Education

              Jheanelle Wilkins of New Castle, Del., right, and Neo Moneri of Beltsville, Md., participate in a rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012, supporting the University of Texas.. The Supreme Court is taking up a challenge to a University of Texas program that considers race in some college admissions. The case could produce new limits on affirmative action at universities, or roll it back entirely. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Book: Racial preferences in university admissions have harmed minority communities

Photo of Jamie Weinstein
Jamie Weinstein
Senior Editor
  • See All Articles
  • Send Email
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Bio

      Jamie Weinstein

      Jamie Weinstein is Senior Editor of The Daily Caller. His work has appeared in The Weekly Standard, the New York Daily News and The Washington Examiner, among many other publications. He also worked as the Collegiate Network Journalism Fellow at Roll Call Newspaper and is the winner of the 2011 "Funniest Celebrity in Washington" contest. A regular on Fox News and other cable news outlets, Weinstein received a master’s degree in the history of international relations from the London School of Economics in 2009 and a bachelor's degree in history and government from Cornell University in 2006. He is the author of the political satire, "The Lizard King: The Shocking Inside Account of Obama's True Intergalactic Ambitions by an Anonymous White House Staffer."

The use of racial preferences in university admissions has harmed the minority communities it was supposed to benefit, argue the authors of a new book, ”Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit it.”

The book’s authors — UCLA Law School Professor Richard Sander and National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor Jr. — make the case against racial preferences, but not on the grounds that they’re unconstitutional. They argue that racial preferences actually harm the beneficiaries by placing them in an academic environment they aren’t prepared for.

“When a given student — let’s call her ‘Susan’ — receives a large admissions preference into an elite university, Susan is likely to be confronted with pretty intense competition,” the authors explained in an email to The Daily Caller.

“Most of the other students have much stronger academic preparation than Susan, and the professors are teaching towards the middle of the class, rather than the students like Susan who need to catch up. As a result, Susan is likely to struggle in the class, get a low grade, and actually learn less than she would have if she had attended a somewhat less elite school. That’s why we say that students receiving large preferences are often ‘mismatched.’”

For instance, the consequences of racial preferences on the African-American community have been “quite serious,” the authors argue.

“Today only one in three African-Americans who starts law school succeeds in graduating and passing the bar exam on his or her first attempt,” Sander and Taylor told TheDC.

“That’s quite serious, especially given the amount of debt students take on these days to go to law school. In part because of science mismatch, blacks achieve doctorates in science at one-seventh the rate of whites. Controlling for background and academic preparation, blacks in recent years are 30% more likely than whites to attend a four-year college, but 30% less likely to get a bachelor’s degree. All this does grave damage to the intellectual self-confidence of many struggling students, with potential long-term consequences, and aggravates racial stereotypes.”

Read on the next page TheDC’s full interview with the Sander and Taylor on their book, whether they believe racial preferences are unconstitutional, whether they believe racial diversity is a noble goal in university admissions and much more.