日志
What is next for college and university admissions?
||
Roberts criticized the Harvard plan for how it treated applicants belonging to a certain race as negative and wrongly stereotyped students as thinking a single way because of their race. Unfortunately, my familiarity with Harvard admissions as a student and alumnus and my involvement with advocacy on the issue in and out of government are consistent with that view.
Rethinking affirmative action can address these concerns in the following ways. First, recognition of the diverse histories of Asian Americans — the district court in the Harvard case found that the stereotyped descriptions of Asian American applicants as less likable or courageous came from the students’ teachers and recommenders from around the country.
Increasingly considering the individual instead of group characteristics of applicants will inevitably give greater weight to teacher and counselor evaluations. If they are to have such a large say in their students’ future education, they must understand these individuals.
Second, the elimination of special admissions for children of alumnni would increase the flexibility of college admissions decisionmakers. If they are not eliminated, then schools should at least put the burden on applicants or their parents to justify why they need the legacy advantage after coming from a family that already has the educational, societal and economic benefits of including Ivy League graduates.
Third is the creation of admissions pipelines for students who have skills, experience or attributes that will make them particularly able to tackle societal problems. For example, suppose the institution is committed to closing health gaps affecting minority communities. In that case, students of any background who are bilingual, have health volunteer experience, or express a commitment to serve in particular ways could gain an admissions advantage.
Law schools could do the same for students who have earlier training and a future commitment to close the justice and education gaps. These programs would address both the “fair consideration” and “measurable outcomes” flaws that Roberts identified in current programs.
The persistent gaps in educational opportunities and outcomes experienced so heavily in Black and Latino communities must not be forgotten in the debate over higher-education affirmative action. Just like in a track meet, removing a hurdle for a runner is not the same as jumping over it.
We continue to have unequal preparation of students as measured by test scores and grades. These measurements matter and predict future educational and career success. That test scores and grades may reflect unequal preparation is no more of a reason to disregard them than not taking your own temperature to avoid knowing that you have a fever.
President Johnson first expressed the words “affirmative action” in the context of addressing racial disparities in 1964. In almost six decades of educational and other efforts, we have not succeeded in eliminating the disparities.
Addressing educational disparities at their root will produce a greater and longer-lasting impact on diversity and fair access to higher education than the affirmative action approach that was struck down Thursday.
Students applying to colleges and universities this fall can still demonstrate what differences they offer to their future campus. Teachers having a better understanding of their students and communities will improve the classroom environment and fair opportunities for their graduates.
Looking at the total individual better respects their individuality, contributions and challenges. Changing how colleges and universities admit students places a greater responsibility on all of us.
罗伯茨批评哈佛的计划将属于某一种族的申请者视为消极的，并错误地将学生视为因为种族而以单一方式思考。
