Select by merit, not quotas

by HOWARD M. BERLIN

9/1/2002

When there are societal inequalities, the reaction now is to assume they reflect bias and a federal investigation is needed.

Although disparities may be of valid concern at times, disproportionate representation and the need to mirror the population as a remedy is often loaded with hypocrisy. For example, much has been written about the underrepresentation of blacks at all levels in the Delaware State Police, though blacks are 19.2 percent of the state's population.

The Brandywine School District's gifted student program has come under fire. Its enrollment is 96 percent white. The district study body is 33 percent black.

Let's assume there is some bias that explains the disparity in these two examples. If so, is there also bias if a minority group is grossly overrepresented? The claim that disproportionate representation is caused by bias fails when one considers those minority groups who are high achievers and overrepresented.

In the early 1920s, Jews were only 2 percent of the population, but made up 40 percent of the students at Columbia University, and 21 percent at Harvard. Because Jews were awarded a disproportionately large share of the academic prizes and inductions to Phi Beta Kappa, Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell proposed in 1922 that Jewish enrollment be limited to 15 percent.

In the early 1980s, Asians were similarly treated by the University of California system. UC had a hidden quota limiting the number of Asian undergraduate students, which exceeded the number of white students, especially at UCLA and Berkeley, its top two schools.

In California, non-Latino whites outnumber Asians nearly six to one. But UC Asian students outnumber whites 40 percent to 38 percent, and are increasing.

Those claiming bias for imbalances conveniently exclude Asians from the mix when trying to explain why minorities don't perform as well academically as whites, according to graduation rates, grades and standardized tests.

Why doesn't the same concern also apply to sports? Nationally, blacks are 12.3 percent of the population but make up more than 65 percent of National Football League and 75 percent of National Basketball Association players.

Division I college men's basketball teams such as those led by successful black coaches John Thompson at Georgetown and John Chaney at Temple seem to have all black players while the schools were predominately white. According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association, blacks now make up 55 percent of men's basketball players and the free-ride scholarships at Division I schools, compared with 34.6 percent for white players.

When black college and professional athletes are overrepresented, why are there no federal investigations about the dearth of white, Asian, or Hispanic players? Maybe there is nothing wrong with this difference and there is no bias. It could be that these black players are simply the best, the most talented.

It's a meritocracy, you say, the same concept of excellence that Jews, Asians and others have displayed at Harvard and Berkeley but on a different playing field. But did coaches consider recruiting premier white, Asian or Hispanic players?

So much for these double standards.

Requiring that the population be mirrored often sets up unqualified individuals to fail and provides easy ammunition for opponents of recruiting. We must be blind to color because discrimination in any form is wrong. Selection by merit, instead of affirmative action racial quotas, is the only fair way.

Howard M. Berlin, of Wilmington, is a college educator of electrical engineering and a member of The News Journal Community Advisory Board.