How 'The Economist' Got it Wrong — America Still Needs Affirmative Action
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/michaeljung
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
With the Supreme Court considering Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, affirmative action has entered into the public eye again. Notably, The Economist’s cover story last week argues that its time for an end to affirmative action because:
Before the 1960s, when the foundations of affirmative action were first laid down, most blacks were poor, few served in public office and almost none were to be found flourishing at the nation’s top universities, corporations, law firms and banks. None of that is true today.
But is it really time to get rid of affirmative action? There are two arguments for affirmative action: first that diversity in education is good for students (there is solid research backing up this assertion, which The Economist recognizes) and second that the obstacles an African-American student has to overcome just to apply to college merits a leg up.
Since The Economist concedes the first point (arguing that while diversity is good, we can achieve it without affirmative action), the second argument is the one they primarily attack. And yet it couldn’t come at a worse time. The wealth gap between whites and blacks has grown, in fact, it has tripled. The study by Thomas Shapiro, Tatjana Meshede and Sam Orso find that a college education is a huge driver of that gap. A study by Martha J. Bailey finds that the college entry gap between the rich and poor has widened drastically over the past 40 years, driven largely by inequality.
The truth is, African-Americans aren’t flourishing in public office. There are only two African-American senators (and there has only ever been one black senator in the south, and he was appointed, not elected). There is currently only one black governor and there have been few in the last 100 years. Much of President Obama’s cabinet is conspicuously white and male. The truth is that blacks are drastically underrepresented in the political sphere. There have only been 13 black CEOs of a Fortune 500 company. Ever. Another study finds that a mere 14 percent of college presidents are minority.
African Americans still deal with the legacy of racism and oppression. Many blacks alive today can remember redlining, and lack of a home is still a major driver of black poverty. The average inheritance of a black baby boomer is $8,000 while the average inheritance of a white baby boomer is $65,000. Elementary and high schools are still highly segregated and schools with high minority populations are underfunded. In these circumstances, affirmative action is not an unfair boost, it is rather an equalizer. Students who grow up in poverty, attend an underfunded and understaffed school, who don’t get preschool or summer school and still manage to score close to pampered child in public school certainly deserve aid.
The Economist believes that with the abolition of affirmative action, we’ll have more meritocracy. But that’s unlikely. Martha Bailey (cited above) finds that the main reason for the college entry gap between rich and poor is not due to cognitive ability, but rather poverty, “Even among those who had the same measured cognitive skills as teenagers, inequality in college entry and completion across income groups is greater today than it was two decades ago.”
But does affirmative action help? The Economist cites the research of Richard Sander extensively. Sander published a study in 2004 that found that black students who were accepted into school because of affirmative action failed to obtain a degree and therefore there should be less affirmative action. Odd that The Economist doesn’t even consider a critique of that study , published later that year by David L. Chambers, Timothy T. Clydesdale, William C. Kidder, and Richard O. Lempert. Chambers et al found that: