24 United States The EconomistFebruary 8th 2020
2 cept a broader mission to improve society,
which could mean sacrificing some aca-
demic excellence in the pursuit of a differ-
ent definition of equality?
The plaintiffs’ arguments imply that no
amount of predictive validity justifies the
use of the tests in admissions. They allege
that uc’s use of tests that are “demonstra-
bly discriminatory” against “talented and
qualified students” from poor families, un-
der-represented minorities and students
with disabilities is illegal under California
law. “Use of the satand actis not just inde-
fensible policy,” argues Mark Rosenbaum,
counsel for the plaintiffs; “it is illegal
wealth- and race-discrimination.”
In January 2019, long before the lawsuit,
uccommissioned a task-force to review its
admissions procedures. It found that the
tests are as good as or better than high-
school grades at predicting student out-
comes. For under-represented minority
students, students from poor families and
students who were the first in their family
to go to college, tests were better predictors
of success, as measured by subsequent un-
dergraduate grades, than for other candi-
dates. What is more, because tests and
high-school grades are only two of 14 fac-
tors used in admissions decisions, stu-
dents in these less fortunate groups were
often admitted at a higher rate for any giv-
en test score. Admissions officers took into
account factors such as inequality of
school resources and access to test prepa-
ration, and decided accordingly.
The report expressed concern that
whereas 59% of high-school graduates in
California were under-represented minor-
ities in 2019, only 37% of Californian stu-
dents in the admitted freshman class came
from these groups. However, it concluded
that the tests were not the main culprit.
Three-quarters of the opportunity gap was
attributed to factors that preceded admis-
sion, most notably failure to complete re-
quired courses. Test scores were thought to
play some role in explaining the remaining
quarter, though they were “not the primary
barrier to admission”. The report conclud-
ed by suggesting that ucshould “study the
development” for a new approach to as-
sessing students, suggesting that this
could be implemented in nine years.
Far from exonerating uc, the report val-
idates the decision to file suit, according to
Mr Rosenbaum. He argues that the report
merely shifts the blame for the inequalities
in the ucsystem away from the “unlawful
use of discriminatory and meaningless
tests” and onto the California public school
system. Given the sensitivity of the issue,
the suit will be controversial and closely
followed. It is unlikely to produce a satis-
factory outcome. After decades of debate,
experts are still unable to agree on either
the facts or the morality of the matter. Giv-
en this, what hope have the courts? 7A
s apropertydeveloper,Donald
Trump’s tastes were for the brash.
The Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City,
built at a cost of $1.2bn in 1990, featured
neon-lit golden onion domes. The
Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas,
built at a reported cost of $800m and
opened in 2008, resembles a golden
tombstone, towering 600 feet above the
Strip. In more recent years Mr Trump’s
name has been attached to equally hid-
eous edifices that he did not develop in
places as far afield as Uruguay and India.
So perhaps it should come as a sur-
prise that in government Mr Trump’s
favoured architecture seems to be more
conservative. On February 4th the Archi-
tectural Record, a trade journal, reported
that it had been leaked a draft copy of an
executive order the president intends to
sign, ordering that new federal buildings
should be designed in neoclassical style.
According to the document, in recent
decades, architects designing federal
buildings have been too much influ-
enced by “brutalism and deconstructi-
vism” and should return to the era of
America’s founding, when the inspira-
tion, both politically and architecturally,
came from ancient Athens and Rome.
It is unclear whether the order will
ever be enacted. The White House re-
fused to comment. But if it were, the
edict would bring about the first major
changes in almost 60 years to the guide-
lines set out for federal architecture by
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a sociologist-
turned-senator, in 1962. He argued that
the “development of an official stylemustbeavoided”andthatdesign“must
flow from the architectural profession to
the government and not vice versa.”
Moynihan’s ideas made the American
government a remarkable sponsor of
architectural experimentation. It may be
exactly that which has drawn Mr Trump’s
disapproval. According to the Record, the
draft order specifically mentions three
newish and very modern buildings, the
Federal Building in San Francisco, built
in 2007, and the United States Court-
houses in Miami and Austin, built in
2007 and 2012 respectively, as having
“little aesthetic appeal”.
Mr Trump has long been known to
dislike brutalism. In 2018 the website
Axios reported that he was “obsessed”
with the Hoover Building in Washington,
dc, the brutalist headquarters of thefbi.
He has apparently called it “one of the
ugliest buildings in the city”. Such opin-
ions are not new. Jack Kemp, George H.W.
Bush’s housing and urban development
secretary, described his agency’s curvy
brutalist headquarters in Washington as
resembling “ten floors of basement”.
But Mr Trump’s interest brings a
complication other critics do not: his
own interests. The Hoover Building sits
directly across from his Trump Interna-
tional Hotel, which occupies the Roman-
esque-revival former Post Office Build-
ing. The fbihas considered moving out
of the city and selling the site, which Mr
Trump opposes. If the site is ever rede-
veloped, its style may concern the pres-
ident less than its function—lots of gold,
fine, but absolutely not another hotel.Columninches
Government architectureWASHINGTON, DC
Donald Trump threatens to bring his taste to government buildingsUncle Sam’s new digs