To the Editor:

I was glad to learn that Timothy Maguire [“My Bout With Affirmative Action,” April], who caused consternation in the Washington area by his “revelations” that the Georgetown Law Center not only engaged in affirmative action, but also had quotas, has landed on his feet. . . . I would like to add some footnotes to Mr. Maguire’s informative article.

After several weeks of trying to keep the Law Center’s practices and handling of the matter intramural, Dean Judith Areen finally went public in an unusually long op-ed piece in—where else?—the liberal Washington Post of Sunday, May 26, 1991. (I mention the day of the week only because the Sunday edition is the one most widely read.) The Post, of course, was at all times sympathetic to Dean Areen and the Law Center’s practices. . . .

In her statement. . . Dean Areen proudly proclaimed that in selecting 625 lucky students for admission out of the 9,000 applications received at Georgetown, LSAT scores and college grades are not major considerations. Rather, “diversity” is the key, with race and ethnicity “playing a central role.” Diversity, however, is not limited to race and ethnicity; there is also “diversity of gender, age, geography as well as individual accomplishments of all kinds.” Among such “accomplishments” are overcoming disability or poverty or educational adversity or difficult family problems. . . .

Dean Areen maintained that there has been “no conflict between diversity and academic excellence, . . .” and that “the achievements of our graduates attest to the success of our admission policy and academic program.” But instead of citing facts and Figures to support this conclusion, she simply proclaimed that the school’s policy “is morally correct, benefits all our students, improves the quality of the education we provide, and serves the nation and the bar as well.” . . .

Of particular interest was Dean Areen’s concession that the subject raises important issues for Georgetown and the nation. She announced that she had appointed a “Task Force on Community and Diversity” (with names carefully omitted) “to promote full and open discussion of the matter,” and reiterated in conclusion that “our affirmative-action commitment . . . will not waver.” . . .

The appointment of such a task force under the circumstances would appear to be superfluous, and attempts to reason with Dean Areen’s mindset would appear to be wasted effort. I would say that Mr. Maguire’s mission is by no means finished and the admission policies of all major law schools could stand closer scrutiny.

Robert J. Rosenthal
Washington, D.C.

_____________

To the Editor:

Timothy Maguire’s article is typical of the victim-of-the-politically-correct-liberal-establishment wing of social commentary begun with that fearless crusader for American values, Dinesh D’Souza. Although the article is long on personal complaints, it admittedly contains serious questions regarding the ultimate effectiveness of affirmative-action programs, and whether pragmatism should take precedence over ideology in crafting such programs.

Unfortunately, Mr. Maguire’s lack of a serious alternative to the current system calls into question whether he has the best interests of all involved at heart, or is simply content with displaying his dirty laundry before a national audience. For instance, after glossing over the criteria involved in current selection processes, he contends that law-school administrators are creating “student bodies unrepresentative of the American population.” The suggestion that minority students are somehow bound to the values of the administrators who admitted them is condescending and irresponsible. . . . Ironically, Mr. Maguire might be implicitly suggesting that programs which promote balanced racial representation should be scrapped in favor of policies that institute affirmative action for conservatives! . . .

I believe it is all right to criticize and modify a policy that produces alienation in the group it most seeks to benefit; however, it is equally ill-conceived to think that educational disparities can be solved by law-school Social Darwinism. This condones the endless cycle of elite prep school to elite undergraduate institution to elite law school that ultimately condemns minorities to second-class status. It is therefore incumbent upon the critic of affirmative action to develop policies to reduce the inequities that separate our suburban (predominantly white) and urban (predominantly black and Hispanic) schools. If this can be accomplished, affirmative action can become a thing of the past, rather than a necessary evil.

Brett Norbraten
Georgetown, Texas

_____________

Timothy Maguire writes:

As Robert J. Rosenthal’s letter demonstrates, law-school administrators do not merely defend affirmative action by asserting a need for more black lawyers. Instead, they claim all manner of superficially attractive justifications for “diversity.” One of these is that the law-school community should reflect the larger national community. I say only that since law-school communities do not reflect the national community in ideology, class, or cultural values, why must they do so in relation to race? If blacks, conservatives, Idaho farm boys, poor immigrants, or self-made entrepreneurs can make unique contributions to a student body and have academic credentials which suggest they will compete successfully in class, they should all be considered more carefully than the archetypal white male prep-school graduates. However, unlike Brett Norbraten, I see no “pragmatism” in affirmative-action policies that lead law schools to admit persons who will routinely be outperformed by their fellow students.

Nor do I suggest that minority students are “somehow bound” to the views of administrators. But, unfortunately, students of all races and both genders hew to the liberal orthodoxy which is pervasive at prestigious law schools—and often for reasons unrelated to the merits of liberalism. Common are stories such as that of one of my Georgetown law classmates—a black conservative—who feared openly criticizing affirmative action because “my black friends would throw stones at me.”

Finally, I can best answer Mr. Norbraten’s well-meant call for critics of affirmative action to offer alternatives by repeating the response Thomas Sowell (in his book, Preferential Policies: An International Perspective) offers when asked this question: “No one who extinguishes a forest fire or removes a cancer has to ‘replace’ it with anything. We are well rid of evils.”