Download Cases

Write on one of these cases, thoroughly. Again, be prepared to discuss all of them.
1. Racial Preferences for Whites?
While many whites seem to think the notion [of racial preference] originated with affirmative
action programs, intended to expand opportunities for historically marginalized people of color,
racial preference has actually had a long and very white history.
Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured
servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous) slaves as the only unfree labor in the
colonies that would become the U.5.
Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the l79O Naturalization Act, which
allowed virtually any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians,
and American Indians could not.
Affirmative action for whites was the guiding principle of segregation, Asian exclusion
laws, and the theft of half of Mexico for the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny.
In recent history, affirmative action for whites motivated racially-restrictive housing
policies that helped 15 million white families procure homes with FHA loans from the 1930’s to
the '60's, while people of color were mostly excluded from the same programs.
In other words, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that white America is the biggest
collective recipient of racial preference in the history of the cosmos. It has skewed our laws,
shaped our public policy, and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live.*
Do you agree with this commentator that racial preferences for whites have always been a major
part of U.S. history? If so, do you think that the U.S. government should make amends for such
past inequalities? Why or why not? If racial preferences for whites have indeed always been
widespread, were they always unjust as well? Suppose they were unjust. Would racial
preferences in favor of nonwhites now be just? Why or why not?
*Tim Wise, "The Mother of All Racial Preferences," ZNet 24May 2003, www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-05/24wise.cfm (accessed 26
February 2006). Originally appeared as a ZNet Commentary at www.zmag.org. Reprinted with permission of Tim Wise.
2. Are Racial Preferences Harmful?
Over the past few years, researchers have begun to produce large datasets that make it possible to
compare the fortunes of minority students who attend universities that use varying levels of
admissions preferences. In many contexts, scholars find that students perform better, both in the
short-term and the long-term, when students' credentials are closer to those of their classmates.
When students are surrounded by peers who have much higher credentials, they often have more
trouble persisting in a difficult major, graduating from college or getting a good job.
This phenomenon is known as the "mismatch effect," and last month I published a study
in the Stanford Law Review, trying to determine whether the mismatch effect operates in law
schools. . . . My study focused on black law students and compared black and white outcomes.
I found that law schools almost universally use very large preferences for blacks to
achieve something very close to racial proportionality. The credentials gap between white and
black students is about 30 times larger than it would be in a race-blind regime.
Starting a highly competitive curriculum with a large academic disadvantage, blacks
wind up clustered in the bottom tenth of the class at nearly all law schools. I estimate the
mismatch effect increases the number of black dropouts from law school by 40%, and increases
the number of blacks failing their first bar exam by 80%.
The mismatch effect appears to operate in the job market as well. Law firms—once
thought to be single-minded in their determination to recruit lawyers from the most elite schools
possible—turn out to weigh law school grades more heavily than school prestige. The typical
black law graduate, I estimate, loses about $10,000 in annual earnings because large preferences
induce her to make a bad trade-off between law school prestige and law school grades.*
This study is controversial, but suppose it shows what the researcher says it does. Would you
then favor dismantling preferences for black law students? Would you favor maintaining law
school preference systems if they helped black students rather than harmed them? Why or why
not? Some people advocate using preferences in higher education to redress the wrongs of past
discrimination. To be logically consistent, should they disregard evidence suggesting that
preferences hurt blacks?
*Richard Sander, "Preferences Hrtt Black Law Students," UCLA Today 25, no. 1 (23 February 2005), www.today.ucla.edu/2005/050223voicespreferences.html (accessed 26 February 2006) Reprinted with permission of Richard Sander.
3. Diversity in Undergraduate Admissions
In 1998, California's ban on affirmative action went into effect in undergraduate admissions, and
the effect at Berkeley was considerable. ln its first year without race-based preferences, the
school accepted its least diverse freshman class in 17 years, admitting 56 percent fewer blacks
and 49 percent fewer Latinos than in t 997. Six months later, in February, 1 999, several civil
rights groups filed a class-action suit against the university on behalf of 750 minority students
denied admission in the fall. The suit focused on the school's policy of weighting grade point
averages with credit for Advanced Placement (AP) classes, and pointed to the fact that many
minority students attend high schools without AP classes. The school countered that it had no
other way to differentiate between all of its applicants with 4.0 averages. In 1998, more than
14,000 students with 4.0 averages applied for just 8.400 spots in the freshman class.*
Provide reasons for your answers to the following questions. Is diversity in student population an
important value in higher education? Is achieving it important enough to justify race-based
preferences in admissions? Was Berkeley's system of weighting grade point averages with credit
for AP classes fair to minority students who did not have access to such classes? Should
admissions schemes take into account students' disadvantaged backgrounds?
*Frontline, "Secrets of the SAT: Challenging Race Sensitive Admissions Policies-A Summary of Important Rulings," PBS Online, first aired 5
October 1999, ww.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/race/summary.html (accessed 26 February 2006). From WGBH Educational
Foundation. Copyright © 2007 WGBH/Boston.