The Freedom to Choose

LONGER ago than I like to admit to myself, I went to the public library in New York City and thumbed through every college catalogue I could lay my hands on, trying to find one that didn't require a high school diploma as a requirement for admission.

Somewhere on the shelves - the Fifth Avenue branch had a whole room set aside for college catalogues - I found a green pamphlet issued by Dartmouth College, and I still remember that page 16 contained the bottom line. "High school graduation," it read, "is normally expected but is not a pre-requisite."

On that basis, I sat down and wrote a letter to a man named Ernest Martin Hopkins and told him I would like to go to his college because it was the only one I could find which didn't require a high school diploma. Also, I reported, I didn't have enough money and I wondered if his college could lend me some.

On the basis of that letter, I was admitted to Dartmouth, to the best of my knowledge the only entering freshman in the class who hadn't graduated from high school, pronounced the College name as in smallmouth, had never studied a foreign language, had never heard of Phillips Exeter Academy, and didn't own a tweed sports jacket. I am white, not black, but that was about the only thing I had in common with my classmates.

Now comes Allan Bakke, charging in effect that Dartmouth made the wrong decision when it admitted me because (and I'm certain this was true) there were other applicants who went unselected and who were better qualified academically than I.

Oh, I know. Bakke isn't really suing Dartmouth about me. He's suing the University of California because it turned him down and admitted a less academically qualified black student instead. Bakke's case comes before the Supreme Court this fall. Therefore, much will be said on his behalf and much that will be said will be true. The nation's promise of equal opportunity does not embody the promise of equal result and if somebody gets an opportunity to compete with Mr. Bakke on an entrance examination, isn't that as much as he ought to expect? The runners in a race are judged on the order in which they cross the finish line. Would anyone propose a different method of determining gold medal, silver, and bronze?

That will be the gist of the argument, and if the issue were only a matter of reverse racism, it would seem to me to be a pretty convincing argument. To rule against Mr. Bakke would be to rule against excellence. To rule against Mr. Bakke would be to hold that in our society we count skin color as more important than excellence.

But I don't think that reverse racism is the issue, or at least not the whole of the issue. We are dealing here with an extremely important and little realized value, namely the value which we place on the usefulness of colleges and universities as a means of opening doors and letting in air.

Do we really want to turn our college and university admissions officers into clerks whose sole function is to add up scores on entrance examinations? Should we bar colleges and universities from their long-established responsibility to exercise judgment as to the character, background, motivation, and capacity for growth of those who knock on their doors? Do we want to make it immaterial what anybody thinks about how hard this boy or girl will work if given the chance?

And isn't part of the value in the mix? Some colleges and universities take pride in ensuring that their student bodies are not all middle or upper class, are not all from New York City or Boston, are the sons and daughters of laborers as well as of lawyers. They believe that the student experience of rubbing shoulders with men and women of greatly varied backgrounds is good experience. Are they wrong?

But, you may say, I am avoiding the fact that Bakke did better on his examination than at least six black students. That's where the argument gets narrow and tough. So let's take it. Do we really want our colleges and universities to educate only those who get the highest marks?

Reminiscing recently about his early days in Washington, former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas recalled that "Joe Kennedy was asked by FDR to set up this new organization called the Securities and Exchange Commission. You remember there'd been a lot of scandal on Wall Street and some police work was necessary. So after Kennedy got the organization set up, he called me on the telephone. I was up at Yale Law teaching, and Kennedy said, 'I want you to come on down here and tell me what I'm doing wrong.'

"So I came down and scouted the place for a couple of months and finally I said to him, 'Mr. Kennedy, there's only one thing wrong with your SEC. You've got too many "A" students working for you. "A" students write brilliant papers but if you want to win cases in court, you've got to have some "B" students. Let me go around to the law schools and see if I can pick you up some good "B" students.'

"So Kennedy said, 'Go ahead,' and I did and that's how the SEC won all those early cases against Richard Whitney and the rest."

Douglas, I hasten to point out, was only reminiscing. He was not discussing the Bakke case. But his point seems to me to be valid. It should give us pause.

As I say, the question is whether our colleges and universities are to continue to be entrusted with the responsibility we have heretofore laid upon them. This responsibility requires that they have the freedom to choose.

The alternative is to go strictly by test scores. In that event, only blacks and whites who know all about Phillips Exeter Academy need apply.

Thomas Braden, a syndicated columnist based in Washington,was a Dartmouth Trustee from 1964-74. Another commentaryon the Bakke Case, by President Kemeny, begins on page 31.