Recently, the Supreme Court issued a ruling against Harvard University’s use of what it called affirmative action.

There is no question that America’s legacies of slavery, of Jim Crow laws, of perhaps well intentioned, but actually socially destructive Great Society programs like AFDC and urban renewal, sharply reduced the life chances of many youth of color.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat Senator from New York, former scholar, actually wrote a book about these legacies and the effect on the black family, which he described as creating the fundamental violent differences that we sometimes see.

Harvard and others tried to redress these legacies through what they called affirmative action. But if you actually look at the data, and how they practiced it, there was nothing affirmative about it. This is what happened. From 1993 through 2014, Asians comprised almost exactly 16 and a half percent of Harvard’s freshman class every single year for 22 years. Sound suspicious?

Well, if you examined their admissions based simply on grades, SATs, scores and extracurricular activity, Asians would have comprised 41% of the class. So a lawsuit was brought, it sure looks like Harvard was using an Asian quota to limit the admission of people from that ethnic group. Harvard, by the way, had done the same thing to Jewish applicants back in the 1920s and early 1930s. Well, the suit produced discovery, and in that discovery, we discovered how Harvard managed to produce such a consistent result. 

In addition to the usual analysis of grades and SATs scores and extracurricular activities, Harvard added something called a personal score. The personal score was determined subjectively by the admissions office. And, not surprisingly, the personal score of Blacks was the highest, Hispanics were next, Whites were next, and Asians were at the bottom. In fact, the score was based on things like likability, courage, kindness. In effect, the Harvard admissions procedure was saying Asians really weren’t very likable, courageous, or kind.

Well, the differences ended up being extreme. If you had an Asian with a 25% chance of admission, based on their grades, SATs and extracurricular activities, and apply that same fact set to Whites, the probability of admission went up to 36%. When applied to Hispanics, same fact set, 77% chance of admission. When applied to Blacks 95% chance of admission. Even under affirmative action, race is supposed to be one factor among many, statistically, that just wasn’t the way it worked out.

Well, needless to say what all this got out, it was kind of embarrassing for Harvard, to have its admissions department basically saying Asians were not likable, courageous or kind — and it did produce a response. The percentage of Asians who were admitted has been creeping up ever since it’s actually gone up 10 full points, even though Harvard won its initial challenge in the appeals court. Embarrassment. Sunshine actually has an effect. 

Well, how did it work out actually after the students were admitted? Now there’s rampant, rampant grade inflation at Harvard. The average grade by the way, is an A minus, but that didn’t make it that didn’t completely eliminate the differences. Asians had a GPA of 3.71, White 3.63, Blacks 3.51. And in terms of the ultimate outcome, what kind of salary did they start with? Once they graduated, 27% of Asians had incomes over $90,000, only 14% of Whites had the same income offer, and only 18, excuse me, 8% of Blacks also made over $90,000. So clearly, that was not exactly an equal result, even after four years of school. And did it work? Well, it turns out Harvard didn’t have a very inclusive environment. Despite all that. 

The Harvard Crimson interviewed the class of 2015. Seventy-four percent of Blacks at Harvard said they felt marginalized because of their race. Sixty-four percent of students in families making less than $60,000 said they felt marginalized because of social class. Again, it was not a very inclusive place, despite all these efforts. 

Oh, one other thing about inclusion at Harvard. On admission, Harvard admitted three times as many liberals as conservatives. On graduation, those numbers were six times as many liberals as conservatives. Apparently, diversity, equity and inclusion does not extend to ideology at Harvard.

The problem here is there are no real easy solutions. How do we make up for those horrible legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, and failed Great Society programs? Well, Harvard tried with basically a superficial but easy solution. Let’s just do quotas. 

The real solution, though, let’s face it, is to improve the life chances of young Black children. This includes programs that involve before and after school care, such as the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York, and it certainly includes things like school choice for parents who want their kids to escape failing schools.

Rather than go for superficial and now unconstitutional approaches that simply discriminate on the basis of race, maybe what we should do is focus on affirmative changes, changes that actually improve the life chances of young black people.

This is Larry Lindsey for Straight Arrow News.