BuckeyeBlog

In his Sunday column, George Will writes about a study by Byran O’Keefe and Dr. Richard Vedder (an Ohio University professor and scholar with the Buckeye Institute) that illustrates how the Supreme Court’s expansion of the concept of “disparate impact” affected higher education. In 1971 the Supreme Court expanded the 1964 Civil Rights Act to outlaw any employment qualification tests that may have a “disparate impact” on minority groups, regardless of whether these tests were actually discriminatory.

Mr. O’Keefe and Dr. Vedder illustrate how this led to more employers requiring college degrees for employees. As Will puts it:

This is, of course, just one reason college attendance increased from 5.8 million in 1970 to 17.5 million in 2005. But it probably had a, well, disparate impact by making employment more difficult for minorities. O’Keefe and Vedder write:

“Qualified minorities who performed well on an intelligence or aptitude test and would have been offered a job directly 30 or 40 years ago are now compelled to attend a college or university for four years and incur significant costs. For some young people from poorer families, those costs are out of reach.”

Indeed, by turning college degrees into indispensable credentials for many of society’s better jobs, this series of events increased demand for degrees and, O’Keefe and Vedder say, contributed to “an environment of aggressive tuition increases.” Furthermore they reasonably wonder whether this supposed civil rights victory, which erected barriers between high school graduates and high-paying jobs, has exacerbated the widening income disparities between high school and college graduates.

Griggs and its consequences are timely reminders of the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is increasingly pertinent as America’s regulatory state becomes increasingly determined to fine-tune our complex society. That law holds that the consequences of government actions often are different than, and even contrary to, the intended consequences.

Geez, talk about big wind-up and no pitch.

The Enquirer thinks college costs are too high, with prices jumping crazy-like and (of course) government support not keeping up. If that were an observation that had not already been widely made and is likely widely known, then, maybe it’s worth the price of the electrons. But it has and it is.

Of course, you start out with a weak punch like that, and you’ve got more than the normal problem of how to finish it: “But the solution will require a much more comprehensive response, including cost containment by colleges and more state and federal support for students willing to work hard and set their sights high.”

Indeed. May as well add, it remains to be seen.