Admissions Policy Lawsuit:
	Affirmative Action Debate Letter from Tom Weisskopf to Carl Cohen 12/7/97 From: Tom Weisskopf To: Carl Cohen Date: December 7, 1997 Dear Carl: I have now had the opportunity to compose a response to your letter of December 1, 1997, continuing our dialogue on the issue of the differential treatment of minority applicants in university admissions. The reason I had thought earlier that you might not have grasped the essence of my argument is that several of the arguments in your first letter spoke to the issue of compensation for harm done; yet this was not the basis on which I was arguing for preferences in admissions for students of color. Your latest letter also refers in places to "injuries" and "compensation," which I do not equate with the "disadvantages" and "adjustment" that are relevant to my case. For the most part, however, your letter does address directly my line of argument -- which can usefully be broken down into the following four points. People of color -- by virtue of their skin color -- have a life experience in our society, now as well as in the past, that is in a significant way different than, and inferior to, the experience of whites. This is true no matter what the level of income, wealth or socioeconomic status; at every level it makes a difference whether one is white or not. (When I spoke of their exposure to disadvantage, I did indeed mean -- as my argument requires -- that people of color actually experience unfair disadvantage. I do not think it is so difficult to defend this claim. I invite anyone inclined to doubt it to consider whether, if they had the choice, they would just as soon be born black as white -- other things equal -- in the United States today.) The measures of achievement used to establish a meritocratic rank ordering of candidates for university admission (and on the basis of which some students deem themselves to be more qualified for admission than others) fail to reflect the true and relevant potential of those candidates in a way that is not random, but which systematically underestimates the potential of students of color because it fails to recognize that they have overcome greater obstacles than white students in achieving the same level of measured achievement. It is therefore not discriminatory, and not inconsistent with even-handed admission standards, to carry out university admissions procedures in such a way that, on average, candidates of color will be admitted with lower scores on standard achievement measures than white students. If it were possible to evaluate in each individual instance the extent of the obstacles which individual candidates have had to overcome in order to achieve their scores, then there would be no justification for university admissions officials to take into consideration group characteristics such as skin color. As a practical matter, however (and especially in large institutions processing thousands of applications), it is reasonable to take into account proximate indicators of the extent of obstacles overcome -- such as skin color. (The same logic extends to other group indicators of obstacles overcome such as low family wealth, income and socioeconomic status -- which, on my argument, should also be taken into account). Where I recognize that I must concede ground to you is not on the morality or legality of the position I have articulated above, but on the question of how the U of M has actually been conducting its admission procedures. It is not that the U of M uses only racial classificatory systems to adjust scores; as Lee Bollinger pointed out in his October statement, and as you yourself have noted, other factors are considered as well. But you are no doubt right that the University's admissions officials have not undertaken the kind of systematic effort to adjust for obstacles overcome which my argument would call for; such an effort should have resulted in a set of other factors (beyond the usual test scores and grades) playing as important a role as race in the admissions calculus. This observation leads me not to condemn the University for using race at all, but to call upon it to bring other factors more systematically into play -- as well as to reduce the weight given to test scores and grades. I would like to point out, however, that following the admissions guidelines I recommend would lead to a painful dilemma: the University would find itself admitting considerably more students from families whose low income or wealth would make it difficult or impossible to pay for a U of M education without financial assistance. In the absence of much more government financial support for higher education, we would have to turn away many of these deserving students (by offering them too little financial aid to enable them to enroll); and they would be replaced with less qualified students from more affluent families -- the same students who now so often gain admission to the U of M. This is one of the reasons that I have so little sympathy for the students (and the organizations supporting them) who are bringing suits against universities on grounds of reverse discrimination in admissions. In a truly fair and rational admissions world, these students would not have been admitted in any case. The vast majority of potential university students who are being displaced by less qualified peers are those whose families cannot afford to pay for a university education (and cannot afford a good secondary school, a good tutor, a Princeton Review course, etc.). It is quite true, as you point out, that U of M officials have been inclined up to now to defend the use of racial admissions prefences on grounds of achieving diversity -- not on the grounds that I have advocated. I can see both strengths and weaknesses in the diversity argument. I have defended it in the past, and I may see reason to do so again in the future; but I believe that I am on firmer ground making the case I have in my dialogue with you. Still, if the University were to try to defend its past admissions policies on my argument, you are probably right that it would fail -- because it is clear that the U of M has not been systematically implementing the kind of admissions policy which I advocate. On the other hand, leading U of M officials have declared their readiness to reassess the University's admissions policies and to improve upon them where they could and should be improved upon. I believe the University could move to a considerably stronger moral and legal position were it to re-orient its admissions policies in the direction I advocate. I also believe that it is much more constructive to encourage University officials to do this than to attack them for a well-intentioned policy that can at best very imperfectly achieve laudable goals. In conclusion, let me say that I have found this correspondence extremely useful in helping me to think through these important but highly complex issues. I have no hesitation whatsoever in making our dialogue public; and I look forward to further exchanges on these matters in a variety of settings, which will -- I trust -- encourage others also to join in the discussion. With all best wishes, Tom Weisskopf
	BACK	INDEX	NEXT