Goodwin Liu [PDF]
Since for some reason anti-Affirmative Action nonsense is in the news again, I thought I’d share this excellent analysis of Univ. of Calif. v. Bakke by Goodwin Liu.
Here’s the background on Bakke:
In 1973, a white student named Allan Bakke applied unsuccessfully for admission to the Davis Medical School at the University of California. Bakke reapplied in 1974 and was again turned down. At the time, the medical school enrolled 100 new students each year and operated a two-track admissions process consisting of a general admissions program, under which Bakke’s application was reviewed, and a special admissions program, under which various minority applicants could seek review. The special program screened minority applicants to fill a quota; it continually recommended applicants to the general admissions committee until sixteen were admitted. Before the Supreme Court, Bakke argued that the “racial quota … prevented [him] from competing for 16 of the 100 places at the Davis Medical School and, as a result, barred him — by reason of race alone — from attending the school.”
Justice Powell agreed, noting that students with lower scores were admitted in the year that Bakke tried to apply, and gave this table as evidence:
After sharing this table, Powell writes the following (direct quote, my emphasis): “[h]ere … there is no question as to the sole reason for respondent’s rejection — purposeful racial discrimination in the form of the special admissions program.”
That’s the story, and if you don’t think about it too hard, it seems reasonable. After all, look at how much higher Bakke’s scores are than the special admittees! It’s reverse discrimination, by jingo!
Then Goodwin Liu raises a very important point. If you ignore the special admittees, and instead look at this modified version of the table…
…Bakke scores significantly better than the regular admittees in every single statistical category. So forget the special admissions program: Why didn’t Bakke get in ahead of everyone?
As it turns out, admission to a competitive secondary education program like a medical school are based on more than just grades and test scores. Liu goes on to note the following:
From Justice Powell’s opinion, we do not learn exactly what qualities the regular admittees had that Bakke lacked, although Justice Powell noted that the chairman of the admissions committee, who interviewed Bakke in 1974, “found Bakke ‘rather limited in his approach’ to the problems of the medical profession and found disturbing Bakke’s ‘very definite opinions which were based more on his personal viewpoints than upon a study of the total problem.’ ”
This final quote I think sums things up rather nicely:
Of course, with additional criteria, it may be possible to narrow down Bakke’s competition to a small enough number that the effect of the quota turns out to be substantial. The point, however, is that without precise information about how Bakke’s application fared in the overall pool — and Justice Powell’s opinion provides none — no reasonable basis exists to infer that the racial quota, and not some other selection criterion, caused his application to be rejected. In a selection process where there are far more applicants than available opportunities, the likelihood of success for any candidate is low, even under race-neutral criteria.
I like this point, because Liu’s not saying that there’s zero validity to Bakke’s claim, but that the logic that was used to justify it was, to put it charitably, faulty. The same type of faulty logic is often used today, so it’s good to be able to identify it when present.
(Note: The above is a summary of the first part of a very long and interesting review, which is linked to above. Worth a read, if you have the time!)
