What the proposal is and isn’t

 The proposal to ban the SAT at Pitzer is not an indictment of Pitzer admissions.  Except in one regard which I will get to.  It is about "doing the right thing" as an institution of higher education.  It is about taking a stand on the basis of a moral analysis of our society, of higher education, and of the SAT.

 The proposal is about urging Pitzer College to be the kind of place that takes a stand.  It is about moving Pitzer into the "mouse that roared" for social justice.  It is about making Pitzer a place that lives up to its own creed.

 The SAT debate is on the front-burner in American higher education.  Hundreds if not thousands of colleges and universities are currently engaged in this debate.  UC Systemwide is taking a long and close look at the use of the SAT in college admissions.

 How will this national debate end?  It will be interesting to find out.

 The SAT debate is a challenge to Pitzer.  Win or lose, I am very excited about how the decision will determine Pitzer's "identity."

 I wish for Pitzer to be at the forefront of doing the right thing, for getting the attention that we deserve in the national press for being as audacious as my resolution.

What is Wrong with the SAT?

 The facts speak for themselves:  SATs demonstrate very large and very reliable ethnic/racial group differences.  For the 20 years of data collection, Blacks have averaged more than 100 points below the average for Whites on both the verbal and math portions.  This is over 200 points combined.  This is a very large difference.  It is persistent.

 The pattern and size of difference parallels very closely the differences on so-called IQ tests.  In fact, the SAT is thought of as a proxy (substitute) for IQ by many in the academy.  And they use it to make pernicious claims about the supposed inferiority of Black people (and others).

 But the problems with the race and IQ thesis is not just the fallacious biological reasoning, but also the measuring instruments themselves.  Just as nature and nurture are hopelessly confounded, so too are the measuring tools hopelessly embedded within a particular cultural/environmental matrix.

 Maybe the SAT test is a perfectly fine instrument.  It perfectly reflects the opportunity structure in our society, with respect to schooling, and produces very large and very reliable racial differences.  It is no surprise that Blacks have abysmal scores, on average, followed by other discriminated-against minority groups.

 Today, in Los Angeles, some Black (and Latino and poor others) students attend schools where they have no books and no regular teacher.  This is not to say that they are not competent, hard working, ambitious, and capable people.  But it is to say that they are not going to do well on the SATs.  And they don't do well.

 And some of the truly ambitious ones don't apply to schools requiring the SAT, and there is the problem with the SAT as it pertains to Pitzer College.

 The SAT is a test that is unfair to the same people that this country has been unfair to since its inception:  Blacks, Native Americans, Latinos, women, the linguistically diverse, test phobics, and poor people.

 The use of the test, speaking broadly and nationally, inescapably contributes to the reproduction of status inequalities among the races.  It is a "prime mover" in this continuation of institutionalized racism that results in income inequality and everything else problematic about racism:  crime, violence, preventable deaths, you name it.

 The SAT is not neutral.  It is an active participant in the perpetuation of race, class and sex based status inequality.

This resolution calls for banning ANY reliance on the sacred cow of college admissions.  Yes, the SAT is the Ark of the Covenant; the Holy Cow; the Mighty Crutch; the Objective Standard; God.  You can't take away God, can you?

 The vociferous objection to banning the SAT is proportional to one’s valuing and relying on the SAT.  This is the nature of college admissions.  The SAT is sacrosanct in college admissions.

 But the more we honor it, the more we make it a problem.  First, it is part of a system that produces racial inequality in our society (and yes, at least a little at Pitzer).  Second, it is economically exploitative.  Third, it is part of the cultural racism that inscribes a false sense of inferiority in those with low scores (individuals who are disproportionately Black and Brown).  Fourth, it inscribes a false sense of superiority in those with high scores (individuals who are disproportionately White and male, but certainly those enjoying class privilege).  Fifth, it is consistent with and reinforces that form of racism in our society that assumes Black people to be inferior to White people.  Sixth, ... (I want to give you the impression that I can go on forever with this list, but because I don't have time I'll move to conclude this e-mail).

 The SAT is imbued with reified notions about being an "objective standard."  We put the SAT on the file folder jacket, and we create a false impression.  It is the "halo effect" spoken of in my op/ed piece. The only way to avoid it is to place the SAT in a sealed envelope and not look at it.

 When used as a device for college admissions, we use it as if it is an aptitude test.  And because of this, maybe the idea of IQ becomes much more germane.  And the problematics of the use of the SAT become even more severe.

Pitzer’s Stand

 So what will Pitzer's stand be in this national debate?  We'll soon find out.  But I need people off of the fence!  I really truly need your vote.

 The problem with the SAT at Pitzer is that the requirement EXCLUDES people with no scores (people who are disproportionately Black, Brown and poor); and it DISCOURAGES people who have low scores.

 If we ban the SAT at Pitzer, people will hear about it.  It may be the only thing that leads to their hearing about Pitzer College.

 People with low scores or no scores may be ENCOURAGED to apply to Pitzer.  This puts upward pressure on Pitzer's diversity.

 Some may argue that people with high scores will be DISCOURAGED from applying to Pitzer if we ban the SAT.

 And so herein lies the crucial moment in this college's history:  how do we define ourselves?  As one that seeks "Tier One," "Elite," "Prestigious" category, by virtue in part by requiring and advertising SAT scores?  Or one that does the principled thing for all of the reasons outlined above?  I'm very curious to see the outcome.  And I'm glad, honored and proud to be the catalyst in this debate.

 It would be really great to have some allies here.  I want you to consider the points I'm making and get off the fence; and to help me make Pitzer the kind of place it says it is.  The SAT is not an insignificant issue and we have a wonderful opportunity to define ourselves in a way that gets lasting national attention.

 If we continue to require and advertise the SAT, then we put upward pressure on SATs (the higher the average score, the more US News likes us).  The more upward pressure we put on SATs, the more downward pressure we put on diversity.

 I am a very fortunate member of our faculty because I frequently have very diverse classrooms.  You can imagine the processes that lead to greater diversity in my classrooms.  I'm lucky because the dynamics that occur in a very diverse and interacting environment is what higher education should be all about.

 But my classes are the exception.  Because the college and the colleges are not really all that diverse.

 So, to sum up:  the battle is about the big picture of structured inequality in our society; and Pitzer is not immune to the ramifications of requiring the SAT.  Those ramifications inescapably perpetuate institutional racism.  Yes, we mitigate that racism, and we reduce it, but we have our heads in the sand if we think that we eliminate it.  And eliminating racism should be part of what Pitzer is about, and the time is for a zero-tolerance policy in formalized racism at Pitzer.  The only way to eliminate the racism that is attached to the SAT, entirely, is to ban its use.

 It Pitzer continues to require the SAT, in the face of these arguments and logic, then Pitzer affirms an attachment to at least a little institutional racism.  And I will say, "that is really too bad."  But such a decision is in fact likely.  Which is why I need help because I don't want to have to sneer in contempt at this institution for the remainder of my career here.

 I'm worried that this is such a crucial test of who we are, that I will lose respect for those voting against the resolution, and I will lose respect for Pitzer if the resolution loses.  (So I’m thinking of asking for a secret vote.)  Who are we?  Are we who we profess to be?  If so, what is the only position that we should take regarding the SAT?