... just got a lot more boxing-y.
Professor Larry Church will debate Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity tonight, the evening of the day Clegg dropped the Center's bombshell studies accusing the Law School (and the undergraduate program) of "severe racial discrimination."
The event — a debate titled "Affirmative Action and Higher Education" — was planned — by The Federalist Society — without knowledge that these reports were forthcoming.
It's scheduled to take place tonight at 7. It was originally going to take place in a room that will hold only 95 people. I will update to tell you where it actually will take place when I find out.
UPDATE: The event will take place in South Hall, in our beautiful new Union South.
Posts
112 comments:
Does Madison have any square gardens?
The Octagon is available.
To the winner goes the Cheese Belt and free bratwurst for life .
But I am horrified that women are excluded from the debate.
@Crimso - HAHAHA. Excellent.
Professor Church should read my post in the last thread about the statistical buffoonery in the report.
I predict Clegg will get shouted down and the debate will collapse: sign-wielding white students will predominate.
The core evil of the western secular left is that their world view presumes a division among the people and innately pits human against human.
It marks out a devil, but makes that devil other humans.
It presumes a boxing match. (See the picture.)
Which is why the religious world view is the strong and more peaceful of the two.
The Judeo-Christian world view marks out a devil, but doesn't assume that devil to be part of the human race.
Under the Judeo-Christian worldview, all humans could, in fact, be good if they were to all ignore the lies and temptations of the Devil.
There need not be a division. All could live in peace.
Not so with today's leftism. There has to be a Devil, and it has to be one or more humans.
The left can only envision peace when some other group is destroyed.
Prof. Church may(*) be at a disadvantage, inasmuch as this new report, finding racial bias in UW admissions, will be well-known to Mr. Clegg but not to Prof. Church.
(*-- Of course, it is entirely possible that Prof. Church is "cramming" over the report right this minute.)
The reason there's a Vice Provost for Climate is to give guys like Clegg a chilly reception.
@Triangle Man I just did.
I am sorry I will miss it.
Instead I will be attending a boxing card in Long Island that will have both Amy Fisher and Joey Buttafuco in separate bouts.
I am sure it must be racist. Have Carol Herman do a few lines about it.
Oh yeah...they are trying to sign Manny Rameriez and his wife.
Maybe you can give them a hand Lem?
Trooper, I suspect your event will be more entertaining than the one at University of Madison.
Jesus, Troop, I wish I could be there.
Will Joey and Amy be naked? In the mud?
Naked?
Why would they be naked?
This is a legally sanctioned bout with the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Joey is boxing Amy's current husband. Oh and you get a copy of their sex tape with a premium seat.
That is Amy and her hubby. He is a sixtish Mafia type dude named Lou.
I'll be on the balcony with Statler, booing.
Kidding. This is an interesting topic, and assuming the audience behaves itself and the debate is disciplined, I'd love to see it. I checked the UW-Madison and Federalist Society sites but neither mentions a streaming version for us non-Madison residents. The Federalist Society has a YouTube channel with past debates on it, though, so hopefully it will be uploaded there!
Doh-ho-ho-ho!
Bring a sweater. The few times I've been at functions at Union South, it's been glacial.
Triangle Man, I agree. Actually the numbers are so large, that they don't pass the smell test (that was the cliche in 2001).
I am very sympathetic to the anti-affirmative action crowd. We don't want them to be so over the top, that it hurts their cause. See Global Warming believers as an example.
Madison Square.. nice.
I hope New Media Meade goes to the event! We want video!
Maybe you can give them a hand Lem?
Ramirez already backed out with a hammy.
Question for the debate!
Would you support affirmative action policies in grading? It might help with drop-out rates, yes? And if you wouldn't support affirmative action in grading, what's wrong with it?
Saint Croix...in a way, that is one of the arguements against affirmative action. Especially for a more rigerous major (say law school). That people who aren't the most prepared for the academics get in, then struggle with the work. Are more likely to drop out.
Here's an odd twist on racial discrimination. About 5 or so years ago, there was a story in the paper (can't recall the source). The story claimed that several large employers were not recruiting at Madison because the Wisconsin population, and therefore UW-Madison's students, were of Norwegian, German, Italian, Polish, English, Irish, Finnish decent.
These employers said they didn't want to hire people whose ancestors came from those countries as they had their own skin pigment quotas to meet. So they were more likely to recruit in the South, California, places like that.
We already know this debate is not going to happen. It's going to be prempted by a bunch of loud-mouthed progressive fascists. As usual.
I'd watch a debate boxing match.
I mean, chess boxing is a thing, so why couldn't you alternate talking points and upper cuts?
Boxing as a metaphor for debate (and vice versa) is a natural.
Saint Croix...in a way, that is one of the arguements against affirmative action. Especially for a more rigerous major (say law school). That people who aren't the most prepared for the academics get in, then struggle with the work. Are more likely to drop out.
Exactly! So why the failure to apply an affirmative action remedy? Identify the race of all the students on every test, and make sure an appropriate number of each race get As, Bs, Cs, etc.
And you can even label the complaints. For instance, when a white student complains, you can put his complaint in a box marked "white complaints."
If Althouse was one of the pugilists, it would end with the platinum bob winning in a knockout.
Would you support affirmative action policies in grading?
I support Affirmative Action in grading.. its important to apply enough pressure.
@Triangle Man: Can you critique this claim:
"Thus, an out-of-state black applicant with grades and LSAT scores at the median for that group would have had a 7 out 10 chance of admission and an out-of-state Hispanic a 1 out of 3 chance—but an in-state Asian with those grades and scores had a 1 out of 6 chance and an in-state white only a 1 out of 10 chance."
That seems pretty straight forward.
There is ZERO chance that Clegg will be given the courtesy of making his points free from being shouted down.
And that tells one all one needs to know about current the UW-Madison.
full discolsure: I'm an alumnus, circa mid-70's
Attorneys boxing..that's too good to be true. A minor cut above the eye will result in litigation against the glove maker, sanctioning body, UW, and subsequently the hospital, ER doc and plastic surgeon.
"We already know this debate is not going to happen."
Sofa King is probably right. Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to say unapproved things in public.
Chuck66 said...
Saint Croix...in a way, that is one of the arguements against affirmative action. Especially for a more rigerous major (say law school). That people who aren't the most prepared for the academics get in, then struggle with the work. Are more likely to drop out.
It's been about 20 years since I was in law school at UW - but in my day, from direct observation, the attrition rate was trivial. Some law schools are infamous (e.g., Cooley) for admitting rafts of unqualified and likely to fail students, harvesting their first year tuition and then having 45% disappear after the end of the first year. Unless something has changed recently at UW - I bet the attrition rate is in the low single digits, as a percentage.
Should be nice weather for the crowd outside Union South this evening. Prof. Althouse - strap on the Kevlar and pick up your iPhone, it's going to be bumpy night.
St Croix,
That's generally referred to as "white noise."
"Thus, an out-of-state black applicant with grades and LSAT scores at the median for that group would have had a 7 out 10 chance of admission and an out-of-state Hispanic a 1 out of 3 chance—but an in-state Asian with those grades and scores had a 1 out of 6 chance and an in-state white only a 1 out of 10 chance."
That seems pretty straight forward.
I haven't read the law school report yet.
I think UW-Madison students will behave themselves. They're being given a Q&A session with Clegg after the debate. But be damned if the provost of climate and whateverthefuckelsehedoes isn't stoking hatred in how he's responding to Clegg's report.
I'm not convinced that a critque of statistical methodolgy by one who apparently adds 300 to 9,875 and gets a result of 12,875 is going to be all that convincing?
@TM: You commented on the "comically large adjusted odds ratios" without reading the report. What's the hesitation in this case?
Nor one who cannot spell "methodology" correctly?
I recall as a youngster reading about how Jeanne Kirkpatrick had eggs thrown on her when she was on the UW-Madison campus.
With today's cell phones and other recording devices, things like that get more air time.
I think UW-Madison students will behave themselves.
We'll see. Maybe the fact that Israel is not involved will allow it to happen. But I remember full well the shenanigans that took place when I was there.
Ding Ding Ding and in this corner, weighing in at a lean & mean 128 lbs, the undefeated and feared Madison dynamo, Ann "The Deadly Professor" Althouse!
[announcer commentary: "I know the Deadly Professor and if her opponent shows up wearing shorts, he is in big trouble!"]
"Maybe the fact that Israel is not involved will allow it to happen."
What is it about the Jewish state that most college towns hate? The more left wing the town, the more they are likely to support right wing terrorists in the mideast.
I was in Iowa City this past June and they had signs all over the town, announcing an event to condemn the Jewish state.
If anyone dasses to risk my "Fisk"
it's "Boff" an' it's "Wham" un'erstan'?
@TM: You commented on the "comically large adjusted odds ratios" without reading the report. What's the hesitation in this case?
I read and commented on the undergraduate report.
I think UW-Madison students will behave themselves.
Are we taking odds on this?
BTW, the title:
Chief Officer for Diversity & Climate at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
is something that Monty Python thought up, right?
It is important to have diversity in our climate, comrades!
Professor Church is a brilliant guy--he has the highest GPA ever recorded at the UW Law School. I love all the absurd idiot commenters on here making assumptions about him. Church is not a Democrat. Anyone who has sat through his classes (assuming they could stay awake) can definitely confirm he tends to lean more towards the right.
Obviously, I'm guessing Church will defend Affirmative Action, but he'll do it with case law and policies, as is his tendency. I'm guessing Clegg doesn't stand a chance, but it should be a fascinating debate.
It will certainly be far more interesting than watching Althouse blabber nonsense about the Establishment Clause, which is next week's lecture.
Might have to make my way down to Union South tonight.
Obviously, I'm guessing Church will defend Affirmative Action, but he'll do it with case law and policies, as is his tendency.
That's actually not a very interesting argument. Case law can change more or less arbitrarily. Ditto policies. The interesting arguments are never about what the law *is* but what it *should be.* Can it be defended morally and pragmatically? Really nobody outside the law classroom cares about what the actual state of the law is.
Might have to make my way down to Union South tonight.
Make sure you bring plenty of lozenges with you. You want to be able to continue screaming and chanting as long as possible before your voice gives out.
@Chris said:
Professor Church is a brilliant guy--he has the highest GPA ever recorded at the UW Law School.
So don't even think about trying to out-smart him!
I love all the absurd idiot commenters on here making assumptions about him. Church is not a Democrat. Anyone who has sat through his classes (assuming they could stay awake) can definitely confirm he tends to lean more towards the right.
He's complex! You're all stupid!
Obviously, I'm guessing Church will defend Affirmative Action, but he'll do it with case law and policies, as is his tendency. I'm guessing Clegg doesn't stand a chance, but it should be a fascinating debate.
Clegg is stupid!
It will certainly be far more interesting than watching Althouse blabber nonsense about the Establishment Clause, which is next week's lecture.
I'm tired and didn't read the course material!
Make sure you bring plenty of lozenges with you. You want to be able to continue screaming and chanting as long as possible before your voice gives out.
Thanks for the concern about the state of vocal cords. I'm sure you mean it sincerely.
The University is trying to have it both ways: keeping the meritocracy fierce and intense for whites and asians but easing admission standards for other races. I presume that supporters of affirmative action would agree that eventually the admissions criteria for minorities would have to rise and equalize -- once the numbers of applicants reflected their respective numbers in population. Do supporters of affirmative action concede at least that much?
The Affirmative Action Administrators are in charge of stealing back what the Norwegian guys stole from African Slaves 150 years ago.
That darned Hans Christian Hegg may have been freeing slaves, but he never re-distributed the plantation land to the workers.
Let justice begin in wussy Wisconsin!
Pete Seeger said this land is your land!
Who is Roger Clegg? Who is Prof. Church?
Who hired the PR firm to do the flyer?
Will it be "standing room only?"
Will ladies be allowed? Weren't ladies weren't forbidden to attend heavyweight boxing matches?
Are you allowed to gamble on these two people? Will anyone remember the outcome?
@Coketown
The first rule of UW Debate Club is don't talk about Debate Club.
I am beginning to think that Wisconsin (and Madison in particular) is the poster child for what is wrong with progressive thought, liberalism and why our country is doomed.
The wall of stupid is just too strong.
Doubletree video
Somewhat racially mixed group.
Where is Meade?
Query: Who would do better in court defending UW's AA policy, Church or Althouse?
Here's a question for the room:
Why do you suppose Asians aren't protesting their lack of football scholarships?
I'm pretty sure they could more easily statistically prove that African Americans are getting more than their 'fair' share of those, than of admission preferences.
frank said...
Query: Who would do better in court defending UW's AA policy, Church or Althouse?
This might be close to what Althouse would argue:
But I think people who say 'colorblindness' is racist are saying that because the real-world facts have some people at a disadvantage — on an "uneven playing field" — that anyone who invokes the idea of treating everyone the same is really trying to preserve the disadvantage. If you think the people who say ‘colorblindness’ really want that continued inequality, then it is racist. There's a veneer of goodness based on abstract principle. But if you apply that in reality, you get inequality.
Ann Althouse, August 31, 2011 link.
Why do you suppose Asians aren't protesting their lack of football scholarships?
Because they are (on average) too smart for that?
Althouse sure is gullible for the right wing!!
The event — a debate titled "Affirmative Action and Higher Education" — was planned — by The Federalist Society — without knowledge that these reports were forthcoming.
Bull-loney!
1) The author is a speaker and, surely, knew about the timing.
2) These are both right wing groups - fellow travelers. Why would CEO withhold the info from Fed Society?
3) They share some of the same funders - Sarah Scaife Fdn.
Also, the timing for CEO to come in Wisconsin this year seems to be a reaction by the reactionaries to Wisconsin people standing up for working families.
The Oligarchy Strikes Back!
Boxing..Maquis of Queensbury rules..no thanks..if they go MMA save my seat.
TraingleMan..That's racist. Some of my best friends are Asian football players.
Also, the timing for CEO to come in Wisconsin this year seems to be a reaction by the reactionaries to Wisconsin people standing up for working families.
Well, then you had better make sure you join Garage and go shut down this debate! I mean, you can't tolerate letting reactionaries react! Are you going to stand up for working families or not?!
Doubletree video
Somewhat racially mixed group.
Wouldn't that be ironic if James the commenter's kid was in that protest. Hah.
More to Althouse's disingenuous claim that the Federalist Society did not know of the CEO attack study when they scheduled this.
From Federalist Society web site:
Page for Mr. Roger Clegg.
Geez, Ann. Where is your skepticism when it comes to the right wing? You will catapult any propaganda they serve up these days.
Well, then you had better make sure you join Garage and go shut down this debate!
I don't shut down debates. That's for the right wing to engage in silencing people.
Just ask the employees of the Wisconsin DMV, under gag order to keep from telling people about free Voter IDs.
I love all the absurd idiot commenters on here making assumptions about [Professor Church].
Chris, given that the only two comments mentioning or even referring to Church prior to yours were neutral-to-supportive, wouldn't you have to agree that you're an asshole?
I don't shut down debates. That's for the right wing to engage in silencing people.
Oh of course! THAT's who is certain to be disruptive tonight! Right-wingers! Damn those teabagger pro-quota minorities!
Let's get ready to
RUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBLE
Alpha Liberal wrote:
I don't shut down debates. That's for the right wing to engage in silencing people.
I recall two recent attempts instances of the left trying to shout down the opposition in Madison. I was present for one successful attempt in 1982:Eldridge Cleaver
Give me one example of the right shouting down the left in Madison to support your assertion.
Can't they do this as an ultimate fighting mixed martial arts cage match?
Althouse sure is gullible for the right wing!!
The event — a debate titled "Affirmative Action and Higher Education" — was planned — by The Federalist Society — without knowledge that these reports were forthcoming.
Bull-loney!
1) The author is a speaker and, surely, knew about the timing.
2) These are both right wing groups - fellow travelers. Why would CEO withhold the info from Fed Society?
3) They share some of the same funders - Sarah Scaife Fdn.
I promise you professor Church didn't know. He seemed actually annoyed by it today in class.
Fred4Pres said...
Can't they do this as an ultimate fighting mixed martial arts cage match?
How about a marital arts cage match instead?
Make love, not war is the Madison way.
I promise you professor Church didn't know. He seemed actually annoyed by it today in class.
Alpha Liberal is an alpha libeler
"Can't they do this as an ultimate fighting mixed martial arts cage match?
Two men enter!
One man leaves!
Madison seems destined to be perpetually outraged.
How do Madisonians (Madisonites?) who aren't involved with the university react to this constant upheaval?
We've had similar situations at Cal over the years. However, Berkeley also has a large working and professional class that are primarily employed in SF and environs and is part of a heavily populated, contiguous metropolitan area, so most residents don't engage the university in any meaningful way and or identify with it.
It seems that Madison is relying on its innate decency and politeness to maintain order. However, outside forces with far more at risk than the UW and Madison are bearing down and sooner or later something is going to give and it will not be pretty.
Merchants may be going with the (cash)flow now, but this is what can happen in a flash. The once thriving, trendy and popular Telegraph Ave cafes & shops never recovered. The riot began over the university installing sand volleyball courts in People's Park. Yes, you read that right, sand volleyball courts.
Once Madison crosses the violence threshold, your fair city will be forever changed for the worse and the university will lose it's moral standing.
However none of this seems remotely possible today as tempers flair, gorge rises and indignation flows. Onward!
I've heard rumors that some anti-Clegg activists are taking a page from the GLBT glittering brigade, with plans to throw black people at Mr. Clegg during his opening statements.
Somewhat disappointed that Larry Church is doing the defending. I'd prefer a uber liberal straw man prof and there are plenty of those at UW Law.
Church is a brilliant guy and one of the few at UW law that is even handed. They don't make em like him anymore. First class prof. First class individual.
Clegg should ask Church about the AA policies as it relates to UW Law Review. The statistics there are just as interesting.
Is justice Bradley on this bill, cause I wanna see some shit talk and ass kicking.
Why not cut to the chase?
Affirm. Action and similar policies have never intended to end discrimination, but to make it permanent and more stratified.
They just want the beneficiaries changed a bit.
Like coercing charitable care of the poor through welfare and socialized medicine, they want to force their moral view of the just society through quotas in every walk of life.
It's about power and false altruism and dividing the spoils. Color is just a mechanism.
Color is just a mechanism.
Overall in society, white women probably benefit the most from AA.
garage mahal said...
Overall in society, white women probably benefit the most from AA.
That should make them AA's greatest defenders.
Exactly. It doesn't work and isn't intended to benefit minorities.
Will a podcast of the debate be available? I'm in California and would love to listen to it.
Exactly. It doesn't work and isn't intended to benefit minorities.
Not sure how 51% of the population is a minority.
It's not. Get it?
It isn't meant to serve as it's advertised, a solution for discrimination, but to transfer power from one group to another. The issue of color is the modern update of the proletariat.
The proles win nothing. They are mere fodder for the nomenklatura.
It isn't meant to serve as it's advertised, a solution for discrimination, but to transfer power from one group to another.
Blacks made up 2.6% of the student body admitted to UW-Madison-- while 85.5% of those incoming classes were white. This is what the CEO wishes to protect.
Blacks made up 2.6% of the student body admitted to UW-Madison-- while 85.5% of those incoming classes were white. This is what the CEO wishes to protect.
I have no problem with trying to help someone get a leg up on the ladder of success.
However, I do have problem with it being at the expense of someone else who is just as if not more deserving of their place on the ladder by virtue of their own hard work.
If we want to help minorities compete in the REAL world, not the artificial affirmative action world, we would seriously reform our school system at the elementary and middle school levels. Get RID of the teachers unions, support charter schools......even single sex charter schools. Teach the children so that when they go to apply for a job or for college, they HAVE the qualifications.
Instead of making excuses, (poor neighborhoods, lack of parental involvement, peer pressure to not act white) fix it and demand performance from the teachers, the students AND their parents.
Fix the root cause and quit discriminating and disadvantaging students and workers who ARE qualified.
This is what the CEO wishes to protect.
Wishes to protect? It's a travesity that more blacks and hispanics are not making it into the top ten tier of schools. But that doesn't mean we exclude better qualified students, dismissing their merits. That's just wrong and most people sense that.
If we were serious about solving this discepancy, we'd go after the bad parenting and crappy schools they encounter along the way.
Jeez garage, you're a parent too. How can you not know and admit this?
@DBQ: You said what I wanted to say but better.
Quayle says: The core evil of the western secular left is that their world view presumes a division among the people and innately pits human against human. It marks out a devil, but makes that devil other humans.
It presumes a boxing match. (See the picture.)...
I saw the picture. The picture said the event was hosted by the Federalist Society, which is the premier organization for conservative and libertarian lawyers, jurists and law students. I take it you haven't heard of them? Anyway, nice rant about the western secular left. I guess you were waiting all week to post that one, too bad the jumping-off point was a poster from a conservative organization.
Sofa King says: That's actually not a very interesting argument... Really nobody outside the law classroom cares about what the actual state of the law is.
That may be true, but if it is true that's more of a criticism of people outside the law school classroom than those in it or who spent time in it. Also, the event is being held at a law school, so it's safe to assume that a fair amount of people in attendance care about what the actual state of the law is.
Blacks made up 2.6% of the student body admitted to UW-Madison-- while 85.5% of those incoming classes were white.
What matters most: racial bean counting.
Ann, please do not take Triangle Man's critique seriously. He doesn't have the faintest clue about logistic regression. Odds ratios of 400 percent or more are not at all uncommon when there are strongly predictive independent variables. The key is to remember that they measure this:
The change in a given probability if the particular independent variable is changed. What large odds ratios like those reported are saying is that a white student with the scores of the black student would have essentially no chance to be admitted. That's why, if the data is correct, UW undergraduate admission is going to fail under Gratz.
I think UW-Madison students will behave themselves.
ding ding ding! wrong answer!
Let into law school everyone who applies. Those who fail will do so of their own accord; those who succeed will likewise do so of their own accord.
America needs a better class of waitstaff.
Not only let in anyone who applies, but grant the bottom 40% a scholarship named after the good people who helped them get to the bottom 40% of applicants. The WEAC Scholarship.
Notice how no one really gets into counting race in the graduate school where the less smart graduates can kill you? Medicine.
As my nephew the MD says "Know what they cal the person who graduates at the bottom of the class in Med School? Doctor."
I remember when Cal State-Northridge scheduled an AA debate during the run up to the election where Prop 209 passed easily.
On the AA side: Joe Hicks, respected civil rights activist.
On the anti-AA side: David Duke.
It did not go off as planned.
wv: bagol (with cream cheese)
Crunchy Frog... I remember at list one AA to-do in California where David Duke was invited. I *thought* that he was un-invited once it came out that the pro-AA organization had invited him and everyone howled shenanigans.
"Here's a question for the room:
Why do you suppose Asians aren't protesting their lack of football scholarships?
I'm pretty sure they could more easily statistically prove that African Americans are getting more than their 'fair' share of those, than of admission preferences."
Football scholarships are presumably based on merit.
Therefore they are not based on "preferences."
Any other questions for the "room?"
Aren't those "girlie" boxing gloves?
I've never seen boxing gloves that color! Muhammad Ali (formerly known as Casius Clay) did not wear boxing gloves like that!
Since when has artwork been a part of protest?
The core evil of the western secular left is that their world view presumes a division among the people and innately pits human against human.
LOL.
So does the constrained view (which, perhaps, [too many, perhaps] people tend to identify as primarily conservative) presume/assume; see Sowell, Thomas, in his 1987 book (later reissued 2003) "A Conflict of Visions..." .
This is too rich, not to mention too ironic. One has to wonder if Quayle has read that book--oft referenced at Althouse, from earliest times--and, if so, how long after its original publication.
That book has been a favorite since its publication. It gets human nature.
Those are female boxing gloves.
Someone should have done one of those "comparisons" ... (that was once done to show Dan Rather's use of a faked memo.)
IF you took the gloves Muhammad Ali wore ... Those red gloves would fit his pinky.
You could have taken OJ's bloody glove, and also used it to make a comparison.
I guess the "Solidarity FIST" was a bust, huh?
Somebody should hang a bra over those mittens.
Post a Comment