Do Blacks Need Special
Help to Get Ahead?

Harvard Students Have Civilized but Heated Debate

By Geraldine Hawkins
February 28, 2003

Do blacks need special help in order to survive?

This was debated in a remarkably civilized but heated discussion at Harvard University on Wednesday, with Harvard Democrats contending that affirmative action has given a boost to minorities and women while Harvard Republicans argued that the policy has harmed minority applicants who are perceived as having been hired for the color of their skin.

One of the Republicans, Sophomore Josh Barro told the audience, "In the early 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. said he dreamed of the day when his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. But today, if Martin Luther King's grandchildren applied to the University of Michigan, they would be given twenty points for the color of their skin." Barro is a son of free-market economist Robert J. Barro, Professor of Economics at Harvard and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

"In America, we perceive ourselves as a meritocracy," Barro said. "Why then do we engage in racial preferences?"

He maintained that diversity is automatically brought to an institution like Harvard through students with different viewpoints and places of origin. "It is simplistic to say that race should be the rubric by which to judge that. We should move through that to a truly color-blind society. We need not use the crude rubric of race."

Charles Moore, a black student, argued that affirmative action is about expanding opportunities for students and about enriching the environment of colleges. "A university cannot advance knowledge without different perspectives. Affirmative action has worked for minorities and women - in fact, the primary beneficiary of affirmative action has been white, middle-class women. . Race is no worse a quota than having a quota for legacies or for people from Nebraska or Alabama."

Moore added that the only criticisms of affirmative action have come from conservative think tanks and that it was an attack on minority groups.

Andrew Frank, an undergraduate from Glenn Ellyn, Illinois, argued for the Democrats that diversity is a compelling interest in and of itself. He used the example of Cambridge public schools, which have a great many minority students, as a place where diversity itself has bred tolerance. "In Cambridge schools, students say they have no fear of anybody; and they are comfortable with different races."

Frank said that because of inherent inequalities in society, black and Hispanic students are at a disadvantage. "We cannot have a meritocracy where it is not an equal playing field, and it is intellectually dishonest to say that it is. . We need a race-based system for the present. It might not seem fair, but in the overall interest of society, it is desirable."

Is Affirmative Action Constitutional?

Duncan Currie, a junior, raised the question of whether affirmative action is Constitutional, maintaining that it is contrary to both the 14th Amendment and to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Is diversity so compelling that it justifies violating the Constitution?"

Currie was asked by a student in the audience if he would be in favor of affirmative action if the Constitution could be adjusted in order to make way for it. He answered that he didn't see how this could be done without repealing the 14th Amendment.

Currie also took exception to the idea that diversity was necessary in order to sustain a great university. "Harvard was producing great students back in the days when they didn't allow any minorities - not that that was a good thing," he hastened to add, "but those arguments don't add up."

Currie said that one of the most pernicious things about affirmative action is that being black or Hispanic is seen as "a personality type." He mentioned Condoleeza Rice, who in her speech in 2000 to the Republican National Convention said that after having grown up in the Jim Crow South, what drew her to the Republican Party, rather than to the Democrats, was that the Republicans saw her as an individual, rather than as a member of a minority group.

The question of legacies was raised more than once during the course of the debate. When a student is not necessarily a better-than-average scholar or athlete, but several generations or members of his family have attended the university, the student is sometimes admitted as a "legacy." (Senator Edward M. Kennedy entered Harvard in 1950 as a legacy.)

"Athletic scholarships and legacies may seem unfair, but they are not illegal or unconstitutional," said Duncan Currie. "Such a small number of students comprise alumni preferences [legacies] that it is hardly a good comparison. Besides, athletic prowess is an achievement. Being black is not."

Andrew Frank countered with: "If you are going to repeal affirmative action then you need to repeal legacies. We should repeal legacies, because in terms of fairness, they are totally bogus."

Deep Problems Caused by Destruction of Family

Currie said that the deeper problems in the black community are not addressed by affirmative action. "The out-of-wedlock birthrate for blacks is near 70 percent," he said. "It all starts with the family structure."

Barro concurred. "The Democrats seem to think that applying a racial quota can paper over the dire problems that exist in urban secondary schools. I'm a psychology major, and what is drummed into our heads over and over is that correlation is not causation. It is a pernicious attitude which says that being black is automatically a disadvantage. A disadvantage is being from a single-parent family in a failing inner-city school. We would push for school-choice and - the dreaded 'V' word - vouchers."

Matt Prasse, a sophomore, asked the Democrats on the panel if they would push the administration to hire more conservative faculty, since, "There is no diversity in ideology on the faculty."

Andrew Frank answered that conservatives "tend to be wary of higher education. They are drawn more to think tanks and private institutions, because conservatives like private things."

In summing up for the Republicans, Duncan Currie said that affirmative action is a mistake because, "Race is the most superficial of ways to judge a person. It devalues minority achievement and poisons race relations. Diversity problems can be overcome based on socioeconomic background rather than race."

For the Democrats, Charles Moore said that, "Even middle-class minorities are at a disadvantage in terms of the way society looks at them," and Frank maintained, "It's a matter of what's best for society, rather than who deserves what."

The debate contained many humorous moments, such as when the Harvard Republican Club banner mysteriously fell askew when the Democrats seemed to have scored a point, and when Charles Moore removed his jacket to reveal a Michigan T-shirt while the merits of that state's university admissions system were discussed. At one point, the American flag itself fell sideways and was folded in proper fashion by Josh Mendelsohn of Harvard Republicans.

Mark Silvestri, an officer of Harvard Republicans, sported a T-shirt that featured a verse from the Bible: Ecclesiastes 10:2: "The wise man's understanding turns him to his right; the fool's understanding turns him to his left."