Fisher v. Texas: End racial preferences

| Thursday, June 13, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

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.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.


Show commenting policy