In the interest of fairness

The Supremes should announce decisions this week in several areas critical to our view of ourselves as a land of equal opportunity.

Decisions regarding the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Prop 8 should go a long way toward restating our commitment to equal protection, even for folks whose orientation or lifestyle some consider ‘wrong’. In a larger sense, these rulings will send a message regarding the current Court’s ability to see beyond the sectarian arguments of the Christian Right and to reaffirm the fact that this is a pluralistic society in which preference and prejudice – even if seemingly aligned with the best interests of a majority in some states - cannot be allowed to trump the inclusion of all in the benefits of community. The whole gay marriage question will eventually be resolved on consideration of equal protection and full faith and credit, but we won’t get there without an appropriate ruling on each of the cases extant.

I’ve written plenty about this topic, so I won’t go farther in this post. And I won’t get into a discussion of the reconsideration of the Voter Rights Act because frankly, I can see both sides and it’s clear to me that no matter how they decide on the case extant, this won’t be the last word on the subject. No, it’s the other big ‘un slated to be announced this week that is in my mind pivotal to all other considerations of social justice.

Running up to the end of the session as we are, the Supremes are expected to rule on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, and it seems to me that the framing of the argument on both sides is misstated. In fact, I believe the wrong concept is being argued. (Abigail Fisher applied and was rejected in 2008 and has filed suit based on her assertion that the university's consideration of race didn't meet standards previously set by the high court.) The currently relevant ruling (2003, Grutter v. Bollinger), as a result of which the consideration of race is required to be part of a  ‘holistic’ approach to admissions decisions, was decided with Sandra Day O’Connor as the swing vote. Conservatives are taking another turn at bat now that O’Connor has retired.

While I could offer impassioned comments regarding the current case I won’t, because I think the whole question of racially-based college admissions misses the point in both ethical and practical terms. Also, because with Kagan having recused herself, it’s entirely possible that the Court will be split, anyhow, rendering the whole thing moot until a more clearly egregious abuse reaches the Court on a future calendar.

What I will share with you is my belief that the whole idea of trying to correct years of educational inequalities at the level of college admissions is both tragic and ineffective. In fact, it’s tragic specifically because it’s so clearly ineffective.

As a quality trainer, I spend a lot of my work life helping folks understand how to make their business processes better. Frequently, I find myself emphasizing the basic concept that it’s easier to do things right in the first place than to correct them once the train has come off the track.

If a fairly low-level business trainer such as me understands this, why is this idea so apparently unreachable by our Federal and various state legislatures, our Federal and various state departments responsible for education, our school boards and the communities they serve? 

I’ve previously stated my belief that the first, inescapable duty and purpose of any government is to organize resources so as to provide for its citizens those things that are necessary collectively but unattainable individually. Surely, we can agree that education – in this country in which the framers identified an educated electorate as fundamental to a democracy – is the foundation upon which all else rests. But education itself rests on a progressive foundation that starts in kindergarten or first grade.

When a child has been forsaken by a system designed to move him along rather than ensuring the transfer of knowledge and building of skill sets, we end up with the current situation in which a student’s preparation for college is determined not as much by the student’s latent talent or even hard work as by the accident of birth that placed him or her in a particular school district. Yes, there are kids from the projects who shine and kids from gated communities who fail to reach their potential. But the exceptions in this case fall short of defining the rule.

In this case, I believe correlation and causation are one and the same. I don’t believe any kid starts school hoping to end up semi-literate and ill equipped for a successful adulthood. The kids who attend substandard schools by and large end up undereducated. A kid who’s never read a chapter book is probably not going to score 1300-plus on the SAT.

Our elementary and middle and secondary schools should be oases of learning, no matter where situated. Every kid should have a kindergarten teacher like Anne McDermott and a high school math teach like Mark Gingrich. Every school should look like the ones my daughters attended. And every student should have a fifth grade teacher like Amy Gottlieb and a mentor like Kim Herzog. My kids were blessed to attend the first twelve years of school in arguably the top public school district in the country. I wonder how we would have helped them access their dreams in a district with discouraged teachers, uninvolved parents and outdated, ratty books.

Mary and I worked our butts off to afford to live in this district and we were involved and encouraging and (we like to think) inspiring. But what if we weren’t those parents? Doesn’t this national community owe a stellar – or at the least, adequate – education to children who weren’t raised by the McDermotts? Or who didn’t have Marilyn or Anne or Pam or Cathy or Sindy or Sherree or… as parents? Isn’t this one of those areas that is enhanced by great parenting but in which we as a community must still deliver for the kid in the absence of a great home life?

Our great failure lies not in how we frame college admissions but rather in the horrific fact that many of our kids, arguably including some of our potentially best minds, are being wasted in a morass of failed programs and low expectations. Force-fitting a kid with inadequate preparation into a college program for which he or she is not prepared may arise from good intentions, but it should not be allowed to distract us from the inconvenient truth.

We fail the kid when we fail to prepare him or her, not in the finishing room. I believe that race-based college admissions are inescapably discriminatory, no matter how well intentioned. All applicants should be considered on the basis of preparation and innate ability. But in order for that approach to be fair, every kid has to be provided with the opportunity to arrive at the college steps ready to make the place his or her own.