dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (04/27/91)
According to tato@midway.uchicago.EDU (Hector Ruben Cordero-Guzman): >dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes: >>Dinesh D'Souza has just released a very >>good book called "Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on >>Campus" > >I did not like the book. It was badly researched, unneccesarily >rhetorical, and excessively anecdotal. Perhaps soc.feminism isn't the best place to talk about this book, but I'm willing to keep going until the moderators get angry. I've set the followups to talk.politics.misc and rec.arts.books just in case I go of on a non-feminist tangent. >I disagree. He does not analyze the admissions standards of all of the >colleges in the US, or a representative sample thereof, nor does he >analyze their affirmative action policies. He does interview one or >another administrator at one or another school. That is very weak >evidence. It is, at best, a collection of plausible scenarios that >are, and should be, more closely examined and debated. This book, >though, is crude. Well, I don't think D'Souza had in mind a fully-documented government-committee-style report when he wrote the book. He had views he wanted to present to a wider audience, and a mixture of facts and anecdotes works well. His book certainly isn't the end of the argument, though. Research ought to be done to back up or refute his arguments and we should be ready to make some changes based on that research. >For example, D'Souza relates that in an interview with `two women >activists' from the university of Michigan he asked if either one knew >about Mill. Neither did. D'Souza infers that the fact that this women >took `Feminist Theory' instead of, say, `Brittish Political >Philosophy' and therefore were unaware of Mill, is evidence that they >are taking easier courses... I interpreted this differently. I thought he was trying to say that the student activists would have a more sophisticated grasp of some of the issues they were grappling with if they had read a few of the well-known political thinkers of the western world. His observation was that a person who is arguing for a form of censorship will be better prepared to argue for that position if s/he is familiar with the more famous opposing arguments. I don't think he was saying that "Feminist Theory" is "easier" than "British Political Philosophy," but that taking "Feminist Theory" at the expense of "British Political Philosophy" may mean that a student is left with some vast gaps in her/his education. I don't think this is what D'Souza wanted his book to be about, though. He doesn't concentrate on this sort of thing. It seems to be more Allan Bloom's bag. For the record, I don't think much of Bloom. >On the question of `failure' he offers no evidence. He does not show >that people admitted under `affirmative action programs' fail at a >rate higher than those who were not (partly because he does not have >any evidence on who was admitted under an `affirmative action program' >see above); nor does he prove that minorities and women who finish >college are `less prepared' (define that losely) than the comparison >group (white males?). BTW, do you know if students in IVY schools are >given preferential treatment if they are sons and daughters of alumni? I'd sure like to find out if students who are admitted under affirmative action or alumni preferances are more likely to fail at a rate higher than other students. I hope D'Souza's book encourages someone to do the research. D'Souza offers some pretty good evidence, though, IMHO, including one statistic from the UC Berkeley Office of Admissions. In that study of "special action" students who entered Berkeley between 1978 and 1982, 31% had graduated in five years, compared to 61% for regular admissions. Most of the time, though, he just talks on one hand about how universities are admitting minority students with lower GPAs, SATs, etc. and then on the other hand about how bad minority graduation rates are in the universities. He implies a connection, but doesn't prove it. It only makes sense to me, though. If you take a white man with a 2.5 GPA and stick him in a class full of students with 4.0 GPAs, he's going to have a hard time keeping up with the rest of the class. A black man is not going to have it any easier. Also, I don't think he was trying to show that minorities who FINISH college are less prepared than their peers, but that those who START college are. >What D'Souza shows throughout the book is considerable disdain and >condecension towards blacks, latinos, homosexuals and women. Again, I >do recognize that socio-economic class is not only important but >central in determining who goes and who does not go to college and I >agree with those who suggest that we have to be vigorous in ensuring >that *everyone* has access to college. However it is also important to >keep in mind that women experience the gendered nature of the academy >and confront it in ways different than those of males. the same thing >can be said abot the experiances of different racial groups. what is >important is the need to drecognize that each of this factors has a >particular effect which has to be taken into account and debated in >its own terms. Pursuing a vigorous policy against racism in no way >precludes pursuing a vigorous policy against harrasment. D'Souza >ignores both by shifting the debate to whether `these people' are >qualified to be in the academy in the first place. Its a nice trick >but I'm afraid it will not work. I didn't recognize any disdain and condecension towards blacks, latinos or women; and only a bit toward homosexuals (meaning enough to make me shake my head, but not enough to offend me). The basic argument, though, goes like this: If you're admitting into your university whites and asians with amazing GPAs and SAT scores, and you're also admitting blacks and other minorities with substantially lower GPAs and SAT scores, then what you're really doing is setting up those affirmative-action students for failure in the academic community. Here's how I interpret it: I'm a student struggling to graduate at Cal Poly. Not a high-power institute of learning, but it's more than hard enough for me. If I were an affirmative-action beneficiary, I could have been recruited right out of high school by some of the hottest schools in the country (my grades were slightly above average, and my SATs substantially above average). I probably could have taken my pick of several more prestegous universities, at any of which I would have been surrounded by braniacs who would blow me away in class, making me want to clam up and sink into the desk, and I would have floundered, guaranteed. As it was, I took an easier route. I went to a community college for a couple of years, and now I'm slowly winding through Poly. And I'm liable to make it. Much more my speed. >We have a fairly good idea of what the predictors of college >attainment are. Again, I agree that economic class is central but how >is that an argument or a policy to eliminate gender and racial >exclusion? Are you saying that SAT's are biased in terms of social >class (and by bias I mean that a given score does not predict the >performace of one group as well as that of another not that the >probability of getting one score versus another differs by group) but >not in terms of gender and race? Does D'Souza present any kind of >evidence to this effect? I might have missed it. I haven't seen any really good evidence either way. It makes sense to me that factors like where you went to school or how you performed academically in comparison with the rest of your class might have more to do with predicting future academic achievement than the color of your skin or the composition of your chromosomes. But I have no facts to back this up. > >D'souza's argument is that women and latinos are not qualified and >their continued visibility in the campuses is evidence of the >deterioration of admissions standards. No. Not at all. He DOCUMENTS the deterioration of admissions standards case by case. He shows that again and again, to get more minorities on campus, colleges lower admissions standards for those minorities. For instance, at Berkeley again, the mean SAT score for freshmen in 1986 was 952 for blacks, 1,014 for Hispanics, 1,082 for Native Americans, 1,232 for whites, and 1,254 for Asians. Now if the SAT is an indication of future academic success, then there should be no surprise from statistics like this that blacks, for instance, are less likely to succeed academically at Berkeley. > Affirmative Action, which is a policy about ensuring >access, not bending relvant standards, is attacked under the argument >that any possible way on actively ensuring access- by neccessity- >`bends standards'. He demonstrates again and again that this is exactly how affirmative action works. If you open your admissions to all students, and yet a smaller-than-desired percentage of minority X qualify for admissions, you have to either admit students of minority X who do not otherwise qualify, or you have to bend the relevant standards until they do. >>In any case, the book is a good read and has some fine critiques and >>ideas. > >I disagree. The book a racist and sexist attack on the increasing >presence of women and minorities in the academy. Netters should read >for themselves. Another one in the long history of apologetic books >put out by professional ideologues that confuse the interaction >between individual and society and end up blaming the victim while >attempting to appear victimized. > > "don't believe the hype"... > >tato@ellis.uchicago.edu -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Black mothers with young children earn one dollar for every 59 cents that white mothers with young children earn.