It ain't broke, so don't fix it. That's the message from the editorial board of The Tacoma News Tribune on I-200. The voter-approved initiative barred the use of race as a factor in public sector hiring, contracting, and public college and university admissions. Democratic state legislators from Seattle are trying to get around it now. The TNT says they're misguided.
A group of legislators wants to undo the part of I-200 that affects college admissions. Two companion measures, House Bill 1586 and Senate Bill 5575, would allow public colleges to again consider “race, color, ethnicity or national origin” when admitting would-be students.The bills are written to conform with two 2003 U.S. Supreme Court rulings that barred public colleges from giving minority applicants an automatic advantage – but did allow them to consider race as one factor among others when evaluating prospective students on an individual basis.
That’s a reasonable policy. But right now it looks like a solution in search of a problem. Washington’s public universities have responded impressively to I-200 by expanding their minority outreach efforts, which the initiative does not forbid.
Minority enrollments fell after the initiative passed, but they have rebounded. The University of Washington’s 2004 freshman class, for example, included more African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans than the 1998 class, the last batch of freshmen admitted before I-200 took effect. Except for Latinos, each of those groups also accounted for a larger share of the UW’s freshman class.
The numbers suggest that I-200 has not prevented Washington’s public universities from welcoming disadvantaged minorities. Legislators should be wary of tampering with a popular initiative – and inviting a public backlash – without better cause.
.....Fewer than half of this state’s black, Latino and Native American students graduate with their classes. This is a social catastrophe that ought to be triggering statewide alarms and emergency measures, including early-reading initiatives targeting young children.For many of those dropouts, the war is all but lost in the early grades; they enter kindergarten ill-prepared, never learn to read as well as their classmates, and come to view the classroom as a place of personal humiliation and failure.
This is the educational battle that needs fighting. If lawmakers really want to bridge the disconnect between minorities and college, elementary school is where the action is.
And the home is where the most crucial teaching - about values, learning goals, and suitable leisure time activities - occurs.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 18, 2005 10:22 AM | Email ThisThe say, "We will put policy into compliance" with the Supreme Court ruling, as if it I-200 is out of compliance.
The Surpreme Court did not say that race MUST be used in admission policy to universities. Only that it COULD be used.
Apparatchik double-speak.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 18, 2005 11:25 AMThankfully, there is at least one major newspaper in the Puget Sound Area that occasionally uses reason and still maintains some semblance of objectivity in its reporting.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 18, 2005 11:33 AMMeanwhile, republicans are appointing minorities to the highest positions in the land, and not taking a second though about it.
I've always wondered how the Democratic Party has made the transition from lynching blacks in the South and supporting racists laws and court decisions to becoming the party of civil rights. Maybe they never made the transition. Maybe they are still bent on keeping racism alive and well. At least that explains why they are upset with minorities in positions of power and why the last thing they want is to see the minorities do better than themselves.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 18, 2005 11:34 AMThe Dems like to claim that Republicans officials are bought and paid for by big business. Yet the Dems have no problem buying and paying for votes with my tax dollars. If we raised the overall standard of living in this country, the need for all sorts of welfare would deminish, and we would all be better off, because there would be fewer people in need of assistance, and those of us who aren't would be able to keep more of what we earn. But the Dems want to perpetuate this society of dependancy, because it's the only thing that keeps them in power.
This legislation is a classic example of the Dems trying to undo the advances of their traditional base. If their minority base elevates itself from poverty to prosperity, they are more likely to also start voting Republican than Democrat because they will also have a stake in protecting what they've earned, rather than simply voting for whoever promises them the biggest handout.
Posted by: Jason on February 18, 2005 11:55 AMSubscriptions to the printed Imprimis monthly are free upon request. Aside from a monthly insert soliciting charitable contributions to Hillsdale College I have experienced no other hassle over the years from this publication. I find all their articles quite interesting.
I feel the above article contains excellent suggestions that if implemented would make our educational system better.
Posted by: Curt Mohr on February 18, 2005 12:00 PMI remember visiting my mother in Texas in the mid 80’s and filled both her and my sister in on what ‘everybody’ in Tacoma knew of him. As for them not having knowledge of Brame’s track history, this claim is in a word simply ludicrous. He was one of those who were ‘in with the in crowd’ which includes the local pols and their buddies and the News Tribune has never one time exposed any of their dirty laundry. The best that they have ever done as far as investigative reporting is to jump on the ‘band wagon once the cat is already out of the bag’ and pretend that they have been there all along.
I applaud them for their stance on this issue, but I am warning you, they are not to be trusted. They are more or less an instrument of the Tacoma City Council and Pierce County Council and those with connections to both.
Allow minorities the dignity of college admittance based on their merit and achievement! Not on some warped sense of racial preference and token.
"Be not judged by the color of their skin..but by the content of their character!"
Posted by: Deborah on February 18, 2005 08:24 PMFor a REALLY ridiculous viewpoint on racial bias (aka "diversity), the departing dean of engineering at the UW--Denice Denton, I believe-- has publically stated that diversity improves UW Engineering. She means both in faculty and in student body. Just reflect on the usefulness of different skin colors on the understanding of Boolean Algebra, network topologies, or software engineering for a couple of nanoseconds.
Posted by: iconoclast on February 19, 2005 09:04 AMFirst, my own opinion. I think this is just our annual homage to that wing of our party that believes that all the ills of the world can be blamed on the evil white meat-eating male. Republicans have their far right, we've got our far left.
Neither party can afford to alienate their fringe wings, even though the fringes have far more in common with each other than with the mainstream of either party.
iconoclast (my favorite anonymous right-winger) wrote:
"Denice Denton, I believe-- has publically stated that diversity improves UW Engineering. She means both in faculty and in student body. Just reflect on the usefulness of different skin colors on the understanding of Boolean Algebra, network topologies, or software engineering for a couple of nanoseconds."
Ok. Let's see. One of the things that helped us deal with late-teen through early twenties men in the Navy was the obvious fact that there were both men (and eventually women) of all races throughout the chain of command. We were able to dispense with the "you're just against me because I'm ...(fill in the blank with whatever group you wish)" argument.
Being a role model is an important part of being an instructor, especially to young men and women. The example of men and women of all races, working professionally together is a tremendous help in dealing with the perception that race is a handicap in becoming anything a person want to be.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 19, 2005 11:44 AMI'll agree with one and disagree with another, if it pleases you.
I do remember how "aa" worked in the military. I also remember how (at least the Army) had terrible racial problems stemming not in small part from the limited number of black commissioned officers. The Army very bluntly went about strongly "encouraging" more blacks in the commissioned ranks. Some of this ended up being a frank form of racial preferences for the good of the service. Some were upset, but most of the officers I knew agreed with this. Just for the reasons you noted. Of course, going to the volunteer army helped quite a bit too.
But the military is vastly different from civilian life. We could discuss that for days, but let's agree that the military is not a comparable model to contract awards and preferential admission to top tier universities. If for no other reason than that raw intelligence--always a useful tool to have--is no replacement for raw character (high integrity, ability to lead/inspire, loyalty to troops, determination, etc.) in the military. I would follow an officer of high character and satisfactory intelligence over one with high intelligence and only satisfactory character any day of the week.
The role model argument is one that I reject on several grounds. First, since preferences/quotas always have a certain cost (as I acknowledged above), paying that skill cost in order to have role models for teachers seems inordinately high. They should be chosen much more on merit than for something given to them at birth (a particular skin color).
Second, this is dangerously close to identity politics--why must a role model be of the same ethnic/racial group? I can't have Colin Powell as a role model? Group identity should be discouraged, not encouraged.
Third, because of the entitlement nature of diversity hiring, many of the diversity hires end up in bullshit departments like 'Ethnic Studies" or "Women's Studies". Only the most politicized quickly recognize that these people have a limited scholarship (re: Wade Churchill) and are just gaming the system. And it ends up being a negative stereotype for all.
Finally, Denton's position was not that role models were valuable to encourage certain minority students. Her position was that diversity improved the quality of education for everyuone in the engineering department. My point is simply, how the hell does the color of the Math prof's skin make understanding dif eq any better? By the university level, it certainly shouldn't be the case that one should explain differential equations in "street" terms and would be highly offensive as well.
Ultimately, government should not be in the position of picking winners and losers. It does a crappy job in economics, it does an even crappier job in racial politics. Both lead to corruption, favoritism, and cronyism. Furthermore, allowing government to reward racial group identities poisons the political debate and damages the one unique thing about Americans over all other countries: we are a country of based on a political idea, not ethnicity.
Posted by: iconoclast on February 19, 2005 12:45 PM"Finally, Denton's position was not that role models were valuable to encourage certain minority students. Her position was that diversity improved the quality of education for everyuone in the engineering department."
Indeed. Part of the "quality of education" goes beyond simply understanding the immediate subject matter of the course.
"My point is simply, how the hell does the color of the Math prof's skin make understanding dif eq any better? By the university level, it certainly shouldn't be the case that one should explain differential equations in "street" terms and would be highly offensive as well."
At least part of the point is that, regardless of the color of the instructor, the instruction is much the same. The demonstration of that fact is part of the instruction.
In many schools, minority students that excel are actively discouraged by their peers. "Acting white" and "Oreo" are some of the things that are said. Those "lessons" can endure. Minority instructors and senior staff can help give those students an entirely different viewpoint.
Additionally, many white students have only had limited personal experience with minority members. For a white kid that lived in an almost entirely white community, whose only contact with minority members was the television, this can be an amazing revelation.
If we were just concerned with learning boolian algebra or differential equations, we could do so with on-line and computerized courses. I've even taken some courses of that type, and for learning a particular subject, they can be quite effective.
Universities, in their recruiting (both for students and faculty) emphasize the entire learning experience, not just the subject matter. We can debate the wisdom of that, but it is the reality. Having a diverse staff is part of that learning experience.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 19, 2005 01:52 PMIf the instruction/research is the same, then there is no need for racial preferences to reduce the standards for acceptance. And thus no need for voiding I200. Shrill claims regarding institutional racism notwithstanding, governmental institutions are only likely to discriminate against "whites"--whatever that is.
Someone ill-equipped to be at a world class research institution like the UW might very well be appropriate to teach at one of the teaching colleges (EWU, CWU) or community colleges. Fine, go teach there. There is no shame in competing in NASCAR instead of Formula 1 if that is what you have to work with.
Universities, in their recruiting (both for students and faculty) emphasize the entire learning experience, not just the subject matter. We can debate the wisdom of that, but it is the reality. Having a diverse staff is part of that learning experience.
That is exactly what we are debating. And it isn't the reality at the UW with I200 currently in effect. Or, if it is, then some administrators should be charged with breaking state law and fired.
Furthermore, my premise is that having the best faculty and staff for the job regardless of skin color will serve the students and society much more than politically acceptable tokens chosen from the currently favored groups in order to demonstrate diversity. And the faculty will do a better job for their employers--the citizens of this state.
Education's job is to teach the subject matter. One simple mission. Research's job is to advance the state of knowledge. Education at a research institution should be intended for students of the caliber of the researchers teaching/working there. By allowing in students and faculty below the highest standards appropriate for the institution cheats the students, the faculty, and the state out of their time and money.
Finally, not all cultures revere academic and professional accomplishments the same. Some cultures think that family life and community life is time better spent than driving oneself to excel in work and education. To setup group preferences enticing people into the "type a" culture is too close to intolerance to suit me. Nor is suggesting that the overachieving (if that is not oxymoron--how can one overachieve?) cultures should "slow down" any different with regard to cultural manipulation according to implicit and shifting standards.
Posted by: iconoclast on February 19, 2005 04:55 PMIn the debate on retaining I-200, you might be surprised to find that I agree with you.
This is mostly because I believe (and the numbers seem to back me up in this belief) that the need and time for quotas and racial preferences are past. We may want to continue outreach programs to minority students and faculty, but those students and staff members can easily match their qualifications against anyone.
"Education's job is to teach the subject matter. One simple mission."
I disagree that teaching only the subject matter is the goal in our colleges and universities. Backing me in that belief, you will find the faculties, staff and alumni of all the great universities of our country and many others. Don't believe me? Check out their recruiting programs. These institutions believe that the entire experience of attending their schools is, in itself, an important part of the learning process.
I200 does not forbid outreach programs. It forbids (properly, in my opinion) different standards for admission or hiring based on ethnic group. It also requires administrators to look at more positive and productive ways to encourage application by students (of all races) that might otherwise not consider higher education.
Inner-city tutoring programs, college credit courses taught by UW instructors at local schools, teacher exchange programs with other countries. All reasonable, productive, valid and legal ways of enhancing that "educational experience."
As I stated earlier, most university subjects can be adequately taught by distance learning or at any of the more commercial colleges such as ITT Tech or the University of Phoenix.
Junior Colleges do an admirable job of teaching lower division classes. I took a number of lower division classes at Skagit Valley College and could easily make a case that I got better instruction in the subject matter there than I would have received at UW. Smaller class size, more opportunity for interaction with the instructors, classes actually taught by the instructor in a classroom, rather than a third-year teaching assistant in an auditorium.
Students do not attend Yale, Harvard, Oxford or even the University of Washington just to learn the subjects.
They go to get what is called a "well-rounded" education. That's why a degree from one of those schools carries far more weight in the business world than a degree from ITT Tech.
Still, the good (heck, great) news is that we seem to have gone beyond the need for such crude methods as quotas and racial preferences for providing that "well rounded" education. I'll be very surprised if this passes.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 19, 2005 09:41 PMWe do agree on the need and legality for aggresssive outreach. If outreach included both a master teacher program and layoff program for K-12, I would be ecstatic (but I won't hold my breath). Overall, I suspect our interpretation of the teaching mission is closer than my poor ability to write communicates.
I strongly hope that I200 remains standing for the same reasons. There is no need to take a step backwards to quotas, set-asides, and preferences that characterize traditional AA. There is a political advantage to the Al Sharpton kind of cynical opportunists who know that there is no need to reintroduce racial preferences. But hopefully there aren't enough of them in the WA legislature.
Anyway, this was an enjoyable discussion. Looking forward to future ones.
"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons." General Macarthur
Posted by: iconoclast on February 20, 2005 08:25 AM