Race-Targeted Affirmative Action is Over. Where Do We Go from Here?
A guest essay by Robert Cherry
Last month, John McWhorter contributed a fantastic piece to this Substack taking historian Richard Rothstein to task for his continued advocacy for racial preferences in affirmative action and calling for university administrators to ignore the Supreme Court’s now-official ruling that will end affirmative action as it’s been practiced for the last 45 years. No doubt these administrators have been hard at work devising work-arounds to maintain the levels of campus “diversity” on which they’ve staked their institutions’ reputations and brands. But the idea that administrators would, through acts of civil disobedience, put their careers and their schools’ accreditation at risk seems fanciful, not to mention profoundly irresponsible.
My friend Robert Cherry, who recently appeared on TGS, also finds problems with Rothstein’s arguments. As he notes in his guest essay below, Rothstein voices many objections to the end of race-targeted affirmative action that are held by liberals writ-large. As he argues in his recent book, The State of the Black Family, early childhood intervention could be far more significant in the development of successful black students than affirmative action ever was. Clearly, I find Bob and John’s arguments far more compelling than I do Rothstein’s. Race-targeted affirmative action is over, and we have to find a way forward. I’ve advocated for what I call the Development Narrative—focusing on cultivating the human potential within black communities rather than rooting out so-called systemic racism—and following Bob’s recommendations would be an important step in making that narrative into a reality.
This essay is free and available to the public. To get early access to the episodes of The Glenn Show, as well as an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
To Help Black Students, Focus on Early Childhood, not College Admissions
by Robert Cherry
Liberal anti-racists have been grumbling about the ending of race-based affirmative action even before the past week’ SCOTUS ruling. Some are particularly concerned that Biden's efforts to find ways around it will be undercut by its replacement by class-based affirmative action policies. Last month, in this venue, John McWhorter wrote a sharp critique of historian Richard Rothstein’s advocacy for continued racial preferences in affirmative action. I concur with McWhorter, but further examination of Rothstein’s views on affirmative action demonstrates just how mistaken the liberal position is and what we can gain by shifting away from it. As Rothstein documents, black 17-year-olds represent 31% and 24% of youth living in households with wealth placing them in the bottom quarter and bottom half, respectively, of the wealth distribution. Since they comprise only 15 percent of the youth population, black 17-year-olds would disproportionately benefit from class-based affirmative action. While a class-based approach would likely reduce black enrollment at the most selective colleges, it is the best way to maintain diversity without sacrificing merit.
It might be surprising that the disproportionality is not much larger given his reported racial wage gap: “Median Black household wealth is, at most, 13 percent of the white median.” But is the median white wealth almost eight times the median black wealth? According to a 2023 Federal Reserve report, average white wealth is just under four times average black wealth.
This doesn’t tell you what is going on in the lower half of the wealth distribution. Using a somewhat different data set, the left-wing blogger Matt Bruenig found that in 2016, the racial wealth ratio was 6.4. However, three-quarters of each group’s wealth was owned by the top 10 percent of wealth-holders. Most relevant, if black households in the lower half of their distribution had their wealth raised to be exactly the same as white households in their lower half, the overall racial wage gap would be reduced by just 3 percent. Thus, Bruenig concludes, “What this shows is that 97 percent of the overall racial wealth gap is driven by households above the median of each racial group.”
Rothstein’s rejection of class-based affirmative action is quite similar to left approaches to counter the effects of redlining, something he has written about extensively. Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren proposed subsidizing home ownership for lower-income residents of neighborhoods that were subject to redlining policies implemented by the government from 1933 to 1977. These policies, they claim, were responsible for underinvestment in those neighborhoods which had a disproportionate share of black residents. However, Brookings Institute researchers Andre M. Perry and David Harshbarger rejected the Harris-Warren initiative because only 28 percent of current residents in formerly redlined neighborhoods are black. Nevertheless, Rothstein joins Harris and Warren in rejecting a class-based set of policies. He claims that the practice of redlining “was explicit in its targeting of Black Americans” and that providing benefits to disadvantaged residents of formerly redlined areas does “not redress the main racial group that was explicitly targeted.”
What makes Brookings’ position even more damning is that, as John McWhorter has reported, 82 percent of individuals living in redlined districts were white, as were 92 percent of homeowners. Moreover, researchers concluded:
Our results suggest that racial bias in the construction of the HOLC maps can explain at most 4 to 20 percent of the observed concentration of Black households in the lowest-rated zones. Instead, our results suggest that the majority of Black households were located in such zones because decades of disadvantage and discrimination had already pushed them into the core of economically distressed neighborhoods prior to the federal government’s involvement in mortgage markets.
To be sure, there are disparities in black-white homeownership rates. But most of them can be explained by family structure. In 2022, overall black homeownership was 44 percent; for married couples it was 64 percent, virtually the same as the overall white homeownership rate.
Rothstein’s most serious problem is the inaccurate reasons he gives for the need to provide a boost for middle-class black students. He claims that poorly funded urban schools victimize black youth, including those from the middle class; and, unlike white middle-class youth, they live in areas that are adjacent to poor neighborhoods that create social risks. Thus, Rothstein argues, black middle-class youth continue to face hurdles that white middle-class youth do not.
However, evidence does not support either of his assertions. School funding cannot explain the poor performance of central-city black youth. For example, let’s look at five cities where blacks are the largest share of the population: Detroit, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Philadelphia. Across these cities, only 25% and 28% of black fourth graders are reading and doing math, respectively, at grade level. These rates are about half the national black rate and one-third the national white rate. However, more school funding will probably make little difference, since these five cities already have some of the highest per pupil expenditures among the 100 largest US school districts.
Rothstein’s generalization that the black middle-class live in neighborhoods adjacent to poor black neighborhoods comes from an isolated, outdated Chicago study of the federal 1990s MOVE program, an initiative that provided black households from neighborhoods with concentrated poverty access to low-poverty neighborhoods. Richard Sampson found that “the vast majority of all MTO participants moved to areas close by other South Side Chicago communities that are in the upper range of concentrated disadvantage.” Sampson used this evidence to explain why the initiative had no positive effects on future educational or earnings attainment of black children.
In the last thirty years, the suburbanization process has had a dramatic effect on the residential location of the black middle class. Today, more than 54% of all black Americans residing in the sixty largest metropolitan area live in suburbs. Researchers concluded:
The study’s findings essentially show two Black Americas: “Black suburbanites increasingly living in more integrated neighborhoods with higher-quality indicators and lower income Black city dwellers seeing their neighborhood characteristics stagnate or worsen.”
Thus, today a strong majority of Black middle-class households live in suburbs not in central city neighborhoods, so that only a small share may suffer the impediments Rothstein cites.
Most telling, Rothstein ignores the evidence that the Black students who attend Ivy League schools are not the children of the black middle class who attend public schools. Anthony Abraham Jack found that half of the Black students who attended elite US universities were graduates of private day schools, boarding schools, or college-preparatory high schools. Just as importantly, US affirmative action policies do not make distinctions within the black population. As a result, descendants of twentieth-century black immigrants are the major beneficiaries of affirmative action at the most elite universities, comprising over 40 percent of the Ivy League black student population, even though they are only 10 percent of the US Black population. Interestingly, Tod Hamilton’s 2019 book Immigration and the Remaking of Black America does not have a single reference to the black immigrant student share at Ivy League colleges, including his own, Princeton.
In a 2021 interview, a descendant of slavery, Mariah Norman, discussed how children of immigrants dominate the black student environment at Harvard. She pointed to the Nigerian Students Association that claims 200 members, suggesting that one-third of Harvard’s black student body is in the club. And while the Black Students Association encompasses all, there wasn’t an organization solely for black students like Norman until they got together in 2021 and formed one.
The large numbers of African immigrants on American college campuses, coupled with the remarkably small numbers of native Blacks on those same campuses, calls into question the effectiveness of America’s affirmative action programs. While affirmative action started as a system to right the wrongs of slavery and institutional anti-black racism, helping wealthy immigrants who weren’t here for those struggles doesn’t serve any of the program's original goals.
Finally, Rothstein, like most liberals, refuses to look at behavior as a significant source of limited black academic success. Though as poor as black households, Asian-American families spend a large share of their resources on improving their children’s educational skills and making sure that they spend substantial time on schoolwork. Indeed, a 2017 Brookings Institution report estimated that Asian students spend an average of two hours nightly studying, compared with one hour for white students, 45 minutes for Latino students, and only 30 minutes for Black students. The report pointed out that racial differences could not be explained by family responsibilities or time allocated to paid employment. Another study found that the group difference could be explained by the greater amount of time that black students on average spent watching TV.
There is also widespread evidence that black students have much poorer attendance than other students. In California, 45% of Black students were chronically absent, more than double the white rate. In Philadelphia, at the high school level, 63% of students were chronically absent. At seven high schools in which black students comprised the vast majority of their enrollment, a whopping 90% or more of the students were frequently missing class. A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial noted,
Some school districts have gotten creative about trying to keep kids in school. Pittsburgh sends caregivers letters showing the number of days a student has missed, as well as texts offering resources for help. Colorado and Nevada reduced absenteeism by extending the time breakfast was available for students who did not get to school before the day began. A school in Phoenix implemented a combination of increased communications and outreach as well as publishing attendance numbers to better incentivize parents and students.
Where lacking, parental behaviors can be strengthened through programs that come into the household. Among the most effective are visiting-nursing programs that provide in-home services to young mothers from pregnancy through their child’s third year. They can be followed by MIECHV (maternal, infant, and early childhood visiting) programs, which allocate funds that aid three- to five-year-olds. Other programs include Parent as Teachers and HIPPY (home instruction for parents of preschool youngsters). In existence for 30 years, HIPPY provides activity packets, storybooks, and manipulative shapes. HIPPY uses trained coordinators who go into the home and role-play activities.
Once children enter the school system, initiatives could mimic some of the charter school policies that prod parents to be more involved in their children’s education. They could include subsidizing the parents and children’s attendance at cultural events on weekends: museums, theaters, etc. The main point is that schools must find ways to engage parents in the education of their children. This is clearly the aspirations of the vast majority of parents.
Many people who want to start exercising flounder because of other demands on their time or their lacking knowledge of how best to proceed. They need a coach or trainer to assist in their efforts, to offer helpful suggestions and gentle prodding when needed. The same goes for education. This has been the strategy of successful charter schools and should be embraced by traditional public schools. Some parents may reject what they regard as condescending paternalism, but many will find that in-home assistance can help them become the parents they want to be.
The past week’s SCOTUS decision will end race-based affirmative action as it has existed since 1978. That is all to the good, so long as we do not discard the idea of affirmative action entirely. Class-targeted policies are still, I believe, a necessary counterbalance to the inequalities of our education system. While class-based efforts will probably not produce the same black share of enrollment that currently exists at some of the most elite schools, affirmative action policies have not significantly aided middle-class black students who attend public schools. Most importantly, class-based policies will increase the success rate of the more limited number of black applicants admitted to the most demanding colleges. Only by increasing family intervention programs that will improve the performance of young black children can we substantially close the race gap at the most selective colleges without sacrificing merit.
I find it interesting that most of the discussion regarding affirmative action concerns prestige universities. The vast majority of the medical doctors, lawyers, engineers and other professionals did not attend Ivy League schools. As a graduate with an advanced degree from a Big Ten university, I find this preoccupation odd. I do not feel I received a second rate education.
Thomas Sowell stated long ago that there is a college appropriate for most every student. His concern was that an affirmative action student might be forced into an American Studies major at Yale when they could be capable pre-med or chemistry students at a different institution.
If some minority students do not get into Harvard, but attend another institution, is any great harm done to those individuals? The options aren't between attending Harvard and not attending college at all.
Surely you have read the prophetic Moynihan Report. When youth are followed and measured on gaps in education, incarceration, employment and lifespan/health, blacks show a major gap in comparison with whites. When corrected for number of adults in the childhood home, the gap almost completely disappears. Blacks raised in a single-parent household perform nearly identically to whites raised in a single-parent household, and when that is further refined to account for absent fathers or other adult male role models, the difference disappears in a cloud of irrelevancy.
What is left I am prepared to accept as the consequence of racism, systemic or otherwise. But ignoring the problem of >70% illegitimacy, and too many babies with absent fathers, to rely on victimhood at the hands of white supremacists, is unimaginable to those of us interested in the welfare of children.