Fighting Affirmative Action Could Threaten Rich Whites

Fighting Affirmative Action Could Threaten Rich Whites

Perpetually in jeopardy, the use of racial preferences in college admissions is under greater threat than ever.

President Donald Trump has scrapped Obama-era guidelines that encouraged universities to consider race as a factor. He has proposed replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in a 2016 case upholding affirmative action by one vote, with the more conservative Brett Kavanaugh. Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging Harvard’s preferences for Hispanics and African Americans has uncovered the university’s dubious pattern of rejecting academically outstanding Asian-American candidates — who don’t qualify for a race-related boost — by giving them low marks for personality. Either the Harvard case, or a similar lawsuit against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, could put an end to affirmative action.

If it is abolished, though, there will undoubtedly be increased pressure to also eliminate admissions criteria that favor a very different demographic — children of alumni and donors. Colleges are reluctant to drop these preferences of privilege for fear of hurting fundraising. But the political price of clinging to them could be significant.



The fates of affirmative action and what is sometimes called “white affirmative action” have long been intertwined. After the University of California, the University of Georgia and Texas A&M stopped using racial preferences, they discontinued preferences for alumni children as well. Although it’s generally regarded as legal for admissions offices to favor relatives of their graduates and benefactors, these advantages skew white. At Harvard, according to a filing in the current case against the university, alumni children — known as legacies — comprise 21.5 percent of accepted white applicants, compared to 7 percent of Hispanic admits, 6.6 percent of Asian Americans, and 4.8 percent of African Americans. Thus it can be difficult for universities to justify keeping these preferences in the absence of countervailing boosts for under-represented minorities.

Already, student groups at a dozen elite campuses are mobilizing opposition to legacy preferences. Brown University students voted overwhelmingly in March to establish a committee to re-examine the use of legacy status in admissions. These organizations support affirmative action and its demise would further energize them — and likely help them enlist liberal Ivy League alumni, especially those without teenage children. Legacy preference is widely unpopular; 52 percent of respondents to a 2016 Gallup poll said colleges should not consider whether an applicant’s parent is a graduate and only 11 percent said it should be a major factor. Moreover, without affirmative action, universities would likely look for other ways to sustain minority and low-income enrollment. Eliminating admissions edges for wealthy whites would be a logical start.

Data surfacing in the Harvard case could also incite anti-legacy fervor. Harvard and other elite universities typically justify legacy preference, when they talk about it at all, as a legitimate reward for alumni loyalty and volunteer work. They portray it as merely a tiebreaker between applicants of equal merit. Court filings, including Harvard’s internal reports, show otherwise. The university’s Office of Institutional Research found in 2013 that alumni parentage bestows an admissions boost equivalent to that for African Americans, and larger than those for Hispanics, Native Americans, and low-income students. Among applicants given the two highest academic rankings, Harvard accepted 55 percent of legacies, compared with 15 percent of non-legacies. Overall, across six years, Harvard accepted 33.6 percent of legacy applicants, versus 5.9 percent of non-legacies, according to Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, an expert witness for Students for Fair Admissions, the plaintiff challenging Harvard’s affirmative action policies.

Legacy preference isn’t Harvard’s only boost for affluent white families. Court documents show that Harvard maintains a list of candidates of special interest to the admissions dean, and accepted 42.2 percent of them. The dean’s interest list includes “all applicants who the Dean of Admissions wishes to keep track of during the admissions process, whether they be children of donors, or an applicant the Dean met at some point in their high school career and wished to keep an eye on,” said Harvard spokeswoman Rachael Dane. “Putting aside the tracking of this list, all applicants to Harvard go through the same rigorous admissions process.”

One child of a donor was Jared Kushner, now President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser. As I reported in my 2006 book, “The Price of Admission,” Harvard accepted Kushner despite an undistinguished high school record after his father, who was not an alumnus, pledged a $2.5 million gift.

Overlapping with the dean’s interest list is what’s known as Harvard’s “Z-List” of applicants who are initially waitlisted and then accepted on condition that they defer enrolling for a year. A filing by the plaintiffs cites my book and supports what I described anecdotally in it: The Z-list is Harvard’s way of quietly ushering in well-connected applicants who may not measure up academically. Of the nearly 60 students per year who Harvard Z-lists, 46.5 percent were legacies and 58.8 percent were on the dean’s interest list. Almost 70 percent were white; 14.3 percent were Asian; 4.4 percent were Hispanic, and 2 percent were black. Only 1.8 percent were the first generation in their families to go to college. Harvard admissions officials have described the Z-list as an effort to encourage students to take a year off before college to relax and mature, as well as to accommodate candidates whom Harvard would like to pluck from the waiting list but can’t find beds for.

Two other significant preferences — for children of faculty and staff, and for recruited athletes — also disproportionately benefit whites. Harvard accepted 46.7 percent of faculty and staff children, who enjoy a larger boost than Hispanics and low-income students, though not as much as legacies, Arcidiacono found. Recruited athletes get the biggest edge of all, with an 86-percent acceptance rate. They comprise 16.3 percent of white students who are admitted to Harvard, as against 8.9 percent of blacks, 4.2 percent of Hispanics, and 4.1 percent of Asian Americans. This racial disparity, which may surprise Americans who see minorities playing college football or basketball on television, reflects that Harvard, like other universities, fields teams in numerous prep-school sports like crew, sailing, fencing and squash.

Harvard’s court filings don’t dispute the scope of these patrician preferences. While the university normally downplays them to avoid the appearance of catering to the rich, in this lawsuit, it’s embracing them — for legal reasons. When Harvard’s treatment of Asian-American applicants came under scrutiny in 1990, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights let the university off the hook. It documented that Harvard admitted Asian-American applicants at a significantly lower rate than white applicants despite slightly stronger SAT scores and grades, but it attributed the higher bar to the university’s boosts for alumni children and athletes, rather than racial discrimination. Harvard is making the same defense now. In the ultimate irony, it’s trying to preserve affirmative action by acknowledging that its admissions process favors wealthy whites. As UC Berkeley economist David Card, an expert witness for Harvard, put it in his December 2017 report, “When exploring whether there is bias against Asian American applicants, it is important to account for the fact that Harvard’s admissions process gives special consideration … to children of Harvard or Radcliffe alumnae or alumni … applicants recruited to play a varsity sport at Harvard, and children of Harvard faculty or staff members.”

Indeed, the best protection for affirmative action may be the threat that its elimination would pose to legacy preference. “Were this court to have the courage to forbid the use of racial discrimination in admissions, legacy preferences (and similar practices) might quickly become less popular — a possibility not lost, I am certain, on the elites” supporting affirmative action, Justice Clarence Thomas — not a fan of either race-based or legacy preferences — observed in 2003.

Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Kennedy — the two moderate justices who provided the key swing votes to preserve affirmative action in 2003 and 2016, respectively — had experienced the blessings of legacy preference in their own families. The son of a Stanford alumna, Kennedy went to Stanford, as did his two sons and one daughter. O’Connor, her husband, and two of their three sons attended Stanford. Delivering its commencement address in 1982, O’Connor assured the graduates that “there is no greater, more foresighted office in this land of ours than the Admissions Office of Stanford University,” and expressed the wish that “you will all be lucky enough to have your children attend this paradise on earth that we love and that we call Stanford.” Don’t be surprised if affirmative action supporters ask Kavanaugh at his confirmation hearing whether the Yale double alum (college and law school) hopes that his two daughters will one day attend his alma mater.

 

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. 

 

Haiti unrest strands a number of US church groups

Haiti unrest strands a number of US church groups

Volunteer groups from several U.S. states were stranded in Haiti this past Sunday after violent protests over fuel prices canceled flights and made roads unsafe.

Church groups in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Alabama are among those that haven’t been able to leave, according to newspaper and television reports.

Some flights were resuming Sunday afternoon, according to airline officials and the flight tracking website FlightAware. American Airlines spokesman Ross Feinstein said in an email that two flights bound for Miami and one for New York had taken off Sunday afternoon.

But even getting to an airport could be risky, U.S. officials warned. The U.S. State Department issued an alert Sunday urging its citizens on the island to shelter in place and not to go to an airport unless travelers had confirmed their departing flight was taking off.

Dr. Salil Bhende, a North Carolina dentist, said in a phone interview that a group of about 16 dental clinic volunteers was supposed to fly out Sunday from Port Au Prince but couldn’t make it to the airport because the roads were unsafe. After encountering rubble and garbage in the road, the group turned back to a church about 45 minutes outside the capital city where it was staying. Airline officials told them they might not be able to get a flight home until Tuesday, Bhende said.

“There were a lot of blockages,” he told The Associated Press. “It was very difficult to get to the airport, so we just turned around, basically, to be safe.”

Another member of the group, Pastor Fred Stapleton of Cornerstone Covenant Church in western North Carolina, said the volunteers have plenty of food and feel safe in the church.

“Nobody here is afraid for their life, or anything like that,” he said. “The people have taken care of us. We’ve been kept in a safe place.”

Chapin United Methodist Church in South Carolina posted online Sunday that its mission team is safe but stranded. Marcy Kenny, assimilation minister for the church, told The State newspaper that the group is hoping the unrest will abate enough for them to make it to the airport.

“They’re just waiting for things to die down a little bit,” Kenny said.

About 30 volunteers from a Bradenton, Florida, church were unable to make it to the airport Saturday because of protesters blocking the streets, according to the Bradenton Herald.

The group from Woodland Community Church includes about 18 teens, plus ministers and a handful of parents, said Jill Kramer, whose 15-year-old daughter is on the trip. They tried to leave for the airport early Saturday morning but turned back after they encountered protesters.

Kramer, who spoke to her daughter by phone, said the group has food, water and safe shelter at the nonprofit group where they had been working.

“The mission team, the directors they all decided it just wasn’t worth it to go farther,” Kramer told the newspaper.

— Yonat Shimron

#DanRyanShutDown — Do protests really change policy?

#DanRyanShutDown — Do protests really change policy?

As I watched a diverse group of activists, beyond frustrated with gun violence in Chicago, shut down the Dan Ryan, one of the busiest expressways in the Chicago area, I felt a solidarity with their cause. Led by Father Pfleger of St. Sabina Church and Rev. Jesse Jackson on Saturday, July 7, thousands of activists from all areas of the city and the suburbs screamed “shut it down” right before they took over all four lanes of the expressway on the northbound lanes from 79th Street to 67th Street.

When I texted a friend of mine, who is very active in her South Side Chicago community, she was a lot less enthused about the event.

“What I don’t get is we’re primarily killing each other. How does marching on the highway reduce crime in our own community?”

I countered that it’s hard to ignore the problem when people practice civil disobedience. Then she responded, “Agreed, but it doesn’t influence or shape policy.”

She has a point about us killing each other, but I’m not sure I agree that civil disobedience and non-violent protests won’t change policy. This past spring, there were organized national marches in Chicago and across the nation against gun violence in schools and in the streets — nothing much has changed…yet. As of the first week in July, more than 1300 people have been shot in Chicago this year, according to The Chicago Tribune. And new school shootings seem to happen on the regular. But we’ve seen how peaceful protests have turned a bad situation around in the past.

President Trump has argued that Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws, but some suggest the laws are actually too lenient. Whatever your political bent, that doesn’t take away from the fact that we need to continue the tradition of putting our faith in action to make change happen and our communities safer. Next week, I’m not sure anyone will remember this march. But the pressure does let politicians know that although we join them in their thoughts and prayers, we also demand more effective solutions. Gov. Rauner, we heard you, but are you listening?

Celebrating the Life of Dr. James Earl Massey

Celebrating the Life of Dr. James Earl Massey

Homegoing Celebration Service Details:

Date:  Saturday, July 7, 2018

Place:  Metropolitan Church of God, 13400 Schaefer Hwy, Detroit, MI 48227

Time:  The family hour is at 9:00 a.m., followed by the funeral service at 10:00 a.m. 

Video from an interview with Faith & Leadership.

Dr. James Earl Massey worked through seven decades with joy and faithfulness. What was his secret?

“Spiritual reality is a key to a serene and happy life; we must not look at the things that are seen. We must live by the things that are unseen, which calls for true faith in God. As long as a person has that, there’s a steadiness and a surety by which they can live. After all, in the beginning — God. And in the end — God. And in-between — God,” Massey explained in an interview with Faith & Leadership back in 2010.

The distinguished pastor, theologian, musician, and author known the world over went home to be with Jesus on Sunday, June 24, 2018. Massey will be laid to rest on Saturday, July 7, 2018, at the Metropolitan Church of God in Detroit, MI, where he served as senior and founding pastor for more than 20 years (1954-1976). He was 88.

Affectionately called the “Prince of Preachers,” Massey was spiritually formed by Wesleyan theology, the Holiness movement, and African American tradition. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, a colleague and friend, shaped and influenced him, along with mentor Howard Thurman. Massey authored several articles and 18 books, including Aspects of My Pilgrimage, The Responsible Pulpit, Designing the Sermon, The Burdensome Joy of Preaching, and Sundays in the Tuskegee Chapel. He was the on-air voice of the Church of God broadcast, “The Christian Brotherhood Hour” (1977-1982), dean of the Tuskegee University Chapel (1984-1989), dean emeritus and distinguished professor of the Anderson School of Theology (1989-1995), and senior editor for Christianity Today magazine in 1995. Massey earned a bachelor’s degree at William Tyndale College, a master’s from Oberlin Graduate School of Theology, and a doctorate from Ashbury Theological Seminary. He is survived by his wife, Gwendolyn.

Social Media Tributes

Across social media, heartfelt tributes show the impact Massey had on so many — he preached and lectured at more than 100 colleges, universities, and seminaries in the United States and on four continents.

Honoring James Cone, founder of Black Theology

Honoring James Cone, founder of Black Theology

Photo credit: Union Theological Seminary

The Rev. James Cone, founder of black liberation theology, died Saturday morning, according to Union Theological Seminary.

The cause of death was not immediately known.

Cone, an ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, was the Bill and Judith Moyers Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Seminary in New York City. His groundbreaking 1969 book, Black Theology and Black Power, revolutionized the way the public understood the unique qualities of the black church.

Cone was a native of Fordyce, Ark., and received master’s and doctoral degrees from Northwestern University.

We would like to hear how Cone influenced you. We invite you to share 200- to 250-word tributes on UrbanFaith.com. Send your tribute with your first and last names, city, state, and church affiliation (if desired) to [email protected]