Bell Curve

462 LivingTogether Affirmative Action in Higher Education 463To give blacks an edge because they are black accords with this sense ofjustice. At an elaborated level, there is a widespread impression that theunderrepresentation of blacks and Latinos (and perhaps other groups,such as American Indians) in elite schools is an effect of racial or ethnicinjustice, properly corrected by affirmative action in university admissions.If it were not for the racism in our society, the groups wouldbe proportionally represented, some believe. A still more elaboratedversion of the argument is that the very approach to learning, reasoning,and argumentation in universities is itself racist, so that the predictorsof university performance, such as SAT or IQ scores, aretherefore racist too. Affirmative action redresses the built-in racism inthe admissions process and the c~rriculum.~~question becomes whether affirmative action as it is being practiced isdoing what its advocates want it to do. Does it serve worthwhile pureposes for the institutions themselves, for students, for society at large,or for a commonly shared sense of justice?A Scheme for Comparing Rationales with PracticeWe will set the problem first with hypothetical applicants to college, dividedinto four categories, then we will insert the actual cognitive abilityscores of the college students in those categories. The four categoriesare represented in the 2 x 2 table below, where "low" and "high" referto the full range of cultural and economic advantages and disadvantages.Two Common But Invalid Arguments RegardingAffirmative ActionWe have reviewed the rationales for affirmative action without even mentioningthe two most commonly made points: first, that the real differencein academic ability between minority and white candidates is much smallerthan the difference as measured by test scores, and, second, that gradationsin ability do not count for much after a certain threshold of ability has beenmet.This first point is based on allegations of cultural bias in the tests, coveredin Chapter 13 and Appendix 5. As readers will by now be aware, muchresearch argues strongly against it. The second point, often expressed byuniversity officials with the words "everyone we admit can do the work,"is true in the limited sense that students with comparatively low levels ofability can get passing grades. It is not correct in any broader sense. Higherscores predict better academic performance throughout the range of scores.There is no reason to think that a threshold exists above which differencesin tested ability have little effect on the quality of the student body, studentperformance, and the nature of student interaction^.'^So there are three coherent rationales for concluding that it is just,as well as institutionally and socially useful, to admit minority studentsfrom specific minority groups even if they are somewhat less qualifiedthan the other candidates who would be admitted. The rationales arenot even controversial. Few of the opponents of affirmative action areprepared to argue that universities should ignore any of these criteria altogetherin making admissions decisions. With that issue behind us, theA Framework for Thinking about the Magnitude of Pref.erence That Should Be Given to a Minority CandidateHighMINORITYLowLow(3)ScarsdaleAppalachia(2)South BronxAppalachiaWHITEHigh(4)ScarsdaleScarsdale(1)South BronxScarsdale"Scarsdale" denotes any applicant from an upscale family. "SouthBronx" denotes a disadvantaged minority youth, and "Appalachia" denotesa disadvantaged white youth. Each cell in the table correspondsto a pair of applicants-a white and a minority-from either high orlow socioeconomic and cultural circumstances. Starting at the lowerright and going clockwise around the table, the categories are: (1) a minorityapplicant from a disadvantaged background and a white from aprivileged background; (2) a minority and a white applicant, both fromdisadvantaged backgrounds; (3) a minority applicant from a pivilegedbackground and a white from a disadvantaged background, and (4) aminority and a white applicant, both from privileged backgrounds.Imagine you are on the admissions committee and choosing between