The article takes a hard stance against affirmative action following a Supreme Court ruling that declared race-based college admissions unconstitutional. It describes the backlash from sources like the Associated Press, which suggest that the decision has led to a decline in black student enrollment in prestigious universities while Asian American enrollment has increased. This shift in demographics is framed as a consequence of a policy that many believe unfairly favored less-qualified candidates based on race.
The author highlights the absurdities of Harvard’s admissions system, illustrating a disparity where an African American student with a modest academic index could be more likely to gain admission than a top-ranking Asian student. This example aims to show the perceived unfairness and the drastic implications of affirmative action that some argue have infiltrated collegiate admissions.
The analysis notes that the decline in black enrollment—once touted as an expected benefit of affirmative action—is now being lamented by activists and some media outlets. There is a strong suggestion that the outrage expressed by these groups stems from a fear of a merit-based system which they claim is inherently racist. Meanwhile, it echoes Preston Cooper’s viewpoint that declining black enrollment reflects the necessary shift toward a merit-based admissions structure rather than an outright attack on diversity.
Furthermore, the piece raises concerns over the academic performance of students admitted through affirmative action. It cites findings from the Heritage Foundation revealing high dropout rates among those who were not evaluated on merit. This highlights the potential negative consequences of affirmative action policies—not just for the individuals involved but for broader societal implications, particularly in critical fields like medicine.
The author employs provocative rhetorical questions to emphasize the risks associated with hiring based on diversity quotas. The suggestion that one should consider the qualifications of professionals—like heart surgeons—underlines a crucial point: when lives are on the line, competence should prevail over social engineering.
Additionally, the article critiques the inconsistency in arguments for diversity by pointing out the absence of affirmative action in other competitive domains, such as professional sports. The author illustrates this with examples that mock the idea of tokenism in environments where performance is paramount, suggesting a hypocrisy among advocates for racial quotas.
In conclusion, the piece is a sharp commentary on the implications of affirmative action, calling into question its effectiveness and fairness in academia and beyond. It argues that true fairness should be rooted in merit, not manipulated by race-based criteria, and advocates for a reconsideration of how diversity is defined and implemented within higher education and society at large.
"*" indicates required fields
