferences in college admissions.
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that these two institutions have been discriminating based on race in the admissions process. Well, Duh. This has been happening at most schools for decades.
We’ve been taught that racial discrimination is bad. Then how did we accept this practice for so many years. What we really meant was that racial discrimination is okay, depending on which race you target.
In this case, the court ruled that race-based discrimination has harmed Asian American students, particularly. Asian American students were denied admissions, in favor of students of color with lesser grades on entrance exams.
It’s impossible to discriminate in favor of one race without discriminating against another race when there are more students than spaces available. Most schools accept all or most of the applicants applying. But elite schools, that are in high demand, usually have far more applicants than can be accepted.
Justice Roberts acknowledged that affirmative action in itself is discriminatory. He wrote for the majority, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual – not on the basis of color. Many universities have for far too long done just the opposite.”
“For too long,” Roberts wrote, universities “have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
He went on to say that admissions officials could consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise – not on the basis of race.”
Justice Roberts also said a few years ago, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch had some very interesting comments. He said, “racial classifications rest on incoherent stereotypes. I have an adopted black granddaughter. Should admissions committees give her credit for the color of her skin and for having biological parents who are descendants of slaves? Or does she lose that credit because she is being raised by parents of English and German ancestry? Perhaps the committees should notice simply that my granddaughter is intelligent and talented.”
Polling shows that most Americans agree with the Supreme Court decision regarding the admissions standards. Fifty two percent (52%) approve of the decision and only 32% oppose. Large majorities of whites and Asian Americans support the decision, Hispanics are evenly split, and black Americans oppose.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal points out another unfair admissions standard. Many of our elite institutions have a long history of favoring students with special connections that has nothing to do with race. They have a history of giving special advantages to those who are already advantaged.
I’m sure you heard about the scandals of the rich and powerful Hollywood celebs writing big checks to get their kids into elite schools. That was done illegally and several served jail sentences for buying influence.
It is standard practice for children of alumni, “legacy” admissions, to get special privileges and big donors also get special treatment. At Harvard, 14% of each entering class falls in this category. Of these “legacy admissions,” 41% came from families with annual incomes of $500,000 or more, placing them in the top 1% of all families. That’s compared to 15% for all students admitted. Also it is less likely that these students will be racial or ethnic minorities. There is no better example of generational advantage than this.
How hard would it be to judge students based on qualifications and talent? Treating everyone fairly would require equal opportunity for all but special privileges for none.
Recent Posts
Joyce Krawiec is a conservative activist, former North Carolina Republican Party Vice-Chair, and retiring North Carolina Senator. Christian, wife, mother, small business owner, and conservative. She has endorsed Dana Caudill-Jones for North Carolina Senate.