Nigeria Content Online

In March of 2000, Pat Buchanan came to speak at
Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. Harvard being Harvard, the audience
hissed and sneered and made wisecracks. Buchanan being Buchanan, he gave as
good as he got. While the assembled Ivy Leaguers accused him of homophobia and
racism and anti-Semitism, he accused Harvard – and by extension, the entire
American elite – of discriminating against white Christians.

A decade later, the note of white grievance that
Buchanan struck that night is part of the conservative melody.

You can hear it when Glenn Beck accuses Barack
Obama of racism, or when Rush Limbaugh casts liberal policies as an exercise in
“reparations.” It was sounded last year during the backlash against Sonia
Sotomayor’s suggestion that a “wise Latina” jurist might have advantages over a
white male judge, and again last week when conservatives attacked the Justice
Department for supposedly going easy on members of the New Black Panther Party
accused of voter intimidation.

To liberals, these grievances seem at once
noxious and ridiculous. (Is there any group with less to complain about, they
often wonder, than white Christian Americans?) But to understand the country’s
present polarisation, it’s worth recognizing what Pat Buchanan got right.

Last year, two Princeton sociologists, Thomas
Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford, published a book-length study of
admissions and affirmative action at eight highly selective colleges and universities.
Unsurprisingly, they found that the admissions process seemed to favor black
and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT
scores to get in. But what was striking, as Russell K. Nieli pointed out last
week on the conservative website Minding the Campus, was which whites were most
disadvantaged by the process: the downscale, the rural and the working-class.

This was particularly pronounced among the
private colleges in the study. For minority applicants, the lower a family’s
socioeconomic position, the more likely the student was to be admitted. For
whites, though, it was the reverse. An upper-middle-class white applicant was
three times more likely to be admitted than a lower-class white with similar
qualifications.

This may be a money-saving tactic. In a footnote,
Espenshade and Radford suggest that these institutions, conscious of their
mandate to be multiethnic, may reserve their financial aid dollars “for
students who will help them look good on their numbers of minority students,”
leaving little room to admit financially strapped whites.

But cultural biases seem to be at work as well.
Nieli highlights one of the study’s more remarkable findings: While most extracurricular
activities increase your odds of admission to an elite school, holding a
leadership role or winning awards in organizations like high school ROTC, 4-H
clubs and Future Farmers of America actually works against your chances.
Consciously or unconsciously, the gatekeepers of elite education seem to incline
against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right wing or “Red
America.”

This provides statistical confirmation for what
alumni of highly selective universities already know. The most underrepresented
groups on elite campuses often aren’t racial minorities; they’re working-class
whites (and white Christians in particular) from conservative states and
regions.

Inevitably, the same under representation
persists in the elite professional ranks these campuses feed into: in law and
philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts.

This breeds paranoia, among elite and non-elites
alike. Among the white working class, increasingly the most reliable Republican
constituency, alienation from the American meritocracy fuels the kind of racially
tinged conspiracy theories that Beck and others have exploited – that Barack
Obama is a foreign-born Marxist hand-picked by a shadowy liberal cabal, that a
Wall Street-Washington axis wants to flood the country with third world immigrants,
and so forth.

Among the highly educated and liberal, meanwhile,
the lack of contact with rural, working-class America generates all sorts of
wild anxieties about what’s being plotted in the heartland. In the Bush years, liberals
fretted about a looming evangelical theocracy. In the age of the Tea Parties,
they see crypto-Klansmen and budding Timothy McVeighs everywhere they look.

This cultural divide has been widening for years,
and bridging it is beyond any institution’s power. But it’s a problem
admissions officers at top-tier colleges might want to keep in mind when
they’re assembling their freshman classes.

If such universities are trying to create an
elite as diverse as the nation it inhabits, they should remember that there’s
more to diversity than skin color – and that both their school and their
country might be better off if they admitted a few more ROTC (Reserve Officer
Training Corps) cadets, and a few more aspiring farmers.

© 2010 New
York Times News Service