Now
that a Federal Appeals Court has upheld Proposition 209, California's
anti-affirmative-action measure, our nation is in great danger of
retreating from the fight for equal rights, a fight that is still vital
to our future. We urge two steps to halt this retreat.
First, we must resist the temptation to define qualifications, for
university admissions or employment, on the basis of simplistic criteria
that inevitably favor advantaged groups. Standardized test scores, for
example, are a poor predictor of wage rates or other measures of
success. Exclusive or heavy reliance on these scores in an admissions or
hiring process not only excludes many individuals who would do well by
any standard, but also has a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged
groups, particularly African Americans and Hispanics, whose average test
scores are far below whites.
In
the past, the University of California has admitted a large percentage
of its students on the basis of standardized test scores and high school
grades alone. If, in response to Proposition 209, the University of
California were to base all its admissions solely on these two criteria,
the impact on blacks and Hispanics would be devastating; such a policy
would clearly have a disparate impact on these two groups, which, in
other contexts, would be seen as a violation of our civil rights laws.
It
has taken us decades to recognize the full dimensions of this disparate
impact, and affirmative action policies have served as an invaluable
buffer against over reliance on such easy-to-observe but ultimately
unfair criteria. It would be tragic to retire this buffer without a
replacement.
Thus
we desperately need a national debate on ways to define
"qualifications." We need to find ways to broaden the criteria that
universities use in admissions decisions and firms use in hiring
decisions. Giving extra weight to applicants who come from low-income
families, which is the most widely discussed criterion of this type, is
a step in the right direction, but it is hardly the whole answer.
Universities should also explore policies, for example, that give extra
weight to applicants who have demonstrated a capacity to overcome
disadvantages, such as a physical handicap, a poor school environment,
or discrimination, or to applicants who are committed to serving people
in disadvantaged communities. Policies along these lines are not being
considered at the University of California.
Second, we must recognize that ethnic diversity plays a vital role in
enriching our national culture and in breaking down stereotypes,
prejudice, and discrimination. Stereotypes and prejudice thrive in a
world with little contact across ethnic lines. Discrimination, that is,
disparate treatment of disadvantaged groups, is driven by prejudice.
Thus continuing high levels of segregation in housing, schools, and
employment, contribute to ethnic hatred and to discriminatory behavior.
We
all pay a high price for this vicious cycle. Ethnic conflict pulls
scarce resources away from other needs, and discrimination undermines
the productivity of many citizens. In today's competitive world economy,
we do not have any citizens to waste. Moreover, prejudice and
discrimination undermine the principles of equal treatment and equal
opportunity that are so vital to our promise as a democratic nation.
Thus
we also need a national debate on nondiscriminatory ways to promote
diversity-in our neighborhoods, in our schools and universities, in our
workplaces. In our judgement, programs to promote diversity are
fundamentally different from group-based preferences. Consider an
admission or hiring policy that gives extra weight to applicants who
contribute to ethnic diversity in the classroom or workplace. This
policy, unlike group-based preferences, states that membership in a
certain group is neither necessary nor sufficient for a person to
receive extra weight. Instead, extra weight depends on the context. At
the University of California at Berkeley, for example, such a program
would give extra weight to whites, blacks, and Hispanics, because the
applicant pool is dominated by Asians.
Proposition 209 is a call to action, not a call to retreat. Let us as a
nation reaffirm our commitment to enforcing anti-discrimination laws, to
aggressively searching for qualified applicants from all ethnic groups,
and to making extra efforts to ensure that all people, particularly
those who belong to historically disadvantaged groups, have equal
opportunities for success. We must not give in to the forces that
separate us along ethnic lines. To fight prejudice and discrimination,
we must instead embrace our diversity and find ways to bring our many
ethnic groups together.