“Lord, send us black students – but not just any!”

With apologies to Augustine and his confessions

“Lord, make me chaste (sexually pure) – but not yet!”

There is a paper about the admission practices of universities of black students. Basically, black is not black when it is too black.

We Want Black Students, Just Not You: How White Admissions Counselors Screen Black Prospective Students

Abstract

Most historically and predominantly white institutions (HPWIs) now desire some number of black students on their campuses. However, recent theoretical scholarship suggests that HPWIs’ desire for and willingness to embrace black students is predicated on their racial palatability. The theory of intraracial discrimination stipulates that white gatekeepers are increasingly inclined to screen blacks to “weed out” those they perceive as too concerned with race and racism. In this study, the author assessed whether there was evidence of intraracial discrimination within the HPWI admissions regime. The data were derived through an audit of 517 white admissions counselors, employed at the same number of institutions, who received inquiry e-mails from fictitious black high school students who presented as more or less racially salient. The findings reveal that white admissions counselors are more responsive to black students who present as deracialized and racially apolitical than they are to those who evince a commitment to antiracism and racial justice. These findings provide convincing support for the theory of intraracial discrimination within the HPWI admissions regime. The author concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

My study provides perhaps the first empirical test of Carbado and Gulati’s (2013) theory of intraracial discrimination. The findings contained herein provide convincing evidence in support of this theory. White admissions counselors were, on average, 26 percent less likely to respond to the inquiry e-mails of black high school students who evinced a concern about the continuing problem of white racism. White male counselors were 37 percent less likely to respond to these students. And when black female students sent these e-mails, white male counselors were almost 50 percent less likely to respond. These findings are disturbing, though not entirely surprising. One of the primary factors that likely contributes to this type of discrimination is the autonomy and discretion afforded to admissions counselors. There may be an institutional expectation that admissions counselors respond to all inquiries from prospective students, perhaps even allowing for some delay because of counselors’ recruitmentrelated travel schedules. However, for many counselors, this is not their practice. Approximately 40 percent of the 1,034 inquiry e-mails we sent to white admissions counselors went unanswered, and for certain subgroups of black students that percentage jumped to nearly two thirds.

Whether the observed differences in response rates reported in this paper are due to antiblack affect or a color-blind ideology that views critical race consciousness as repugnant, the effect remains the same: the marginalization of black students and foreclosed opportunities. Today, most HPWIs no longer actively attempt to prevent the matriculation of black students; rather, they now desire the presence of some black students. However, it is now evident that some HPWIs employ white admissions counselors who are screening black students to ensure that the “right ones” do matriculate and the “wrong ones” do not. Some of these counselors are acting in a way that suggests they believe black students with a demonstrated commitment to fighting white racism are not the “right ones.” 

This raises the question of whether and the extent to which these black students should “work their identity” (Carbado and Gulati 2000, 2013; Thornhill 2015) to allay white admissions counselors’ racial fears and concerns and thereby circumvent their racist proclivities, at least during the admissions process. Better yet, perhaps admissions offices at all HPWIs should establish a policy requiring all their staff members to treat all prospective students and applicants courteously and fairly, irrespective of whether these students express a commitment to naming, resisting, and working to dismantle the white racist architecture of U.S. society.

Furthermore, given the prevailing color-blind ideology and HPWIs’ rhetoric of diversity and inclusion, most white admissions counselors would not admit to intraracially screening black prospective students, often ignoring the e-mails of those committed to antiracism. My data show that many do. Indeed, my findings challenge the frequent claims of private HPWIs that they are or aspire to become sites of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Instead, some HPWIs employ admissions counselors who screen out black students who are arguably best equipped to identify and challenge racially unjust policies, practices, and traditions both on the campuses of HPWIs and in society more broadly.