	Sign In Sign-Up

Editorial Reply

Submitted to The Bethesda Gazette for publication in November 1999.
Edited for internet publication on November 30, 2000.

No matter how structured the program, nor how laudable the goal, racial inclusion by racial quota is still racism. It excludes some by their race, for the benefit of others because of their race. This is tolerated in Montgomery County by the Montgomery County Public School System. It is also tolerated by Professor Allan Lichtman of American University as seen by his article Taking a Stand Against Segregation in Our Schools (The Gazette; 11-17-99).

According to the article, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Montgomery County's use of race in transfer decisions is unconstitutional. Montgomery County is appealing this decision to the Supreme Court. Professor Lichtman says, "Montgomery County is right to appeal" since not doing do would prompt a backslide "toward racial isolation in education." This backslide is "no idle fear" according to the Professor. "In colleges and law schools in Texas and California, black and Hispanic enrollment plummeted after policies were forced upon them to forbid the consideration of race in admission decisions."

Presumably, the policies referred to by Professor Lichtman stem from the Hopwood decision, and Proposition 209. Under Hopwood, a federal appellate court ruled that the former admissions policy for the Law School of The University of Texas is unconstitutional. UT's admissions policy considered blacks and Hispanics separately from other races. Under Prop 209, the California Constitution is amended to prohibit the government from using racial or sex preferences in hiring, contracting, or college admissions.

Did Prop 209 or Hopwood cause the enrollment declines of which Professor Lichtman spoke? Are these declines are as dreadful as he would make us believe? The actual figures say otherwise.

The proportion of blacks receiving letters of admission at Berkeley dropped 57 percent and at UCLA 40 percent -- while Hispanics being admitted declined 40 percent at Berkeley and 33 percent at UCLA. But when admissions at all eight UC campuses are totaled, black admissions declined only 18 percent and the drop for Hispanics was only 7 percent.

At one school, UC Riverside, the proportion of blacks getting in actually shot up 34 percent -- while the rate for Hispanics gained 43 percent ("The Consequences of Colorblindness," Wall Street Journal, April 7, 1998).

As for the University of Texas, overall minority enrollment has fluctuated for the Graduate, Law, and Graduate Business schools for the three-year academic period ended in 1998. However, for that same period, undergraduate minority enrollment has gone up steadily from a 1996 low of 12,125 reaching a 1998 high of 12,642 minority students.

One can see that Hopwood and/or Prop 209 did not cause any real enrollment declines. Therefore, it can be said that minorities are not at a disadvantage here. But if that's true, then why do we have ethnic diversity policies in the first place?

Professor Lichtman claims ethnic diversity policies "work to improve the attainments of minorities later in life and to better race relations in our communities." To prove this point, he cites a study by William T. Trent which says, "Parents who have attended desegregated schools are more likely to have attended college, have better jobs, and live in desegregated neighborhoods. They are also more likely to provide their children with the skills they need to begin school."

Where Professor Lichtman or Mr. Trent could get these ideas would astound Gary S. Becker, author of End Affirmative Action As We Know It. According to Becker, "Affirmative action programs fail because they do nothing to bring unprepared minorities up to the level of the students and workers who gain their positions on merit alone. As a result of racial quotas:

On average, black and Hispanic students entering the University of California at Berkeley have much lower high school grade-point averages and scores on the Scholastic Assessment Test than whites and Asians.
Students admitted through special set-asides do much worse at the college level, lowering the six-year graduation rate for blacks to 59 percent and for Hispanics to 64 percent, compared with 84 percent for whites and 88 percent for Asians" (Business Week; 8-21-95)

As Professor Lichtman is mistaken on the effect of ethnic diversity policies, so is he on Jim Crow Laws. Contrary to what he thinks, there is a very strong comparison between the old Jim Crow Laws and Montgomery County's use of race to avoid segregation. The key lies in what role the government plays and how it plays it.

Historically, Jim Crow Laws were designed to create a racial caste system in the American South. Today, Montgomery County, by virtue of its diversity policies, creates its own caste system--those who meet the racial quotas (the privileged) and those who do not (the non-privileged). Thus, all that is required for Jim Crow is that one class be opposed by another via government sanction.

No one will benefit from a policy which excludes some for the benefit of others. That Professor Lichtman doesn't recognize this is not surprising. That Montgomery County doesn't recognize this is not only surprising, it is saddening as well.

Back

Home