Amy
Wax, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, has come under attack and
scathing criticism because she dared criticize the school’s racial preferences
program. In an interview with Brown University economist Glenn Loury,
discussing affirmative action, Wax mentioned how racial preferences hinder the
ability of blacks to succeed academically by admitting them into schools at
which they are in over their heads academically. At Penn’s seventh-ranked law
school, Wax said, she doesn’t think that she has ever seen a black law student
graduate in the top quarter of his class, and “rarely” is a black student in
the top half.
That
got her into deep trouble. Penn students and faculty members charged her with
racism. Penn Law School Dean Ted Ruger stripped Wax of her duty of teaching her
mandatory first-year class on civil procedures. I’m guessing that Penn’s law
faculty members know Wax’s statement is true but think it was something best
left unsaid in today’s racially charged climate. Ruger might have refuted Wax’s
claim. He surely has access to student records. He might have listed the number
of black law students who were valedictorians and graduated in the top 10
percent of their class. He rightfully chose not to — so as to not provide
evidence for Wax’s claim.
American Contempt for ...Walter
E. WilliamsBest Price: $10.14Buy New $13.24(as
of 04:35 EDT - Details)
One study suggests that Wax
is absolutely right about academic mismatch. In the early 1990s, the Law School
Admission Council collected 27,000 law student records, representing nearly 90
percent of accredited law schools. The study found that after the first year,
51 percent of black law students ranked in the bottom tenth of their class,
compared with 5 percent of white students. Two-thirds of black students were in
the bottom fifth of their class. Only 10 percent of blacks were in the top half
of their class. Twenty-two percent of black students in the LSAC database
hadn’t passed the bar exam after five attempts, compared with 3 percent of
white test takers.
The
University of Pennsylvania controversy highlights something very important to
black people and the nation. The K-12 education that most blacks receive is
grossly fraudulent. Most predominately black schools are costly yet grossly
inferior to predominately white schools and are in cities where blacks hold
considerable political power, such as Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and
Philadelphia. In these and other cities, it’s not uncommon for there to be high
schools where less than 17 percent of the students test proficient in reading,
and often not a single student in such schools tests proficient in math.
Nonetheless, many receive high school diplomas.
It’s inconceivable that
college administrators are unaware that they are admitting students who are
ill-prepared and have difficulty performing at the college level. There’s no
way that four or five years of college can repair the academic damage done to
black students throughout their 13 years of primary and secondary
education. Partial proof is black student performance at the postgraduate
level, such as in law school. Their disadvantage is exaggerated when they are
admitted to prestigious Ivy League law schools. It’s as if you asked a trainer
to teach you how to box and the first fight he got you was with Anthony Joshua
or Floyd Mayweather. You might have the potential to ultimately be a good
boxer, but you’re going to get your brains beaten out before you learn how to
bob and weave.
The
fact that black students have low class rankings at such high-powered law
schools as Penn doesn’t mean that they are stupid or uneducable. It means that
they’ve been admitted to schools where they are in over their heads. To admit
these students makes white liberals feel better about themselves. It also helps
support the jobs of black and white university personnel in charge of diversity
and inclusion. The question for black people is whether we can afford to have
the best of our youngsters demeaned, degraded and possibly destroyed to make
white liberals feel better about themselves. You might ask, “Williams, without
affirmative action, what would the University of Pennsylvania Law School do
about diversity and inclusion?” I’d say that’s Penn’s problem.
Walter
E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George
Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about
Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and
cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.
Copyright © 2018 Creators.com
Previous
article by Walter E. Williams: Diversity and Inclusion Hurt Everyone