Affirmative action: The ugly truth
Racial preferences in college admissions are fundamentally wrong in principle. And with research now showing they actually hurt minority students in practice, the U.S. Supreme Court must overturn this insidious form of “affirmative action” once and for all.
As they hear a University of Texas case on Wednesday, the justices must remember what Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote in a 2007 case: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
They also should know of research that UCLA law professor and economist Richard Sander and Brookings Institution fellow Stuart Taylor Jr. — authors of the new book “Mismatch” — sum up for The Atlantic.
The more competitive the school and the bigger its racial preferences, they write, the bigger the “mismatch” for “underprepared” minorities placed “in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively,” though they “would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools.”
That sets up minority students to fall behind. And thus, racial preferences intended to benefit minorities end up stigmatizing them, reinforcing “pernicious stereotypes” and undermining their self-confidence.
With higher education unwilling to offend the overly sensitive by addressing the issue, the Supreme Court must end this practice.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Taxing consequences: The Shell effect
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Saturday essay: Deer of fools
- The silent treatment in Ford City: Forgotten words
- A green-tip assault: ATF’s end run
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- SCI Greensburg: A dubious deal
- Another StingRay case: Get a warrant!
- Economics moronism: Good grief