October 17, 2012

Linda Greenhouse is embarrassed for the Supreme Court and for Texas.

After reading/listening to the oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas.

Roberts and Scalia were obviously trying "to make the university’s commitment to assembling a diverse student body look silly."

42 comments:

Eric said...

Well, I'm embarrassed for Linda Greenhouse. So the world is like a circle after all.

Maguro said...

Has she considered the possibility that the university's position is, in fact, silly?

bagoh20 said...

Of course she's right. They did make it look silly by asking obvious questions about it. They should stop that, and do some vaudeville.

Shouting Thomas said...

Quotas forever!

Anything else would be totally silly!

jimbino said...

"Diversity" is stupidity.

Considering Hispanics, for example, which would add most to diversity, a guy like Adolph Eichmann or Josef Mengele, or one like Hugo Chávez or Simon Bolívar?

Eichmann or Mengele, of course, because what could add more diversity to a UT Austin law class than an Aryan Nazi Hispanic war criminal? Brown or dark-skinned guys of native Spanish-speaking heritage are a dime-a-dozen here in Austin, after all.

I, a blue-eyed, fair-skinned Irish guy got the "Affirmative Action" Hispanic scholarship of my UT Austin law-school class for much the same reasons.

Chip S. said...

Linda G. doesn't like the "top 10%" approach to top-tier state univ. admissions, b/c students from minority-majority (or is it majority-minority? majority diverse, maybe?) can't hack the workload at UT. So instead she wants UT to admit students of diversity who aren't in the top 10% at ritzy suburband high schools? Is that her position? All justified in the name of reducing inequality?

Quite the agile mind she's got there.

BTW, at least one working paper making the rounds finds that the top-10% rule does have the effect of improving kids' performance in majority-minority high schools.

MadisonMan said...

Disappointed that the hypothetical wasn't 1/32nd cherokee.

Chip S. said...

Disappointed that the hypothetical wasn't 1/32nd cherokee.

Dog whistle.

The Godfather said...

Linda Greenhouse knows this is how Supreme Court arguments often work. Justices have fun with the the advocates by asked hypotheticals that -- in the justice's view -- can illuminate the issues. Linda apparently fears that this case isn't going to come out the way she wants, so she decides to blame the justices. As I recall, when it looked as though the Government was going to lose the Obamacare case, the pro-Obamacare press was blaming the Government's lawyer.

In fact, the silly questions and silly answers are just theater. By now, at least 5 justices have voted to uphold the TX affirmative action program or strike it down (or do something in between).

Chip S. said...

Also at the link, a classic case of Strange New Respect for Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

rcocean said...

And why should I care what Linda Greengas thinks?

Was she elected to something?

virgil xenophon said...

Linda Greenhouse swims out to meet troopships..

Chip S. said...

I'm coming around to the idea that limiting Greenhouse gas emissions would be a good idea.

William said...

Eamon DeValera was born in Brooklyn to an Irish mother and a Cuban father. The Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland to a family that had lived there since the 12th century. Wellington famously said that just because you're born in a barn, that doesn't make you a horse. DeValera became the first president of Ireland and made Gaelic, a language he couldn't speak, the official language......Identity is partially a function of how people define you and partially how you define yourself. There's a lot of negotiation to it, and some people are better at bargaining than others......Much as jazz musicians acquire a secondary black identity, lawyers strive to become WASPy in their manners and deportment. The point of diversity in our law schools is to create a wasps in more interesting plumes and colors.

EDH said...

Revealingly, Greenhouse eschewed the best way to prove the questions from the bench were "silly": quote the university lawyer's answers.

Remember Al Jaffee's "Snappy Answers to Silly Questions" in Mad Magazine?

Patrick said...

Roberts and Scalia were obviously trying "to make the university’s commitment to assembling a diverse student body look silly."

They were not interested in diversity. They were interested in political correctness. Neither is an acceptable reason to discriminate based upon race.

The University of Texas damn well ought to be embarrassed.

Chuck66 said...

The Justices do ask good questions.

AA...how many people are employed at UW-Madison in the racial counting department, and how much do they earn (with benies)?

I think Lizzie Warren's fake Indian scam shows the goofyness of this all. If you get free stuff by claiming a certain race...well...ask the Wisconsin and Minnesota tribes what happened when the casino money started flowing in. Suddenly everyone was an Indian.

MadisonMan said...

Is Dog Whistle good? I can't really hear one.

Chip S. said...

I think you heard the "1/32" frequency just fine.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mumpsimus said...

I listened to this, and the UT's arguments struck me as almost pure hand-waving and bafflegab. I usually tune out when I hear the word "holistic." I didn't this time, and heard it a whole bunch more times.

The questioning was fun, though -- especially Roberts'.

mccullough said...

No one believes that universities are interested in diversity of viewpoints, not even Linda Greenhouse. Greenhouse herself is not interested in Justice Thomas' views. Nothing worse than a poor black kid who grows up to be a conservative. Greenhouse doesn't want a critical mass of blacks who think like Thomas anywhere near leadership roles.

n.n said...

The only way it would not look silly is if the university defined "diversity" as an assembly of individuals. Anything else serves to denigrate individual dignity and is strictly retrogressive. Continuing with the transitive definition of "diversity" only ensures a cyclical repetition of historical transgressions against, ironically, individual dignity and liberty.

A majority of Americans never supported or actively opposed slavery and discrimination. Ideally, breaking the backs of an intransigent minority would have been handled through ex post facto review when there was probable cause. However, even to facilitate integration, a presumption of guilt could only be justified for a single, transitional generation, accompanied by a rehabilitation program.

I understand the burden carried by America's left. It is the same burden carried by left-wing ideologues in the Soviet Union and similarly constructed regimes around the world. It cannot be reduced through a repetition or even regression to the past.

Affirmative action and similar policies have to end. Welfare policies should be repurposed to emphasize rehabilitation. Progressive corruption must be mitigated.

Pogo said...

So is diversity now a tax or a penalty?

Pogo said...

I'm pretty confident that the white guy is evil, whatever the ultimate decision.

edutcher said...

Diversity is OK as long as it doesn't include Conservatives.

Pogo said...

I get the sick feeling I'm gonna have to pay for the diversity tuition, condoms, bar tabs, and cell phones.

And have to apologize for the unbearable whiteness of being.

Erik said...

Does discrimination against blacks still exist? Yes. Does this mean that the government should discriminate against whites? No.

Carnifex said...

I bought a dog whistle once. walked up to my dog while he was laying there and blew in it. Dog sat up and looked at me. So I blew in it again. He still just looked at me. So I tried a third time. Same results. Threw the dog whistle away. We were fine from then on.

People hear dog whistles just as much as the dogs do...when they want to.

Did the Dread Traitor Roberts pull some penumbra of a shadow out of his ass yet? Oh...I forgot...He's a paragon of judicial conservatism, and would never pull rulings out of his ass.

Aida Fraso said...

I like the valuable info you provide in your articles. I’ll bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I’m quite sure I’ll learn many new stuff right here! Good luck for the next!
new york hotel

Aida Fraso said...

Greetings! The site is great. Thank you for a great resource.new york hotel
electronic wholesale
auto transport

Marshal said...

Roberts and Scalia were obviously trying "to make the university’s commitment to assembling a diverse student body look silly.

This is not quite true. They made the arguments race preference supporters have to use to match the previous court's test of constitutionality look silly.

Quayle said...

It's absolutely silly to have a race-blind society without looking at race to make it so.

I mean, you can't level the playing field unless you have a level and a field.

Silly!

Rusty said...

I do believe online degrees will obviate the need for such horseshit in the future.

Larry J said...

In order to end racism we must preserve it in the name of "diversity." But it's only race that we want to be diverse. Political diversity is double-plus ungood.

Mitchell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mitchell said...

I didn't understand why Ms. Greenhouse would experience such an emotion under such circumstances so I looked up the definition of the word "embarrass."

I still didn't understand so I looked up the definition for "empathy."

I still didn't understand so I looked up "disingenuous."

Now I understand.

wyo sis said...

When my dad used to ask me where I was going and who with and when I'd be home and what we'd be doing and why I used to think he was just trying to make me look silly.

damikesc said...

"Linda Greenhouse is embarrassed for the Supreme Court and for Texas."

Is she trying to play the refs like they did before the Obamacare decision?

We know Roberts is willing to cave for media adoration.

David said...

I'm embarrassed for Greenhouse because she is vastly verbose. Avoid blogging Linda. Don't even think about Twitter.

Sam L. said...

Ah, the NYT, fount of all wisdom that applieth not. Now if 'twere Paulli "The Beard" Krugman...

RichardS said...

If memory serves, the Justices laughed at the regulations of the NRA in the Schechter case. My recollection is that the question was "what happens if someone buys half a coop?' A: "Then they buy the coop closest to the door." After that response, one of the Justices said, "what if all the chickens run to the other end of the coop?" Laughter in the Court.