Supreme Court affirmative action decision: Don't be

fooled by flawed theories

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
One of the most specious arguments the Supreme Court has heard in the Fisher v. University of Texas affirmative action case deals
with 'mismatch theory.' It says affirmative action harms minorities because it puts them in universities where they are outmatched
by their peers.
By Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Op-ed contributor / May 28, 2013
GRINNELL, IOWA
The Supreme Courts much-awaited decision on affirmative action in the Fisher v. University of Texas case could be handed
down as soon as this Tuesday, May 28. The court and the public have heard a host of arguments both for and against the
practice. One opposing argument in particular has been more specious than many of the others.
For nearly a decade, UCLA Law professor Richard Sander has demanded an overhaul of affirmative action practices at
colleges and universities, citing his own research on the mismatch theory. According to Mr. Sanders theory, affirmative
action harms blacks and Latinos because it pushes them into situations (elite universities) where their peers outmatch them in
standardized test scores. This mismatch, Sander claims, leads to underperformance, which then leads to the students failure
to achieve their ultimate goals.
Scholars have been quick to point out holes in the mismatch argument. For example, scholars have highlighted how Sanders
research fails to capture the complexities of admissions decisionmaking, which is not simply based on test scores, but instead
involves holistic reviews of the many well-qualified students who are vying for limited seats at competitive institutions.
Scholars also have noted how Sanders analysis does not adequately take into account the impact of hostile racial
environments (at elite institutions) on student performance. They have further noted how the mismatch theory improperly rests
on one narrow view of merit, failing to acknowledge the many ways in which different students may be mismatched against
one another. Other research shows that students who enter elite institutions under affirmative action policies excel even
more than their white peers.
Indeed, as anyone who has attended college will tell you, there are a plethora of factors that determine a students success or
struggle in college. And my own experiences as a parent have taught me that, when children are outmatched, they often
grow the most both in confidence and ability.
Recently, my 10-year-old daughter reminded me of this very point when she engaged in actions that demonstrated exactly
why Sanders mismatch theory fails in many instances. Unlike most girls, my daughter has maintained an interest in math,
robotics, and numerous other things that her physics professor father is geekily proud of and, more important, that boys seem
to dominate even at the tender age of 10.
This year, my daughter joined the chess club. Having never played chess before and having parents who were not chess
players, she was initially outmatched by her peers, most of whom had been playing for years. However, over time and with
training and the constant challenge of being outmatched, she has become one of the stronger players in her group.
Like thousands of college students who have benefited from affirmative action programs over the past three decades, my
daughter possessed the native intelligence and skill for the program she was joining. Having the additional challenge of being
outmatched brought out the best in her and pushed her to excel. As my former colleague Alan Brownstein from the University
of California, Davis School of Law once said to me, Mismatch is what we want for our kids.
Indeed, those of us who are parents tell our children to seek mismatches all the time. When our children want to improve their
basketball skills, we do not tell them, Play basketball with kids who play just at your level or lower. Instead, we say, Find the
best players because playing with them will improve your skills. It will make you better, stronger, wiser.
Of course, as parents, we know that there are limits to what our children can achieve. Some kids may not be able to make the
varsity team or the honor society. Still, they also cannot know their own limits until they confront challenges that test their
capabilities and their determination. If they have the fortitude and the raw talent to take on these challenges, we should not
slam the door in their faces and tell them that we are so sure they will fail that we refuse to even give them the opportunity to
prove us wrong.
In their book The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions,
William Bowen and Derek Bok, former presidents of Princeton University and Harvard University, respectively, confirmed that
our parental instinct to encourage mismatches is on the mark. The books data revealed that racial minority students who
benefited from affirmative action at elite schools graduated at higher rates than those at less selective institutions. And they
earned advanced degrees at rates similar to their white peers.
The data that Mr. Bowen and Mr. Bok highlight also show that such students contributed to civic and community activities after
college more than their white counterparts and made significant achievements in business and government upon graduation.
These findings are further affirmed by the work featured in the book Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at
America's Public Universities by Bowen; Matthew Chingos, a Brookings Institution fellow; and Michael S. McPherson, a
former president of Macalester College.
Crossing the Finish Line revealed that students who are undermatched meaning students who attended a college that
was less selective than their credentials would have allowed them to attend (and thus should have been easier for them)
graduated at a lower rate than those students who matched meaning students who attended a college that was as
selective as their credentials would have allowed them to attend.
As this research shows, success in college, and later in life, is about more than just numbers; it is about resources, support of
intellectual development, environment, networks, and numerous other factors.
In fact, as many of our parenting experiences have taught us, mismatches are not just good for the outmatched, but also for
the overmatched meaning those students at elite institutions with ample qualifications and privileged backgrounds. Much
like Justice Sandra Day O Connor highlighted in Grutter v. the University of Michigan Law School, the overmatched benefit
just as greatly from their diverse surroundings in elite institutions as the outmatched.
After all, through interactions with a diverse student body, they learn about different life experiences, the importance of working
with others, and the strength that can come through diversity within teams.
Instead of bemoaning mismatches (and affirmative action policies), we should be striving to foster them.
Angela Onwuachi-Willig is the Charles and Marion Kierscht Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law. She
teaches and writes in the fields of anti-discrimination law and critical race theory. Her forthcoming book, According to Our
Hearts: Rhinelander v. Rhinelander and the Law of the Multiracial Family (Yale University Press), will be released in June.