Affirmative action affords qualified minority candidates the opportunity to participate in programs that are well within their ability, but have been denied to them purely on the basis of their skin color. Yet somewhere on the road to equality, the progress of affirmative action came to be measured on relative scales. Goals and quotas were filled using preferences for unqualified people.
The inventive structure of our society must change. Instead of a system that rewards arbitrary characteristics, such as race or gender, we must create a system that rewards intelligence and ability.If this causes a temporary shift in those relative scales, so be it.
Affirmative action has been a qualified success because, while individuals have been given greater opportunities as a result of the program, race supports no meaningful generalizations about relative opportunity or ability. To use race instead of ability as a criteria for admission to a university or a career does a disservice to both admitter and admitee. An excellent example of this qualified success of affirmative action is the undergraduate admissions process at the University of California at Berkeley, as described in a recent New York Times series.
In 1984, whites accounted for 60 percent of all undergraduates. Today, the student body is 39 percent Asian, 32 percent white, 14 percent Hispanic, six percent black, one percent Asian, one percent Native American and eight percent is composed of other ethnicities or by people who did not identify their race.
In 1984, the mean Scholastic Achievement Test score was 1155. Today it is 1225. The mean high school grade point average in 1984 was 3.62. Now it is 3.84. Today 79 percent of students graduate within six years, compared with the 55 percent in the mid-1950s.
Campus officials report that these numbers have risen for all ethnic groups. Bob Laird, the director of undergraduate admissions at Berkeley, said, "There's a myth that in the course of diversifying the campus we've lowered our standards ... If you divide the freshman class in five parts and you compare the quintiles, the [class] is stronger than five years ago." On its face, affirmative action is a success, but these numbers present only one side of the story.
Andrew Wong, Berkeley's student body president in 1994-95, said, "70 percent of Asians look at affirmative action and see a system in which they get the shaft. I believe in a meritocracy, not in preferences, and if that produces a less diverse place, well, that's the social cost you pay." Asians, who enter with the highest GPAs and SATs, are tired of being denied admission to provide slots for the less qualified (in terms of GPA and SAT). The percentage of blacks and Hispanics have decreased about two percent since 1991. "What they call affirmative action is mostly just an appeasement, and now they're taking away what's there," said Mireta Khalil, a black junior from Los Angeles.
The best alternative to the dilemma of affirmative action has been presented by Ward Connerly, a black Sacramento businessman and member of the University of California Board of Regents. Mr. Connerly believes that diversity, while a worthwhile goal, cannot continue at the cost of fairness in admissions. He suggests a focus on socio-economic class to determine relative opportunity while keeping grades and SATs the main admission criteria.
Berkeley conducted a study based on Connerly's criteria and determined that Asians would account for 51-54.7 percent (compared with the 41.7 percent this year), whites 34.8-37.3 percent, Hispanics three to six percent (down from 15.3) and blacks less than two percent (compared with the current 6.4 percent.)
The historic purpose of affirmative action is fulfilled. The challenge is no longer to integrate populations who have been denied opportunity. The challenge is to allow capable individuals of society to achieve the highest degree of success. Connerly's plan is the first step in that direction. By setting objective goals -- success in grades and intelligence tests -- it changes the incentive structure.There is a clear path to success. It is not about giving or taking away. It is about earning. No individual's presence in an institution of higher learning, corporation or government can be chalked up to anything else other than his or her innate ability to succeed andwillingness to effectively utilize that ability.
The Connerly plan may indeed result in a temporary reduction in the number of black and Hispanic students at Berkeley. But it will give all students a clear goal -- success on the SAT and performance in school .A temporary shift in the racial makeup of universities is a small price to pay for giving all students equal opportunity under equal criteria for admission.
