By Another Name

I am one of those people who receives a Google Alert whenever my name appears on the worldwide web. Sometimes, I receive "old" alerts or previously posted material that undergoes a URL or other technical change. Today I received one of those "old" alerts on a college op-ed I wrote for the former left-wing magazine I co-founded with Julian called the W&M Progressive. I must have written this spring semester, junior year (2006) in the days when I was going to be a sociologist. It reminded me of the Tavis Smiley podcast I listened to this morning on the housing crisis impact on communities of color--the theme of old racism by a new name.

Understanding 'Standardized Racism' by Richael Faithful

If I cannot serve any other purpose at William and Mary than combating subtle racism, I might consider myself extremely useful. It is usually the implicit signs which make me a self-conscious black student at this majority institution, however, occasionally, I am impressed to witness the silent pervasiveness of intellectualized racism on campus. This form of racism is the only acceptable type at the College, which is equally encouraging and menacing.

But recently, I was struck by claims in the final Remnant issue article which discussed “SAT Diversity.” Although I have reached the point of not dignifying many of their arguments, I found this particular argument threatening because it seemed reasonable on its surface. In other words, it seemed believable even though it was starving of facts, and lacked sufficient clarity. I was afraid other people would actually believe this, so I wanted to respond to the article while pointing out how many of these arguments reveal prejudicial attitudes—a normalized type of intellectual racism, which I call “standardized racism”.

Standardized racism is an originally coined term for overstatements about the implications of the widely known black-white test score gap. The Remnant article hyperbolized the issue by claiming that lower SAT scores of some black students necessarily make them less qualified applicants. That’s bogus. Let us briefly review the black-white test score gap topic, popular explanations, and how this reasoning is inappropriately linked to affirmative action.

The test score gap represents patterns of minority under-achievement and continues to be a well-documented phenomenon. African-Americans currently score lower than European Americans on vocabulary, reading, and mathematic tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence. This gap appears before children enter kindergarten and persists into adulthood. However, when scores are comparable, figures show that blacks are more likely to complete college than whites (a subject we will discuss later)1.

The body of literature shows that often urban and rural students, regardless of race perform worse than suburban students. When race is factored in, blacks still under-perform across the board, especially poor blacks, and those who live in the South. The desegregation of the American public school system drew attention to a significant gap between the achievements of black and white students. As concern over this gap increased, various interventions were attempted to raise black students’ test scores. Some progress was made over the years, but the differences were not eradicated. 2.

New data on the achievement gap between black and white high school students in desegregated, suburban, middle-class schools add to the complexity of the issue3. These results imply that social class is not an adequate explanation for the achievement gap. The black-white achievement difference remains a defining mark of racial inequality in public education today. These are not controversial claims.

Nevertheless, how we assemble the complex puzzle to explain this under-achievement and its meanings has spurred pluralistic, and sometimes, contentious discussion (although, the truth of the matter probably borrows from a combination of theories.) Some of the most popular are the stereotype threat theory, economic/social/human/cultural capital deficiency theory, organization theory, and effects of de-segregation theory. Regardless of explanations, consistent patterns of minority test under-performance, particularly on the SATs has alerted red flags for educators. The conclusion: by no means alone can the SAT be a standard for college preparedness (nor has it ever been for that matter.)

One of the fundamental shortcomings of the Remnant article was its failure to qualify the importance of standardized tests in the admissions process. John Williams exposes this over-attribution by explaining that “the problem with such fears [that blacks with low test scores replace “qualified” whites] is that they inadequately reflect ways colleges and universities actually operate, and overlook the existence of race discrimination. Where admissions standards are concerned, it is by no means clear that admissions officers at white campuses consider a SAT score of 750 as a minimum acceptable standard. In fact, considerable disagreement exists among college admission professionals, and many public institutions which were previously segregated do not consider a minimum SAT score for any student, a relevant fact to bear over, SAT officials argue strongly that SAT scores should be used along with other indicators for adequately projecting college performance. Using them to establish minimum standards involves using them incorrectly.”

Yet small, selective colleges and universities (which tend to be the only institutions that practice affirmative action; see Source of the River citation below)4 have minimum standards—which all seriously considered applicants must meet. This refutes the frequent charge that “less-qualified” black applicants take the place of a “qualified” white applicants (this is presumptuous in itself.) A black applicant may or may not have a lower SAT score but this does not mean that they are competitive on other levels, or offer different strengths to the pool (white students are admitted under these same standards.) Therefore, it’s fallacious to confound the relationship between the test score gap and affirmative action. The SAT is one of many factors, and affirmative action only affects holistically qualified applicants, black or white.

What is more is that racial (often racist) attitudes which underlie claims of prototypical “less-qualified” black applicant. As it turns out the profile of a black applicant to attend William and Mary are amongst the most competitive in the country. As a result, the likely beneficiaries of affirmative action tend to over-achieve compared to other black students, studies show. One recent study was featured in the Chronicle for Higher Education in 2004. According to the results of a study presented in August at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, “Black and Hispanic students are more likely to finish college if they attend a relatively selective institution—even if that means they are surrounded by “better-prepared” students.” Counter to the “argument [that] posits that affirmative action programs place black and Hispanic students in academic environments for which they are unprepared, and that such students therefore become demoralized and drop out at relatively high rates, Ms. Alon and Ms. Tienda found, however, that while black and Hispanic students at selective colleges did drop out at relatively high rates (due to other non-academic reasons), equally prepared black and Hispanic students who choose less-selective colleges are even more likely to drop out.” The final determination is that “we found no evidence that race-sensitive admissions practices have any disadvantage whatsoever for minority students.”

Evidence points toward SAT scores as being poor indicators of first-year success when considered alone; otherwise qualified black applicants might be considered competitive, though, this might be true for white applicants without suspicious discernable test patterns; and black applicants who enter into selective institutions are actually more likely than their counterparts to graduate even if they attend amongst better-prepared students, or white students who score higher on the SATs. Thus, telling black students with lower SAT scores (notice that I said “lower” and not “low”) that they are not qualified to be here is a bias opinion, and one based on racist attitudes, not fact. It is irresponsible, and dare I say, just racist rhetoric.

Finally, SAT “diversity” is merely an abuse of an already diluted term. The imprecision in language reflects an imprecision in analysis. Taking a superficial glance at data and drawing poorly-informed interpretations is insulting to an intellectual environment, and takes on a corrupting guise. Guys, leave your racist thoughts to yourselves, because frankly, the campus, and this affirmative action beneficiary is tired of hearing it.



Post-script: I've long considered this topic and affirmative action as very personal issues. I'm an affirmative action baby myself. I've also have always had lower test scores, including on the SAT and LSAT, and I am yet to be convinced that either test has indicated much about my future.