10 Notes on the End of Affirmative Action

From colemanhughes.substack.com (June 29, 2023):

In a landmark decision handed down today, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of race in college admissions violates the 14th amendment––effectively ending “Affirmative Action” overnight. For some, this is a shocking step backwards. For others, it’s a long overdue endorsement of color-blindness and non-discrimination.

I am in the latter camp. I think “Affirmative Action” is a misguided, discriminatory policy whose end is long overdue. But I know many intelligent and well-meaning people who disagree. In the coming weeks, I expect many media outlets to push an alarmist viewpoint that we have dialed the clock back to the days of Jim Crow. So I’d like to lay out, as clearly as possible, my reasons for believing that this decision is a net good for American society.

1. “Affirmative Action” is a Euphemism for Racial Discrimination

We use euphemisms to hide ugly realities. During the War On Terror, for example, the phrase “enhanced interrogation” was used instead of “torture.” Whereas “torture” calls to mind hellish dungeons and blood-curdling screams––realities the public might not support––“enhanced interrogation” calls to mind…well, nothing in particular. That’s the point.

“Affirmative Action” is a euphemism too. If you didn’t know what it meant, you would never guess that it referred to a policy of racial discrimination against certain people (whites and Asians), and racial preferences for others (blacks and Hispanics).

Do “discrimination” and “preferences” sound too harsh? Isn’t race just used as a “tie-breaker” between otherwise identical applicants?

Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade studied a representative sample of elite colleges and found that when other factors were held equal, Asians and whites had to score 450 and 310 SAT points higher than black applicants, respectively, to have the same odds of being admitted. (Espenshade, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, chapter 3).

Harvard’s 2013 internal memo found that if they ended “Affirmative Action”, the number of Asian-American students would more than double, comprising 43 percent of the student body. That doesn’t sound like a tie-breaker to me. If the shoe were on the other foot––if black and Hispanic kids were at a disadvantage equal to hundreds of SAT points––no one would be tempted to dismiss it as “small.”

What goes on in admissions offices is shrouded in secrecy. If it were shown openly, it would seem ugly and racist. Here, for instance, is an actual conversation (revealed in the lawsuit) between admissions officers at UNC:

“I just opened a brown girl who’s an 810 [SAT].”

“If its brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them in for [the] merit/Excel [scholarship].”

“Still yes, give these brown babies a shot at these merit $$.”

“I am reading an Am. Ind.”

“[W]ith these [URM] kids, I’m trying to at least give them the chance to compete even if the [extracurriculars] and essays are just average.”

“I don’t think I can admit or defer this brown girl.”

“perfect 2400 SAT All 5 on AP one B in 11th”

“Brown?!”

“Heck no. Asian.”

“Of course. Still impressive.”

“I just read a blk girl who is an MC and Park nominee.”....

“Stellar academics for a Native Amer/African Amer kid.”....

“I’m going through this trouble because this is a bi-racial (black/white) male.”

“Holistic admissions” is a propaganda phrase. Here’s the reality: racial identity––a fact which no one chooses about themselves––is the but-for cause of admission and rejection for a significant portion of American students applying to elite colleges.

Imagine if every college rejection letter contained an honest account of why every kid was rejected. Imagine, for example, if the Asian-American kid who would have gotten into Harvard were she not Asian received an honest statement attesting to that fact in her rejection letter: “We regret to inform you that you’ve been rejected in part because you are Asian-American. Had you been black or Hispanic with otherwise identical qualifications, we would have accepted you.”

How long would “Affirmative Action” survive in this scenario? If your intuition is “not very long” (that is mine), then what does it tell you that secrecy is the main reason “Affirmative Action” survived as long as it did? 

Sadly, euphemisms work. They shape public opinion. Consider the results of two surveys about college admissions. Pew asked: “Do you think race/ethnicity should be a major factor, minor factor, or not a factor in college admissions?” 73 percent of Americans said race/ethnicity should not be a factor in college admissions at all, including a majority of black respondents.

But the same year, Gallup asked: “Do you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial minorities?” And 61 percent of respondents said “yes”.

How can that be? How can majorities both support and oppose racial preferences?

The key is how you ask the question. When you ask people if they support “Affirmative Action,” they’ll say “yes.” But if you instead ask the same question using a straightforward definition of “Affirmative Action”–– like “using race as a factor in college admissions”––those same people will say “no”. That’s the power of euphemism. (I’m sure “enhanced interrogation” polled better than “torture” too.)

“Affirmative Action” may be popular. But the underlying reality it represents––racial discrimination and preferences––is unpopular with Americans of all races. [read more]

The other notes:

1. “Affirmative Action” Affects the Elites, Not the Masses. By Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade’s estimate, in any given year, only 1 percent of black and Hispanic 18-year olds get into a college as a result of racial preferences. The other 99 percent either don’t go to college at all or don’t go to colleges selective enough to “need” racial preferences. Schools with acceptance rates over 50% generally don’t use affirmative action.
2. The Benefits of “Affirmative Action” are Dubious
3. Mismatch is Real. Affirmative Action has negative side effects even for those students it is intended to help.
4. “Affirmative Action” is Not the Product of The Civil Rights Movement
5. Quotas are a Red herring. Ever since the Bakke decision in 1978, racial quotas have been illegal. Schools have been able to “take race into account”––i.e. discriminate––as long as they don’t have specific numerical targets for each race in mind.
6. We’re Confused About Diversity
7. Affirmative Action as Reparations?
8. The Equilibrium Will Change. The result of banning “Affirmative Action” is not only up to the Supreme Court. It is also up to the many actors––with their own incentives and constraints––who will change their behavior in response to the ban.
9. If Not Affirmative Action, then What?

Another article on affirmative action:

DEI, CRT and affirmative action — are there only two sides?