Submitted by Luke Lea, Jan 4, 2008 19:27

I have long opposed affirmative action on the usual grounds, but recently have reassessed my position in the case of places like Harvard and Yale. Why? Because these institutions are unique in their mission of selecting and educating our future national cultural elites: tommorow's top journalists, university presidents, foundation heads, Supreme Court clerks, etc.. It is important that the pool from which these elites are chosen "represent" the nation in a way that is not true of our top scientists, doctors, and engineers, or so it seems to me. At present we have semi-affirmative action in these places: meritocracy for minorities that over-perform and affirmative action for those who under-perform. The result is that the mediocre WASP majority -- two-thirds of the total -- is woefully under-represented at places like Harvard and Yale, especially those who hale from rural and red-state parts of the country. This is unhealthy in a democracy. I'd prefer to see the entering classes at places like Harvard and Yale drawn proportionately from every state in the union, with rural and urban areas being considered separately. In other words, each minority would be drawn in proportion to its presence in each of these 100 separate districts. Sure, the numbers of the most highly over-represented minorities would be drastically reduced. On the other hand, the members of those minorities who do get in would include the very best among them, and not only from a few cultural enclaves, but from every state and section of the country. The same would go for every other ethnic minority, to say nothing of the ethnic majority, which is hardly the case today. Remember: there are plenty of highly qualified individuals in every ethnic group, enough to fill their respective quotas in the freshman classes of ten or twelve elite universities: the ones which claim to be -- and need to be -- truly national institutions. In a continental-scale democracy, such as we live in, our cultural elites need to be drawn from, and represent, a cross-section of the population as a whole. That way, they wouldn't end up completely out of touch with the needs and concerns of most ordinary, which is where we are now. I'd say this is a pressing problem, one needs to be addressed quite soon. thanks for listening, James McWhorter and Randall Kennedy -- and please put in a word for us poor WASPS! Luke Lea

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.