Elite Colleges Discriminate Against Women

Affirmative Action is a policy of discriminating against applicants for jobs and college admissions on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex. The policy is defended on the grounds that it remedies past discrimination and, in the case of college admissions, that it promotes a more diverse student body.

Whatever one may think of that defense, it has been clear for decades that Affirmative Action culture is corrupting. It has encouraged colleges to routinely lie about their admissions criteria. Indeed, that was exactly what the Supreme Court recommended in Bakke. It has meant discrimination against Asian Americans.

I knew all that but I was not prepared for the story that Andrew Ferguson tells in the March 28^th issue of The Weekly Standard. It turns out that elite universities are discriminating in favor of male applicants against female applicants.

A raft of prominent schools, including Pomona, Tufts, the College of William and Mary, and Boston College, were accepting boys at a far higher rate than female applicants—boys with lower test scores and lower grade point averages than their female rivals. William and Mary, for instance, accepted 40 percent of the boys who applied in 2006 and only 26 percent of the girls.

That sort of takes one's breath away.

[In] 2011, 60 percent of college applicants will be women. Girls—sorry, fellas—are by any objective measure more attractive applicants than boys, with higher average GPAs and test scores. They have fewer behavioral problems. They write better application essays. They have a wider range of extracurricular interests. They clean up better for interviews.

On any fairly balanced scale, the acceptance rate for women at selective colleges should be far higher than for men. Instead it's the other way around.

Surprise! If progressive reforms in college admissions had any point at all, surely it would include an end to discrimination against women. If progressives are in charge of anything, surely they are in charge of elite university administrations. So what gives? Well…

Here is where the Legend of 60-40 enters in. Sixty-forty is the ratio of women to men at which, according to admissions lore, the "atmosphere" of a campus changes irreversibly and the school's reputation passes a point of no return. It becomes known as a "girls' school" and before you know it . . . there goes the neighborhood.

It turns out that the admissions staffs of elite colleges don't want their campuses to become known as "girl's schools". That is said to be bad for two reasons. One is that it becomes less attractive to women. Another is that it encourages predatory males to seek admission to a school where they expect to be outnumbered by women.

For this reason, the admissions dean of the College of William and Mary has been unapologetic about that thumb of his, which he has firmly planted on the boy side of the scale. "We are, after all, the College of William and Mary," he has often said, "not the College of Mary and Mary."

Whatever one may think about the motives, it seems clear that many elite universities are deliberately and routinely discriminating against women in favor of men for admissions. How pervasive this is is impossible to tell. Because of Affirmative Action culture, colleges have long been allowed and indeed encouraged to conceal the data.

You might think that Civil Rights and Feminist organizations would be up in arms, but you'd be wrong. They have been silent. You might think that the U.S. Civil Rights Commission would launch an investigation. You'd be wrong again. By a vote of four to three, the Commission shelved a proposal to gather and analyze the data.

Elite college administrations are progressive bastions. They breed incestuously with civil rights and feminist interest groups. Accordingly the former enjoy a license to discriminate which a military school like the Virginian Military Institute and, say, Wal Mart, do not enjoy.

That is corruption. It is the more or less legitimate child of Affirmative Action culture. If it's ok to discriminate against one person on the grounds of his color, sex, or ethnicity, so long as you are doing it for progressive purposes, and if it's ok to conceal what you are doing, then it is all too easy to give your friends a pass.

Of course, there is an easy way to end the corruption. Just say that it is never permissible to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, creed, color, or gender. Conservatives have long been in favor of that. Liberals have stoutly and successfully opposed it.

Comments

[George Mason]

When I was in school there was a school a ways down the road that had the 60:40 Gals:guys ratio. We didn't call it a girls school, we called it weekend road trip.

[larry kurtz]

Any finding that uses the words "girls" and "boys" to describe women and men is highly suspect making your entire premise flawed. Maybe you could provide data that shows how much public funding these institutions receive so I could be as indignant as you seem to be, Ken.

[Ken Blanchard]

Why do you need data, Larry, when you can determine truth by determining the political correctness of the language? Anyway, as I made clear, the data is not forthcoming because the institutions hide it and the Civil Rights Commission refuses to compile it. To those who do not believe that the words "boys" and "girls" are all one needs to see, hiding the data is a clue to what is in it.

[Donald Pay]

I think it has more to do with the earning power of males versus females after graduation and the amount that future endowments and construction projects a school can look forward to. Women may be far superior academically and otherwise coming out of high school, but it seems males gravitate to academic fields that have greater cache, higher earning power, and a well-developed good old boy network. Thus, male earning potential upon graduation is higher, and that lasts through a lifetime.

[Ken Blanchard]

George: apparently, the admissions people down the road had your number.

Donald: I admit that something like what you suggest crossed my mind. That is not the story that Ferguson tells, but it surely would help explain the phenomena.

I note that if you are right, it makes the discriminating institutions look much worse. Ferguson's explanation is at least compatible with the idea that they are looking out for their female students. In your explanation, they are discriminating against women out of simple greed.

[Miranda]

Mr. Kurtz: Have you considered taking this issue up with The LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0327-state-girls-basketball-20110327,0,3648176.story), ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/preps/post/_/id/7759/state-basketball-div-iii-girls-st-joseph-53-bishop-odowd-42), The Chicago Sun Times (http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/sports/4495297-419/beacon-news-2010-11-all-area-girls-basketball-team.html) or the countless other media outlets that use the same terms?

I think you ought to consider starting an e-mail campaign immediately, since obviously, referring to students (who are still, by and large, supported by their parents) as "boys" and "girls" is a greater issue than allegations of widespread sex-discrimination.

[Ken Blanchard]

Thanks Miranda!

[larry kurtz]

When is the word "kids" appropriate to describe human children, Ms. Flint?

[duggersd]

Statistics are interesting things. For example we see a statistic that 40% of boys/men are admitted to W & I while only 26% of girls/women are admitted. How many actually applied? If 2000 boys/men applied and 5000 girls/women applied the reason for the skewed admission rate becomes a little more clear. Nationally more women are applying to go to universities and colleges than men. A better question is why? I sort of wonder if it has to do with all of the political correctness and the guys are just opting for something and someplace they can be more comfortable.

[Miranda]

Any time, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Kurtz. If you ask a college student if she was more troubled by being called a "kid" or by being denied admission to a college because of her sex, what do you suppose her answer would be? Which do you think would harm her more? Will being called a "kid" by a blogger or journalist hurt her chances of finding a high-paying job later? Probably not. Will being kept out of a college she was well qualified for? It very well might.

So I think that getting into a huff about words that aren't meant to be offensive and probably aren't offensive to the majority of college students, while ignoring a more serious issue that could affect some students for the rest of their lives is a bit silly.

But IF we decide that calling people things that MIGHT offend them is more serious than killing their chances of finding a good job in the future, then I must ask you to stop calling me the loathsome term "Ms." Miranda is just fine. "Mrs." works if you prefer to be formal.

[Donald Pay]

Why keep males around college at all? This is like a questions that evolutionary biologists deal with---why keep males around?

In the academic context, given that society pays men more, it makes some sense for females to not put up a fuss about admissions. If males actually do donate more resources to higher education, those resources are used predominately by women, who make up nearly 60 percent of most college student bodies. Thus it pays for females to keep a certain number of dumber males around, because the society values dumb males over smart females. You have to have a certain number of dumb males to make and donate the money, so that smart females get the education.

[Miranda]

"This is like a questions that evolutionary biologists deal with---why keep males around?"

Because watching The Godmother just wouldn't be the same thing!

On a more serious note, though, what is wrong with just basing college admissions off of merit?

[Ken Blanchard]

Somebody should really try to do "The Godmother"! Meanwhile, a truly merit based system would be beautiful, but like unicorns, probably impossible. The instinct to carve out a privilege is just too powerful.

[Miranda]

Maybe so, but perhaps if colleges had the same sort of incentives for hiring students based on merit that they have for affirmative action it would work. Then again, it might be like trying to tape a horn to a horse.

[Jimi]

"what is wrong with just basing college admissions off of merit?"

As Jack once said, "You can't handle the truth!"

Of course that statement not really focused at Miranda.....but there is quite a few people who comment here, that are just not going to accept the reality of the answer to that question, and for me to honestly comment on it would be just creating a food fight!