A fascinating article was published recently at the Wall Street Journal about affirmative action. As far as I am concerned, this article is an absolute must read for all those interested in this issue. The author, Gail Hariot (professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights), starts by writing:

Three years ago, UCLA law professor Richard Sander published an explosive, fact-based study of the consequences of affirmative action in American law schools in the Stanford Law Review. Most of his findings were grim, and they caused dismay among many of the champions of affirmative action–and indeed, among those who were not.

Easily the most startling conclusion of his research: Mr. Sander calculated that there are fewer black attorneys today than there would have been if law schools had practiced color-blind admissions–about 7.9% fewer by his reckoning. He identified the culprit as the practice of admitting minority students to schools for which they are inadequately prepared. In essence, they have been “matched” to the wrong school.

No one claims the findings in Mr. Sander’s study, “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools,” are the last word on the subject. Although so far his work has held up to scrutiny at least as well as that of his critics, all fair-minded scholars agree that more research is necessary before the “mismatch thesis” can be definitively accepted or rejected.

Although that sounds good enough, the reality of the situation is that “fair-minded scholars are hard to come by when the issue is affirmative action. Some of the same people who argue Mr. Sander’s data are inconclusive are now actively trying to prevent him from conducting follow-up research that might yield definitive answers. If racial preferences really are causing more harm than good, they apparently don’t want you–or anyone else–to know.”

In other words, some people have decided that affirmative action is good and effective, no matter what the data says.

More:

Take William Kidder, a University of California staff advisor and co-author of a frequently cited attack of Sander’s study. When Mr. Sander and his co-investigators sought bar passage data from the State Bar of California that would allow analysis by race, Mr. Kidder passionately argued that access should be denied, because disclosure “risks stigmatizing African American attorneys.” At the same time, the Society of American Law Teachers, which leans so heavily to the left it risks falling over sideways, gleefully warned that the state bar would be sued if it cooperated with Mr. Sander.

Sadly, the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners caved under the pressure. The committee members didn’t formally explain their decision to deny Mr. Sander’s request for these data (in which no names would be disclosed), but the root cause is clear: Over the last 40 years, many distinguished citizens–university presidents, judges, philanthropists and other leaders–have built their reputations on their support for race-based admissions. Ordinary citizens have found secure jobs as part of the resulting diversity bureaucracy.

If the policy is not working, they, too, don’t want anyone to know.

Data shows that minority students - African-Americans - often perform poorly at the elite Universities. The reason for this is that, when they go to such an elite university, they are (often) attending schools “where their academic credentials are substantially below those of their fellow students.” The result is that a lot of them “perform poorly.”

The reason is simple: While some students will outperform their entering academic credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students will perform in the range that their academic credentials predict. As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels.

Of course, supporters of affirmative action / race-based admissions then argue that, “despite the likelihood of poor grades, minority students are still better off accepting the benefit of a preference and graduating from a more prestigious school.” The sad news for them is that “Mr. Sander’s research suggests that just the opposite may be true–that law students, no matter what their race, may learn less, not more, when they enroll in schools for which they are not academically prepared. Students who could have performed well at less competitive schools may end up lost and demoralized. As a result, they may fail the bar.”

All in all, Mr. Sanders conclude that white students are more likely to attend law schools that are at their level. These law schools, the non-elite once, take “things a little more slowly” and spend “more time on matters that are covered on the bar exam.” The result: these white students are doing quite wel, while the black students who were allowed in because of affirmative programs are not learning, but struggling at elite schools.

All in all “Mr. Sander calculated that if law schools were to use color-blind admissions policies, fewer black law students would be admitted to law schools (3,182 students instead of 3,706), but since those who were admitted would be attending schools where they have a substantial likelihood of doing well, fewer would fail or drop out (403 vs. 670). In the end, more would pass the bar on their first try (1,859 vs. 1,567) and more would eventually pass the bar (2,150 vs. 1,981) than under the current system of race preferences. Obviously, these figures are just approximations, but they are troubling nonetheless.”

Gail Hariot makes a strong case: if not to do away with affirmative action programs, then at least to reconsider and to study its effects more. It is worrisome that quite some people / supporters of affirmative action are not even open to the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, affirmative action is not the easy solution they hoped. Perhaps, just perhaps, affirmative action is counterproductive. The idea behind affirmative action / admissions based on race is a good one: the idea is to help African-Americans to get a good education and, therefore, to improve their lives. But if one looks at Mr. Sanders’ research, one can doubt the use of it. If the wish of people truly is to help African-Americans help themselves, it seems to me that they should favor more open-minded research in this area.

Instead of letting Mr. Sanders conduct more research though, some liberals have decided to make it impossible for him to do some necessary follow-up work. They labeled his works “inconclusive” and that’s the end of it… or so they hope.

I hope for the African-American community that it will not be the end of it, and that people will - for a change - look at the problem objectively and, by doing so, come up with solutions that might actually work.

H/t to reader Mike for sending me the article, to be cross posted at my own blog.