Fisher v. Texas: End racial preferences
Bolstering the moral argument against racial preferences in college admissions — which the U.S. Supreme Court must consider in deciding Fisher v. University of Texas — is overwhelming evidence that they actually harm the students they're intended to help.
That evidence is cited in a Fisher amicus brief filed by three U.S. Commission on Civil Rights members, writes Hans A. von Spakovsky for PJ Media online. It says “extensive empirical research” shows blacks and Hispanics preferentially admitted over other students with better academic credentials “are less likely to follow through” on science or engineering majors or to graduate from law school and pass the bar exam.
Such students have trouble keeping up academically with better-equipped classmates, fueling discouragement, transfers to less demanding majors, even dropouts. And to keep enrolling minorities, lower-tier schools must follow higher-tier schools' lead on admissions, which Mr. von Spakovsky says “results in minority students having qualifications well below that of the average student at their colleges” — and in fewer minority scientists, engineers and lawyers.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Chief Justice John Roberts simply but eloquently wrote in a 2007 ruling, summing up the moral argument.
The empirical evidence cited in the Fisher brief is a compelling practical argument against racial preferences in college admissions, which not only don't work as intended, but are counterproductive.
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.
- No basis to claims
- The Thursday wrap
- NVT fire policy still under attack
- Union’s ‘rebate’
- Pipeline pap: The real agenda
- NSA snooping: Better intelligence needed
- The solar problem: Subsidized inefficiency
- Benghazi: The gun smokes
- Another broken promise: ObamaCare in the ER
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes