Thomas Friedman has written that a society which gives privilege to men over women is actually bad for its men, because “it builds in them a sense of entitlement that discourages what it takes to improve, to advance, and to achieve.” I find it odd that the same progressive thinkers who agree with Friedman’s analysis with respect to Arab nations never comment on the instances of the same phenomenon in our society. Maybe they just don’t notice because we give it such a positive-sounding name – affirmative action.
Usual criticisms of affirmative action center on ethnic issues (i.e. how collegiate admissions discriminate against Asian Americans even though they have been subject to the same disadvantages for which affirmative action is supposed to compensate), but I’m going to focus on the one minority group we can all agree to dislike – men.
It’s true that, at nearly 50 percent of the world’s population, men aren’t usually underrepresented – after all, they’re everywhere, taking a majority of the top spots in business, politics, academia and even The Daily’s Forum columnists. Given these disproportionate figures, one would think that elite universities would be bending over backwards to admit more women.
But they’re not. While women make up 56 percent of undergraduates nationally, more than 66 percent of colleges receive more female applications than male. Even though more women are attending college nationwide, many of those same colleges are actually giving preferential admissions treatment to men – Northwestern included.
So why, after all the Gender Studies departments and no confidence votes in Larry Summers, would these colleges voluntarily give men a leg up in their admissions processes? Surely it’s not for that nebulous, discussion-section-esque “perspective” which is so often used to justify affirmative action programs (“Well, as a man, I think I have some unique insights as to what Shakespeare was trying to say here…”).
Though some might be loath to admit it, the sad truth is that once a university’s gender makeup hits 60 percent female, it begins to get a reputation as a “girl’s” school, making it generally less appealing to prospective males and females alike. In essence, this institutes a two-tiered degree system which prospective employers, if they are smart, will not ignore. As a male, I was subject to lower admission standards, and I can reasonably expect my degree to mean a little bit less on my resume.
A study of the University of California San Diego since affirmative action was banned there in 1996 found that one ethnic group’s graduation rates had doubled by 2001. This would seem to mesh with Friedman’s argument that those with ‘privileges’ actually experience net harm – what good does it do to let a male into an elite university if he suffers low grades and self-esteem, eventually dropping out? Maybe we should take this a step further and implement affirmative action in our grading – since I’m not quite as smart as NU’s female students, couldn’t I just get a half-letter grade added to my Gender Studies paper this week? Please?
Music senior Braxton Boren can be reached at [email protected].
