September 13, 2011

It's protest time again.

"Sit-in at Doubletree Hotel in Madison to protest lawsuit being filed by the Center for Equal Opportunity against the University of Wisconsin, alleging that current admissions policies discriminate against white and Asian students."

ADDED: I'm not the protest type, but I do remember once participating in a protest — marching around in a circle and chanting. The subject was affirmative action. The year was 1970 and the place was the University of Michigan. The chant was "Open it up... or shut it down," and we did shut it down. There was a student strike. (I still have the letters I wrote to my parents explaining why we were striking.) In 1973, the University of Michigan began its affirmative action program. These days, I'm a law professor, and I teach the case in which the Supreme Court found that the program violated the Constitution. Speaking of circles.

And I'm a blogger observing the protests. One observation I have about student protests is that the applicants who don't get in are not around to march and chant. They went somewhere else — perhaps Eau Claire or Whitewater. The university officials last night stressed that every student who is here should feel good about being here, that he or she deserves to be here. Of course, we want everyone who is here to feel great about it. The officials don't see much need to speak to the individuals who were rejected. They're not part of the campus climate. Back in 1970 when we protested at Michigan, we were protesting against our own interest, being altruistic, saying, essentially, maybe we don't deserve to be here. It is important to visualize the effect of a policy on persons who are not present to assert their interests.

If the question is whether the current admission policy is constitutional under the existing Supreme Court case law, we need to examine the details. In its 2003 cases involving the University of Michigan programs, the undergraduate program was found unconstitutional, but the law school's approach was upheld. So, under the current law, it depends on how you do it, and of course, Wisconsin's policy today was shaped with knowledge of that case law.

It should be noted, however, that the Michigan law school program was upheld in a 5-4 decision in which Justice O'Connor provided the decisive vote. I think today's Supreme Court — with Alito replacing O'Connor — would have gone the other way in that case. It remains to be seen what will happen to the lawsuit against the University of Wisconsin. We have yet to see the reports that will be released today and how the university will respond.

Not every controversy is resolved through a lawsuit, of course. For example, California, via proposition, banned the use of race as a factor in admissions. Obviously, Wisconsin has a conservative legislature and governor, but I tend to doubt that they want the mass of trouble that would ensue if they were to propose to end affirmative action by statute. So, I assume there will be a lawsuit, and we shall see what happens.

ADDED: Here is the UW-Madison Chancellor's response, asserting that admissions at UW-Madison are done through "a holistic, competitive and selective process."

139 comments:

gerry said...

Lord almighty, I offer thanks for not living in the land of cheese.

WV: pricks

I kid you not.

Sixty Grit said...

Racism is acceptable when it is against the right group of people.

James said...

I had to smile at some of the overwrought comments in the earlier thread....I'd really like to know where all these black students are at Madison. I dropped my son off on August 30 and spent the day on campus and counted a grand total of 4 blacks. My son is the only black kid in his Kronshage Hall residence building but apparently another black kid lives in a nearby residence hall :)

Lem said...

This is the kind of story that leave me scratching my head.. and thinking maybe I should chance shampoo ;)

Shouting Thomas said...

What are the protesters going to do?

Threaten violence against CEO unless they drop the lawsuit?

What else they got?

Maguro said...

What did the Doubletree Hotel do to deserve this? Is it owned by the Koch Brothers or something?

Maguro said...

Oh, never mind, it's where they're going to have the news conference. What a circus.

Lem said...

Threaten violence against CEO unless they drop the lawsuit?
What else they got
?

Something involving.. see for yourself.

Clyde said...

So there's going to be a sit-in to protest in favor of racial discrimination?! Dr. King is rolling over in his grave!

Only in Madison!

wv: derid. Alternate past tense of "deride."

lyssalovelyredhead said...

I dropped my son off on August 30 and spent the day on campus and counted a grand total of 4 blacks.

Seriously, you count that sort of thing? I've been on a number of college campuses; it's never occurred to me to count the number of people with various physical characteristics. Think I would be a happier or better person if I started?

- Lyssa

Shouting Thomas said...

California university administrators have effectively nullified the law against quotas.

They invite applicants to write weepy essays to accompany their applications. Essentially, administrators are asking applicants to identify themselves obliquely as belonging to one of the quota groups.

So, you are wrong about California, Althouse. In practice, students are asked to identify themselves as black, hispanic, gay or female, so that they can be given quota preference.

Roger Sweeny said...

Racist acts are good when they're done by good people for good reasons.

JackOfVA said...

"The university officials last night stressed that every student is here should feel good about being here, that he or she deserves to be here."

If this is true, then the graduation rates for minority and non-minority admissions should be substantially identical.

As I read the statistics -- available in great detail at http://apa.wisc.edu/degrees_grad_ret.html -- African American students have about 50-55% graduation rate, compared with the "all new students" graduation rate of 80-85%.

Whilst other explanations are possible, at a minimum this large a differential in graduation rates suggests minority students are admitted with lower skill levels and that is reflected in lower graduation rates.

James said...

Seriously, you count that sort of thing? I've been on a number of college campuses; it's never occurred to me to count the number of people with various physical characteristics. Think I would be a happier or better person if I started?


It was my first time on UW's campus and I've always heard how homogeneously white it was. It wold have been hard not to notice the very few black people I came across.

Odds are that you've never been in a situation where you're decidedly a minority and you look around to see if anyone else looks like you.

Shouting Thomas said...

One of the "unforeseen consequences" of the quota system at law schools is that blacks are admitted to schools where they cannot compete, but where they are passed along in order to puff up the Diversity numbers.

Blacks fail the bar exam in huge numbers.

Final outcome: angry people stuck with huge student loan burdens, failure to pass the bar, and no job.

pm317 said...

Affirmative action based on race (or caste as in India) is perhaps not the way to do it now. It should be largely based on income. Recently I read an article in an Indian magazine about a lower caste guy who went all the way to IIMs and now is an entrepreneur employing hundreds in his business. One thing he said stuck with me which was that he said his children won't need affirmative action because he can take care of them and give them opportunities that they would not have otherwise.

Sharc said...

Does anyone really believe there is "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body"? Compelling? This was O'Connor's phrase, and it was a sham at the time. If you think there is a compelling interest in placing minorities over whites, just say so, and let's debate it openly. But don't pretend that the quality of my education (on the law, engineering, whatever) is somehow positively influenced by the skin color of the student sitting next to me. Liberals always have to disguise their motives to make them palatable for the masses. I think we're done with that.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Odds are that you've never been in a situation where you're decidedly a minority and you look around to see if anyone else looks like you.

As a redhead, I'm always a minority. Even my own immediate family is 50/50 (and that's only if you don't count spouses). The only time I look for other redheads is when I'm searching for fashion and makeup tips.

JohnnyL said...

I would imagine the university administrators should welcome a lawsuit. Gives them a chance to show why discrimination is a valuable thing, how it teaches life lessons to those rejected and those accepted....or some such twaddle that they will undoubtedly come up with.
As for the Michigan Law school, they still discriminate, just in a lawful manner.

Original Mike said...

"It's protest time again"

Doin'right ain't got no end.

Lem said...

So there's going to be a sit-in to protest in favor of racial discrimination?! Dr. King is rolling over in his grave!

Protesting something that has not yet happened..

Preemption ala Bush Doctrine?

.."the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate;

pm317 said...

James said...
Odds are that you've never been in a situation where you're decidedly a minority and you look around to see if anyone else looks like you.
-------------

Well said. There was no need to take what you said so literally on the part of the other commenter.

Tank said...

Racism is good if practiced by Alpha, J and Jeremy, but bad if practiced by Shouting, Pogo and AllenS.

AJ Lynch said...

And as Rrhardin pointed out in the thread below, O'Connor said the Constitution allowed affirmative action for another 20 years or so.

Bob_R said...

Well, we all say that "everyone who is here deserves to be here." But we know that there is a large chunk of students at the bottom of the admit pool that has a high rate of failure and a small chance of success in a challenging/useful major. Some of them do succeed, and it's hard to predict who from an application form. But the bottom (what is it at UW 20%?, 30%?) have credentials that indicate a low probability of success.

MarkG said...

Odds are that you've never been in a situation where you're decidedly a minority and you look around to see if anyone else looks like you.

It would make me feel so much better if people treated me like a child, and assumed I'm only there as a racial token with lesser entrance requirements.

Surfed said...

The Captain Louis Renault Award to anyone surprised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active

PaulV said...

Who is going to stand at the school's door to block the court ordered victims of discrimination entry into the hallowed halls of WI-Madison?

MadisonMan said...

At least lawyers will be employed!

James, I hope your son has a good time here. Maybe he'll meet my daughter, 'tho she's not in Lakeshore. They'll only meet in a snowball fight.

The DoubleTree, for old-timers no longer here, is the old HoJos on Johnson.

MadisonMan said...

P.S.: Thanks althouse for the case law info. You, a law professor.

John M Auston said...

This isn't complicated. One gets on the UW football team via color-blind merit. Because of certain genetic advantages, this leads to clear disparate impacts, especially at defensive back and running back. African Americans will be over-represented. So what.

One should qualify for academic admission based on color-blind merit. Because of certain genetic advantages, this leads to clear disparate impacts. Asian and White Americans will be over-represented. So what.

SGT Ted said...

Based on the graduation rate of their discriminatory policy, I'd say that the claim that "they all belong here" is complete bullshit.

Pogo said...

At a minimum, I want my nonrefundable $44 application fee back, and the hotel room maybe, for my son's visits last year.

If UWMadison had told me upfront that my pasty white Minnesota kid had a snowball's chance in hell of getting in (and a second snowball's chance in hell of getting into the famous UWMadison business school after that, facing a second race/gender filter) because he wasn't the color or sex they were looking for, we wouldn't have wasted our time.

Bitter?
You betcha.

Sharc said...

But John, that's raaaaciist! (See, I'm getting the hang of UW admissions policies.)

Hagar said...

"The university officials last night stressed that every student who is here should feel good about being here, that he or she deserves to be here. Of course, we want everyone who is here to feel great about it."

Why?
When I went to college, it was to learn something necessary to become an engineer, a vocation to work at, learn more, and eventually be qualified to be registered as a Professional Engineer, so that I could work some more. It was not so that I could "feel good."

It is notable that with all this exhortation to "study hard and stay in (high)school, so that you can go to college," there is never any reason given why you should wish to go to college.
The assumption seems to be that if you can just get in, good things will happen to you for the rest of your life, with no further effort required on your part.

This is not how life actually works, people.

Sofa King said...

The most tragic thing about affirmative action in higher education is that it is an blatant attempt to create a Potemkin campus, and in doing so papers over the much more fundamental and important problems in minority primary schools, thus preserving the very achievement gap it tries so hard to pretend doesn't exist.

SGT Ted said...

If they were admitted based on their actuall academic qualifications, now THAT would be a reason enough to "feel good about themselves" wouldn't it?

But, when you are admitted because some white liberals think that, because of your skin color, you are really too stupid to be there without their benificent handout, well that would be a good reason to not feel good about yourself.

Shanna said...

Back in 1970 when we protested at Michigan, we were protesting against our own interest, being altruistic, saying, essentially, maybe we don't deserve to be here. It is important to visualize the effect of a policy on persons who are not present to assert their interests.

You weren’t protesting against your own interests. It was never going to hurt you, you were already in.

I had an ethics class with a lot of group discussion. The day we did Affirmative Action there were two black girls in the class. One of them got up and basically said she knew she would never have gotten in except for AA. I felt sad for her, because it seemed like she had no confidence in her own ability and did not think she got in on her own merits.

rhhardin said...

I hope protest doesn't come from testicle too.

The patriarchy is everywhere.

geokstr said...

lyssalovelyredhead said...
As a redhead, I'm always a minority. Even my own immediate family is 50/50 (and that's only if you don't count spouses). The only time I look for other redheads is when I'm searching for fashion and makeup tips.


Lyssa, I know you will appreciate this song, aptly titled "Prejudice":
Tim Minchin: Prejudice

Squid said...

This is not how life actually works, people.

I know a certain Provost and Vice-Provost of Diversity and Climate who would beg to differ.

orthodoc said...

So 150 UW students showed up last night for this emergency meeting? Wow!

In other news, 41,850 UW students studied, drank, avoided writing term papers till the last minute, put the make on other students, or slept in.

James said...

It would make me feel so much better if people treated me like a child, and assumed I'm only there as a racial token with lesser entrance requirements.

Sure. If you want to ignore his National Honor Society membership, superior ACT scores and academic grades and a host of extracuricular activities.

Pogo said...

I only want UW Madison to be upront with the stats. "Don't waste your time applying if you are a white male."

I encourage you to lie and say you're gay, transgendered, or have one drop of black blood and therefore are black.

Bob Ellison said...

Like Shanna, I was surprised by this sentence: Back in 1970 when we protested at Michigan, we were protesting against our own interest, being altruistic, saying, essentially, maybe we don't deserve to be here.

It must have seemed like altruism, and I do think the allure of altruism motivates much of liberalism. But it was probably primarily a combination of rebellion, young enthusiasm, and exciting political correctness that motivated you. This was the right thing to do, and I want to be a correct person, so I do this. That doesn't make it wrong, but I do mean to denigrate your motivations.

Calypso Facto said...

Who knew that my son (white) and his friend (Asian) were either the oppressor or the oppressed depending on whose version of racial animus you subscribe to? I just thought they were hard working kids with good grades. Hopefully they maintain their track record of being focused on education (imagine that) and avoiding the feel-good groupthink of protests led by the Vice Provost of Religious Replacement.

James, good luck to your son! Mine's been in the Lakeshore complex 2 years and loves it.

James said...

James, I hope your son has a good time here. Maybe he'll meet my daughter, 'tho she's not in Lakeshore. They'll only meet in a snowball fight.

He's settled in so far and he knows better than to get involved in things that aren't related to his purpose there. It helps that his roommate is his fourth grade teacher's son and they've known each other since first grade.

Your daughter is in a residence hall?

BTW, I was shocked how run-down parts of Madison appeared. I exited on Washington Ave. and the area around Madison East looks like crap.

MarkG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John M Auston said...

Sofa King said: The most tragic thing about affirmative action . . . [is that it] . . . papers over the much more fundamental and important problems in minority primary schools . . .

That's not it, either. Try this analogy. I have an O.K. singing voice. I can pretty much carry a tune, and I know when I hit a wrong note. My problem is, I can't stop hitting wrong notes. Despite years of trying, I simply do not have the genetic gift of a great singing voice. Realizing this, I have forgone any foolish attempts to make a career out of singing - Gladwell's 10,000 hours of practice be damned. Ain't gonna make me a pro singer. And I don't need a voice coach to point that out.

If friends and family, not wanting to crush my dreams, or hurt my feelings, pushed me to try out for American Idol, or spend years playing Holiday Inn lounges waiting to be discovered, they would be doing me no favors.

Similarly, there are many wonderful, accurate (no cultural bias) IQ tests available, that give one valuable feedback as to whether they would or would not be wise to make college and possibly grad school, the path towards economic success.

Admissions standards also SHOULD be playing that role, pointing folks towards good choices for themselves, and protecting them from bad ones, by denying admission.

And then the chips just fall where they do.

MarkG said...

Sure. If you want to ignore his National Honor Society membership, superior ACT scores and academic grades and a host of extracuricular activities.

Great. Then your son should make and wear a posterboard that says as much so people don't just assume he's a racial token.

George said...

Given the odds ratios in the report, if true, it's going to be darn tough for UW to argue that the undergraduate is legal under Gratz or that that the law school admission is legal under Grutter (particularly damning here is the comparison between out of state black students and in-state white/Asian students).

This was always going to be the case--affirmative action will always end up as a quota system.

jmill said...

Ah yes. The BAM strike. Those were the days. (UofM Law'71)

EDH said...

Amidst all the conflicting interests, one thing is clear.

One group of people who benefit most from race-based admissions are those who go on to jobs like "vice provost for diversity and climate."

Sofa King said...


I encourage you to lie and say you're gay, transgendered, or have one drop of black blood and therefore are black.

I agree! Protests and sit-ins are not the only form of civil disobedience.

Nick's blog said...

Of course if one encourages identity politics it should have been easy to figure out that all sides can play.

Set against this the dogma of cognitive egalitarianism and disparate outcomes being non negotiable marker for racism.

You either have to 'correct' disparate outcomes with overt racism or accept that different groups display differing distribution of the various aptitudes that make up the human condition.

Personally, I think us heterosexual, white, male, atheists need to get organised!

Nick - South Africa

PETER V. BELLA said...

Just admit people on their merits. Period. All that diversity is just a bunch of bovine excrement.

If you don't have the credentials you lose. Too damn bad. You should have studied harder in high school.

James said...

Great. Then your son should make and wear a posterboard that says as much so people don't just assume he's a racial token.

I'll be sure to pass on your suggestion.

pm317 said...

MarkG said...
------------------

Why should he? It is not his problem that there are people who think perhaps he should not be there. They are the people ascribing/insinuating that doubt. The kid would know he got in because of his merits. Who cares what you or other people think? You seem opposed to AA and highlighting its disadvantage but there are some advantages to it too. It is a hard question to decide when to stop it -- maybe the generations it is meant to uplift as they get better should stop using it.

About James' original comment -- it is not so much about counting(it was a figure of speech on his part, I think) but you just notice it inadvertently. I am in minority where ever I go and it is hard not to notice.

Bob_R said...

Uh...Pogo, a lot of stats are public information. About 10,000 white males in UW. About 6,000 students are admitted each year. Of those about 200 are black, 250 Hispanic. I understand that there are important matters of principle here, but we are talking about how we choose a couple of hundred people with the worst applications in a populations of thousands.

James said...

James, good luck to your son! Mine's been in the Lakeshore complex 2 years and loves it.

Thanks Calypso, I didn't realize there were so many UW parents posting here. My kid's in Mack Hall so they probably use the same dining facilities.

Saint Croix said...

What are the protesters going to do?

I guess you could glitter all the white people. And the Asians. Racial attacks should drive them away, right? (And balance is achieved!)

Or is that criminal?

Or is glitter always non-criminal?

Or maybe it's a hate crime?

Or a hate non-crime?

It's all so confusing!

Fred4Pres said...

I watched Commune last night on Netflix. It was interesting. You would have liked it Ann.

I give them credit for actually doing something rather than protesting (or joining the weather underground).

mariner said...

Not every controversy is resolved through a lawsuit, of course. For example, California, via proposition, banned the use of race as a factor in admissions.
And university adminstrators promptly stated they would ignore the new law.

Pogo said...

@Bob_R
"but we are talking about how we choose a couple of hundred people with the worst applications in a populations of thousands"

Nope.
My son's Catholic high school used to routinely send 10-15 kids to UW Madison, every year. They outpace every public school on test scores.

In 2011?
Only six.
Five girls.
One boy, hispanic last name.

My son was in the top 10% of the class. MadisonMan may be right and they were pushing more WI residents, but all the same, I want my fees back. The whole thing stinks.

Pogo said...

"Uh...Pogo, a lot of stats are public information."

Gee thanks.

What was not public info until after my son applied was that you had hired a Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate whose stated aim was to discriminate on the basis of race and sex.

Maguro said...

Seems like a more interesting question is why Wisconsin blacks perform so poorly in school that UW-Madison can only manage to admit 200 a year even with the help of affirmative action. And I presume that number includes scholarship athletes, which makes the "real" numbers look even worse.

MarkG said...

It is not his problem that there are people who think perhaps he should not be there. They are the people ascribing/insinuating that doubt.

If there weren't lower standards, no one would think he got in with lower scores. That's the point. That's the principle.

BTW, no one assumes Indian students get in with lower standards. Why?

Mary said...

(I still have the letters I wrote to my parents explaining why we were striking.)

Reprint your letters home, if you dare.

cassandra lite said...

Back in the day, when the only AA students were legacies, we had much better class of protestor.

pm317 said...

If you don't have the credentials you lose. Too damn bad. You should have studied harder in high school.
------------

If only it were that simple.

I am not that familiar with the history of affirmative action in the US but I can speak to it from my Indian experience. There ought to be some mechanism in a society to bring the lower strata (be it economic or social) to have similar opportunities as the rest. There are many success stories in India but there are as many resentments of the quota system.

smithdrive said...

According to CEO's executive summary of the report examining undergraduate admissions at UW-Madison: "In 2007 and 2008, UW admitted more than 7 out of every 10 black applicants, and more than 8 out of 10 Hispanics, versus roughly 6 in 10 Asians and whites." But, figures available on the UW-Madison website show that in 2007 and 2008, UW admitted about 4 in 10 black applicants, 6.5 in 10 Hispanic applicants, and nearly 6 in 10 white applicants. Is this a credible report?

lemondog said...

Oh, goody! Will we get to see the Wisc Supremes in action?

Patrick said...

Back when I went to UW, we still had registration starting at the Stock Pavillion. Freshman went last, unless you were minority. That meant that the desired classes and times were inevitably filled up before most could even try to get in. It still irks the living hell out of me that the daughter of a very successful professional football player took a spot in a class I needed before I could get in. She was a freshman, I was a junior. She got that spot for one reason: her race.

I join in Pogo's bitterness.

But Lyssa, I always count redheads, wherever I am.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sofa King said...

There ought to be some mechanism in a society to bring the lower strata (be it economic or social) to have similar opportunities as the rest.


There is such a mechanism already: free public education.

J said...

209--

aka ....affirmative action for rich asians and westside WASPs and jews. Hispanic and black enrollment at UCs has dropped signficantly.

AA should factor in economic-level(as it was in CA prior to 209)--ie, poor students, of whatever background (including caucasian) then have a fighting chance. The rural poor whites probably had a better chance before 209 was in place.

Saint Croix said...

The most tragic thing about affirmative action in higher education is that it is an blatant attempt to create a Potemkin campus, and in doing so papers over the much more fundamental and important problems in minority primary schools, thus preserving the very achievement gap it tries so hard to pretend doesn't exist.

Yes. Thank you. The education system is biased in favor of people who have wealth. If you have wealth, you can send your kids to private school. Or you can live in a wealthy district, and get to go to a stronger public school.

If you're poor, you go to a crappy school.

We could fix this, but first liberals would have to agree to support school choice. You would have to kill the teacher's union. Liberals have zero interest in doing this. They would rather advance a bunch of unprepared kids, and claim that there is no problem.

Potemkin village is exactly the right term.

Consider too that liberals are willing to let millions of Africans die from malaria every year, when that is easily fixed (it's called DDT).

Liberals are also opposed to GM foods when that could keep millions of starving black and brown people alive.

We are the party of Lincoln and have nothing to be ashamed of in this area. Democrats have a long history of inflaming people about race. It's one of their favorite things to do.

pm317 said...

If there weren't lower standards, no one would think he got in with lower scores. That's the point.
-------------
Yeah, I get that point but the kid if he also had merit should not be bothered by the stigma you speak of. By the same token it is not fair on the part of others to ascribe lower standards where there may be none.

It is a different discussion that lower standards are sometimes necessary to make up for the obstacles the student encounters to get where they are.

MarkG said...

If you don't have the credentials you lose. Too damn bad. You should have studied harder in high school.

That's not true at all. I did poorly in high school, but eventually got into UW. Then I was a poor undergraduate student, but eventually got an graduate degree in engineering (with good grades). It requires a significant personal investment, not a "helping hand."

geoffb said...

Re: Michigan and here.

Real American said...

all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others.

James said...

I am not that familiar with the history of affirmative action in the US but I can speak to it from my Indian experience. There ought to be some mechanism in a society to bring the lower strata (be it economic or social) to have similar opportunities as the rest. There are many success stories in India but there are as many resentments of the quota system

My wife and I are both immigrants (she's from Trinidad and I'm from Guyana) so we have no direct experience with the kinds of discrimination that AA attempts to remedy.

Its interesting to me that anyone would assume that my kid needed AA to get into UW-Madison. Both of his parents are professionals with graduate degrees; AA was certainly not intended for people who fit our profile. The irony is that the kid could have gone anywhere, including a few Ivy league schools, but chose Madison instead.

smithdrive said...

Bigger problem than admission policies, is why do blacks only make up 2.2-2.6% of all applicants at UW? WI high schools are failing minority students. Maybe the Center for Equal Opportunity should figure that one out.

J said...

Back in 1970 when we protested at Michigan, we were protesting against our own interest, being altruistic, saying, essentially, maybe we don't deserve to be here.

That was in those carefree days, before the profound truths of like Ayn Rand sunk in.

Pogo said...

"AA was certainly not intended for people who fit our profile. "

Its intent was changing racial preferences to favor black and hispanic students.

The problem has always been that it taints the recipients as less worthy, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

MarkG said...

My wife and I are both immigrants (she's from Trinidad and I'm from Guyana) so we have no direct experience with the kinds of discrimination that AA attempts to remedy.

AA in Madison is not to remedy past discrimination. It's to get a some representative number of black Americans to attend, and the school obviously struggles with it. They have for decades.

edutcher said...

Back in my undergrad days at Villanova, I noticed the same people were always at the various protests going on and wondered when they had time to go to class.

Or is that a degree program, too?

WV "bacist" Bigoted guy with a big fiddle.

Saint Croix said...

Its interesting to me that anyone would assume that my kid needed AA to get into UW-Madison.

Read Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby. When a university advances people because of their skin color, if you share that skin color, your advancement is now suspect.

The school's special racial treatment may very well be hurting your son. The school's assumption is that people with his skin color need a boost. So now other people (i.e. employers) will assume that he got a boost.

Affirmative action is racist, stupid, and endlessly self-perpetuating.

roesch-voltaire said...

The officials don't see much need to speak to the individuals who were rejected, writes Althouse . Well I was rejected from Harvard when I applied as an undergraduate because I thought they had already reached their quota of Mid-West working class boy and they never sent a follow up letter to see how I was taking the rejection. I patched my ego and applied to UW-Madison, as I discovered many others from the East who were rejected by Yale or Harvard had also done, and managed to survive. Those who are rejected from Madison can attend another state school, get good grades and qualify to transfer in the UW in their sophomore year. Frankly I do not think our goal of diversity has hurt many. In terms of compelling reasons for diversity, I can only say that this year for the first time in many years in my freshman class, there are two African/American men, not football players, one Chinese from the mainland, and two students from Puerto Rico, and a good number of great students from Wisconsin; It has made for a most interesting and lively class. Based on the work so far, I would say they all deserve to be a student at UW.

MarkG said...

Based on the work so far, I would say they all deserve to be a student at UW.

RV, you've only had school for a week and a half. What the hell do you know about them other than their race and national origin?

Anyway, it's an improvement. In the 80s, the only black students I ever saw in the engineering buildings were Africans.

Pogo said...

"Those who are rejected from Madison can attend another state school, get good grades and qualify to transfer in the UW in their sophomore year."
No, because the business school will be doing its own race/sex filtering, disallowing white boys getting into that prestigious school.

"Frankly I do not think our goal of diversity has hurt many."
Yeah, too bad about them. But as long as you feel good about it, you can just forget those you hurt pretty easily because you never see them again, and soon all is well.

J said...

Bigoted guy with a big fiddle.

Yes, that's you, Edulexic, playing like Charlie Daniels tunes, poorly and out of tune.

AA seems like discrimination to..whitey--at least wealthy, ivy league sorts--(the poorer whites had an AA angle in CA via economic background/poor areas, that is, before 209). To a hispanic female from a poor family who worked very hard in her science classes to gain admittance to an RN problem, no--more like Justice. --

Shouting Thomas said...

Jesus, J puts down the crack pipe, sticks his pudd back in his pants and gets sanctimonious.

Incredible!

edutcher said...

J's mixing his crack with Sterno, it seems.

Shouting Thomas said...

I can only say that this year for the first time in many years in my freshman class, there are two African/American men, not football players, one Chinese from the mainland, and two students from Puerto Rico, and a good number of great students from Wisconsin; It has made for a most interesting and lively class.

So, the point of this is to flatter your ego and keep you entertained, r_v?

Fuck the cracker and the gook who didn't get in.

You a consistently awful backstabber, r_v.

J said...

Bigoted guy with a big fiddle.

Yes, that's you, Edulexic, playing like Charlie Daniels tunes, poorly and out of tune.

AA seems like discrimination to..whitey--at least wealthy, ivy league sorts--(the poorer whites had an AA angle in CA via economic background/poor areas, that is, before 209). To a hispanic female from a poor family who worked very hard in her science classes to gain admittance to an RN program, no--more like Justice. --

Calypso Facto said...

Those who are rejected from Madison can attend another state school, get good grades and qualify to transfer in the UW in their sophomore year.

You do realize this argument cuts both ways?

Why is it ok to make white males have to find another school, but not ok to ask a lesser qualified minority student to do the same?

Shouting Thomas said...

J, you've disgraced yourself so consistently here, and now you expect to be taken seriously?

What a putz!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Odds are that you've never been in a situation where you're decidedly a minority and you look around to see if anyone else looks like you.

I'm a white female who used to be a stock broker/financial planner and was decidedly in the minority amidst a majority of men.

It never occurred to me to count how many women were attendees at the various conferences... to keep score.

It also never occurred to me that I should pal up or hang around the other women because they were 'like me'.

I was more concerned with learning and networking so that I could further advance my career. Isn't that what college should be about and not about who is like you or how diverse the organization is?

Carol_Herman said...

If you turn out lawyers you're gonna get law suits.

Now that you know the school gets more admissions requests than it can fill ... it goes about filling them in ways the administrators feel are diverse.

Also, the school must set aside seats for people who live within the state. If getting in was just a math test; most of the students would come from India. Or Korea. Or China.

What do the students gain?

(If you were at Stanford, because Peter Robinson said so. In his book Snapshots from Hell. That school just takes the TOP 1% of their applicants. He had a professor tell him the school didn't even have to teach business courses. It was an MBA program. But could take the students to the golf course for two years. And, you'll still get them into leadership rolls in Business. And, not just in the United States.)

Pull the top 1% of applicants in, and these kids leave schools and run companies. They are picked for their successful attributes.

If this is true at Madison, you'd see richness i diversity. And, you'd see ... FOR INSTANCE ... a rise in students with strong "other" abilities. Like Art. Music. Sports.

Then, you have to look at the coursework, itself. (If you're taking a high school kid to visit a college campus, I'd recommend going into the bookstore. To see what the kids are told to buy to use as their course material.)

Carol_Herman said...

My son's experiences at Harvey Mudd College led to his employment at SONY. But even better, are the friendships he's made. The 4 years he spent there has given him friends he's still very close to.

Nobody guarantees this about college, either.

J said...

What's that Edu perp?False accusations, lies , cheap ad hominem --the AA cowardly klangrrl usual. I don't use dope--you do,wiccatrash.

Just avoid discussing any real political issue--your mumbling just makes you look more pathetic . Get that GED,klangrrl

You and yr racist boyfriend Shouting Tweekfag are already suspected terrorists, pops. Got that, perps?

Peter said...

If Affirmative Action were defensible, it would not require a sea of lies and obfuscation to remain afloat.

If admissions officers were to simply say, “We want a minimum number nn of students to be of this race and ethnicity and so we’ll offer admission to the top nn+x applicants of that race and ethnicity” then at least the public would know what they’re doing.

But (of course) they wouldn’t do that, because the use of hard quotas would almost certainly be found unconstitutional.

And so, they retreat to subjectivity and downplay objective admissions criteria to the extent possible in order to “make the numbers” by any means necessary.

Further, if the rationale to support Affirmative Action is that it benefits all students then I’d think the case for this would be easier to make in fields that are obviously socially constructed (such as law) than in physics, chemistry, etc. But that would argue for a heavier Affirmative Action thumb in some fields than in others- and somehow I doubt that’s the case.

With little transparency and constant pressure to rely more on subjectivity, the public reasonably concludes that the process must be dishonest and indefensible.

Shouting Thomas said...

What's that Edu perp?False accusations, lies , cheap ad hominem --the AA cowardly klangrrl usual. I don't use dope--you do,wiccatrash.

Back to the usual psychotic ravings, J!

That's better.

J said...

You're a disgrace, Shouting Assclown--uneducated, irrational, incapable of writing--pure white trash, like yr whoremama.

Get the fuck offline terrorists, if you know what's good for you klangrrls.

Carol_Herman said...

I didn't go to college when I was young. But I did return when I was 50. And, living here, near Pasadena City College.

To get in all I needed was a #2 pencil. Which I used to fill out an application form.

I LOVED THAT SCHOOL! I was mesmerized by how good the professors were! And, when I said this out loud, I received back the feedback that helped me understand why.

Caltech wasn't far away. But it was a smaller campus. And, there were more professors who wanted to teach, than would find jobs there.

This opened Pasadena City College up to the spectacular talent you get when you get a haphazard array of students. (You're not getting the geniuses who are on Caltech's campus.)

The professors were outstanding!

The material presented was outstanding.

If you think it's the students who are the most important part of the mix, I'd beg to differ. It's the professors, who, when they are outstanding, make a college shine!

J said...

Get the fuck offline Shouting klansgrrl, you retarded illiterate bag of shit .

Shouting Thomas said...

Get the fuck offline Shouting klansgrrl, you retarded illiterate bag of shit .

As crazy as the Diversity scoundrels at UW are, J, I seriously doubt if they want you to represent them.

MadisonMan said...

Your daughter is in a residence hall?

Southeast dorms. One of the old ones, but she has a great view! Gonna be a sorority girl. Not sure what I think about that.

MadisonMan said...

I see AA and don't parse it as Affirmative Action...I parse it as Ann Althouse, and that makes for interesting meanings :)

Duncan said...

When WalMart finds that it has too many customers to fit in its stores, it builds more stores.

Superior organizational design, I guess.

Tiffany & Co. does the same thing.

J said...

You're too stupid for political
discussion, Shouting scumbag.

At least a GED required--you're SOL. Anyway, I told you to get offline, trash. Comprendes, klan puto? You'd do well to listen.


+++++++++++

Cedarford said...

rhhardin said...
The Constitution allows discrimination until 2025, if I've read the Constitution correctly.

=================
Ah, yes..the fruit of the wisdom of the legendary and revered Sandra Day O'Connor and her brilliant "balancing tests".

Pity the twits husband was not a slobbering Alzheimers basket case 10 years before the date she quit to care for him.

Eisenhower's appointment turd was Warren. Ford's was John Paul Stevens. Reagan's was Sandra Day O'Connor, the legislator who remained a legislator to the utter contempt of Scalia...
And of course GHW Bush's Souter..

And for those that say wishing she had retired much earlier, even if it meant early onset Alzheimers...she posed as one thing to be appointed, then slowly became another thing. Who further legitimized not just affirmative action in the absence of any legislation or part of the Constitution, but did the same to keep all the abortion clinics in business.

Scott M said...

Tiffany & Co. does the same thing.

Hell...the teens that do lawn-mowing around my neighborhood know better. Too many of them in one area vying for the same lawns? Expand the area. Too few? Raise the rates.

John Lynch said...

I think proponents of AA need to be honest. It does discriminate, but the good that comes from it is worth it.

There's an enormous amount of effort that goes into saying that AA doesn't matter when it comes to keeping people out of college, but if that were the case then AA isn't doing what it's supposed to. Of course it discriminates on the basis of race- that's the point. Getting angry at conservatives for merely pointing out the obvious leaves me scratching my head. A discussion of AA has to be honest about what's happening and why it should continue. Conservatives aren't being evil in opposing AA, they are just applying an equal standard to everyone on the basis of merit. That's equality, and there's nothing to be angry about. Liberal attempts to obfuscate the issue or demonize AA opponents have caused them to lose the debate nationally. AA is probably on the way out nationally.

After many years of hating it, I've decided that the AA goal of raising people out of the underclass is worth the cost. Even if it's not very efficient (which has been correctly pointed out many times), it does create a middle class where before there was none. Middle class values are worth the cost. How else are we going to accomplish the goal of permanently moving people out of poverty? If things are going to change it has to be an educated middle class that leads the way.

A lot of people here complain about culture being the cause of poverty. OK, I agree. How then to change the culture? One way is to throw up our hands and say we can do nothing and it's their own damn fault. I disagree. I think AA is something that can be done and it has changed the culture for a minority of people. I think having a black middle class at all is worth it. Without a core of married middle class families there's nothing to work with.

Meritocracy is all very nice except for the people near the bottom who can't get out. What to do about them? AA helps a lot of people on the margin who otherwise would slip into the underclass that we all deplore. The rise of the meritocracy has been concurrent with the rise of the underclass. The two are linked.

So AA works to combat a social ill, and the cost is borne by other, richer, segments of society. It's unfair, but so is being born at the bottom. And I don't see a better way to fix the problem of an uneducated underclass.

Scott M said...

Anyway, I told you to get offline, trash. Comprendes, klan puto? You'd do well to listen.

Or what, bench-presser? Just what is E-grade-J going to do about it?

J said...

Miss Althouse a ..racist?
Looks like it, by the company she keeps. Ombudsman time .

Cedarford said...

Clyde said...
So there's going to be a sit-in to protest in favor of racial discrimination?! Dr. King is rolling over in his grave!

=============
King said one thing in the only speech that right wing conservatives religiously quote about "content of character, not color of skin" - but since that crowd is ignorant of what else St Martin was all about, don't have a clue King was all about quotas and set asides.

Blacks and liberals know this "whole" MLK history.
That is why they quote King on his protests (inc Memphis) that blacks be given municipal jobs in proportion to their numbers in a city's population.

MLK was a quota guy. He'd be demanding X number of black firefighters, X number of black students at law schools no matter if other people were more qualified.

So when you oppose AA, you oppose the real beliefs of Saint Martin.

Shouting Thomas said...

@John Lynch,

An honest appraisal of the quota system for a change.

I've seen it work in some instances. I've seen it fail dramatically in some instances. I can't tell you how that works out statistically.

I tend to notice the failures because they are so dramatic. The burnouts I've witnessed in the workplace of the quota beneficiaries who are completely overmatched were very painful.

Even given your honest appraisal of the quota system, and conceding that in some cases it might accomplish something close to its goal...

It's been going on for over 40 years. That's enough.

Scott M said...

it does create a middle class where before there was none

I see where you're going here, John, but it's not that simple. There was indeed a middle-class of blacks. I'm all for integration, but the forced opening up of white shops, restaurants, etc, destroyed the black-owned businesses en masse. In order to say that AA was the only was this middle-class were to be re-created, you have to make the case that it wouldn't have happened otherwise.

Kit said...

John Lynch - I like that. AA always struck me as an odd thing to oppose. Individual cases, perhaps, but as a principle, it seems admirable.

John Lynch said...

I'm coming from a spot where things look really bad, and I'm not sure that abolishing AA is going to help.

The argument for AA is sociological and cultural, it's not economic. The economy as a whole could be better off without it, except for the long term social costs.

The cost of an enormous, often criminal, underclass is higher than the cost of AA. All the transfer payments and all the criminal justice costs are enormous in size. Encouraging achievement at the margin seems like a better and cheaper bet to me.

Promoting a culture of work and achievement has to start somewhere. Perhaps AA is not the best way to do that, but I'd like to see alternatives. Welfare reform was a good idea, too, but it seems to me we should do whatever we can if it has some benefit. The problem is large enough that we should at least consider all solutions, even old ones that don't fit our meritocratic ideal.

People can disagree on this stuff without being evil or racist. I think there is a case for conservatives to support AA if it can be shown to serve the end of encouraging middle class values.

If it doesn't, then of course there's not much justification for it from a conservative point of view. Or perhaps discrimination on the basis of race is too odious no matter what good could come of it. Or equality of opportunity is all that we should expect or want. These are principles that most people support most of the time. The trouble for me is the reality of America today, where awful social pathologies play out in fairly limited pockets without anyone outside caring very much.

SunnyJ said...

@MadisonMan..think good about her sorority affiliation. Late 60-early70's as 13 yr old living on the street in Madison, a beautiful blond Alpha Phi Sorority girl from Monroe WI was the kindest person I had ever met. I would never have "sorority" in my lexicon, if not for her. You could have easily typed her as typical sorority with her looks, perhaps it was her character. Hope your daughter is made in that mold.

@DustBunny...I went on to be one of the only women in EF Hutton office without a 4 yr degree. It was all men, except one woman and the me. Care to guess who tried to kill me? There were plenty of guys that didn't want another woman there but, they came out and straight told me. I just asked them to give me the same chance they'd want someone to give their daughter, wife, sister, mom. No more and no less. I was given an opportunity to succeed out side the box and I made the most of it. I have made it a practice in my careers to make sure I do the same when I can.

What bothers me is this: Colin Powell talks about how AA got him into West Point. How it changed his life. How it was an amazing gift. No where does he ever show any sign of wondering what happened to the guy he bumped? How as that a life changing event for him to be qualified and not make it due to Powell's preferred placement ahead of him? That lack of reflection gives me the creeps, when you look at character. That lack of humility and concern for unintended consequences is a deal breaker for me.

James said...

Southeast dorms. One of the old ones, but she has a great view! Gonna be a sorority girl. Not sure what I think about that.

Ahh..okay. If they are the dorms that are sorta downtown I drove by them several times; they reminded my of NYC buildings.

Rick67 said...

Despite my libertarian/conservative leanings I am not 100% against admitting people with lower grades and/or scores because there is something about them or their background that makes you want to give them a chance. I can show you a family we helped with school uniforms that would be good candidates. Good kids trying their best but dang are they poor.

The first problem with *race-based* affirmative action is what if you have a disadvantaged white person competing for that slot with a black person from an upper class home?

One possible counterargument - speaking of Wisconsin for a moment - is that taking into account background but not race might still result in some races getting in more than others. Suddenly a case concerning fireman in New Haven comes to mind if for different reasons.

But another problem is *if* these schools look at *race* rather than background... then clearly they are aiming for certain percentages aka quotas. Right?

Then we can ask, At what point will the race counters be satisfied? And is there a point at which they would say "no that's going too far, that's unfair, we'd better stop"? Is 15% African-American enough? Is 50% Hispanic too much? Is 15% white unfair? What are the *limits* of their policies?

(Believe it or not my kids went to a magnet middle school here that had to save 33% of its slots for non-African-Americans. Great school by the way.)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It was all men, except one woman and the me. Care to guess who tried to kill me?

No need to guess Sunny. Women are vicious. Re: the men not wanting you there. I got that too. Eventually, I opened an independent practice (7,65) affiliated with a different brokerage and didn't need to worry about the 'guys'.

@ MMan. Depending on the sororities values, your daughter should benefit. Make life long adult friends that will be stronger than those even from High School. Women that have the same goals and common experiences because they choose to be associated together. Plus, just being in a group/sorority will make the college experience richer, stronger and keep your daughter focused on college and not likely to be distracted or withdraw from the college.

Rick67 said...

And while we're at it I appreciate John Lynch's comments.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Despite my libertarian/conservative leanings I am not 100% against admitting people with lower grades and/or scores because there is something about them or their background that makes you want to give them a chance.

Me either.

I am against eliminating one person who may be more qualified in favor of another. Disadvantaging one so another can succeed.

It seems to me that if you want to give someone a chance, it shouldn't be at the expense of someone else.

Make MORE room in the organization or college and give that person a chance and don't eliminate somebody else's chances because you want to feel good about yourself (not you directly....generic you)

n.n said...

How many indigent, homeless, and disenfranchised people are there in America? What incidental features compose their features?

The only diversity of consequence is of the individual. Anything else is, by definition, prejudiced.

n.n said...

Americans are spoiled. They think that the Soviet Union was the "evil empire" (and they are right), but by comparison of many primary characteristics, America is progressive. A large minority (not to be confused with the progressive classification) of Americans promote and demonstrate a negative progress.

In the Soviet Union, my parents worked to invest in their children. In America, my parents worked to invest in their children. We were not "poor" in the Soviet Union. We were poor in America, but not for long.

While the fundamental characteristic of left-wing regimes is crony capitalism, in the Soviet Union there was in progressive measure an equality derived from judgment of merit.

There is no excuse for the outcome of progressive policies (at least not that sponsored by generational progressives). They are designed to denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life. They substitute totalitarian policies for moral knowledge. They shift responsibility from one party to another, thereby sabotaging character development and promoting corruption.

People are highly mistake to describe America's left as communist or socialist. America's left has, in fact, realized a perverted totalitarian ideology, including, of course, an advocacy for involuntary redistributive change.

Andy Freeman said...

It's time for direct action; it's time for students to have more control.

I suggest a list, where each entry consists of two names. The first name in an entry is the name of the person signing the list. The second name in an entry is the name of a person who should be removed from UW and replaced by someone for diversity's sake.


I'm guessing that no one will write their own name in both places.

roesch-voltaire said...

Mark, my class starts on day one and my students have already turned in over three different assignments so I have a fair sense of what skills they brought from high school. And I wonder why some folks think that the minorities students who were rejected don't also take the route of attending MATC or another college and then transferring to Madison if they so desire. For example, last semester I had a Latino student from Texas who could not get into to Austin, he fell just below the 10% mark, so he worked a year here and then with his good grades moved back to Texas to go to school in Austin. And this year I have two "minority students" who have transfered in from other colleges-- the door works both ways folks.

frank said...

War is much more fair and simple: "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

Grandma Bee said...

The door does indeed work both ways.

The students I taught Freshman comp to years ago had attitudes that fit into two categories:
1. "I'm special and so why won't you give me an A?"

2. "What do I need to do to in order to improve my work?"

I saw the entitled attitude from kids of all socioeconomic classes; I saw the diligent attitude in students of all classes. But the entitled attitude was deadliest for the Equal Opportunity students and special admissions athletes, because they did not have the preparation to make it in college, and did not understand that real self esteem comes from real achievement. These were the kids
who didn't graduate and who ended up with nothing.

Mary said...

"Meritocracy is all very nice except for the people near the bottom who can't get out. What to do about them? AA helps a lot of people on the margin who otherwise would slip into the underclass that we all deplore. The rise of the meritocracy has been concurrent with the rise of the underclass. The two are linked.
So AA works to combat a social ill, and the cost is borne by other, richer, segments of society."

You keep telling yourself that, John. That "the cost is borne by richer segments of society."

More likely, the cost is borne by working ethnic whites, of the same socio-economic status as the black students who are being favored.

The "richer segments of society" can afford test tutors, private schools, multiple applications, and ... to support AA. (I suspect you and your children fall into this category.)

How do white, working class, meritorious students who work hard and can compete and better their black peers "lift themselves" when the merit option is taken from them in place of skin-color discrimination?

What does it tell an underclass white child, who works hard and outcompetes his black classmate sitting next to him in class, that the game is fixed -- no matter how much he achieves under the limited circumstances available to him -- because the lesser black student (often by sheer application of oneself, or not) gets the reward, because he is black?

You wonder why there is such a gap between the well-to-do and the working classes? Because the white liberals have ensured the success of their own, and instead of working to make the system more fair, deign to give up "pity points" to those who don't have the money to flourish under such a system.

Thus, the black special admits, keeping out the more white meritoious underclasses. See, we already have plenty of "white" wealthy achievers, who let in more even if they obviously qualify based on test scores, and making the most of their limited educational opportunities.

This way of thinking stinks. What does it tell the non-wealthy competitive white child?

It tells them, The Man has fixed the game against them. If you said you supporeted ECONOMIC affirmative action, without looking at skin color, then you might have something. A way of lifting those who show promise in their scores, but haven't the opportunity of the more well-to-do, black and white middle class and professionals.

(Remember: we have at least one, maybe two now, generations of black middle-class offspring, so it doesn't equate anymore that black=underclass.) Be done with it already, and let Americans compete equally based on what they've done with what they've been given.

Robin said...

""a holistic, competitive and selective process." "

Reminds me of that TV commercial with a 'holistic brake repair' shop.

John Lynch said...

Mary, I'm a pizza driver for Domino's. My wife checks groceries.

Nice to be mistaken for a rich white liberal, but I ain't.

Not a bad point about who bears the cost, though.

DADvocate said...

holistic?

The most meaningless word except for the word "racist" uttered by a liberal.

David R. Graham said...

""everyone who is here deserves to be here.""

The words in this instance were meant for the specific U-Madison situation. But they are used generally by not a few with a general reference, to everyone everywhere about everything all all, at least abstractly.

But is it true in the general sense or even the specific? Demonstrably it is not, neither generally nor, with perhaps a very few exceptions (e.g., DevGru, Delta, submariners, Rangers, fighter pilots), specifically.

If everyone deserved to be where they are, there would be no elections, no yearning for a new team, no replacement hiring except in the case of decease, no divorce, no failure or accusation of same and perhaps no crime.

Mushing the reality of deservedness by making it a superficial generality is a tactic of tyrants.

It's right up there with "we are all one," "all you need is love" and "we all want [the same thing]" as compelling confusion creators employed by overbearing personalities to mask their depredations.

My personal opinion is that clergy and academics (to include "administrators") as a class exceed in number and efflorescence the tyrannical impulses of financiers, bureaucrats, pundits, journalists and politicians. There are exceptions, of course, but as I see it they are not the rule.

Pity. Young people are well-served being warned against walking into academe, church, synagogue, mosque, temple or "service-oriented" religious order. All are obsolete institutions. "New wine in new wine skins" is indicated and each is required by the times to be their own vintner.