A great commentary in the Wall Street Journal today shines light on the rather abusive nature of the American Bar Association's reaccreditation process. George Mason University is used as a case-in-point. The ABA cited GMU's lack of a "significant preferential affirmative action program." Therefore, GMU tripled its minority student population (from 6.5% to 19% in less than 5 years) at the request of the ABA. In essentially a quid pro quo, the ABA made GMU abandon its established acceptance criteria and accept lesser qualified students in order to satisfy the minority quotas and better GMU's reaccreditation odds.
Just by looking at the raw data over that time period, GMU made substantial progress in diversifying its student population at the request of the ABA. This does not even include the number of minorities who were offered acceptance and didn't enroll. In addition, the ABA noted that GMU's intentions were good as it had a longstanding and active effort to recruit minorities. All the while, the ABA dangled their accreditation in front of them as an instrument for the implementing social goals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment