News and Fake News About College Admissions

As demonstrated by both the complaint that Harvard discriminates against Asians (the Boston federal district judge’s decision is presumably imminent) and the furor over the spreading pay-to-admit scandal of rich parents buying their kids’ admission to selective colleges, affirmative action remains a hotly contested matter of ongoing public debate. The latest brouhaha comes from Washington state, and it promises to be a doozy.

Late Sunday night, April 28, Democrats in the Washington legislature passed Initiative 1000, which allows state agencies to use race in admissions, hiring, etc., barring only “quotas” and the use of race as “the sole factor for selecting a lesser-qualified candidate over another.” This would allow unrestricted use of racial preferences, since no affirmative action admission policies, for example, rely on race exclusively.

This measure, if it remains law, would repeal I-200, passed in 1998, which, like California’s Proposition 209 (1996) on which it was modeled, prohibited state agencies “from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting.” I-200 was placed on the November 3, 1998, ballot, and it was approved by a substantial majority of Washington voters, 58.2% – 41.8%.

But it may well not remain the law. No doubt fearing the voters, Democrats in the state house and Senate (except for one Democrat in each house; there were no Republican supporters) refused to place I-1000 on the ballot, instead making it law immediately unless repealed by referendum.

“By Monday morning,” the Seattle Timesreports, “a group opposing the initiative had already filed a referendum seeking to put the measure to a public vote…. Roughly 130,000 signatures from registered voters would be needed by July 27 to get the referendum on the Nov. 5 general election ballot, according to the Washington Secretary of State’s Office.”

One can easily understand why Washington Democrats tried to avoid putting their race preference handiwork before the voters. Public opposition to the use of race has remained both strong and consistent,

38% regard the college admissions process as fair; 36% consider it unfair; 25% say it is neither fair nor unfair.

76% believe high school grades and 75% believe ACT or SAT test scores should be critical to admissions decisions

46% believe colleges weigh ability to pay, but only 23% think they should do so.

37% believe legacy status is considered, but only 11% think it should be.

Finally, and perhaps most important, 40% believe race is widely considered in admissions decisions, but only 27% believe it should be. 37% of non-whites believe it should continue to be considered while only 22% of whites do.

Thus 73% of respondents oppose the consideration of race, a result that includes 78% of whites and 63% of non-whites who favor eliminating the consideration of race altogether.

Many may be shocked by these numbers, but no one familiar with the history of public opinion surveys on affirmative action will be surprised. For example, a Pew Research Center survey released last month found that 73% of respondents (78% of whites, 62% of blacks, 65% Hispanics) opposed the use of race in admissions. In that survey, only 7% said they believe that “race or ethnicity should be a major factor in admissions decisions, and 19 percent believe it should be a minor factor.” Similar results have been found by Pew surveys for the past 25 years.

Similarly, a report, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” released last fall by the left of center group, More In Common, found that “a full 85 percent … believe that race should not be considered in decisions on college admissions.” The only one of seven “tribes” supporting racial preference were progressive activists, who make up about 8% of the population. “The rest of the country does not hold this view. Indeed, there is only half as much agreement among the next most supportive group, the Traditional Liberals (28 percent agree, while 72 percent believe race should not be a factor). And only 15 percent of Americans hold this view, leaving Progressive Activists largely alone in this particular viewpoint.”

A series of Gallup polls over the years have found similar results, as summarized by Gallup here last October. For example, four times between 2003 and 2016 Gallup asked:

Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a college or university: applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted (or) an applicant’s racial and ethnic background should be considered to help promote diversity on college campuses, even if that means admitting some minority students who otherwise would not be admitted?

The result: “Each of the four times Gallup has asked this question over a 13-year time period, between 67% and 70% of Americans chose the “solely on merit” option.

Indeed, there is probably no other contemporary issue where there is a greater gap between elite opinion — universities, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and virtually all elected Democrats — and mainstream views.

Again, that substantial majorities of Americans oppose racial preference policies is not news to those who have followed this issue, but it is so often ignored or hidden that it will surprise many. Since burying or hiding inconvenient information is as much “fake news” as reporting things that are not true, the reporting on affirmative action has more than its share of it.

Take, for example, Scott Jaschik’s article in Inside Higher Ed on the recently released NORC survey with which I began this essay. He relates that study’s finding regarding the general fairness of college admissions and the weight that should be given to grades and test scores, legacy preferences, and athletic ability, but there is no mention of the opposition to racial preference. (For an earlier discussion of that journal’s bias, see “Egregious Media Bias At Inside Higher Ed.”)

Perhaps Jaschik should be excused, however, since neither of NORC’s own releases about its new survey, here and here mention its findings regarding strong public opposition to race preferences.

It is easy to understand why diversiphiles in and out of higher education want to keep this news a secret. If enough people ever realized how unpopular racial preferences are, they might demand that the universities they support and the politicians they elect, comport with public opinion and get rid of them.

One thought on “News and Fake News About College Admissions”

One also has to ask about politically correct variance in polling. Remember how Hillary Clinton was leading every poll but lost the election — clearly not everyone supporting Trump was willing to publicly admit that.

By the same token,, my guess is that the opposition to affirmative action is even greater then what polling has found.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Please! Support Our Work and DONATE

Minding the Campus, the website written mostly by courageous professors who choose to educate rather than proselytize students to their world view, needs your help. Even a small donation makes a big difference. Click here to donate now.

Notable

Western Civilization = White Supremacy

New York City school administrators have been taught that pillars of Western Civilization such as objectivity, individualism, and even belief in the written word all are examples of … white supremacy, theNew York Post reports.

A slide presentation obtained by the Post from the workshop “Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change” includes claims that a belief in an “ultimate truth” (objectivity) leads to a dismissal of “alternate viewpoints or emotions” as “bad” (this is straight out of the critical race theory playbook), and that emphasis on the written word overlooks the “ability to relate to others” and leads to “teaching that there is only ‘one right way’ to do something.”

Other “hallmarks” of white supremacy include a “sense of urgency,” “quantity over quality,” and “perfectionism.” Read more at The College Fix

The Civility Problem

Maybe a few courses on how to create a civil society would help America's so-called "social warriors" learn how to deal with their fellow men and women. Let's start with Amherst College in Massachusetts, where former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was scheduled to address the ongoing issue of free speech on campus. Campus Reform reports that Sessions got a dose of today's SJW tactics when a stinkbomb was set off before he went on stage. Then, a walkout was staged by a gay pride group punctuating the assault on the former A.G. Stinkbombs? What is this, 7th grade?

Studying 'Angry White Males'

The University of Kansas has approved a course called “angry white male studies,” open to all students willing to take a women’s studies course first. The course on white males will explore recent changes in demographics since the 1950s. Republican Congressman Ron Estes took a dim view, arguing that ”KU is offering a class that divides the student population and could pose a TitleIX violation by creating a hostile campus movement based on gender.” The course will be taught by Christopher Forth, who focuses on gender, fat-shaming, and masculinity.

Erasing White Men from Politics

Believing that courses on American political thought are too fixated on white males, Professor Chad Shomura of the University of Colorado at Denver has solved the problem by banning discussion of white men in his course on the nation’s political thought. This means nothing from Washington, Jefferson, Tocqueville, Rousseau or any of the pre-Obama presidents. Discussion of the Hillary Clinton race for the presidency in 2016 is allowed, but how she managed to lose while apparently “running unopposed” is unclear.

No Free Speech: Heckler Cancels Another Student Meeting

Last week, a group of at least 4 Portland State University police officers stood by and declined to intervene as a heckler with a cowbell single-handedly canceled a College Republicans meeting. This is the second time in 2019 that PSU allowed hecklers or would-be hecklers to shut down campus expression — and the second time the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has demanded the university adhere to its First Amendment obligations. FIRE first wrote to the university Feb. 18 after PSU’s law enforcement unilaterally canceled a meeting of a socialist student group after the founder of the group Patriot Prayer said he would show up.

Be Careful What You Wish For on Social Programs

Nathan Glazer, the last of a group of famous neocon social scientists, died at the age of 95 on January 19 at his home in Cambridge, Mass. (He resisted the label “neocon.”) Glazer consistently warned that vast government plans to improve the lives of the poor often come to grief or create new problems of their own. “The evaluations of the specifics of the first ten years after the launching of (the War on Poverty) confirm that nothing worked and in particular, nothing in education worked.” He concluded that the family was the key institution to positive social change and that rights are inherent in individuals, not groups. The article here by Howard Husock of the Manhattan Institute ran in 2011 when President Obama planned an extension of the War on Poverty.

Reader Letter of the Week

There are two real dangers to this anti-white mindset that its proponents don’t seem to comprehend.

First, a minority of foolish and morally bankrupt white people can, will, and do buy all the social justice arguments and place themselves on the other side. That’s how you get white nationalist groups who say, “Yes, it is a power struggle between whites and everyone else, and we intend to come out on top.”

Second, and far more serious, the vast majority of white people who still hold to the tenets of individualism and equality will see the social justice warriors as a real and direct threat to their safety, culture, and future and react accordingly. As when we fought the Nazis and the Communists, there’s no need to agree with an enemy or even hold him in any regard as serious to recognize him and defeat him.

Either way, the result is division, civil unrest, and even war. Unfortunately, in this case, the SJWs have created a landscape in which there is no middle ground. It is one side or the other. The Feminists will fall first because there is no way to have a serious conflict between the sexes, and women are immensely practical creatures. But the other groups will find themselves in a very nasty position of facing a frightened and angry majority that has no intention of offering itself up for sacrifice. And when they mobilize, the “battle” won’t be metaphorical.

David S. Zondy

Write for MTC

Interested in writing for us?

Calling all professors, college newspaper reporters and editors who believe in diversity of thought as well as culture and ethnicity. Minding the Campus aims to expose today’s single lane thought highway at today’s universities and find solutions to the growing monoculture of ideas that silences the contrarians. MTC also has a commitment to due process and reports on how accusations of sexual assault on campus can convict a student who was denied legal representation. If you want to know more, please click here to read more.