The fraud of “individualized, holistic” race preferences

An article by John Morley in the Daily Utah Chronicle marvelously captures the fraud that the University of Michigan Law School admissions office was engaged in an “individualized,” “holistic” consideration of each applicant even as it assured itself that it would arrive at the desired “critical mass” of blacks:

If the law school had truly examined applicants individually for diversity, it would have admitted people with interesting life experiences-like second languages or unique familial situations-at the same rate as minorities.

But race was more than just one factor of diversity at the law school. It was THE factor. Minorities who fell in the middle of the applicant pool had a 100 percent acceptance rate, while their white counterparts only had a 22 percent acceptance rate. No other “diverse” characteristic gave such an incredible guarantee of admission.

The point was clearest at the bottom of the law school’s applicant pool.

Applications from whites with low LSAT and GPA numbers basically got chucked in the trash without a second look-far less than 10 percent were admitted. Obviously, no individualized consideration took place for low-end applicants. That is, of course, unless those low-end applicants were minorities. They were not only considered, but were admitted at rates of more than 80 percent! [Emphasis added.]

Smoke, Mirrors and the Supreme Court Ruling
The Myth Behind the Continuing Affirmative Action Debate in Schools
By John Morley
Daily Utah Chronicle [no date]

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 08, 2003 12:02 PM | Send

Morley is pointing out the obvious in his article, but he is doing good service. The more often the truth about the race racket is spoken on campus, the better. Perhaps at Utah (one cannot be too sure of a state that produces Republicans like Orrin Hatch and Chris Cannon) Morley will not pay too high a price for telling the truth. Just imagine if he had written this in a student newspaper at Harvard - or Michigan. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on July 8, 2003 1:34 PM

It was not all obvious to me. The point I italicized in the article made a connection I hadn’t made before, showing definitively that “individualized review” is a fraud.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 8, 2003 1:44 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):