Goodwin Liu, superstar, attempts to “debunk” Richard Sander’s work on the effects of racial preferences in law school admissions, described by Stuart Taylor Jr. in National Journal. Bizarrely, I don’t think Liu says anything of substance, which is surprising in that he’s written extensively on the subject. I can only assume this was rushed. Of course, Liu’s last foray into the subject was also pretty slight. In the Michigan Law Review, he demonstrated that racial preferences don’t appreciably harm the admissions chances of white applicants, which manages to be both blindingly obvious and irrelevant at the same time.
The most compelling reason to support racial preferences, and it’s the reason I don’t oppose them, was vividly described by Nathan Glazer several years ago in The New Republic. I imagine Glazer would put it differently, but here goes: The enduring achievement gap in the United States between students from underrepresented minorities and students from overrepresented minorities* (including, inter alia, immigrants and the children of immigrants from Asia, West Africa, the Anglophone Caribbean, and the former Soviet Union; Jewish Americans; Mayflower descendants) is an embarrassment. It is the result of a comprehensive failure to successfully integrate poor native-born black Americans into the mainstream of American life. Because selective institutions of higher education see themselves as a gatekeeper into the leadership class (a view that is self-serving and largely incorrect, excepting the upper echelons of journalism, academia, appellate law, and possibly medicine — a list that, believe it or not Ivy Leaguers, doesn’t represent the sum total of human existence), they must project a diverse image to preserve legitimacy. To this end, selective institutions of higher education will actively recruit students who resemble the class of persons that have been excluded. There will be some overlap between the truly excluded and the successfully recruited, but not much.
*If you’re going to have “underrepresented minorities,” you’re going to have “overrepresented minorities.” Which is why the term is creepy. Think about it.
THE OTHER CULTURE WAR: I imagine Liu isn’t pleased with this state of affairs. Somehow, he finds the time to champion the status quo, not to criticize it. Perhaps he feels that the barbarians at the gate must be tackled before progressives can get down to the real business of rebuilding elite institutions in a more just and equitable fashion. I’m reminded of the Tom Frank thesis: for Frank, the “culture war” is a mirage. Conservatives control the levers of power and are in a position to effect cultural change, but they don’t. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that progressives are in a position of strength when it comes to gatekeeping elite institutions. And “the barbarians,” many of whom are dear friends deluded into believing that the war on preferences is anything other than a sideshow, will always be there. They can be safely ignored. So why not start now?
Well, that’s not possible-no, you need large-scale economic redistribution if you’re going to have any kind of meaningful change. So says the straw progressive man. I’m sympathetic, but also very suspicious. Racial preferences have been an unadulterated disaster for the left. Training this much firepower on the issue of elite admissions is a caricature-worthy mirror image of right-wing frothing over liberal elitism. Shrewd liberals (Jonathan Chait, best liberal columnist in America, among them) keep the following in mind: selective universities aren’t important. Incomes are. Because Goodwin Liu is genuinely brilliant, you want him focused on civil rights issues that don’t just affect the miniscule segment of the population that has the chance to attend any selective school.
But really, I can’t be trusted. Ask anyone. I’ve been known to go around sockless.
— Reihan Salam
The Dish 