The Content of His Character

By Tim Wise, AlterNet. Posted November 25, 2003.

One thing can be said for conservatives: they are nothing if not unoriginal.

This truism was driven home yet again recently when I found myself embroiled in a debate over affirmative action with a loyal Bush supporter, who insisted that folks like me, by virtue of our support for the concept, had abandoned the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.

King, I was assured for the 2,345th time (give or take a few), would have staunchly opposed affirmative action, what my friend called “racial preferences,” because, after all, he believed that people should be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Faced with yet another person claiming to be the ideological soul mate of a man they probably despised when he was actually breathing, I decided to gloss over the fact that King actually endorsed the concept of affirmative action as early as 1961, and again in 1963, 1965 and 1967. And I also opted not to belabor the point that affirmative action doesn’t actually judge anyone on the basis of skin color, but simply seeks to ensure that persons of color who otherwise might be overlooked for educational and job opportunities (despite their qualifications) get a chance to prove themselves.

Instead, I decided to debate the issue on the grounds favored by the right, including its representative before me, who so seemed to covet the “content of their character” line. So I asked him plainly: What do the “merit” standards he endorses, and which people like him would prefer to see in place of so-called racial preferences -- such as standardized test scores for college admissions -- have to do with character?

Since racial score gaps on these tests are taken as proof that blacks are less qualified than whites to attend selective colleges, and since critics of affirmative action insist we should return to the notion of merit admissions, based largely on these test results, was he honestly suggesting that SATs, ACTs, LSATs and MCATs say something about a person’s character or lack thereof? More to the point, was he of the opinion that whites, by virtue of our higher average scores, are of superior character to black students?

It was obvious that no one had ever asked him that before. Worse, I had never thought to ask it before either. It was almost as if we had both accepted the notion that persons who score 1400 on the SAT are of better character than those who score 1100, and that they, in turn, are of greater character than those who score 900, and so on. Even the idea that standardized test scores are good predictors of academic ability is questionable enough; but to think there is a correlation between such scores and character seems absurd on the face of it.

According to Webster‚s Dictionary, the relevant definition of character is “moral strength, self-discipline, fortitude.”

That says nothing about academic performance, or even intelligence itself, however defined. Indeed, how could it? The Nazis were led by men who probably would have scored highly on the SAT; so too those who designed Napalm, or sanctioned the slaughter of America‚s indigenous populations. So too Ted Bundy, or the young white man with the 1350 on his SATs and a slot in the freshman class at Berkeley, who murdered a young black girl in the bathroom of a Nevada casino a few years ago.

So which is it? Should we judge people on the basis of character, or rather on the basis of previous academic achievement -- no minor question, since the two have no necessary correlation to one another?

I for one vote for character, but I doubt those who have misappropriated the concept from King would like where the notion leads, especially in terms of its impact on admissions.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »