In 1994, Drs. Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray wrote a book known as “The Bell Curve,” which explored the social phenomena of varying intelligence among different groups. The book was met with virulent objection by certain minorities as nothing more than an articulate racial slur.
Dr. Richard Sander, a law professor at the University of California, couples omitting LSAT (Law School Aptitude Test) to the likewise stunting effect on success in law schools with lowered affirmative action, race based, admissions standards. In explaining the obvious academic disparities between affirmative action students and its non-affirmative action counterpart, Dr. Sander asserts that the first gap is poor undergraduate scores (grade point average), coupled with a below average score on the LSAT.
The American Bar Association, a bastion for liberal thought (all in the name of diversity), conjured up an equipoise, i.e., no more LSAT, to counter the less than sterling success of affirmation action students (Barack Obama, being a rare exception).
However, studies show that a poor undergraduate GPA and low LSAT scores have a deleterious effect on success in law schools, especially first tier schools, e.g., Harvard, Yale, etc. Using a 1,000-point scale, the average minority student LSAT score was 130 to 170 points below the normal acceptable admission score.
The grades of poorly performing minority students drop significantly, in relative terms, from the first year of law school to the third, thus exacerbating the students’ hopes of academic success with a curriculum of which he is not equipped to intellectually parse.
Dr. Sanders, in his findings, makes no judgements about preferences, yet he does object to a “theory of social utility” i.e., accepting, graduating, promoting, appointing, or in any way advancing a person solely on purely social criteria. It has also become obvious, and patently unfair, to the unfortunately unqualified, albeit undeservedly receiving favor, to appease some balletic liberal scheme that only hastens failure for the recipient.
Exempli gratia: Suppose, say (for the sake of ethnic respect) a non-white person and a white person were both candidates for Princeton Law School, both from affluent professional families. The white candidate has higher LSAT scores and undergraduate GPA than the non-white candidate. They both desire to be attorneys.
Here is but a preludial to a much longer (liberal’s) apologia of the law school’s decision to admit the less qualified non-white candidate rather than the white candidate. I paraphrase: “Choosing the less qualified non-white candidate will provide more socially - value added - accomplishments and will expand the next generation of minority lawyers. (Only) by doing this can society attain equality, especially at the higher socioeconomic levels.”
Can the sanctity of individualism, self-determination, or equal treatment within a just society be compromised and possibly even permanently jeopardized for the collective needs of certain groups?
Forgiving student loans comes to mind.