Affirmative Action: Unfair AND Ineffective

A brief Foxnews.com article about a recent study (from UCLA Law Professor Rick Sander no less - not a school noted for conservatism) concluding that affirmative action programs in top law schools are not working:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147493,00.html

I've always felt that affirmative action programs were unfair, you can't fairly resolve perceived organizational racism by practicing more of the same from the other side. Critics of Mr. Sander's study like Chris Darden say, in essence, that it's still better to deny deserving and capable enrollees in favor of racially-selected candidates that are less qualified. "Some may struggle initially, but eventually succeed", Mr. Dardin says. But the study says even those who do make it through law school don't pass the bar their first time by a comparative margin of 4-1 against white students.

I don't understand how it is better for a law school to give precedence for admission based upon racial background, when those students drop out or fail the bar at a much higher rate. How is that in the school's, the student's, or even the law industry's best interest? It seems to me that it's in everyone's interest that the school accept students who AREN'T likely to drop out; only those with the highest marks and drive. Mr. Dardin only offers the idea that 'those who succeed may end up on the Supreme Court someday", a clear emotional appeal to the professional race baiters among us. How much do you want to bet that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will be weighing in on this shortly?

Mr. Dardin would have law schools continue to deny more academically worthy applicants on the basis of race, even at such an enormous cost to all involved. That of course is aside from the basic unfairness of affirmative action 'race quotas' in general. Many will argue that affirmative action isn't about race quotas, but that IS the net effect.

Judiciaries across the land have ruled against affirmative action, calling it unconstitutional and in violation of civil rights. Only where the judiciary is corrupted by liberal activism does affirmative action continue to receive support, such as in Michigan recently. Liberal congressional and judicial activists have to gerrymander affirmative action cases in order that they get the 'correct' judge to have any hope of succeeding.

Admission to any college, law school, university, institute, etc. must be based upon true admission criteria: academic excellence, extra curricular activities, drive, etc. and never race. It's even unfair to the racially preferred to select them simply because of the color of their skin. Affirmative action is a law that chooses to promote mediocrity rather than fix the real problem - the fact that many minority students are not prepared for top schools.

My own son was one of those who wasn't prepared for a top-notch college and dropped out, and he's white - preparedness is not just a problem for minority students. But I wouldn't want his college to simply lower their standards so that my son could succeed there, this is my son's problem - not necessarily theirs. He's admitted he didn't work hard enough. I do think colleges could do more to help borderline students if maybe they spent less on things like "Gender Role Impacts in Art History" and payments to speakers like Ward Churchill and Louis Farrakhan, but my son's school in particular didn't do too many of those things.

The bottom line is if the student can't or won't hack it, they shouldn't be there. College's must measure a student's chance for successful graduation based upon standard academic criteria at application. They should admit only those who have the highest marks and best drive. Race or tuition shortage should have no role in the decision.

Adios MF,

Doug