Monday, September 22, 2008

Underhand racial preferences at UCLA

A UCLA professor blows the whistle on the persistence of racial preferences.

University of Los Angeles political science professor Tim Groseclose publishes studies that get noticed, and even participated on the school's faculty admissions committee, which oversees the staff that chooses each year's new undergrads.

Still, he's lucky he has tenure. Last Thursday, Groseclose resigned from the admissions committee, in protest of the school's behavior when it comes to racial preferences.

Such preferences ought not to be an issue at UCLA - according to California's Proposition 209, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of . . . public education." Prop 209 was passed in 1996, but it's no secret that campuses in the left-leaning state - Berkeley and UCLA in particular - have been defying the will of California's electorate.

Heather Mac Donald detailed as much in City Journal last year; and now, Groseclose has made public an 89-page report blowing the whistle, complete with closed-door conversations, private e-mails, and a chronicle of his school's sketchy handling of data that could prove or disprove his suspicions. Basically, Groseclose alleges that changes to the scoring system improved the likelihood that a personal essay - in which applicants often mention their race - would get a student admitted.

Groseclose's documentation makes clear that the committee - despite Prop 209's clear injunction against public institutions using race-based preferences - soldiered on in its drive to engineer each class's racial makeup. Without the individual-level data Groseclose seeks, it's impossible to tell how much the racial bean-counters were able to distort the school's admissions process, but the available numbers strongly suggest that race played a significant role in shaping the school's 2007 freshman class.

Groseclose joined the admissions committee in September of 2005. "At least 75 percent of what we discussed related to race and improving diversity," he said in a phone interview. "There's pressure on the admissions staff [to let in more minorities]. They're constrained by Prop 209. So it's a very tough situation for those staff, and I kind of feel sorry for them."

In June 2006, the Los Angeles Times ratcheted up the intensity with "A Startling Statistic at UCLA," a front-page story revealing that of the 4,853 freshmen expected to enroll at the school, only 96, or 2 percent, were black. (Eventually, four more blacks enrolled than were expected to, for a total of 100.)

"At the end-of-summer meeting of my committee, the chancellor [Norm Abrams] shows up, which never happens," Groseclose says. "He said the number of African-Americans was too low. He said, `I don't want to pressure you, but here's what I want you to do.'"

The chancellor suggested the committee adopt a "holistic" system, which Berkeley was using at the time. The New York Times would later describe the change thus:

In the past, the admissions office divided every application between two readers: one evaluated a student's academic record, the other looked at extracurricular activities and "life challenges." Berkeley, by contrast, had taken a more holistic approach, with a single reader judging an entire application, and Berkeley was attracting more black students than U.C.L.A. Why? Maybe the holistic approach takes better account of the subtle obstacles that black students face - or maybe the readers, when looking at a full application, ended up practicing a little under-the-table affirmative action.

The Times reporter interviewed two application readers - about a quarter of readers were black, and Groseclose writes that some were selected under explicit direction to "hire underrepresented minorities" - who had been told not to consider race and claimed they hadn't. But one reader noticed that more students mentioned race in their essays.

Some weird things happened statistically the following year. The 100 black students who enrolled in 2006 came from an applicant pool of 2,173 and an acceptance pool of 249, meaning that 11.5 percent of black students who applied got in - but only about 40 percent of those chose to attend. But in 2007, 2,460 blacks applied, 407 were admitted, and 204 enrolled - an outsize 16.5 percent of applicants got in, 50 percent of whom matriculated.

One might argue that the school's recruiting efforts simply paid off - it is not illegal to target minority areas in recruiting. Perhaps recruiters not only got more blacks to apply, but got enough high-achieving blacks to apply to significantly and legitimately boost blacks' admission rate. But then, why would admitted blacks' average SAT score drop 45 points?

Alternately, one could say the university just considered disadvantage in general more than it had in the past - this would let in more poor, lower-scoring students, raising the acceptance rates but lowering the average scores of disproportionately poor groups. But acceptance rates for American Indians, Hispanics, and other minorities actually fell.

"If you take a random Vietnamese applicant, the probability of acceptance went down significantly, from 28.6 to 21.4 percent," Groseclose says. "And when you look at these applications, the ones who have faced documented, verifiable family hardships are very often Vietnamese."

A detailed statistical analysis is the only way to know for sure what role race played in the admissions process. So in April of this year, Groseclose made waves by requesting a random sample of 1,000 applications, 500 each from 2006 and 2007. This would let him compare, within each year and between years, how similarly situated individuals of different races fared in the admissions process.

"The reaction was immediate - within 18 hours, the chair suggested we have the whole committee do the study. I said I'd be happy to participate, but I'd like to do my own as well," Groseclose recalls. He didn't get data for his own study, "and it turned out the committee would not get the data, either. We'd hire an outside expert to do the study - despite the fact that nearly all of us have the statistical ability needed."

Groseclose tried other methods. He made a motion to get all committee members a sample of random applications, which failed on a 3-3 vote (three other non-voting members wrote letters supporting Groseclose). He appealed to higher authorities at the university, who denied him access, purportedly for privacy reasons.

Four member of the admissions committee - Groseclose, and the three who voted against his motion to give all members the data - formed a work group to choose an outside academic and devise research questions. They chose sociologist Robert Mare, but directed Mare not to look at the 2006 or 2007 data - just the 2008 applications. Thus, Mare will be unable to determine how the "holistic" approach changed admissions, and to detect any illegal behavior that occurred in 2007 but not 2008.

Groseclose doubts the staff stopped using preferences in 2008; all the admissions decisions were probably made before he came forward with his objections. But 2007 might have been a particularly egregious year: "We had [pro-affirmative action] protests at the chancellor's office, and we had an acting chancellor at the time - he was the one who showed up at our meeting. He was a lot more likely to put pressure on people."

In the report, Groseclose provides a transcription of a meeting where one committee member slipped up while discussing the 2007 applications: "The readers in the first year, given the change, were not doing exactly what they were supposed to do. They were motivated by other concerns. . . . maybe the training wasn't as rigorous." Another replied, "All those T-shirts that said, `Got black students?'"

Mare's data collection won't begin until spring of 2009. In the meantime, the conversations and statistics in Groseclose's report should be more than enough to make California voters suspicious about their public universities' commitment to adhering to colorblind admissions. They deserve better than the evasion they're getting.

Source







Why today's British children just can't win

With the Olympics still fresh in their little minds, my daughter and a few more seven-year-olds staged their own truncated athletics gala in the back garden recently. I almost choked on my coffee when I heard the words: "You're the loser. Here, have the bronze." When I explained to her later that medals are only for the winners and that losers get no awards, she was incredulous. Bronze, being the least exciting prize, must surely be for the person whose performance is the worst, she explained. Is it any wonder that she might labour under this misapprehension? For today's British child, life is one long awards ceremony. It's not whether you win or lose, it's the taking part that gets you the trophy.

At any children's party, it's often hard to work out who is the birthday boy or girl. Every child is weighed down with gifts from stage-managed pass-the-parcel games and overflowing loot bags. It's everyone's special day.

Yesterday we learnt that the results of children's football matches will no longer be published and there will be no league tables in case it makes the mini soccer players too competitive. I could write everything I know of the beautiful game on a postage stamp in large letters, but I am pretty certain that the competitive aspect is something common to many sports and sometimes known as The Whole Point. Yet the Football Association has said the results of matches for seven- and eight-year-olds will not be disseminated and there will be no silver cups.

Talk about moving the goal posts; in this case they've disappeared. The FA handbook says: "Under-sevens and under-eights are not permitted to play in leagues where results are collected or published or winner trophies are presented."

The reason for the move, according to the organisation, is that children ought to learn to play the game without facing the pressure to win. The FA is not trying to ban winners - in fact, it appears it wants all the players to enjoy a sort of diluted victory. It is losing that is feared here and non-competitive football is a natural consequence of the non-competitive culture being forced upon children.

Contemporary child-rearing mores conspire against all forms of losing. The amateur psychologist in all of us tells us it is bad for a child's confidence. Everything from coming last to spelling in indecipherable text lingo must, we are told, get a "Well done!" sticker. As a consequence, the taste of genuine victory and the thrill of true excellence is a rare and illicit treat for today's children.

It is grown-ups, however, not children, who fear defeat. Children, particularly younger ones, are the greatest champions of the school of hard knocks and hierarchy - often frighteningly so. Though our education system tries to conceal it, every child knows who is "top of the class". On the CBBC website yesterday, young commentators were largely up in arms about the FA spoilsports. Some blamed the scourge of pushy parents for the ruling: "Parents are very competitive and I think this spoils the game. But this shouldn't be taken out on the kids as it is not fair. It is the parents."

Parents of my generation have, quite rightly, largely given up forms of chastisement that involve humiliating little people. Most of us agree that smacking children and bullying them is wrong. The idea that we must avoid telling them anything they don't want to hear has somehow become tacked on to this. Wouldn't we do more for their self-worth if we let them win? Wouldn't we teach them more about life if we showed them how to recover from losing?

"Some you win, some you lose" is not the harshest of truths and we do our children no favours in protecting them from it. It's a lazy kind of love that doesn't teach a child to win with grace and lose with courage. Everybody loses if nobody can win.

Source





Prof tells students: 'Undermine' Palin

Metro State class assignment compares VP candidate to 'fairy tale'

Students in an English class at Metropolitan State College in Denver have been told to assemble criticisms of GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin that "undermine" her, and students say they are concerned about the apparent bias. "This so-called 'assignment' represents indoctrination in its purest form," said Matt Barber, director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, whose sister, Janna, is taking the class from Andrew Hallam, a new instructor at the school.

The instructor also, according to students, is harshly critical of President Bush during his classroom English presentations. He reportedly has allowed students who identify themselves as "liberal" to deride and ridicule those who identify themselves as "conservative" or Republican. "So much for critical thinking. What's happening in that classroom represents a microcosm for what's happening with the angry left around the country," Matt Barber told WND. "The visceral and even abusive reaction Hallam and some of his students are having against Sarah Palin and Republican students in the class is occurring on a much larger scale among left-wing elitists throughout the media, academia and the larger Democratic Party."

The assignment was just one issue that several students raised. Hallam, who previously told students he expected them to be "courteous," assigned an essay about Palin's nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

"Arguably, the entire event was designed to present Sarah Palin in an idealized – indeed, as if her life is like a fairy tale in which America could be included if she is voted into office with John McCain," he wrote in a copy of the assignment provided to WND by students. "Note her body language, facial expressions, the way she dressed, what she said and who she pointed out or talked about in her speech. How do these elements form a 'fairy tale' image about Sarah Palin as a person and as a politician that the Republican Party may wish its members and the American public to believe? How may the story 'Sleeping Beauty' and/or Tanith Lee's 'Awake' be used to compare the image of Palin with fairy tales, especially as they portray women, their behavior, and their lives?"

He said students should find commentaries that criticize Palin. "Using clear reasoning, explain how these sources may undermine or otherwise paint a different picture of Palin as a person and as a politician than what she or the Republican Party may wish the American public to believe," he said. There was no opening for students to find commentaries or statements supporting Palin or her positions. But Janna Barber, who is among the students who have raised concerns about the instructor, said she would do the assignment and include a number of supportive arguments as well.

There was no answer at Hallam's phone number, and a WND e-mail to him did not generate a response over four days. Cindy Carlson, the head of the Metro State English department, said she was unaware of the concerns. She said Hallam was available for two hours a week, one hour each on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

"People who irrationally lash out in such a way do so for a reason. In this case, I believe the reason is fear," Matt Barber told WND. "Sarah Palin has connected with a majority percentage of Americans and the polls reflect that connection. She poses a direct threat to Barack Obama's candidacy and they know it. She's about to upset the applecart. She's about to undo much of what they've accomplished. Imagine Sarah Palin as a role model for millions upon millions of young girls. Imagine those young girls embracing life over death on the abortion issue, embracing true feminism over radical feminism. They absolutely can't allow that to happen and will stop at nothing to destroy her. We expect liberal bias from the media and those in academia. But this time around, the bias is off the charts. It's exposed the left for who they truly are, and we have Sarah Palin to thank for it."

Matt Barber told WND his sister is one of five students who have been belittled by the teacher, and "bullied and harassed" by other students "because they support McCain-Palin." The students had documented a series of incidents in which Hallam reportedly told his class, "Bush-bashing is one of my favorite things to do."

Source

No comments: