Revisiting Affirmative Action
The breaking scandal of corrupt college admissions has exposed the role of money in college admissions. It is also a chance to revisit the idea of college affirmative action and the importance of access to higher education. Access to education has been a point of friction and social division in America since its founding. When elite schools began to set aside spots for Black students and other minority groups, a political movement grew in opposition. Affirmative action found opposition in all of its forms- business programs, federal contracting and so forth.
In higher education, individual plaintiffs stepped forward to claim their rights to the chairs set aside for poor, disadvantaged, and other classes of applicants. In all of that, I don’t remember the lawsuit that challenged the seats set aside for the sons and daughters of wealthy donors. Some say, those seats were not restricted by race—and, most remarkable of all, they said it with straight faces. In this current edition of money preferred admissions, there is a sense of corruption that unites all sides—when they cheat to win, we can all agree it is bad and we should stop it.
In higher education, individual plaintiffs stepped forward to claim their rights to the chairs set aside for poor, disadvantaged, and other classes of applicants. In all of that, I don’t remember the lawsuit that challenged the seats set aside for the sons and daughters of wealthy donors. Some say, those seats were not restricted by race—and, most remarkable of all, they said it with straight faces. In this current edition of money preferred admissions, there is a sense of corruption that unites all sides—when they cheat to win, we can all agree it is bad and we should stop it.
- Tolerance for the Rich
It appears that the primary complaint of many white plaintiffs in the 90’s and later that sued schools for affirmative action was more misguided than previously seen. We were always aware of the subjective nature of college admissions. Using names like development scholars, prestigious universities and colleges admitted thousands of unqualified applicants or poorly qualified applicants. By a simple definition, these students would not have been admitted but for some financial or other advantages to the school.
To be fair, some schools might have admitted a child of Dr. King or Malcolm, or Robert Kennedy- some fallen hero within our democratic and social environments. The advantage would not have been financial, but reputational and reflecting goodwill. Some schools admit children or relatives of major donors. Give a building and your kids, grand kids will be Yale-ies or Harvard-ites etc. The context of plum, legacy, or developmental admissions sheds a poor light on the lawsuits in which white applicants claimed that their rightful places were taken by students selected for race or diversity.
- Higher Education is a National Resource
The nation needs educational excellence. The quality of higher education is the special advantage that the US enjoys in a world of rising competition. The US fails by many measures of learning beginning with the Early Childhood stages; the US is the indisputable leader in advanced education. US research universities are the envy of friends and foes alike; and institutions of higher education have turned the tide in critical moments such as the University of Chicago and development of atomic energy and weaponry near the end of WWII—that was a race against the evil of Nazism that also reached for a weapon that could dominate the world.
Reverse Discrimination, Really?
Reverse Discrimination was always a sketchy point of view; it assumed all of the mistakes built in to the system were normative- wealthy schools vs poor urban schools, communities with resources vs communities that made life dangerous- the reverse discrimination point of view only looked at test scores and determined that white’s were at a disadvantage when schools reached beyond the testing standards to enrich their student populations. This was a sketchy theory in fact and in deed.
Education admissions have never been fair. Higher education began in Western Europe and then in the US as a male-only thing for rich white males. US public education became a ladder for the masses but only when the industrialists needed workers that could read and write and build technical things. Higher education today remains tilted towards white males—and so we have the bold efforts for women and STEM for example. Historically, women and peoples of color have made enormous contributions to education and through education.
Green Discrimination-
Socialism for the rich has never drawn a loud complaint- until lately when the energy of the 98 percent has begun to galvanize. Turning educational merit on its head to suit the children of people whose wealth can be quite suspect- became a norm that has rolled downhill gathering like a snowball since the period before founding of the Nation. At least, the schools tended to benefit and get stronger. Today’s brand of corruption is more than socialism for the rich; corrupt admissions simply weakens the educational system and cheats the society.
In the past and continuing to this day, the society seems to accept that schools can reward generous patrons with plaques, and halls, and admissions for their children and families. We seem to accept that the schools benefit, and the donations can be publicly disclosed. While in the end, the taxpayer pays for it all through tax deductions for the wealthy donors, the practice still passes the societal test for fair play.
The revelation of massive criminal corruption in the admissions process has shocked the nation. The undisclosed generations of money-influenced admissions essentially meant that wealthy people could directly or indirectly buy their way into prestigious schools. The current and past levels of corrupt admissions requires a new look at Affirmative Action.
Corrupt admissions suggests that the white Reverse Discrimination plaintiffs that claimed their seats went to minority applicants were oh—so mistaken. Their seats were taken, but not by the disadvantaged, Black, Brown, or Golden skinned people, but rather by the green people—the people with lots of green to ensure their dreams.
Corrupt admissions suggests that the white Reverse Discrimination plaintiffs that claimed their seats went to minority applicants were oh—so mistaken. Their seats were taken, but not by the disadvantaged, Black, Brown, or Golden skinned people, but rather by the green people—the people with lots of green to ensure their dreams.
