MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Why Aren’t Feminist Groups More Concerned that So Many Colleges and Universities Discriminate Against Women in Admissions?

Is it they don’t want to admit that females do so well relative to males in high school? They don’t want appear to be defecting from the left-of-center coalition that supports race-preferential admissions policies? Or is something else driving this?

This puzzles me. It is routine for many colleges and universities, particularly mid-level liberal arts schools, to discriminate against women in admissions. Believing that they have "too many women," these schools refuse admission to female applicants whose academic credentials would have been more than sufficient for a male applicant. Why don't we hear more complaints from feminist organizations?

Alison Somin and I wrote about this a few years back in a short essay entitled Affirmative Action for Men?: Strange Silences and Strange Bedfellows in the Public Debate Over Discrimination Against Women in College Admissions. We were motivated in large part by the fact that some feminists actually had opposed an empirical study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the subject (and as a result the liberals on the Commission cancelled the study).

In the case of a state school or a private professional or graduate school that receives federal funds, such discrimination violates Title IX. But some do it anyway. "We are, after all, the College of William and Mary, not the College of Mary and Mary," one state school admissions officer said.

For private colleges, Title IX is more lenient. It allows sex discrimination in admissions, but not once students are admitted. This was intended to allow single-sex colleges to receive federal funding, but it also allows liberal arts schools that don't want women to outnumber men by too much to have different admissions standards.

But legal or illegal, I would have expected feminist organizations to be at least concerned and to want a study conducted. There are so many things that get labeled sex discrimination that aren't really sex discrimination. It surprises and troubles me that honest-to-goodness sex discrimination gets ignored.

Maybe feminist organizations don't want to draw too much attention to how well females are doing these days in school, because it hurts the narrative that women are the underdogs. But women form a 56% majority of college students. And they are a majority of those in law, medical, and dental school.

Alternatively, maybe the leaders of feminist groups are reluctant to speak out for fear of undermining the case for affirmative action for racial and ethnic minorities. They may perceive themselves as part of a broad coalition of left-leaning activists first and advocates for women in particular only second.

One of the questions we address in the essay is whether the Department of Education's athletic-centric enforcement of Title IX is a contributing factor to discriminatory admissions policies. A time-honored way for a small liberal arts college to recruit male students used to be to offer them the opportunity to play varsity athletics--something they are less likely to qualify for at the big sports-powerhouse universities. But for reasons that we explain in the essay, complex Title IX enforcement policies make this strategy difficult and expensive for schools. Some schools would rather just discriminate outright in admissions. It's easier and cheaper.

These Title IX enforcement policies could be tweaked without causing women who want to participate in athletics to be denied equal opportunity. And doing so would reduce the incentive for schools to just discriminate against women outright in admissions. Such changes would also likely improve opportunities for women who prefer non-athletic extra-curricular activities, such as chorus or drama club. Alas, feminist organizations appear to resent any suggestion that these policies, which they advocated in the first place, may be backfiring.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • apedad||

    "It is routine for many colleges and universities, particularly mid-level liberal arts schools, to discriminate against women in admissions."

    "But women form a 56% majority of college students."

    Something doesn't add up here. . .

  • Michael P||

    They have admission standards that disproportionately favor women, and so must explicitly give a "minus" to women to compensate. Same basic reason that Asian students also face admissions discrimination, though possibly a different aspect of admission standards.

  • Sarcastr0||

    You evidence for that favor is merely the disparate impact? Huh...

  • M.L.||

    "disproportionately favor" is being used as synonymous with "disparate impact" here.

  • shawn_dude||

    This is just hands-down false. The proportion of applicants who are women is higher than the number who are admitted at most liberal arts schools. (That's the discrimination that is being alleged here.) A school that gets 10,000 applications probably gets more than 6,000 from women. And I see no evidence that Asian applicants are discriminated against outside of a small number of Ivy league schools.

    Just head over to nces.ed.gov/ipeds and look up an institution and click on the "admissions" tab and you can see applicant, admit, and enrollment numbers by gender.

  • M.L.||

    Admissions standards that favor women include things like the requirement of a high school diploma.

  • Negi||

    More than 56% of qualifying students are women on current admissions standards.

  • Eidde||

    Come on, boys, you know what you're expected to do in exchange for those admission preferences. Do I have to spell it out?

  • Negi||

    M-mommy!?

  • Bored Lawyer||

    We were motivated in large part by the fact that some feminists actually had opposed an empirical study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the subject (and as a result the liberals on the Commission cancelled the study).

    Yes, the ideology of science and reason. Can't have a study that might reveal some inconvenient facts. So let's just kill the study and live in ignorance.

  • OtisAH||

    Isn't 56% roughly the percentage of women to men in the world? Seems fair, if yes. Regardless, my guess as to the alleged silence of feminist groups is there remain more important battles than fighting to ensure a greater majority of women on college campuses.

  • Rossami||

    Not even close, I'm afraid. The ratio of boys to girls is a shade under 52% boys to 48% girls at birth. Due to higher male infant mortality, the ratio is about 50.5% men to 49.5% women by adulthood.

    The higher death rates for men continue through adulthood but even by age 65, the ratio is only 47% men to 53% women. I'm not sure at what exact age the ratio of women would finally reach 56% but I'm pretty sure they're well past college by then.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The number of non-traditional (read older) college students has been increasing over the last several decades.

  • Rossami||

    While true, the ratio of septuagenarians is still vanishingly small.

  • David Bremer||

    No, it's not. Certainly not in the U.S. (although it likely is in some countries where sex selection happens).

    Naturally at birth, there's about 105-107 girls for every 100 boys. But since more boys die young, when we get to child-bearing years, it's pretty much even.

  • Lee Moore||

    Something has gone wrong with your sentence or your arithmetic.

  • FlameCCT||

    Welcome to the real world, where the majority of higher education can no longer set one basic admission standard and accept the amount of incoming students regardless of their status, race, sex, etc.

    It would be interesting to see if this is similar to the so called "pay gap" where they lump everyone into male/female categories regardless of the actual work position, education, experience, etc.

  • Sarcastr0||

    This post is like the opposite of pay gap claptrap.

    So you have a lot on the left pointing to simplistic studies and saying 'see?' and then the analysis is done; narrative has been served. No attempt to drill down as to causes beyond the facile narrative, no attempt to make any comparison between equivalent jobs, nothing. There is probably a marginal (like 5%) pay-gap, but we'll never find out because the goal isn't actually to solve the problem.

    This post also takes simplistic analysis, looks no further, and uses it to further a narrative. Causes are examined using only speculation and narritivism. The number serves only to shallowly paint feminists as hypocrites, not discuss causes and policies (except for that odd 'more athletic scholarships for boys' digression.' There may indeed be a problem with this lopsided admission number, but we'll never know since the OP doesn't care about it as anything more than a partisan cudgel.

  • shawn_dude||

    You assume that "one basic admission standard" is even possible, let alone desirable. Test scores don't tell the whole story. High School GPA says more than test scores, but when kids apply they haven't finished high school and have pending grades.

  • Eidde||

    Maybe feminists don't want women to go to college where they have a 5 in 4 chance of being raped.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Well, there is a disproportionate number of women in college...

  • Sarcastr0||

    some feminists actually had opposed an empirical study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the subject (and as a result the liberals on the Commission cancelled the study).
    Even advocacy work should present some of the other side, or it seems flimsy.
    Do you have links to the feminist opposition so we can see their arguments? How can you assume liberals killed the study because feminists didn't like it? General accusations directed at 'liberals' are a red flag.

    Maybe feminist organizations don't want to draw too much attention to how well females are doing these days in school, because it hurts the narrative that women are the underdogs
    This accusatory speculation adds nothing but red meat for conservatives.

    In the case of a state school or a private professional or graduate school that receives federal funds, such discrimination violates Title IX.
    This begs the question. If non-quota affirmative action is allowed for race, wouldn't it be OK for gender?

    A time-honored way for a small liberal arts college to recruit male students used to be to offer them the opportunity to play varsity athletics
    Doesn't this forget the forest for the trees? A male-associated non-academic indicia of merit is gone. Shouldn't we interrogate it for actual merit?

    Alas, feminist organizations appear to resent any suggestion that these policies, which they advocated in the first place, may be backfiring.
    This is a speculation seeking a strawman narrative.

  • ||

    I was hoping for more when I scanned her underlying essay. Admittedly, it was a quick scan, but I didn't find much detail on exactly who all these feminists were and what their argument was.

  • Sarcastr0||

    The seeking of the oppositions argument, even if only to poke holes in it, speaks well of you.

    (I say as a liberal that frequents the VC...)

  • Joe_JP||

    She's not starting out well ... needs to tone down the red meat rhetoric.

  • David Nieporent||

    Do you have links to the feminist opposition so we can see their arguments? How can you assume liberals killed the study because feminists didn't like it?

    Uh, you realize that Prof. Heriot is on the Commission, right? She's not "assuming"; she's describing her firsthand experience. (Of course, you don't have to accept what she says as gospel.)

  • Sarcastr0||

    I did not know that. She sounds like it wasn't a good time for her.
    Still, not material to my concern - what I want is some sort of access to the argument on the other side. Preferably in some public form and not related.

  • jph12||

    "Still, not material to my concern"

    I mean, other than directly answering one of your "concerns," of course.

    "How can you assume liberals killed the study because feminists didn't like it?"

  • Tatil Sever||

    Her speculation could be seeking a strawman or a strawwoman narrative, to be judged purely based on the merits. :-)

  • Sarcastr0||

    I don't much care for this post.
    It points out an interesting discrepancy between admissions numbers and the usual narrative of gender power dynamics. I think there's something really interesting about education and feminism there if you dug a bit.
    But rather than looking closer it just tries to score partisan points via a combination of crocodile tears and telepathic speculation of ways feminist groups are bad.

    I don't see the inconsistency. Thinking the best of people as I do, I would assume that the feminist groups in question are acting as more than reflexive identity advocacy groups, and buy into the larger reasoning behind encouraging diversity.

  • Absaroka||

    "Thinking the best of people as I do..."

    That brought to mind your generalization on gun owners (or gun store owners??) from a few days ago: "I could speculate about the general anti-government stance you can find in those stores you might have extra under-the-table shenanigans,..."

    I agree wholeheartedly with the notion of assuming the best about people - I don't know if it leads to more accurate predictions, but I think it leads to a happier life. But one must be careful to not just assume the best about one's political brethren, while doing the reverse to those across the aisle. That's the worst of the options.

    (BTW, I concur the OP is weakly sourced)

  • Sarcastr0||

    As I recall, the context of my post wasn't that gun stores were anti-government. I was providing a counterexample to the Republicans insistence that that Operation Choke Point could have no other agenda than to be anti-gun.

    I'm certainly hypocritical at times, and certainly have some partisan bias about how I read people's motives; your out of context quote wasn't one of those times.

  • jph12||

    I just love that you wrote this

    "Thinking the best of people as I do"

    in the very same post as this

    "it just tries to score partisan points via a combination of crocodile tears"

    and didn't think anything of it.

  • ||

    Title IX enforcement policies could be tweaked

    Or Title IX could be scrapped.

  • Sanctimonica||

    What if a law required allocation of sports scholarships proportional to the population's racial make-up? How would that be different than one enforced to balance sports scholarships based on sex?

  • Jmaie||

    It would increase the number of less-interesting-to-watch sporting events, but this time comprised of men?

    (ducks)

  • Jmaie||

    Really, really sorry. Family guy did it much better...

  • bernard11||

    We were motivated in large part by the fact that some feminists actually had opposed an empirical study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the subject (and as a result the liberals on the Commission cancelled the study).

    "Some" "all" or "many." And perhaps we could hear the reasons before being told that the motives were suspect.

    Maybe feminist organizations don't want to draw too much attention to how well females are doing these days in school, because it hurts the narrative that women are the underdogs.

    Evidence?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Maybe they're concerned for those women who go to college to get Mrs degrees? That particular degree requires that there be men about.

    Nah, just joking, these are 'feminists' we're talking about.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Brett keeps spinning those oldies!

  • Bob from Ohio||

    They want marriage partners?

  • Bruce Hayden||

    That is probably the bottom line there. Maybe to no one's surprise, young women do look at male/female ratios, and tend not to go to colleges where the numbers are too lopsided. Several years ago, I read something that indicated that the break point there was somewhere between 55% and 60% female. Beyond that, young women will seriously downgrade the attractiveness of colleges.

    Actually, I suspect that a lot of young women would actually prefer flipping 5he ratio to where it was when I went to college, which was 60% male/40% female. The problem is that a certain percentage of the males are either subpar, in the view of the average co-ed, or the males just aren't interested in dating. That leaves more women than men competing in the dating market, which in turn causes the women to compete more brutally for the better quality males, which in turn puts those males in the drivers' seat, and you see a race to the bottom with the women essentially sleeping with guys just to get their attention. And the higher quality males not needing to trade their freedom for sex. And, thus, probably a big part of the "campus rape" epidemic, where young women later regret having sex with guys, expecting a relationship, and getting just, maybe, a thanks.

  • ScottK||

    Having just dispatched my youngest daughter to a Jesuit university after a search, I can confirm that admissions people are quite concerned about the low population of incoming freshman males. And they are right to be concerned.

    Universities are creating the educated job force of the future, and it would be not be socially beneficial to worsen the American class system further by overstocking the pond with white and Asian females who killed it on the ACT at age 16. If the admission standards (which are not a Rule of Law) would tend toward that outcome, then the standards should change. The worst that can happen is we get more male idiots in the work force, but they're necessary for the survival of the species.

  • Negi||

    The problem is that the admissions criteria have been tilted towards things that women tend to do better, namely grades and extracurriculars rather than standardized tests. The universities then have to discriminate back against females in order to achieve a balance of the sexes.

    If we want everything to be fair, we should return to a powerful battery of standardized tests that measure aptitude rather than work ethic.

  • ||

    Problem with that is they're "racist," so they obviously can't be used.

  • Sarcastr0||

    The problem is that the admissions criteria have been tilted towards things that women tend to do better, namely grades and extracurriculars rather than standardized tests

    I'm not sure we know that to be the reason.

  • Negi||

    The statistical evidence in this case is clear and persistent over almost a century for grades, and around 50 years for the SAT.

    Women have outperformed men in highschool GPA (and even mathematics) since the 1920s. I don't have a source handy, but I am confident you will be able to find it.

    On average, men score 30-40 points higher on the SAT Mathematics section, leading to a 2-1 disparity at the level of perfect mathematics scores. This has persisted since the first statistics were released as far back as iirc 1967.

    SAT scores do not predict first semester GPA at university, but they predict achievement in graduate and postgraduate-level classes with a quantitative component.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Your expertise clearly outshines mine. That's interesting stuff, but without a better idea of the causality I don't know we should be making policy based on it.

    I also really liked your information about the predictive value of standardized tests. As someone with an unexplained talent for them, I've always thought they were more admissions theatre than science.

  • shawn_dude||

    High school GPA is more indicative of first year success than the SAT/ACT. It's not that admission standards are "tilted" towards things women do better but that women are doing better at the things which indicate success. Your construction of "tilted" makes it seem intentional, which it is not. High School GPAs and extracurriculars are statistically more predictive of success in the student's first year of college.

    NEA.GOV Indicators of success

    There is no shortage of peer-reviewed studies that show how standardized testing, like SAT/ACT, exhibits both race and class bias. That would be the solution if the goal was to emphasize white, upper-class males in admissions.

  • Negi||

    Or the tests are neutral and your favored groups simply do less well.

  • Tatil Sever||

    You can design an aptitude test that looks like it is measure inate ability in a neutral fashion during experiments, but as soon as the results of those tests start having large economic consequences, some people will start studying and practicing for them, which makes them perform better. Before you know it, the test starts measuring a combination of inate ability, work ethic, financial resources, social support etc.

    "If we want everything to be fair, we should return to a powerful battery of standardized tests that measure aptitude rather than work ethic."
    As you seem to claiming that measuring work ethic is unfair, I can only assume you were sarcastic.

  • Negi||

    I read Andrew Gelman's stats blog, and he agrees that taking SAT prep only increases scores 10-20 pts, no more than similar amounts of time in self-study. The main unfairnesses on the SAT are extra time for ppo w ADHD and multiple test-taking. Those two things are what allow higher SES students to cheat the test.

  • Negi||

    To elaborate, the same disparity exists on IQ tests for class and race. When IQ tests are broken down into quantitative and verbal sections, men tend to outperform women on the quantitative part.

  • Allutz||

    Perhaps we should first consider the most benign explanation:

    The previous admissions standards are actually anti-male because they rely on things that are very weak predictors of college success (high school grades), which favored females. Ideally, they would simply re-orient admissions standards towards ACT/SAT scores, which are a better predictor (and males have parity+ on). However, they can't do that because that conflicts with their other goals of racial diversity.

    In other words, sex diversity and racial diversity are currently knocking heads in college admissions.

  • shawn_dude||

    You have this backwards. HSGPA is a better predictor of the freshman year of college than SAT/ACT.

    More women apply to college than men (roughly 60/40). Using a perfectly balanced, race and gender-blind admission criteria, one would expect to then admit at the same ratio.

  • Allutz||

    There is a massive falloff effect after freshman year such that the trend entirely reverses when you look at 4 and 5 year graduation rates and overall graduating GPA.

    Also I haven't seen many studies that tout HSGPA that rigorously control for curriculum. A 3.5 in Engineering should be counted as an 9.5 in psychology.

  • texToo||

    Heriot & Somin's essay does not show fems are discriminated against. It is generally reported that fems have higher HS grades & are nicer – get in less trouble, etc; however, boys outperform girls on SAT tests, even on the verbal portion where girls are generally thought to be more proficient. On the Math portion, the boys FAR outperform girls across all Nations & all time. Heriot & Somin's essay does not include those boy advantages.

    Furthermore, the Feminists attack SAT with articles saying SAT discriminates against fems (they can't accept the boy's doing better, just gotta be discrimination) & it seems like I read an article saying they were going to increase SAT test time hoping that will help girls increase their scores, the thought being that girls are more conscientious about studying exam questions which takes longer than boys who respond more quickly.

    So, Heriot, pony up with the Gender SAT score differences before adding to the fem victimhood pool. You fems are already too advantaged.

  • Sarcastr0||

    ...Fems?

  • texToo||

    Short for females, but I think you probably knew that. I kinda like the ring to "fems" & is is quicker to type. In fact I love fems, but I do think they protest too much.

  • Negi||

    Gail is aware of this, but she is making a different point. She is in favor of neutral rules of admission, whether or not they have a disparate impact (in this case on boys and girls). What she is against (and has always been against) is disparate _treatment_, which is illegal under the civil rights act.

  • texToo||

    It is not apparent from her article here, nor her link tht she's aware of this at all. And it is rather a big thing to say fems are discriminated against without showing it, esp when there is the SAT scores which, on the surface would counter that idea.

  • Negi||

    She has done like 10 fedsoc events on disparate impact and affirmative action.

  • Gasman||

    College admission criteria are biased toward things easily assessed, and generated by an educational system that favors female behaviors over male behaviors. An ACT or SAT score and GPA or class rank is really easy to use as a first pass screen for admission, and as a result, it is not a surprize then that women excel at a test that favors women.
    Here is university of Missouri's admission requirements.

    Qualities that make for good objective numbers might not make the best student, or later, the best employee. Boys and girls behave differently at the earliest of ages. And without a doubt high kinetic energy youth, more often boys, are a lot more work for a teacher. So the grade school curriculum from day one is built around forcing all youth to conform to the model of the easiest to work with youth. Sit quietly, do the work you are told to do, excel at specific tasks given, color within the lines, don't get too creative, and do not disturb the general order of the classroom. Boys don't stand a chance in the educational environment designed to herd toward graduation the meek and malleable.

  • Negi||

    Men outscore women on the SAT. They do worse on highschool GPA.

  • shawn_dude||

    How do you get all of that out of the tables you link to? Notice that as SAT/ACT scores drop the minimum HSGPA goes up? That balances male versus female where a high SAT can overcome a low GPA.

  • ||

    The premise of diversity is that there is positive value in having a subset population (like the students of a college) mirror some statistical factors of their larger population (like gender, ethnic background, and income).

    Whether or not diversity is desirable is a separate question from how to achieve it if it is. The straightforward way is to grade applicants on a curve, so that ones with under-represented population traits in the applicant pool get an increased chance of being admitted, and those with over-represented traits get a decreased chance. But the straightforward way may be unpalatable or illegal, so proxies for the traits get used instead, such as admitting the top 10% of students graduating from each high school acting as a proxy for race and income diversity.

    It is generally taken that liberals favor both diversity and feminism, and contra the claims in this article, feminism is not "advocating for women" but advocating for fairness and equality in a society that has traditionally provided women with neither. So it should be no surprise at all that feminists would favor gender ratios that mirror society rather than favoring gender-blind admissions just because those would now favor women.

  • shawn_dude||

    Yet another article trying to advocate against diversity at universities by picking a disadvantaged group and trying to show how they are more discriminated against than even white males by these policies. First it was asians and now it's women and all of it born out of the desire to give advantages to whites.

  • Negi||

    No, it's principled stand that race and sex shouldn't be a factor in school admissions and hiring.

  • Careless||

    You heard it here first: having slightly fewer women in college but still a majority would lower diversity

  • Lee Moore||

    56% of admitted students being female is not evidence of bias against men. A higher percentage of female applicants than the precentage of female admissions isn't evidence of bias against women. The key questions in identifying bias are :

    1. what are the college's criteria for success in a student and
    2. how well do admission decisions map to those criteria ?

    So if a college believes that the most important thing is the student's overall college GPA or lifetime earnings or academic citations or whatever (or some algebraic combination thereof) then the question is do their admission decisions reasonably predict these success criteria. So if female students are 56% of admissions but 75% of successes then that's at least an initial clue that the admission decisions may be stacked against them.

  • Negi||

    Gail is saying that vs sex-blind assessment, women are discriminated against for undergrad admissions.

  • Lee Moore||

    I think you missed my point. Gail is saying that vs sex-blind assessment [of pre college academic qualifications] women are discriminated against for undergrad admissions. My point is that pre-college academic qualifications may not be the most reliable predictor of a successful graduate.

    Thus if you rank all admissions according to their pre college qualifications and then rerank them when they graduate according to their GPA in college, in may be that on average women slide down the rankings a bit and men climb up them a bit. You might speculate as to the reason (if this happens) - eg men maturing more slowly intellectually, girls being more disciplined in school - the reason doesn't matter. The point is that if you are selecting for success in college a lower pre college academic qualification in a man may predict as much success in college as a slightly higher pre college qualification in a woman. Hence discriminating between men and women on admissions to give the men a small boost on their lower qualifications may be perfectly reasonable and not at all unfair, if the college is aiming to maximise success in college. Nor do you have to use an overall measure across all majors. Maybe men improve in ranking in the humanities and slide in STEM. But you don't have to guess. You can do the numbers.

  • Lee Moore||

    This applies equally to discrimination on race, social class, quality of high school, parental income, whatever. You look at the "after' results, and that tells you how much to aim off when you're looking at the "before" qualifiations. Because you have a lot of students, you can do proper statistical sums. You do not need to stick your finger in the air and say "30 point SAT bonus for you, because...well seems about right." You can say "30 point SAT bonus for you because our forty years of sums indicate that on average you'll perform 30 points better than your SAT score."

  • Negi||

    I am aware. If it were up to me, I would make SAT the sole entrance criterion. Gail is making a different point, however, that schools are messing with their admissions numbers with disparate treatment. The quality of their admissions requirements is interesting but not relevant.

  • Tatil Sever||

    A lot of maybe's, yet no possibility that these groups value diversity even if it hurts some of "them"? There is no way they don't view this as a zero sum game?

    "The broad coalition of left-leaning activists" also advocate for higher taxes, even though many of their members earn more than the median, so would end up paying higher taxes. Should we expect an article questioning their motives? Maybe, they expect to add special loopholes for themselves. Maybe, they cannot do math. Be careful, people may start suspecting that you never advocate for policies that doesn't specifically confer advantage to yourself, so you find it unfathomable that somebody else does.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online