Poor Whites Need Not Apply

When college admission officers celebrate campus diversity, you know they are talking first and foremost about race. More specifically, they are talking about blacks. A diverse college campus is understood to consist of 5-7 percent blacks (half the proportion of blacks in the general population). Any academic institution with lower figures is considered racist, mediocre, or politically incorrect, regardless of how demographically diverse its student body might be in other ways. The 5-7 percent black quota need not be American. In fact, an estimated 40-50 percent of those categorized as black are Afro-Caribbean or African immigrants.

Secondary to blacks in the quest for diversity are Hispanics. Along with blacks, Hispanics are classified as “underrepresented minorities”. Although Hispanics roughly make up the same percentage as blacks in the general population, meeting the black diversity goal is a much higher priority than the Hispanic one.

On the contrary, Asians receive no boost in admissions. In fact, college admission officers set an admission standard far higher than what is required for blacks and Hispanics. If all minority races do not equate to diversity on an equal level, two questions must be answered. First, what is diversity? If race is diversity, then one must ask; why does the treatment of one minority race differ from another when attempting to achieve “racial” diversity?

The debate over affirmative action policies began with the landmark Supreme Court Bakke case. While the Court rejected racial preferential policies (such as quotas), the Court deemed permissible a type of affirmative action policy, insomuch as such policies were backed by “a university’s legitimate concern for the educational benefits of a demographically diverse student body.” In short, competitive universities only needed to cloak their racial preferential policies’ true meaning and purpose behind misleading or dishonest rhetoric of “diversity”. Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, accurately explains the situation: “The raison d’etre for race-specific affirmative action programs has simply never been diversity for the sake of education. The checkered history of ‘diversity’ demonstrates that it was designed largely as a cover to achieve other legally, morally, and politically controversial goals. In recent years, it has been invoked—especially in the professional schools—as a clever post facto justification for increasing the number of minority group students in the student body.”

Most elite universities seem to have little interest in diversifying their student bodies with born-again Christians, students from rural or small-town areas, people who have served in the military, farmers, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, working class “white ethnics”, social and political conservatives, or married students. Any rationally person will conclude that persons in the various categories listed above carry with them unique life-experiences and therefore will contribute to a diverse intellectual atmosphere. Students in these categories, however, are very rare at America’s elite universities.

The data of a study conducted by two Princeton scholars was gathered from eight highly competitive public and private universities. Data was collected on over 245,000 applicants from three separate application years, and over 9,000 enrolled students filled out extensive questionnaires. The results of the study are alarming. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550. The study also carefully considered the question of “class-based preferences” (financial disparity). The study indicated a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites.

Distressing as many might consider this to be—since the same institutions that give no special consideration to poor white applicants boast about their commitment to “diversity” and give enormous admissions breaks to blacks, even to those from relatively affluent homes—the survey found the actual situation to be much more troubling. The lower-class whites proved to be all-around losers. When equally matched for background factors (including SAT scores and high school GPAs), the better-off whites were more than three times as likely to be accepted as the poorest whites. Having money in the familiy greatly improved a white applicant’s admissions chances, lack of money greatly reduced it. The opposite class trend was seen among non-whites, where the poorer the applicant the greater the probability of acceptance when all other factors are taken into account. Class-based affirmative action does exist within the three non-white ethno-racial groupings, but among the whites the groups advanced are those with money.

When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely.

Now, the question becomes: Why are poor whites not admitted? Simply put, colleges and universities are reluctant to admit students who cannot afford their high tuitions. And since they have a limited amount of money to give out for scholarship aid, they reserve this money to lure those who can be counted in their enrollment statistics as diversity-enhancing “racial minorities” (except Asians).

Still, why cannot well-qualified lower-class whites at least be offered admission without financial aid? The ugly truth is that most colleges, especially the most competitive ones, are fiercely concerned with their ratings by rating organizations like U.S. News and World Report. And an important part of those ratings consist of a numerical acceptance rate (the ratio of applicants received and those accepted) and a yield score (the ratio of those accepted to those who enroll). The lower the acceptance rate and the higher the yield score the more favorably colleges are looked upon. In extending admissions to well-qualified but financially strapped whites who are unlikely to enroll, a college would be driving both its acceptance rate and its yield score in the wrong direction. Lesson learned: colleges would do well to come clean with their act and admit the truth: “Poor Whites Need Not Apply!”.

Moreover, the study also proves ideological bias in the admission process. Every college admission officer would tell you that extracurricular activities improve an application. This is only true, however, if you are NOT a member of the Future Farmers of America, the ROTC, or any Christian organization. Excelling in these activities is associated with 60 to 65 percent lower odds of admission.

Military veterans and aspiring military officers, like poor whites and future American farmers, are clearly not what most competitive colleges have in mind when they speak of the need for “diversity”. This being the unfortunate case, elite colleges should get out of the diversity business altogether and focus on enrolling students who are the most academically talented and the most eager to learn. Let the diversity chips fall where they may and focus on recruiting the most intelligent, most creative, and most energetic of the rising generation of young people. In my naïve way this is what I always thought elite universities were supposed to be about.

I do not suggest an end to all affirmative action policies. I believe all invested in this debate see an overarching need to support educational opportunities for those from unfortunate circumstances. Nonetheless, I do propose that all affirmative action policies ought to be based on need, rather than skin color. It is true that minorities are economically disadvantaged. With a system based on "need", minorities (Asians included) will continue to be the recipients of affirmative action's choicest blessings. At the same time, lower-class whites will be afforded similar opportunities. Lets put an end to racial discrimination on all forefronts.