Who's Qualified?

Affirmative action originated as a plan to correct the historical disadvantage of women and people of color-to make the system more fair. Yet, for over twenty years, it has been repeatedly attacked for being unfair to whites, and even un-American. Guinier and Sturm begin with a critique of affirmative action as it stands now, arguing that a system of selection that determines "qualification" from test scores and then adds on factors like race and gender doesn't work-either for the people it includes or the people it leaves out. But they go further, asking us to rethink how we evaluate merit.

Marshaling lively examples from education and the workplace, they expose the failure of tests to predict success. They provide evidence that people's success depends on the opportunities they have to perform, and that institutions do best when they are open to unanticipated contributions. Offering a model of selection based on performance, not prediction, the authors' reconception of an old ideal suggests at once a smart business practice and a step toward the promise of democratic opportunity. Paul Osterman, Stephen Steinberg, Peter Sacks, and others respond.
NEW DEMOCRACY FORUM

A series of short paperback originals exploring creative solutions to our most urgent national concerns. The series editors (for Boston Review), Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers, aim to foster politically engaged, intellectually honest, and morally serious debate about fundamental issues-both on and off the agenda of conventional politics.

Affirmative action originated as a plan to correct the historical disadvantage of women and people of color-to make the system more fair. Yet, for over twenty years, it has been repeatedly attacked for being unfair to whites, and even un-American.

Guinier and Sturm begin with a critique of affirmative action as it stands now, arguing that a system of selection that determines 'qualification' from test scores and then adds on factors like race and gender doesn't work-either for the people it includes or the people it leaves out. But they go further, asking us to rethink how we evaluate merit.

Marshaling lively examples from education and the workplace, they expose the failure of tests to predict success. They provide evidence that people's success depends on the opportunities they have to perform, and that institutions do best when they are open to unanticipated contributions. Offering a model of selection based on performance, not prediction, the authors' reconception of an old ideal suggests at once a smart business practice and a step toward the promise of democratic opportunity. Paul Osterman, Stephen Steinberg, Peter Sacks, and others respond.

NEW DEMOCRACY FORUM A series of short paperback originals exploring creative solutions to our most urgent national concerns. The series editors (for Boston Review), Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers, aim to foster politically engaged, intellectually honest, and morally serious debate about fundamental issues-both on and off the agenda of conventional politics.

Kirkus Reviews

A brief exchange about how best to ensure that all Americans have access to the most coveted schools and jobs. Guinier (Law/Harvard Univ.; Becoming Gentlemen, 1997, etc.) and Sturm (Law/Columbia Univ.) open this slender volume with a not-so-modest proposal: silence the critics of affirmative action by reforming the way that we determine who is "most qualified" for advancement without sacrificing diversity. The authors begin by questioning the "testocracy" that has determined who gains entry to the best schools and companies in recent decades, claiming that standardized tests (such as the SAT) are inaccurate predictors of future success. In addition, those from privileged backgrounds tend to do better at such tests, thereby perpetuating the status quo. According to the authors, a far better predictor of success would be a form of probation, during which the candidate has an opportunity to perform in the desired job or university. After a probationary period, he or she would be evaluated according to a number of criteria that have been identified as relevant to successful performance. With the exception of a single hypothetical, however, the practical application of such a system is left for another day. Having advanced their proposal, the authors invite responses from various academics who pinpoint the weaknesses of the author's naïve suggestions. One objection is that standardized tests offer the best chance for minorities (particularly Jews and Asian-Americans from disadvantaged backgrounds) to crack the old-boy network. Another point is that standardized tests are rarely used in the workplace, and almost never for the most coveted jobs. Finally, there is no guarantee that thesubjective, post-probationary review suggested by the authors would not be susceptible to the prejudices of the evaluators. The replies made to these and other criticisms are unconvincing. A well-intentioned proposal that is not quite ready for prime time.

Lani Guinier, author of The Tyranny of the Majority and coauthor with Michelle Fine and Jane Balin of Becoming Gentlemen: Women, Law School, and Institutional Change (Beacon / 4405-9 / $15.00 pb), is professor of law at Harvard Law School. She lectures widely on issues of civil rights, social justice, and democracy, and lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Susan Sturm is visiting professor of law at Columbia Law School. She lives in New York City.