Conversation in Confines

Just prior to the start of February Break, SGA President Ilana Gratch sent an email to notify the student body of a SGA Senate Resolution condemning Supreme Court Associate Justice Scalia’s comments during the Oral Arguments in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. I’m writing to address both the content of the email and the Resolution itself, which I see as emblematic of a broader issue in our community.

SGA President Gratch’s email reiterates what we have been hearing for months: we need to have more conversations at Middlebury, particularly about race. However, despite her earnest endeavor for us to be “engaging in these conversations” and “grappling with the challenges that accompany them,” she only offers support for one side of the debate. There is no inherent issue with a “cultural representative” to the SGA or an offer to help students interact with the administration. However, we cannot concurrently claim to be fostering honest debate about a controversial subject yet only acknowledge one side. The Resolution states that the SGA “deplores the implication of [Justice Scalia’s] statements” in the aforementioned Oral Arguments.

The Resolution does not quote Justice Scalia (nor does it respectfully use his proper title), so I will: “There are [ ] those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to [ ] get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a less a slower-track school where they do well …. And - and I [ ] don’t think it [ ] stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.” Quite crudely, Justice Scalia was discussing mismatch theory, an idea developed by UCLA Professor Richard Sander. Sander and others have found that if colleges and universities give large preferences to some students that are not based on academic merit, those students are less likely to succeed than their more academically qualified peers. The data show that students perform best at academic institutions where they are not significantly outmatched in terms of academic preparation, as measured by a combination of grades and test scores. It is worth noting that mismatch theory is not inherently about race—it also applies to athletes, legacies and other groups who are admitted on more than academic merit. A number of social scientists have attempted to refute Sander’s work, but none have been able to do so with enough rigor to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Not only is mismatch theory in line with common sense, but it stands as good social science.

Instead of rejecting mismatch theory out-of-hand, the SGA could have started a real discussion about the merits of affirmative action. Indeed, affirmative action does not depend on mismatch theory being wrong; we could judge it to be right even if some mismatch does occur. In fact, Sander supports affirmative action, but calls for us to be mindful that when taken too far, it can backfire on the very students it is meant to help.

Justice Scalia, who passed away on Saturday morning, was a lover of the law and of the constitution. In his eyes, affirmative action was unconstitutional as well as unwise, but other Justices have argued otherwise. We ought to follow the example of our Supreme Court Justices and have a serious discussion about race and affirmative action, a serious discussion in which our governing body does not throw their support to one side only and end the conversation before it starts.