January 2012
In a culture quick to claim victim status, the
existence of a concerted effort to hush up systematic discrimination may seem
surprising — particularly when that discrimination is against women. Yet as
the University of San Diego law professor Gail Heriot and Alison Somin write in
the Federalist Society’s Engage, there’s been a notable lack of public debate
about pro-male bias in the college admission process.
It’s an open secret, they explain, that a
growing number of colleges are holding male and female applicants to different
standards to inflate the number of male students. Women already receive about
six in ten bachelor degrees, so many colleges that don’t want their student
bodies skewed too heavily female are making it easier for men to enroll. Just
how prevalent is the practice? It’s tough to say, since, as Heriot and Somin
describe, an effort by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to study the
situation was recently terminated.
There are numerous reasons why so many would
prefer to ignore, rather than analyze, this aspect of academic life. One might
expect feminists to be outraged about universities systematically favoring less
qualified men over higher-achieving women. But, as Heriot and Somin explain,
peculiarities in Title IX enforcement encourage the practice, limiting ways that
universities can otherwise seek to attract men (such as through athletics
programs) and by creating a quota regime that kicks in only after the admission
process.
Indeed, the entire concept of pro-male
affirmative action undermines the feminist cause. Admitting that women so
dominate academia that men need special rules to compete exposes as absurd the
feminists’ continued push for funding for girl-power programs (such as those
related to math and science) and their continued fixation on the exact number of
female college athletes. Feminists also have long championed affirmative action
programs for other underrepresented groups, which would make outrage about using
different standards for men a stretch.
Traditional opponents of affirmative action
policies, on the other hand, tend to be concerned about the declining academic
achievement of men. As a result, they may also be happy to ignore the inherent
unfairness of this pro-male admissions process.
Yet surely this is a phenomenon that deserves a
public airing, both to clarify what constitutes "fair" admission procedures and
to consider the state of our education system more broadly.
Much hasbeen written about how affirmative
action programs tend to backfire on intended beneficiaries.
There is every reason to expect that this will
affect male affirmative-action beneficiaries just as it does any other group.
Yet Americans can also sympathize with a college’s desire to have a more
diverse population than achievement-only admission criteria would generate.
Ideally, colleges should be free to set policies
as they see fit, and be rewarded or punished in a marketplace that takes into
account a wide variety of factors, from prestige to quality of campus life to
actual transmission of knowledge and skills. Concerns about taxpayer support
being distributed through a process that considers attributes like race and sex
(rather than affording true equal treatment) seems a good reason to get
government out of the business of funding colleges, rather than limit how
colleges make their selections.
Young men’s inability to compete on a level
playing field with women should also invite consideration of other policy
reforms. To start, let’s recognize that government programs predicated on the
idea of women as "short-changed" by the education system have long since been
overtaken by reality. Our government’s obsessive interest in enforcing a de
facto quota system in the name of Title IX — but only in areas where men still
outnumber women, like sports and math and science programs — is entirely
inappropriate.
Education reformers should consider why our K-12
education system fails to help so many boys reach their potential. Just as
fixing the pipeline is ultimately the best path to boost minority education
achievement, so it is with our nation’s boys. Parents should consider whether
traditional one-size-fits-all public schools are really best for their sons.
Our education system should be restructured so that there are more options,
including paradigms better-suited to serve boys’ specific academic needs.
Many may prefer to ignore pro-male affirmative
action policies, but they are a symptom of larger issues that will continue to
hurt American society.
Carrie Lukas is the managing director of the
Independent Women’s Forum.
American
Thinker,
December 15, 2011.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
