[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 142 (Wednesday, September 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13550-S13551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                BLACK STUDENTS LIVE DOWN TO EXPECTATIONS

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is continued discussion, and will be 
until November 1996 at least, on the whole subject of affirmative 
action.
  My strong belief is that affirmative action has been a good thing 
but, like any good thing, can be abused occasionally. Religion can be 
abused. Education can be abused. But that does not make religion and 
education a bad thing.
  While we were in recess, the New York Times published an op-ed piece 
by Claude M. Steele, a professor of psychology at Stanford University 
and president-elect of the Western Psychological Association.
  It gives a solid analysis of affirmative action at the collegiate 
level.
  It is important enough to call to the attention of my colleagues, who 
may not have seen it, and to others who may read the Congressional 
Record.
  I ask that it be printed in the Record at this point.
  The material follows:
               [New York Times; Thursday, Aug. 31, 1995]

                Black Students Live Down to Expectations

                         (By Claude M. Steele)

       Stanford, CA.--The debate over affirmative action on 
     college campuses has become dangerously distanced from facts. 
     The issue has taken on such an ideological fervor that votes, 
     Presidential and otherwise, are hanging in the balance. In 
     the fray, the image of African-American college students has 
     taken a beating.
       Opponents of affirmative action claim that it pushes 
     African-American students into schools where they can't 
     compete and where, with the stigma they bear as ``special 
     admits,'' they get lower grades and drop out more than other 
     students.
       It is true that these students have their troubles, 
     suffering a college dropout rate hovering near 70 percent 
     (against 40 percent for other students), with lower grades to 
     match. Given such statistics, even supporters of affirmative 
     action have faltered, too unsure themselves about the 
     students' abilities to rise quickly or publicly to their 
     defense.
       In fact, most black college students are in school on the 
     same terms as anyone else, not as a result of any racial 
     preference. Still, as their fate goes, so goes our faith in 
     affirmative action and in the ability of public policy to 
     address racial and social problems. So a few facts and some 
     new evidence can help in addressing some central questions.
       Do the academic troubles of black students stem from their 
     being underprepared for the competition?
       This is a common complaint that has turned into 
     conventional wisdom. But in fact 

[[Page S 13551]]
     there isn't much evidence of it. Very few minority students are 
     admitted to any college beneath that school's cut-off for 
     other students.
       It is true that blacks have lower S.A.T. scores than other 
     entering students. But the deficit in test scores--which are 
     certainly flawed as predictors anyway--doesn't begin to 
     explain why black students are more likely to drop out and 
     get bad grades once they begin college. Besides, this 
     ``underperformance'' is just as common among black students 
     entering with very high test scores and grades as it is among 
     those with weaker credentials.
       One thing is clear: If affirmative action is failing by not 
     producing more successful black college students, it is not 
     because they have been placed where they can't compete.
       If it isn't a lack of preparation, then what is depressing 
     their performance?
       Recent research by my colleagues and me points to a 
     disruptive pressure tied to racial stereotypes that affects 
     these students. The pressure begins simply enough, with a 
     student's knowledge that negative stereotypes about his group 
     could apply to him--that he could be judged by this 
     perception, treated in terms of it, even that he could 
     fulfill it.
       Black students know that the stereotypes about them raise 
     questions about their intellectual ability. Quite beside any 
     actual discriminatory treatment, they can feel that their 
     intelligence is constantly and everywhere on trial--and all 
     this at a tender age and on difficult proving ground.
       They may not believe the stereotype. But it becomes a 
     threating hypothesis that they can grow weary of fending 
     off--much as a white student, for example, can grow weary of 
     fending off the stereotype that his group is racist.
       Everyone is subject to some form of what I call 
     ``stereotype vulnerability.'' The form that black students 
     suffer from can hurt them where it matters, in academic 
     performance. My research with Joshua Aronson shows that 
     ``stereotype vulnerability'' can cost these students many 
     points on exams like the S.A.T.
       Over time, the pressure can push the students to stop 
     identifying with achievement in school. They may even band 
     together in doing this, making ``disidentification'' the 
     pattern. For my money, the syndrome is at the root of black 
     students' troubles in college.
       If affirmative action contributes to this problem, it is 
     less from the policy itself than from its implementation, 
     often through a phalanx of ``minority support'' programs 
     that, however well intended, reinforce negative stereotypes. 
     Almost certainly, there would be persistent, troubling 
     underperformance by minority students even if affirmative 
     action programs were dismantled, just as there was before 
     they existed.
       Is there only reason to believe that affirmative action 
     programs can alleviate this problem?
       In the diagnosis may lie the seeds of a cure: Schools need 
     to reduce the burden of suspicion these students are under. 
     Challenging students works better than dumbing down their 
     education. Framing intelligence as expandable rather than as 
     a set, limiting trait makes frustration a signal to try 
     harder, not to give up. Finally, it is crucial that the 
     college convey, especially through relationships with 
     authoritative adults, that it values them for their 
     intellectual promise and not just because of its own openness 
     to minorities.
       My colleagues (Steven Spencer, Mary Hummel, David Schoem, 
     Kent Harber and Richard Nisbett) and I incorporated these and 
     other principles into a program at the University of Michigan 
     for the last four years. The students, both white and 
     minority, were selected randomly for the project and as 
     freshmen were housed in the same dorm.
       Through workshops and group study, all placing emphasis on 
     the students' intellectual potential, the program eliminated 
     the differential between black and white students' grades in 
     freshman year for the top two-thirds of the black students.
       It helped others as well; 92 percent of all the students in 
     the group, white and black, were still in school after four 
     years.
       The successes of comparable programs--Urie Treisman's math 
     workshops at the University of Texas, Georgia State's pre-
     engineering program, John Johnide's faculty mentoring 
     project, also at Michigan--show that this approach can work.
       But what about reverse discrimination? How much does this 
     policy of inclusion cost in exclusion of others?
       To know if affirmative action is displacing whites in 
     admissions, you have to know if, among comparably qualified 
     applicants, more minorities get in than whites.
       Thomas Kane of Harvard University's Kennedy School of 
     Government found that this seems to happen only in elite 
     colleges, where the average S.A.T. score is above 1,100. 
     These schools make up only 15 percent of our four-year 
     colleges. There was no evidence of preference in admissions 
     among the rest.
       Moreover, in the elite schools, blacks don't often use the 
     preference they get, choosing schools closer to home, 
     perhaps, for various reasons. They rarely exceed 7 percent of 
     the student body at the top schools. Overall, affirmative 
     action causes little displacement of other students--less by 
     far than other forms of preferences, like the one for 
     children of alumni.
       In our society, individual initiative is an indisputable 
     source of mobility. But a stream of resources including 
     money, education and contacts is also important. After all 
     this time, even the black middle class has only tentative 
     access to this stream. Affirmative action in college 
     represents a commitment to fixing this, allowing those with 
     initiative a wider aperture of opportunity.
       If its opponents prevail and affirmative action is dumped, 
     will the same people, so ostensibly outraged by the racial 
     injustice of it, then step forward to address the more 
     profound racial injustices?
       I wouldn't bet on it and, in the meantime, let's talk about 
     this policy frankly and pragmatically: how to improve it, 
     when it should be more inclusive, and how it should be made 
     fairer.
       To dump it now would be to hold some people, just beginning 
     to experience a broader fairness in society, to a tougher 
     standard than the rest of us have had to meet.
     

                          ____________________