rimination at Stanford: Then and Now // John Hinderaker
Stanford has published a 75-page report about its discrimination against Jews during the 1950s. Marc Tessier Lavigne, the University President, issued an apology for past practices.
John Rosenberg, who writes at DISCIPLINATIONS, asks the question: How much has Stanford changed?
Someone should ask him why believes that the policy of limiting the number of Jews was wrong. Is he truly a believer in the principle that administrators violated in the 1950s, that applicants should be treated equally regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity? This would be impossible since Stanford has been practicing affirmative action for many years. It involves raising and lowering admissions standards based on race and ethnicity to promote diversity, much like the “balance” President Sterling sought in the 1950s.
The current Stanford undergraduate student body is 25% Asian, and only 28% are white (the “underrepresented” group). Stanford is again on record defending preferential treatment of admissions (its briefing in the Harvard/University of North Carolina case is here). It appears to be practicing what it preaches by considering race and ethnicity. If it is okay to deny admission to certain Asian and white applicants, which would have been possible if Stanford had “paid no attention to their race or ethnicity,” what was wrong with Stanford’s old practice restricting the number Jews? What principle did it violate which is not also infringed by today’s?
Although the Stanford report is impressive, it has its limitations. Its failure to recognize that its policy of excluding Jews from Stanford and other similar institutions is not only similar to theirs, but almost identical. The old defenses and descriptions–creating balance, judging each candidate individually, denying the quotas- are still in use. In fact, Rixford Snyder, Frederic Glover, and Wallace Sterling should be recognized as creating Stanford’s first affirmative action program–preferential treatment for non-Jewish applicants.
I wonder if Stanford is still discriminating against Jews. They are white, they aren’t?
Rosenberg points out that Stanford’s administration in the 1950s lied. They claimed they didn’t discriminate against Jews, that there were no quotas and that all applicants were treated equally. Now Stanford’s discrimination is proud with “diversity” policies that allocate places based on race.
President Tessier Lavigne, again, what was wrong with Stanford’s then-stated policy “paying no attention” to race or religion? And your predecessor Wallace Sterling’s violation of it? In fact, his violation reveals that he recognizes the power of non-discrimination colorblind; he didn’t want Stanford to be seen violating this principle. However, today’s Stanford and its peer universities not only violate this principle in practice, but also reject it.
Things have been downhill in this regard since the 1950s.
Rosenberg’s piece is linked at the link. It contains many more interesting information.
