A letter from my Alma Mater

Stanford University, where I earned a Master's degree, included this note in its monthly e-mail to alumni:

University pleased with Supreme Court decision in University of Michigan case
Dean of Admission and Financial Aid Robin Mamlet said the recent Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger reaffirmed the way Stanford selects its student class because race is one of "a whole host" of factors considered in reviewing applications. The court's decision validated the principle articulated by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in the 1978 Bakke case that diversity is a "compelling interest" in the admission process.

In the linked news release, we are reminded that

In her opinion, O'Connor cautioned that affirmative action will outlive its usefulness. "Twenty-five years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary," she wrote.

But those who are addicted to racial preferences disagree

[Stanford law professor Pamela] Karlan and [vice provost for campus relations LaDoris] Cordell are not so sure. "If we go on the way we are with inadequate support for poor people and education, 25 years from now we'll be in a similar situation to today," Karlan said. "Affirmative action doesn't help the poorest of the poor. The people who benefit from affirmative action are the luckiest minorities."

Since it only benefits the most fortunate, we are doing this because???

Cordell said the court's decisions allow her to "breathe a sigh of relief," but she expects people will try to overturn them. "This is a nation obsessed with race," she said. "It's going to take a lot to bring about change. But I have faith in the justice system. The push for diversity will continue. Twenty-five years down the road we will still be fighting the good fight."

The press release also includes this perspective:

Richard Yuen, assistant dean and director of the Asian American Activities Center, said the rulings may have a ripple effect in furthering diversity. "The decisions send the message that we do need changes ... that we still have work to do in diversifying higher education," he said. "Our undergraduate population has reached a significant level of diversity [but], hopefully, these rulings will have a positive impact on diversifying our faculty and graduate students."

The following is the actual ethnic breakdown of Stanford's student body and faculty

Group	Undergraduate	Graduate	Faculty	U.S Population
African-American	11.6%	3%	3%	12.3%
American Indian	1.9%	1%	< 1%	0.9%
Asian American / Pacific Islander	23.4%	13%	10%	3.7%
White (non-Hispanic)	40.6%	45%	84%	69.1%
Hispanic	13.3%	5%	3%	12.5%
Other / Not identified	9.2%	33%	<1%	7.9%

(sources:Stanford University Facts 2003, U.S. Census Bureau)

If you take the position that the goal of "diversity" is to reflect the population at large, we can see that whites are somewhat overrepresented on the faculty but significantly underrepresented in the student body, while Asians are significantly "overrepresented" across the board. Personally, I would hope that Stanford simply admit and hire the very best people it can find, without regard to ethnicity. If that means there will be, say, a few "too many" Asians in the medical school and a few "too many" Hungarians in the math department, that's just the price we pay for having a meritocracy. I wonder if Richard Yuen realizes that the only way the university can improve "diversity" would be to reduce the number of Asians on campus. For some reason, I think that the university will opt to reduce the number of white people, even though that would improve neither the university's quality nor its "diversity".

My own experience with "affirmative action" at Stanford is described here

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 24, 2003 07:00 AM