Verified by 
Does the SAT contribute to the problem of under-representation at University of California schools? (See Part 1 of this post.) According to the task force report, provided by the UC itself, it does not contribute in a major way to the problem of under-representation. It may even help:
“… mean differences in standardized test scores between different demographic groups are often very large, and many of the ways these tests could be used in admissions would certainly produce strong disparate impacts between groups. However, UC weights test scores less strongly than GPA … The Task Force did not find evidence that UC’s use of test scores played a major role in worsening the effects of disparities already present among applicants and did find evidence that UC’s admissions process helped to make up for the potential adverse effect of score differences between groups.”
Still, university officials were quick to blame the SAT for their diversity problem. For example:
John Perez, Board of Regents Chairman: “I believe this test is a racist test, there’s no two ways about it.”
Kum-Kum Bhavnani, Chair of the Academic Senate: “The main reason we are looking at SATs is because they are racist.” She added, “No one disputes that.”
No one disputes that? The UC task force itself wrote: “Our review of the existing literature suggests that racial bias in the SAT, at least the version of the SAT in place in 1999, is, at most, a minimal problem.”
The phrase “the test is racist” implies that the test is biased against certain racial/ethnic groups (for example, African Americans and/or Hispanics). This is a legitimate concern. In the past, tests have been biased and there are several ways in which a test can be biased: content bias, methodological bias, prediction bias, selection system bias, and labeling bias. Fortunately, the UC task force report includes data and analyses that speak to each of these concerns. In sum, there is simply no evidence in the task force report to support the claim that the SAT is systematically biased in favor of certain racial/ethnic groups.
Now, it is possible that university officials think “the test is racist” because certain racial/ethnic groups, on average, score lower than other groups on the SAT. This is true. For example, on average, African American students score approximately 100 points lower than white students on both the verbal test and the math test (roughly, 430 vs. 530 on math, and 420 vs. 520 on verbal). For both tests, the standard deviation is approximately 100, so the difference between groups is substantial (data source: College Board).
However, similar group differences tend to be found in UC’s grade point average (GPA). Does this mean that UC schools and/or the UC faculty are racist? This logic would imply that any measure that shows a group difference is racist. Taken by itself, this is a very narrow definition of racism—the context for what causes those differences is ignored.
Still, if certain groups score lower on the SAT, and SAT scores are used to make admissions decisions, doesn’t that mean that the SAT is responsible for the under-representation of minorities at UC schools? No, not necessarily. SAT scores are positively correlated with other metrics, such as high school GPA and number of honors courses, meaning that selecting on these latter outcomes can also lead to minority under-representation. The question, then, which the UC task force considered, is whether the SAT uniquely contributes to under-representation of minorities. If SAT scores were not considered, would the under-representation problem disappear? The task force report is clear—and the answer is no.
From the report:
“The Task Force concluded that multiple factors contribute to this under-representation at UC. Roughly 75% of the opportunity gap arises from factors rooted in systemic racial and class inequalities that precede admission … Roughly 25% of under-representation was due to UC admissions decisions overall. Test scores play a role in those decisions, and thus account for some of that 25%, even if they are not the primary barrier to admission.”
There is only one interpretation of the phrase “the SAT is racist” that makes sense in this context. It means that the SAT, and standardized testing in general, is believed to be a form of institutional racism, because it is thought to be a gatekeeper that prevents people from particular socio-cultural backgrounds from entering college.
The key phrase here is “believed to be.” In other words, if university officials believe that the SAT is biased, then it is fair to conclude that standardized testing would be a form of institutional racism. That is a perfectly acceptable argument if university officials had provided any concrete reasons, or empirical evidence, or other solid justification to support their belief that the SAT is biased. But they didn’t do that. They simply said that the SAT does not align with their values. Again, what values? They didn’t really say.
Judging by the task force report, the change in the UC admissions process will have very little impact on the problem of under-representation; in fact, the admissions process could become less fair because at least for now, an objective metric has been removed. The UC turned the narrative of conflict between diversity and meritocracy into our reality.
The UC Regents' official statement was vague; it provided little insight into the decision, likely causing more confusion about the SAT. The statement itself did not explicitly claim “the SAT is racist,” but it failed to sufficiently address the question of test bias. By not addressing the question of test bias in their official statement, the UC Regents made no attempt to reject the claim that the SAT is racist. They had the empirical evidence but chose not to include it.
There are people on the far right who do something similar with respect to their claim that group differences in IQ are genetic. They report results showing that, on average, Blacks score lower than whites, but they fail to mention things like income inequality or education inequality, which means they don’t sufficiently address the impact of inequality on cognitive development. By not addressing the question and the sources of inequality, they make no real attempt to reject their claim that group differences in IQ are genetic.
These tactics allow the far left and the far right to make bold claims and attract attention on social media. The far left claims that the SAT is racist, and the far right claims that Blacks are inferior to whites. Extremists are not seeking the truth, because they think they already know the truth.
The available evidence suggests that the SAT itself is not racist; American society is racist. And so the UC decision to drop the SAT may do little to nothing to help minority students in California.
Four days after the UC decision, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis. The protests and civil unrest that followed reflect the very real and very serious problem of systemic racism in our society. Black Lives Matter and its advocates took to the streets in cities across the country during a pandemic to protest, raise awareness, and fight racism. Speaking truth to power.
