Getting the Academy out of the labor market will get affirmative action out of higher education

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of the affirmative action for college admissions argument.  Yes, there has been and probably still is discrimination based on race when it comes to admitting students into universities and colleges.  Everyone will not get into certain schools of choice if slots are reserved for socio-economically disadvantaged applicants.  That is the math of it.

Underlying the public policy of preferences is the social goal of redressing past slights against racial and ethnic minorities, slights that resulted in denial of access to educational institutions that issue degrees that have been seen in the past and are still seen pretty much today as keys to the gates of higher quality of life and greater incomes.

It’s why parents are so set on mortgaging their homes to the hilt to send little Johnny and Carol to the best school possible because colleges and universities have sold themselves and their systems and courses of learning as the premier if not only way to obtain the necessary education and skills to work as a manager at McDonald’s.  And little Johnny and Carol, properly programmed by parents and guidance counselors, see getting a good job as the only reason for consuming the educational services of Harvard, Yale, Florida State, or the local community college and are willing to go through the insufferable curriculum laid out by these august bodies (i.e. calculus at 8:00 am. Yuck) as the way to learn necessary skills and gain knowledge.

To make sure access is universal, government created the random selector of affirmative action and promotes college as the career path to pursue in this new knowledge economy.  Just listen to President Obama’s position on the need for young people to pursue degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math for confirmation.  Just push students to the bottleneck of the university system, and hopefully affirmative action can get a few of the disadvantaged in so that they can get a chance to take a gander down the yellow brick road of the college curriculum while on the way to quality of life a degree or two promises in The Emerald City.

Meanwhile, American society faces periodic reincarnations of Bakke and Hopwood as today’s U.S. Supreme Court considers Fisher v. University of Texas.  In Fisher, the court addresses whether the Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), permit the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions.  Ms. Fisher, who I hope has graduated by now from someone’s university, did not make the top ten percent of her class and was required to compete with the rest of the non-ten percenters for the remaining seats at University of Texas.  Race is allowed as a factor in admissions for non ten-percenters in Texas and Ms. Fisher argues that race should not be allowed as a factor pursuant to the 14th Amendment.

Here again universities find themselves in the diversity pickle, trying to pursue their mission as educators and playing unwilling pawn in a social policy battle between those who allegedly want access to universities based on merit versus those who believe that affirmative action as a weapon of redress should be applied in the universities.

I believe that colleges and universities should stay out of the “yellow brick road to high quality of life” game altogether.  If universities were to announce that we only recruit students who are willing to train primarily as researchers and teachers and commit to a seven year path while helping to develop innovative ideas and concepts and technologies that the private sector has willingly underwritten, and that all of these students must come from the top ten percent of whatever high school they have attended, the affirmative action issue would find itself gasping for that last breath of air.

Where the academy lost its way is when it allowed mixed messages surrounding its mission to be put out by everyone else but the universities and colleges.  Universities and colleges do not explicitly sell themselves as high-priced vocational education schools but allow it so that unwary high school graduates can show up with tuition and financial aid money. It’s the price they pay to keep revenues coming in.

Granted most high school students entering college are not coming to be trained as nerdy researchers.  I do believe that the non-research types who are matriculating to colleges in hopes of landing a job after four, five, or six years of keg parties, football games, Greek step shows, and last minute, crash studying for exams would be better off deciding their vocational paths before leaving high school and apprenticing with the appropriate private private business or trade smiths to learn their professions.  If it sounds like I’m proposing a quasi guild system for high school students to enter, I am.

As for the universities and colleges, to ensure that they don’t have to worry about using affirmative action preferences, they should not accept any state or federal funding unless that funding flows from consulting fees paid by governments for research projects and the fees are not tied to any requirements that incoming students be subjected to the random selector of affirmative action.

Yes, under this model the larger schools, especially those who invested their endowments well, will be left standing.  The private degree mills will go to the wayside or turn themselves into trade schools, subjecting themselves to affirmative action criteria in return for government funding and further degrading their status in the eyes of employers as credible sources of graduates.  But if applied, we may see universities going back to their primary and best mission, expanding minds and being allowed to completely focus on what they do best: introducing innovation.

About Alton Drew

Alton Drew brings a straight forward and insightful brand of political market intelligence. Alton Drew graduated from the Florida State University with a Bachelor of Science in economics and political science (1984); a Master of Public Administration (1993); and a Juris Doctor (1999). You can also follow Alton Drew on Twitter @altondrew.
This entry was posted in affirmative action, education and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Getting the Academy out of the labor market will get affirmative action out of higher education

  1. So you’re against affirmative action because it doesn’t work? I couldn’t really follow what you were getting at in this post. Care to clarify?

    • altondrew says:

      I’m against the notion of universities being the hot bed for the affirmative action argument in general. I’m also against government action that tries to create a market for any service, education or otherwise, where there is none. The university’s role should be that of thought driver. They are the ultimate think tank. They generate ideas that can provide value to a community; to society. Those ideas could be cultural. They could be commercial. In our free market, capitalist society there is a high probability that most ideas can be commercialized and generate jobs, output, and incomes. Universities should focus on getting the best and most passionate minds into their halls to learn how to research and harvest those ideas. The criteria for admission should be left up to them. Only the university should be allowed to determine who gets in and why, especially when taking into account their primary mission.

      Does this mean there will be discrimination? Yes. Will some universities decide that it would behoove them not to pass up the best talent because of race? Some will decide that. Affirmative action skews that decision making process. Put another way, why risk capping minority enrollment to ten percent when an entering class made up of 40% minorities would be preferable? It would be best to take affirmative action out of the equation and leave the decision to the provider of education services and the applicant.

      I’m against affirmative action because it unnecessarily interferes with the market and attempts to create a market where there is none.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s