FROM A MAN bending forks into bracelets to a woman demanding salt for her apple, Greyhound bus rides are never complete without a healthy dose of sketchiness. So, on a ride two weeks ago, I buried my head into Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book Blink, which argued that near-unconscious conclusions about a person you see or a house you want could be every bit as valid as painstaking research. Having spent two nervous hours sizing up Greyhound customers’ sketchiness through arbitrary indicators, it seemed appealing to me.
But, as Gladwell notes, the problem with ‘thin-slicing’ information is that you don’t dig below the surface. A farmer reeking of cow dung may be a rich landowner. Warren Harding ‘looked presidential’ but wasn’t much of a president. And UCLA Law Professor Richard Sander’s much-derided research into affirmative action may in fact enrich our perspective on the effects of affirmative action today.
Sander is no stranger to vociferous debate. He has spent two decades wrestling with the touchy issue of affirmative action and its negative effects on black law students. Now, he is hunting for 30 years of data on California State Bar exam-takers to probe if affirmative action places candidates into elite institutions where they are unable to compete and doomed to fail. This, he thinks, may explain why a 1990s Law School Admissions Council study showed blacks were four times more likely than whites to flunk the bar exam. Or prove his blazing assertion that there would have been more successful black lawyers had affirmative action not existed and minority students attended less prestigious institutions.
Blink. And enter the bickering empty vessels who have turned fiery controversy into burnt hysteria. The State Bar adamantly withheld the data, citing vacuous “confidentiality” issues. Not to be outdone, Sander’s academic critics smeared him as a racist pseudo-scientist from the Holocaust. Even more reasoned critics smacked of hypocrisy as they awkwardly poked holes at his uncompleted research while opposing his right to conduct it.
Needless to say, these void shells need to stop blinking and start thinking. The State Bar must allow Sander to acquire the data regardless of his potentially fiery conclusions. This is the cornerstone of free speech. If Sander’s findings prove to be high on polemics but low on substance, they ought to be debunked by better research, not preemptive First Ammendment violations. And given this country’s first-rate legal research, there is little need for such cowardice.
Sander is white. But he is far from a bitter victim of affirmative action or an honorary member of the Ku Klux Clan. According to the Los Angeles Times, he was a former Volunteers in Service to America participant, a fair-housing activist, and an ardent campaigner for Chicago’s first black mayor. Of course, it may be instinctual for a racist to cry: “my best friend is (insert minority group).” Nevertheless, we ought to take someone’s record into account before engaging in Tourette’s-like name-calling.
The State Bar’s confidentiality claims are exaggerated. Yes, freedom of information must be balanced with the right to privacy. But Sander has already pledged not to disclose individual names. Some claim his research design inadequately resolves privacy issues, since California’s top law schools admitted few black students who can easily be traced. If so, the issue ought to be how to retool the research design to meet these standards, rather than premature rejection.
There is also plenty of top-notch research and surface observations that gravely undermine Sander’s theory. Logically, the bar exam is by no means a perfect indicator of a lawyer’s ability. Using it as a primary determinant of capabilities is as futile as using SAT scores to measure intelligence. Furthermore, statistics suggests that affirmative action is far from a feel-good but do-harm policy Sander suggests. Veta Richardson, executive director of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, claims that minorities and women account for about 25 percent of Fortune 500 general counsel, five-times what it was 11 years ago. This is a significant advancement.
Research-wise, professors Jesse Rothstein and Albert Yoon released a statistical study earlier this month directly contradicting Sander’s theory. Black students in selective schools actually scored better than those in less selective schools on every academic measure from graduation rates to bar exam pass rates. If affirmative action were abolished as Sander wishes, Rothstein said “the number of black lawyers would fall dramatically ... a lot of black students who go to law school now would not otherwise get into any law school.”
Given the availability of prolific research and the dearth of convincing excuses, it is unclear why so many are allergic to apply a universal freedom to someone with whom they disagree. In a dictatorial state, unorthodox ideas may be greeted with a stern “leave it out.” But in the vibrant, free market of academic ideas, the right response to Sander’s polemics ought to be: “bring it on.”
Prashanth Parameswaran’s column appears Thursday in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at p.parameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | 19 hours agoThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 4 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 6 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
