http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20010521/t000042643.html
Opponents
of affirmative action--the ones who believe that this country is committed to
equal opportunity based on pure merit--are unhappy with last week's decision by
the University of California regents ending the ban on affirmative action in the
UC system.
Although I agree with the regents' decision, I
invite the opponents to join me in fighting another form of discrimination in
admissions: the practice of relaxing standards to admit the scions of large
donors. Fighting against these "wealth preferences" should be
philosophically consistent with the anti-affirmative action position that
admissions should be based entirely on merit. After all, what merit is there
simply in having been born into a wealthy family?
Perhaps not surprisingly, the anti-affirmative
action folks have not raised the cry against wealth preferences. But why should
affirmative action for the wealthy be considered less objectionable than
policies that would give traditionally underrepresented groups an advantage in
getting into prestigious institutions? I would think the distinction cuts the
other way.
First, unlike minority students, wealthy kids
generally have not been educated in some of the nation's worst secondary
schools. Indeed, there is an almost a 100% correlation between having lots of
money and attending really good high schools. There is therefore no need to
adjust admissions standards to give these kids an edge just because their
parents are wealthy.
Second, unlike affirmative action for minorities,
wealth preferences cannot be defended on the grounds that wealthy students have
suffered a history of discrimination and/or continue to suffer the effects of a
demoralizing stigmatization. Who ever heard of a prestigious institution where
the wealthy had been systematically excluded? Who ever heard of "wealth
profiling"?
Third, wealth preferences cannot be justified on
the grounds that admission to the nation's best schools would help assure that
all groups have access to the highest echelons of corporate power. After all,
right there in the highest corridors of power are the wealthy kids' very own
parents.
It's interesting that the opponents of affirmative
action are often the same people who, rather than being committed to leveling
playing fields for all, are committed to enhancing the advantages of wealth,
i.e., eliminating the estate tax and reducing the progressiveness of the tax
code. So, again, I am asking: Are the arguments against affirmative action
really based on lofty notions of equal opportunity, or are they based on
protecting the existing privileges of those who need it the least?
William Marshall, a Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, Was Deputy White House Counsel During the Clinton Administration
Return to California Votes NO on 209 home page