Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action - Reason Foundation
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action - Reason Foundation
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action - Reason Foundation
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
22than that of the Michigan legislature—and it is difficult<strong>to</strong> argue that it is not at least as good.II. Voter Initiatives Like MCRI Hold the Key<strong>to</strong> Improving the Academic Success of Under-RepresentedMinority Students.For years, colleges and universities operatedunder the assumption that when they engaged inaffirmative-action preferences in admissions, minoritystudents were receiving a valuable benefit.The evidence indicates, however, that this is error.The recipients of preferences must often struggle <strong>to</strong>succeed at institutions where their entering academiccredentials put them well below that institution’smedian. Many are worse off.How can this be? No one should be surprised <strong>to</strong>learn that affirmative action beneficiaries tend <strong>to</strong>earn low grades at the colleges and universitiesthat recruit them. While some students will outperformtheir entering academic credentials just assome students will under-perform theirs, most studentsperform in the general range that their enteringcredentials suggest. See, e.g., Gail Heriot, TheSad Irony of <strong>Affirmative</strong> <strong>Action</strong>, 14 National Affairs78 (Winter 2013); Richard H. Sander & Stuart Taylor,Jr., MISMATCH: HOW AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONHURTS STUDENTS IT’S INTENDED TO HELP, AND WHYUNIVERSITIES WON’T ADMIT IT (2012) (“MISMATCH”).Even affirmative action advocates concede that minoritystudent grades are “startlingly low.” See Ianunique <strong>to</strong> the initiative context. See Jordan Schrader, BAMN<strong>Defend</strong>s Purpose, The Michigan Daily (Feb. 11, 2002) (reportingtactics in connection with Grutter and Gratz litigation).