26

Academic Questions/Spring 1997

deplore in public life a n d education. T h o s e most vociferously u r g i n g such policies are often the least genuinely interested in h e i g h t e n i n g the m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g necessary to bridge the gaps between groups. O u r a r g u m e n t a n d suggestions are based, instead, o n a simple acknowle d g m e n t o f the historical facts o f slavery a n d discrimination against blacks. To that extent, we see no c o m p e l l i n g reason to give special assistance to recent Hispanic or o t h e r i m m i g r a n t s who have c h o s e n to live in this country. N o r do we believe that w o m e n have nearly the same m o r a l claim that African A m e r i c a n s have. Thus, while we back CCRI a n d e n c o u r a g e readers to s u p p o r t it as it wends its tortuous way t h r o u g h the courts, we also encourage m e m b e r s o f t h e academic c o m m u n i t y to recognize that it provides no real answer to the persistent a n d very difficult p r o b l e m o f the black underclass, the existence o f which was the very real source o f the misbegotten affirmative action policies we oppose. T h o s e of us who choose to address the issues should r e m e m b e r that this p r o b l e m is not simply going to go away, a n d that we have an obligation n o t to a b a n d o n it to d e m a g o g u e s o f any persuasion. In t h e end, t h e truly difficult t h i n g we m u s t try to do is to chart a course that reinvigorates the liberal vision o f t h e n a t i o n as a c o m m o n e n t e r p r i s e in which all o f its citizens may participate. Let us t h e r e f o r e fight for the p r i n c i p l e o f equality e m b o d i e d in CCRI, as we c o n t i n u e to search for imaginative ways to make o u r colleges a n d universities p a r t o f that c o m m o n enterprise.

Revising the Guidelines for Inclusion

James Q. Wilson is James A. Collins Professor of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. His MoralJudgment is forthcoming from Basic Books. T h e passage of an a m e n d m e n t to the California constitution b a r r i n g the use o f race, sex, or ethnicity in choosing w h o m to admit to a public university, w h o m to hire for a public job, or to w h o m a public contract should be g r a n t e d does not settle matters. Its main effect will be to require us to think again, a n d m o r e seriously, about w h o m we might want to help. My view is that admitting students, hiring workers, or giving contracts should be linked to the needs o f the organization m a k i n g the decision. As I have stated elsewhere, it makes perfect sense to recruit p e o p l e by race or sex to be m e m b e r s o f a political coalition seeking power b u t no sense to d o this w h e n choosing players for a professional baseball team. T h e clearer the standard o f

Custred, Allen, Bunzel, Rothman, Rothman, and Wilson

27

excellence, the m o r e the organization should limit its choices to those who m e e t this standard. That is why it is appropriate to choose a woman or a black to be a m e m b e r of a governor's cabinet but may not be appropriate to choose a woman or a black to be a state chemist or fingerprint analyst. T h e cabinet has a representative function, chemistry and fingerprint analysis do not. In an ideal world I would not have voted for CCRI because it covers areas of governmental activity that have some representative functions. Were I a big-city police chief, I would want to hire black officers because such people have both a representative function ("the police force should look something like the community it controls") and a meritorious function ("the city should have the best qualified officers"). But government-by-initiative does not allow one to make subtle tradeoffs, and our experience with those bureaucrats whose recruitment decisions can be evaluated-for example, university admissions officers whose efforts can be measured statistically-does not permit m u c h h o p e that they will behave responsibly. Let us assume that CCRI cannot soon be revised. How, then, should we make distinctions? T h e task is to decide what forms of allotment of public benefits have an important representative dimension and then to decide whether there is a way of measuring representation apart from race or sex that can accurately guide us in achieving that representation. Let m e begin with public education. College has a representative function: higher education is a means of access for a great variety of jobs. O u r tools to measure ability to do well in college have some but not overpowering predictive value, and public support for tax-supported colleges will weaken if the makeup of their student bodies is dramatically different from that of the taxed population. A defect of race-based admissions is that it does not distinguish between p e o p l e who have had ample o p p o r t u n i t y to prove their ability and those who have not. Admitting the a f f l u e n t son of a black physician but not the p o o r son of a Vietnamese boat p e r s o n - w h i c h is what pre-CCRI college policies often p e r m i t t e d - m a k e s no sense. Moreover, affirmative action as p r a c t i c e d in California has neglected adequately to m e a s u r e ability. For example, 75 percent of blacks a d m i t t e d as f r e s h m e n to the University of California at Berkeley had SAT scores on m a t h that placed t h e m below almost all Asian students. (The verbal SAT scores overlapped a bit more, but not by much.) A better measure of need may be income. Poor people may have been denied opportunities that rich people had. But we must recognize that income is also an imperfect measure. Some people may have low incomes because they are stupid or lazy or easily distracted by surfing or basketball. Nonetheless, a good post-CCRI policy could involve over-admitting some students from poor families if they do reasonably well on standardized tests.

28

Academic Questions / Spring 1997

It is not easy to formulate a clear rule by which need and ability scores can be combined. I suggest the following as a first cut: Allow low family income to count as a "plus" factor for college applicants for the same n u m b e r of applicants that athletic ability now counts as a plus factor. In limiting the low income freshmen to this fraction, we would select from applicants in this group strictly on SAT scores, starting from the top. No such a r g u m e n t can be m a d e for admission to law and medical schools. There, excellence should dominate representation. ("Do you want your child o p e r a t e d on by a brain surgeon who got his medical degree through affirmative action?") Moreover, all applicants for such professional schools have already had four years of college training where their ability and motivation were presumably tested. We already recognize this principle to some degree. Colleges may over-admit football players or talented musicians, but no law or medical school does so. The only groups they over-admit are racial and ethnic minorities. Police departments also have a representative function. People confer m o r e legitimacy on a police department that seems representative of the community than on one that is wholly unlike it. Having an entirely white police force patrolling an entirely black district is a risky business. For police employment, the need measure might be "long-term familiarity with a given neighborhood." That test would benefit racial and ethnic minorities who could m e e t it, but it would also help some white Anglo applicants who could prove they had that familiarity. T h e ability measure would be performance on a written test and past employment history. T h e a r g u m e n t b e h i n d such n e e d measures is that either prior circumstance (such as low family income) prevented a person from fully using his abilities, or that particular jobs require people of a given race or sex or ethnicity in order for the employing agency to work successfully. But these are very imperfect measures of need. There are many superb students from p o o r families and many good white cops in black neighborhoods. Some measures touched by CCRI seem to involve little in the way of a defensibly representative function. It is hard to imagine why firms receiving a public contract must meet some ethnic quota. On the contrary: the discipline of the market rewards good firms and punishes bad ones, whatever their color. The market enforces an excellence standard. A n d racial quotas in business encourage fraud. A firm will put black (or Hispanic) owners in place simply for the purpose of attracting public contracts. Some readers will disagree with my suggestions. Fine; after m o r e experience with the post-CGRI world, I may reject some myself. But do not doubt that there are public, tax-supported enterprises that involve a legitimate representative function. D e m o c r a c y requires representation, not only in elected representatives, but in other areas as well. Making these distinctions is the chief task of those who wish to make the post-CCRI world work well.