For those of you who don’t know, Ward Connerly visited campus this Tuesday. He spoke to a coalition of conservative groups, with more than a few liberals along for the ride, about the evils of
affirmative action.
Ironically, Mr. Connerly began his remarks by complimenting this University on the lack of animosity in the political discourse. I was mildly amused by this, considering the fact that a lack of animosity wouldn’t require two uniformed officers outside of the lecture room. Granted, Washington University is not Brown, where students are
literally trained in class to riot on command. I think the question and answer segment, however, dispelled Mr. Connerly’s quixotic notion of a tranquil campus.
During the question and answer section, many audience members asked the kind of deep, probing questions that an intellectual
discussion demands. Unfortunately, some also resorted to the
personal attacks that seem germane to any discussion of substance at this university. In particular, one student all but called Mr. Connerly a-I apologize, but there is no way to say this politely-a house nigger. If I remember correctly, the specific claim was that he was only
speaking here, and had only received his position on the California Board of Regents, because of the fact that he was a black man willing to parrot the words of his white masters.
Not that it matters, but the student who insulted Mr. Connerly’s intelligence and dignity was a black liberal. This is the corrosive impact of the affirmative action mentality. The thought that a black man can be successful in the conventional manner-without either rebelling against or receiving aid from the “oppressive white power structure”-is heresy to many liberals. However, like Yoni Cohen, they find it convenient to blame it on “close minded conservatives, the same people who question minority achievement in professional and academic life and often immediately jump to conclusions regarding the reasons a specific individual of color may have been admitted
into this academic institution.” Funny, that. It seems that it’s the
liberals who are jumping to conclusions about minority achievement in professional life. I’d call that hypocrisy, except there are a lot of people on this campus who seem to dislike that word. I wonder why.
Many people at the speech seem to be under the misconception that affirmative action is just a “plus factor,” some sort of minor
tiebreaker whose effects are hardly noticeable. First of all, if
affirmative action were really only a small boost there would be no reason to defend it so vociferously. Second, as Mr. Connerly pointed out, if race ends up being the deciding factor in an admission then it isn’t just a “plus factor” anymore (and the whole idea of affirmative action is that race will be the deciding factor as frequently as it needs to be). Third, when you legitimize the theory behind affirmative action-that there is only one result of admission that will be acceptable-the “plus factor” will balloon to any size whatsoever to achieve that goal. Remember the University of Michigan: they call it a “plus factor” too, and there race outweighs a perfect SAT score and
spellbinding essay combined.
Getting a rejection letter from a college can be a devastating
experience. I suggest that this university, and others, lessen the pain for at least a fraction of those denied by writing them forthright letters. There is no need for the standard “You are in all likelihood perfectly qualified for many august institutions” platitude if a person was denied to give another person affirmative action. Just write the truth: “You are perfectly qualified to attend Washington University. You just won’t. Don’t worry; we have excellent reasons for doing this. You’ll thank us in the end.”
By the way, the Gallup Poll Cohen cited asked current college
students whether they supported affirmative action or not. Maybe it would be a better idea to ask the recipients of the above letter. They might have, shall we say, diverse opinions on the issue.