Diversity Hypocrisy

LongXiang Li

Jacqueline Brady

ENG 107

2013-1-24

The article "Diversity Hypocrisy: The myriad, and often perverse, implications of admissions policies," by David L. Kirp discusses the issues of favoritism and the factoring of race during the college admission process.

Kirp writes that "the incantation of diversity has been an act of hypocrisy," which is how he refers to the shortcomings of affirmative action and the preference universities have for specific types of people. Some schools accept students for the wrong reasons, including wealth and race. One university used to accept undergraduate students and encourage diversity by setting up a kind of formula that focused on race. This method was declared unconstitutional. However, at the very same university, the law school continued to use what Kirp calls a "tailored, 'holistic' review" of the applicants. This process still allows the consideration of race and ethnicity. Kirp explains that the law school's process is no different from the unconstitutional method used for undergraduate applications. Kirp states, "no matter how nuanced, the process can be rigged to generate the desired racial outcome."

Kirp explores the two main groups that are affected by these biased admissions policies. He titles them "the Winners" and "the Losers" accordingly.

According to the article and Kirp's point of view, most of the winners are not minorities, but are actually "the offspring of alumni - 'legacies'." Some very wealthy families also seem to have more privileges and a higher preference. These types of people have been labeled "development cases." This name most likely refers to the 'developments' (or benefits to the school and applicant) after receiving a subtle, but large, donation. If this is true, then if a wealthy family wants their child to go to a certain school, all they have to do is buy their way in. How is that fair? Some universities claim that they use different standards to admit students, but still seem to play favorites. One example Kirp provides is a quote from Nannerl Keohane, a former president of Duke University. She said "We are committed to ethnic, racial, cultural, socioeconomic and geographic diversity, to becoming more international, giving particular support to students from North and South Carolina (by reason of our founding indenture and our commitment to our region), admitting students with a range of probable academic commitments (engineers, pre-meds, classicists, historians, etc.), succeeding in athletics, making sure that our drama and music and arts programs have students who will continue and enjoy their traditions, and more." Kirp also mentions that Keohane did admit that the admissions process does consider alumni and factors that might provide the school with benefits or financial gain.

Now that it is clear who the winners are, what about "the Losers?" The people that make up this group include minorities and people who come from a lower, poorer class. The poor have no means to buy their way into a school and do not have that 'legacy' background or reputation. There is also a phenomenon related to applicants who play more 'elite' sports. Because of a requirement, universities must pay equal attention to both men and women's sports. The problem is that apart from football and basketball, many sports are more accessible to wealthy people, and as a result, the talented wealthy athletes can receive scholarships and admission offers.

Kirp's idea of "Diversity Hypocrisy" is not limited just to the United States. One