Louis Molepske, a Democratic member of the Wisconsin Assembly, questions Roger Clegg, president of Center for Equal Opportunity, which has released a study that supposedly shows that the University of Wisconsin has engaged in serious race discrimination in its admission process for the undergrad program and the law school. Clegg responds. This short clip — shot by Meade, edited by me — shows that the 2 men are not on the same page about affirmative action.
The colloquy took place at a hearing on October 17, 2011, before the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities.
Molepske utters a classic quote: "We got a lot of white people in Wisconsin."
ADDED: Here's the thing. The University's policies align with the Supreme Court's case law, which permits race discrimination narrowly tailored to serve the goal of classroom diversity. Clegg performs moral clarity: He says race discrimination is "wrong" and "bad." That's something he just knows, quite aside from the CEO's study. He asserts it in answer to any question from someone who thinks there's something more complicated here — that is, someone who would leave it to the University to design and implement its own admissions policy.
That's why the 2 men talk past each other.
१८ ऑक्टोबर, २०११
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६१ टिप्पण्या:
We got a lot of white people up there on the dais.
"We got a lot of white people up there on the dais."
Maybe we need more out-of-staters in the legislature.
It's tribal. The thinking today defaults to my tribe against their tribe.
Combating that trend by forced ethnic mixing in schools is a worthy goal, but is too little too late to stop tribal thinking.
At issue in the Wisconsin case is simply whether racist action can be taken by a government mandated system of demeaning citizens according their skin color or heritage markers.
If it is not working, why keep doing the useless act that angers people?
Why? Because if the system were administered in accordance with the Constitution, there would be very, very few minorities on elite public university campuses supported, at least in part, by the taxes of those selfsame minorities. Hence the crafting of what is a dishonest public policy to avoid the inevitable consequences of race blind admissions.
The disagreement is over whether or not the ends justifies the means.
Is discrimination justified for the sake of diversity?
And, is discrimination so satisfying to the university that it simply can't give it up to try other methods to that end?
USA Today (9/30/11): "[According to the U.S. Census Bureau,] The number of people who say they are black and white has more than doubled in the past decade, a trend demographers say reflects a growing acceptance of a diverse society"
Ha ha ha. Demographers are morons.
Promise more opportunities and more free shit for the right skin color, and surprisingly, more people claim to have the right skin color.
Astounding!
"Is discrimination justified for the sake of diversity? "
The Supreme Court has only accepted the use of race as a factor in admissions when it is for the purpose of achieving the sort of classroom diversity that enriches discussion (particularly when it's designed to bring in enough minority-group members to making students see the members of minority groups as individuals and not stereotypes). That's Grutter v. Bollinger, in case you want to read it.
To me the questions are, does affirmative action have an end game, or is it a NeverEnding story? Is there a point at which it can be said, "Okay, enough, we've reached racial parity." If so, by what metrics? And, lastly, does affirmative action have any validity (in a social research design sense) as a tool to achieve ethnic parity in the first place?
As a project manager, let me just say that affirmative action, conceived as a project, is a textbook case of project design and implementation failure. The lack of answers to the questions in the preceding paragraph are why.
Yesterday's references to Dirkson and Nixon reminded me, and IIRC, at the time affirmative action was initially proposed its advocates were clear that it was to be only a very temporary program, a way to sort of jump-start the process of integrating and melding blacks into middle America.
Progress has been made over the last 40 years, but we still can't say that African Americans enjoy the fruits of middle America in the broad sense whites do (just go to the 'burbs and look around). So 40 years of affirmative action hasn't done the trick. Obviously the fix lies elsewhere.
This type of discrimination is selfish self-aggrandizement for white liberals - plain and simple. When they fight to preserve it, they are fighting for their own interests.
Just admit it. Say it makes me feel good to stick it to white people like myself, once I got mine of course. It makes me look good to my peers, who I don't really respect anyway, because I know they are just like me.
I don't really care what the Supreme Court says right now. What do people think they are doing to other people, regardless of who says it's OK or not living far away in robes.
bagoh hates America.
"The colloquy took place at a hearing on October 17, 2001..."
Prescient!
Countering affirmative action ideology is the conservative version of The Scopes Monkey Trial.
How does Clegg have the patience to deal with morons like Louis Molepske?
The Supreme Court has only accepted the use of race as a factor in admissions when it is for the purpose of achieving the sort of classroom diversity that enriches discussion (particularly when it's designed to bring in enough minority-group members to making students see the members of minority groups as individuals and not stereotypes). That's Grutter v. Bollinger, in case you want to read it.
We've read it Ann. It was a steaming turd when it was issued. It's dry and stale now, but it's still a turd.
We have many alcoholic white people in Wi. How about using ADA to get them admitted using their "disability". We also have a good number of white crystal meth users..should I get off the slippery slope now?
Professor, How can we get out of staters as legislators when the ones we have leave the state? Wait a minute..maybe trades like in sports. However, I sure as hell wouldn't want to trade w/ Illinois!
Count me as another who no longer gives a damn what the SCOTUS says anymore. Polysyllabic bullshit.
"The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
John Roberts
This should not be about law, courts, lawyers. None of that made racism or discrimination wrong, it just made it illegal, except when it's not.
It's in people's hearts and minds where it needs to be wrong, before the law gives a shit, and reluctantly gets dragged along.
We often see the law as pushing people to do the right thing, but that's just lawyers talking. It's perfectly happy to enforce evil for as long it has a good excuse. like it's own precedent.
Crunchy.
You are sooooo right.
I've already done my parity of every O'Connor decision.
Clegg is right, and the Supreme Court decision is BS. The Gov't should not discriminate based on race. Period. It should not be a "factor." Period. That's just a trick to make believe you're not doing what everyone knows you are doing.
WV: cemin
Wait, now I have to think about that.
Molepske vs Clegg is not a fair fight.
The librul argument boils down to "because diversity is probably better unless you can go and find the white people who were not admitted and then prove they were harmed by our racially discriminatory practices."
Diversity is alot like voting in that they're both vastly overrated.
Slavery had its nuance too. Is there anyone living today who thinks that should have mattered?
I'm surprised Molepske doesn't want something akin to a reverse of the Indian Removal Act, except where black people are forcibly relocated from places like Chicago and Detroit to WI.
Society must answer a fundamental question: May government favor one citizen over another, and, if so, under what circumstances? I answer, no, government should not be allowed to favor one citizen over another. If government may favor one of us over the rest, we are not equal under the law. Therefore, we should not permit government to favor one of us over others. We should not allow goverment power -- the power to tax, regulate, and jail -- to extract from one to give to another. Government, like Justice, should be blind.
Even if showing favor might, on the whole, produce desirable societal benefits, we should not allow government to show favor. The risks associated with violating the principle of treating each of us as equal under the law are not worth the potential benefits from allowing government discretion in favoring one class of citizen over others. The risks are that society will break down if its members no longer feel that "we're all in this together" but instead feel each person must align himself or herself with one faction or another to protection and to ensure access to government favor.
Yes, I know that there never was a time in our history when we fully lived up to the ideal of each being equal under the law. Yet, it was understood that was the ideal. Even hypocrites paid homage to this virtue by trying to hide their corruption from the eyes of the public. Enshrining government favoritism of one group over another is a difference of kind, not a difference of degree.
Who is harmed by affirmative action? It is not the well off white liberals who are harmed. It is the poor or working class white male from rurual schools at the margins who does not get into his preferred law school who is harmed. Liberals do not care about those people.
In other words the University is following SC decision (a Republican one at that), yet is predominantly white. Clegg's the wingnut teabagger from out of state stirring up shit (and paid to by Heritage Co)
Tank the sockpup. aka Byro--talking to yrself again tweeker? Your drivel is always obvious--too stupid even for Alttard brainfarts.
It's another ticky tack issue--but HeritageCo is behind it...and AA follows orders.
Why are Blacks the only ones who are considered "a race" for Admissions?
I think there are WAY TOO MANY ADMINISTRATORS! Which has increased the costs of attending colleges.
And, the smart university, ahead, will toss a lot of the trash out. Including subjects that leave you broke. And, not even able to get a job at McDonald's flipping hamburgers.
Wisconson just doesn't have a large black population.
Unlike Texas, let's say, that has 5 distinctive splits within the state. The Blacks live at one end. Mexicans live in another. And, there's no overlap. (Molly Ivins described this, well.)
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT RACE?
IS THIS OBAMA'S ISSUE? What crap.
J said...
Tank the sockpup. aka Byro--talking to yrself again tweeker? Your drivel is always obvious--too stupid even for Alttard brainfarts.
J too smart for Tank.
Me go home and cry now.
Come on, people. What is so damn hard to understand here?
1. You have an institution that requires and rewards the attribute of cognitive ability
2. You have statistically significant differing attributes of cognitive ability by Race (and a clear scientific explanation for how this could come to be, btw.)
3. Thus, you have disparate representation at the institution, when measured by Race.
It's as simple and as tragic as that.
ONLY way to 'fix' this is to lower the standards, for some Races.
Call it what you will.
You either keep requirements Race neutral and then become offended by the mix of faces in the classroom, or you discriminate by Race, and smile at the pleasant mix of faces in the classroom, though not on the honor rolls.
I don't like it anymore than anyone does.
I'm just not afraid to state the issue, plainly.
the sort of classroom diversity that enriches discussion
Please expand. What actual "enrichment" is there?
What EXACTLY are we getting in exchange for the racism?
The Supreme Court has only accepted the use of race as a factor in admissions when it is for the purpose of achieving the sort of classroom diversity that enriches discussion (particularly when it's designed to bring in enough minority-group members to making students see the members of minority groups as individuals and not stereotypes).
As "individuals" and not "populations that we don’t want to have too many of"
In the words of now Supreme Ruth Bader...
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.
You're trying to pretend you can write, or are educated, or have something to say Bubba Bellami, the teabagger? You don't, obviously. Even wth yr dress on ("Mary"--add another to your list--yo Senor Server Admin).
"ONLY way to 'fix' this is to lower the standards, for some Races."
That may fix the hang wringer's problem, but it perpetuates the real problem, while punishing the innocent who have done the right thing.
Standards exist to improve performance. Isn't that what we want for everyone?
Lower standards produce lower performance. To inflict that on minorities is immoral.
Today in America, there is nothing stopping a motivated minority from excelling sufficiently to reach the same standards as whites do. All that stops them today is telling them they don't need to. That's criminal.
It is the poor or working class white male from rurual schools at the margins who does not get into his preferred law school who is harmed. Liberals do not care about those people.
Oh, they care. They think he should be punished for discrimiation he never took part in.
"No furture for you? Tough. Your great grand-father probably owned slaves anyway"
Mary--Bubba, so you like aced the LSAT? Quick google it!
No,Mary-Bubba you didn't. You don't even have an AA. But lie! The Bubba tradition--add it to your JD, CPA, MD, and HS (as in horseshit)
I thought that man on the video capture was a woman..
I wonder how the Supremes would 'remedy' that?
Fen-tard...you don't know fockabout it.
UCs now have eliminated AA for the most part, and socio-economic standing as a criteria. So have a bunch of white boys taken over the UCs?? No. It's mostly asians.
But Mary...We love dealing with J's personal attacks. It makes the rest of us commenters figure out classy responses under pressure...it's sort of like Seal training.
The Civil War was fought to take from states the power to set policies that favored one race over another. The side that wanted to favor one race over another lost. Hence the 14th Amendment. Which has now been bastardized to favor the side that lost the Civil War. So we have the same policy that existed before the Civil War, state authority to favor one race over another.
Dick on yr mind, eh Mary-Bubba! . Must be yr boy Billy Bob (server admin working on your cyber-terrorism case, right now,perp) LSAT score,grrl. Let see it.---wait halfhour for googlin--maybe finish your AA--or is it GED-- when you're at it.
Yo "Tradguy" --probably the same idiot sock-pup.-- no personal--just pointing out BS. IN fact you're.."Mary" too! Your lies are ending, you degree-less,illiterate idiot.
Anyway you need AA--like for your white trash kids, from a poor home with an illiterate, druggie fathers.
Althouse -- your argument about the policy being narrowly tailored is hilariously conclusionary. I know you are aiming for brevity bit come on. You would owe it to any student to give that crap a D at best on any con law exam.
Mary and J? The threads are getting ruined again Althouse. Sad.
Why? Because if the system were administered in accordance with the Constitution, there would be very, very few minorities on elite public university campuses supported, at least in part, by the taxes of those selfsame minorities. Hence the crafting of what is a dishonest public policy to avoid the inevitable consequences of race blind admissions.
---------
Agreed 100%
Either you can discriminate based on race or you can't. I couldn't care less what Grutter v. Bollinger says. I would no more look to that decision for guidance than I would look to anything published by the segregationists in the Old South about how the Jim Crow laws were perfectly legal and necessary.
I would like to think that a Civil War and a civil rights movement was enough for even the slowest among us to learn the lesson but there is a culture of racism that pervades our universities (and apparently the judiciary) that is frankly just sickening.
There is no argument to be had here. There is nothing to be discussed. This is not something about which men of good will may differ and it is depressing as hell that we are still having these conversations in this day and age.
The discussion about equality under the law is interesting AA not only favors certain groups but does so under the guise that they are more valuable, in and of themselves, than the poor slobs who were turned away despite superior objective qualification. Now this makes no sense at the Law School level especially than it would at an engineering school, the race of the student is irrelevant to equipping him to represent clients on serious matters in return for cash money. Your lawyer screws up your case, you really care how much his color contributed to some mythical classroom discussion. Don't get me started if the floorbeams on your bridge start to collapse.
If I understand Molepske's argument, he's saying that because there's so many dang white people in Wisconsin it's necessary to use a very heavy thumb on the scales in order to achieve the "diversity" that's permitted by the Supreme Court decision.
At a minimum, this ignores the harmful effect on those who were admitted to meet this diversity objective but who have little hope of graduating. Is it morally acceptable to flunk out huge numbers of non-white students so that whites might benefit from this "diversity"- even assuming that there is a benefit?
In any case, I guess it's good that Molepske's not in Vermont.
The Constitution says nothing about diversity, but says a lot about equality. But, of course, that's just an old, moldy piece of paper.
Maybe we need more out-of-staters in the legislature.
...but you have legislators that use the borders to advance their agenda!!
the sort of classroom diversity that enriches discussion
Please expand. What actual "enrichment" is there?
Clegg performs moral clarity: He says race discrimination is "wrong" and "bad."
Says AA. Some might say..he keeps it stupid for his TP clients/fans/supporters.
A better question--are test scores always a good indication of intellectual ability? Some relevance (certainly in quantitative area/math/) but in many areas--even law--there are other,somewhat subjective criteria--writing skills for one. (yo, AA maybe give your regs some LSAT logic games--timed-- and see how they fare)
--Bubba-Mary, male nurse, and Billy Bob B*ll*mi--maybe have it put on a dress too..father son TV-lesbian act, from Sacto hood!. Yeah--u go B. girrls. Comprendes, basura?
My youngest daughter graduated UW as an undergrad in 2003, she scored high on the LSAT, yet was denied admission to UW Law School.I often wondered of it wasn't due to a diversity issue.
She did did accepted into Florida State Law School and did her last year at UW Law School as a visiting student and graduated in 2006 from Florida State.
I am still confused as to why this is an issue for conservatives, since when is it a conservative stance to be in favor of diversity because of affirmative action?
Why would anyone respond to J?
I don't understand anything he writes, but I do sense an anger management problem.
No "mad" scum,thats just logic--tends to bother phonies ,perps, occultists, etc. Like you. You don't even know what the issue is, do you white trash.
Mary-- and everyone-- boycott J. Don't respond, and eventually the little fuck will go away.
Mary...After careful consideration I have decided that J is really a Navajo Code talker with Turettes Syndrome.
Mary, I have a hard-on while I type this.
WV: lablysit
hmmm
When I was growing up in the 50's thee were a lot of sincere white people in the south who though segregation was good for Blacks.
A generation earlier, American universities established quotas for Jews (limiting the number who could be admitted) in the name of diversity -- otherwise, the universities would be too Jewish.
Experience should have shown us that it's easy to convince yourself that your motives for discrimination are pure.
Chief Justice Roberts is right. The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
J,
I'm practicing asexual diversit right now. I'm wearing a black leather glove on my left hand that lubed up with oleo.
WV: lickron
Regards,
Mr. Mexico
rather complex
This is the befuddle with bullshipt part.
J. -- How is your insanity plea coming for those murders?
Why would anyone respond to J?
At times, it can bring better entertainment than reruns of Lost in Space. Yes, he needs psychiatric treatment.
Work around: Everyone is a minority. Stupid policy defeated.
I would invite bureaucrats to verify your race if they can.
eh Bellami the klanboy--your nazi queer fantasies (complete non sequitur and offtopic) don't matter either, joto. Except maybe to yr buttboy... Wally B.
Your losing your kids too deviant. Pronto. YOu need psychiatric treatment, perp. That you have 50+ s-names and spam away doesn't matter,druggie skin perp.
False accusation again Nacho- queer.Grazi for evidence. Logic's scary eh, wicca-tweeeker. Coming to get yr HD, yr meth ,and your illegal weapons ,perp.. Best run , Atard vermin.
no ,wrong again A-tard
piss test.. All you need to know tweek filth.
J. -- There is no question in my mind that you are Jared Loughner. Everything you say adds to the body of evidence supporting my claim. I will not take your denials seriously or your threats seriously, as I believe that you are safely locked away in a mental institution.
BOYCOTT J
Simply wrong.
Agree, boycott J. I am thinking that we may be acting irresponsibly in responding to his rantings, I worked as a Psych nurse for many years, there is something seriously wrong with this kid.
Dr. King prayed that his daughters would live in a world where race was immaterial.
Al Sharpton wants to live in a world where he can take race into account and make a living off it.
Take your pick.
Trey
why wouldn't students who make the cut support affirmative action? they are graded on a curve and it's in their interest to water down the competition. where's the altruism in that? the same holds after law school.
Diversity is and has been pure bullcrap. It only applies to blacks, women and people with a hispanic sounding surname.
Why? It is discrimination pure and simple. There should be NO checkoff on admission requirments indicating the race or cultural background of individuals.
The only accomodation should be given to students from a low income background.
Quite frankly, today it doesn't really matter because universities and colleges are graduating IDIOTS without an iota of common sense or knowledge of academic basics.
If you don't believe me...take a trip to NYC and check out the IDIOTS at Wall Street.
Its time to scrap affirmative action and lets get to meritocracy.
Of course when Asian kids get the top slots in the maths and engineering.....
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/09/europe-201109
the sort of classroom diversity that enriches discussion
Please expand. What actual "enrichment" is there?
Fen -- It is a good thing to have a huge variety of people at a school. That's what makes a great college great. But forget that argument. There's a better one. It's that a public university has a duty to reflect its citizenry. You can't have your state flagship university -- the one with the most money and the most professors and the best connections -- you can't have that school have a super-small number of minorities. You have to work to prevent that. It's an unfair outcome.
I don't think you need nearly as much affirmative action as Wisconsin has to do that. But it is a better argument.
If they have the brains and determination to graduate from an elite school, why didn't they have enough to get in without a thumb on the scale? Or are their grades suspect, too? Unless exam answers are typed, don't tell me that grading is perfectly blind.
"ADDED: Here's the thing. The University's policies align with the Supreme Court's case law, which permits race discrimination narrowly tailored to serve the goal of classroom diversity."
Well in that case it is all good.
Now all we have to do is replace the entire Supreme Court with White Power activists and then we get to experience the other side of the coin and we'll have all these law professors tell us how wonderful it is that Wisconsin is only following the dictat of the Supreme Court.
The snark is only in your imagination.
wv: slumi. now that is one interesting word.
I'm sorry I missed the black and hispanic methods of solving differential equations in my lilly white undergraduate math department. At least there were a few women to give us the distaff perspective on linear algebra. That was vitally important.
Ann Althouse said...
Is discrimination justified for the sake of diversity?
What diversity? If the final goal of those pushing diversity is that the unenlightened come to view an individual black as a an individual and not a black, what will the now enlightened see? That there is no such thing as black diversity, there is only an individual who brings something to the discussion that I agree with or don't agree with, an individual with or without useable skills, an individual whose character is good or bad by my lights, an individual who I like or dislike. That being the case why the monomaniacal use of discrimination in pursuit of the fiction of diversity?
"The Supreme Court has only accepted the use of race as a factor in admissions when it is for the purpose of achieving the sort of classroom diversity that enriches discussion . . . "
Of course, for the proponents of this benign and acceptable discrimination, diversity always enriches discussion.
Do you really expect any court to make findings that the diversity is not enriching discussion? Not a chance.
In the Czech Republic street beggars are outlawed unless they beg while on bended knees. A solution to the hypocrisy of the diversity racket, affirmative action and other distortions might be to do admissions on merit alone and to admit outliers with the condition that they state publicly in some fashion that they were given a grace and were not actually competitive. This would be more honest than the current dodge and would have the effect of concentrating the minds of capable "diversity" and other rigged students to prepare in such a way as to avoid this certainly embarrassing disclosure. This should also apply to athletes as well as other academically substandard students across an array of exceptions.
I came to the comments hoping to find interesting discussion. It probably got started, but wilted away. Difficult problem.
So you let the minority-majority K-12 schools, with their feral students and don't care parents, dish out crap education, and wring your hands and say you can't do anything about that, because you lack Holder's courage.
(The quality of education at a school is controlled by the tolerated worst-behaving students, not how much you pay the teachers. Once the teachers are paid enough.)
So then when the under-educated arrive at the college door, you apply the diversity feel-good band-aid.
This is how societies decline: achievement, willpower, and hard work are devalued. The tragic consequences for laziness are masked.
If you properly prepared your K-12 students, you wouldn't need the diversity dodge. That you have to, just shows the dysfunction of your system. Your civilization is in terminal decline. Diversity selection is a mark of shame. Other societies and cultures that don't give a fig about diversity, but instead value achievement, will bury you.
Pogo said...
Count me as another who no longer gives a damn what the SCOTUS says anymore. Polysyllabic bullshit.
Which, of course, is a real problem. It's not too hard to recognize the Court's rationale as doublespeak bullshit. This is not good for the Court's institutional prestige, which is the core of its power.
Louis is 37 years old.
He has spent his entire life either in school or working in government.
He is also a Roman Catholic.
Perhaps next he will want to compel a reduction in the number of RC's on the Supreme Court. It's very un diverse.
Ah, I see it. The troll is Bob Denver as coffeehouse poet with a pair of amateur bongo drums.
Taking race into account is simply wrong.
This morning I signed and initialed a pile of government lease forms. Same pile as before. Copied. I threw out my pile. Two of the forms asked about race. Just for fun, I go, "WTF?"
The woman across the table (Am. Indian, if you must) said, "I know."
"But really, why? " I already knew why but I was interested in her answer.
She, "Because government funds flow along channels defined by race."
Me, as receiving an insight, "So the government has a vested interest in race. And the people in those race-related branches of government have an interest in maintaining racism." (slight switch in terms there, from race to racism, I thought she might notice)
Nodding knowingly and conspiratorially lifting a light to a dark corner of the business she's in, "Yes."
Reminded me of the census with all those irrelevant personal questions. I messed mine up real bad. I wrote a bunch of smart-ass answers, challenged the validity of the questions, called it racist, cooperated minimally and only with the most basic.
I admit, it was childish.
Then I thought, "Uh oh. They're going come here and force this issue of cooperation on me. I better fix it."
So I tore open the envelope and crossed through all my previous nonsense and answered the right way, but now the form and envelope were REALLY messed up. It looked like a monkey got ahold of it and had a poo. I was both mildly ashamed and well chuffed at the same time. I taped it shut and mailed it expecting the census people to come knocking on my door because I read on various right-wing sites that they were being aggressive and persistent, but nothing happened.
By the way, I am a Black/Hispanic Samoan woman living in a trailer park on the inside edge of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, and I ttttend to stststudder, dna semitemos I etirw sgniht sdrawkcab.
[WV: 'noper']
Mary -- You go off on wild tangents. It's unfair for the reasons that I explicitly stated that it is unfair. There is a very good argument for what amounts to substantive due process there.
Note that I am not endorsing it. I am suggesting that it is a better argument than diversity, which, while I find very important, does not rise to any constitutional level. I don't think a state should be able to narrowly tailor its law to create a diverse outcome any more than it can to create, say, a pretty street.
All that said, my argument is a better one for the people who do want affirmative action.
It's an unfair outcome
If you award positions in an academic institution based exclusively on academic criteria, the outcome -- whatever it may be -- will be fair.
It just might not be the outcome you wanted, if your motives were something other than academic.
If it's that complex, then it's guaranteed to be wrong.
If black people -- any minority group, but especially black people -- aren't able to meet the entrance requirements of the premier state flagship university in numbers equal to their percentage in the population, that's on the state, not the people.
A state school is not a basketball team. It's the state. It has a duty to provide equality. It is, in fact, the only provider of equality.
That's the argument. Note again that I am not endorsing it.
Also, Mary, spare me the noble awesomeness of Wisconsin. You had plenty of separate water fountains and lunch counters.
If black people -- any minority group, but especially black people -- aren't able to meet the entrance requirements of the premier state flagship university in numbers equal to their percentage in the population, that's on the state, not the people.
I can't tell if the above is a joke that's in really poor taste, or just a really stupid remark.
Equality of opportunity, not of outcome.
Yes. Equality of opportunity for an education.
Once you hit 18 and the college level, it's too late.
I disagree. It's not easy growing up poor with no Dad around in a bad environment.
And then Mary's eugenics core came out. But it's not eugenics! Oh no. It's just taking babies away from parents.
Chicken -- I do think that this adversity is harder to overcome and I think that it's why my argument is far better than this silly diversity argument. Incidentally, it also covers any poor person -- not just black people.
As I say, I don't endorse it. But it would sit better with people than diversity, which, while laudable, is the dumbest constitutional shit ever.
Yes. Equality of opportunity for an education.
Everyone has equal opportunity for an education. Grades K-12.
In college, access is determined by the degree to which you took advantage of that K-12 opportunity. If you failed to take advantage of it, well, sucks to be you.
What makes this particularly hilarious to me is that I live in a state (California) where whites are (a) a minority and (b) underrepresented in our flagship state universities. Not because of affirmative-action style racism (although that's a contributing factor), but because Asian students outperform whites in high school and thus grab the lion's share of the undergraduate spots in the UC system.
But I have never once heard a while person whine that Asians need to be racially discriminated against in order to free up more spots for white kids. If have never heard a white person whine that Asians are being granted educational opportunities denied to white people. Not once, in the twenty years I've lived in the state.
It's just taking babies away from parents.
What do you think Headstart and after-school programs are for?
Everyone has equal opportunity for an education. Grades K-12.
The Latin School and Steinmetz do not provide an equal opportunity for education. Don't kid yourself.
Chief Justice Roberts has it exactly right. The systematic, codified discrimination of Jim Crow is gone. The government must not be for equality of outcomes, only equality of opportunities.
PS-- Remember to boycott J!
Mary stated, "Once you hit 18 and the college level, it's too late. Either the kid is a book learner or he is not." As a late bloomer, attended grad school after the age of forty, and now on the faculty at UW, I think that is an over generalization. I have worked with many "non-traditional" students who took awhile to find their way to "book learning." Another example would be Dr. Alfredo Quinones, a once migrant worker who has become a brain surgeon at John Hopkins. Of course, he is also an example of how affirmative action can work well for those who are tough.In our curious world of race resentment against AA, he has received death threats for his accomplishments.
The Supreme Court has only accepted the use of race as a factor in admissions when it is for the purpose of achieving the sort of classroom diversity that enriches discussion (particularly when it's designed to bring in enough minority-group members to making students see the members of minority groups as individuals and not stereotypes).
Do the underqualified really enrich classroom discussion? Or do they tend to take it down a few notches as they do other standards?
The parenthetical thought is a fallacy. The larger the group, the greater the chance people will stereotype the members of that group. We get to know others as individuals outside the confines of the larger groups. The fewer individuals in the group, the greater opportunity we have to know them as individuals. This is true of any group.
We've read it Ann. It was a steaming turd when it was issued. It's dry and stale now, but it's still a turd.
Boy, ain't it the truth.
Are there any other venues besides the university campus where Wisconsins feel the need for diversity and the enriched discussions that naturally follow? Do the minority students imported from out-of-state return to the states of their origins or do they tend to remain in Wisconsin to further enrich the landscape?
The reason people are talking past each other is because one side is confusing justice with the law. It’s not. In this case, the law says that academic institutions can discriminate on the basis of race, and backs up that dictum with the police powers of the state. Many people who side with the law seek reasons why injustice is not such a big deal, a debit balance that is acceptable because it advances another ideal. They may disguise that idea with a little misdirection, claiming that they racial diversity improves everyone’s learning experience. But the underlying reason is eugenics. They want to build a better breed of minority. How’s that working out? One result is that there is now a vast gulf between the educated class of minorities and the rest. Thomas Sowell wrote about the black community during the era of Jim Crow and segregation. An era when the black family had the same rate of fatherless homes than the white family. Today Jim Crow is history and segregation is self-selected, but there is no doubt that pathology exists in the inner city black community that did not exist in the bad old days.
It would be a great irony that the law trumps justice only to make matters worse. It would not be first time.
The Latin School and Steinmetz do not provide an equal opportunity for education.
So now you're whining that people are allowed to attend private schools?
Another example would be Dr. Alfredo Quinones, a once migrant worker who has become a brain surgeon at John Hopkins.
The obvious problem with citing Quinones as an example of someone who "came late to book learning" is that Quinones graduated from college in Mexico (and earned a teacher's license) at the age of 18. You're assuming that just because he was a migrant worker at 19 he was uneducated; that's your own bias talking.
Of course, he is also an example of how affirmative action can work well for those who are tough.
No, he is an example of how intelligent and hard-working people can excel without resorting to legalized racism. He worked his way through community college, then received an academic scholarship to Berkeley (and, later, Harvard).
So rather than being a poster boy for the success of left-wing academic racism, he's a poster boy for good old-fashioned American hard work and meritocracy.
If conversation and discussion is so important to the diversity of opinion. Then in the Age of the Internet why can't that be satisfied through Skype?
If a university contracts with other educational institutions around the world to form international, cross-racial, cross-border, cross-institutional working groups. Which would cost almost nothing to implement.
Then where is the rationale for institutional racism in admissions?
wv: ingentsm. because outgentsm is just wrong.
Payton Prep and Steinmetz do not afford anywhere near the same opportunity.
I see Seven is still whining about private schools.
Here's the amusing corollary to that: if the existence of superior private schools means there is no equality of educational opportunity in K-12, then the existence of superior private colleges rules out the possibility of the Wisconsin offering equality of educational opportunity to college students.
Ergo affirmative action cannot be justified by an appeal to "equal opportunity".
Classroom diversity reminds me of a class I took in college called "Religion and Racism in America." Although much of the class was black and one of the professors who co-taught it, the real diversity was a Jewish guy from New York as he was the only northerner. He was also the only person who knew all the answers, or more than half for that matter, of a supposed IQ test geared towards blacks.
Anyone here know the definition of "deuce and a quarter?"
'Anyone here know the definition of "deuce and a quarter?"'
Isn't that the cargo capacity of a truck?
That's "deuce and a half", isn't it?
Deuce and a quarter sounds like something Titus would devote a series of comments to.
Payton Prep is not a private school.
I knew it was the Mary! I knew it.
"Deuce and a quarter" was one nickname for the Buick Electra 225, but I doubt that's its origin.
So in other words, enforcing "classroom diversity" has only facilitated hyper-liberalism (example: Wisconsin university system) and yet the Supreme Court ruling in favor of discrimination self-refutes its aim of "diversity of thought". Maybe it is talking about "diversity of LIBERAL thought"?
What do I know? This is why we need Constitutional Law professors.
Dadvocate said
"Anyone here know the definition of "deuce and a quarter?""
As a former auto parts hawker back in college, serving inner-city Buffalo NY, a 'deuce and a quarter' was a Buick Electra 225 land yacht, usually housing the venerable 455 c.i. V-8 engine.
This model was particularly coveted by blacks, along with the Olds '98' and the Caddy Coupe DeVille.
I learned more dealing with inner city folk than I ever did going to college. An invaluable experience.
I'm just glad you didn't ask if anyone knew what 'Pontiac' stands for.
;)
"The University's policies align with the Supreme Court's case law, which permits race discrimination narrowly tailored to serve the goal of classroom diversity."
This is not a fact.
Rev. in an interview on C-Spans Q&A Dr. Q stated that he had benefited from AA and that he has received death threats for the resulting accomplishments- now how do you explain that away ?
Here's a corrollary. If the good people of Wisconsin, voted, as did California, to mandate the removal of race as a factor for college entrance. What would the education professionals do?
Would they shift their emphasis to the K-12 system to make sure that UW-Mad looks like Wisconsin, and that every hard-working, ambitious, intelligent, and of good moral character student had an equal shot at a college slot? (As it does no one any good to have admitted students flunk out, except for the community college students clawing their way back to the Show via the consolation brackets.)
Or would they go underground, as in California, and continue applying in secret their racist admittance policies?
You know the answer. But you don't know why. It's a great mystery. What is it about people that they deceive themselves that they they must pursue sub-optimal and corrupt practices?
My response is too long for a comment. It may be found here.
The case law of the Supreme Court on affirmative action and related issues such as the disparate impact test for discrimination is perhaps the court's most egregious legislating from the bench -- it's certainly in the running at any rate.
I say that as a lawyer and law review graduate from a top five law school.
There is no "but you can racially discriminate against whites and other ethnically smart and successful groups in this country such as most Asians" exception to the 1964 civil rights act's outlawing of discrimination based or race, religion, national origins or sex. The Warren Supreme Court simply created one out of thin air and feelings of noblese oblige, starting with Bache.
The fact is that blacks and the heavily Amerindian Hispanics we get in this country are simply a lot less smart than whites, NE Asians and the S. Asians we get here. A lot of the reason why is just about undoubtedly genetic the evidence shows, although the left has made saying so or even doing research on that one of the greatest taboos in the country for the last number of decades. We are now entering an era where not just identical twin studies but also direct genetic evidence is revealing that genetic differences are at least 50% causal or fluid or logical IQ differences (as opposed to memory differences where the study showed it was at least 40%. These are floor numbers due to technical reasons, basically because the technology can't sequence the genome to a high enough resolution to know that it's not a considerably higher contributor.
Note that these are the findings in the evironmentally abundant US, where gross nutritional deficits or high average disease loads don't exist.
In other words, in absolutely poor environments for the nearly full development of human mental potential, differences in environment will very likely have a greater determining effect on differences in intelligence between different individuals and groups.
Here's a link to a writeup of the genetics causes at least half of IQ differences study I referenced above.
For those that don't know, the Guardian is Britain's furthest left liberal mass circulation newspaper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/09/genetic-differences-intelligence
The Supreme Court's legislating from the bench has certainly made the issue legally complex. But it's not inherently complex.
It's essentially a lie to assume a priori without proof that all differences in black versus white IQ (plus conscientiousness, aggression, long term time orientation, and so on) is due to discrimination, rather than genetic or racial differences. All attempts to discover some concrete environmental causative reasons have proved a failure. Instead the left has consistently demanded that race realists prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that genetic differences matter big (not entirely) and have absolutely demonized anyone who's sought to do so.
See the forced resignation a few years ago of James Watson, co discoverer of the structure of DNA and Nobel laureate, and the vilification of the dean of American psychometrics Arthur Jensen, the inventor of the integrated semi-conductor chip Schockly and many, many others.
Dr. King prayed that his daughters would live in a world where race was immaterial.
Al Sharpton wants to live in a world where he can take race into account and make a living off it.
Shell Shock LiveMississauga Condos
At issue in the Wisconsin case is simply whether racist action can be taken by a government mandated system of demeaning citizens according their skin color or heritage markers.
Open Sesameprinter cartridge ink
Countering affirmative action ideology is the conservative version of The Scopes Monkey Trial.
How does Clegg have the patience to deal with morons like Louis Molepske?
exhibition stand suppliersdocument imaging systems[/url
"We got a lot of white people up there on the dais."
Maybe we need more out-of-staters in the legislature.
tucson long realtyFlorida FHA Mortgages
Yesterday's references to Dirkson and Nixon reminded me, and IIRC, at the time affirmative action was initially proposed its advocates were clear that it was to be only a very temporary program, a way to sort of jump-start the process of integrating and melding blacks into middle America.
stone veneerE-cigarettes
y the 14th century, Norwich was one of the largest and most prosperous cities in England, and Norwich Market was a major trading hub. Control of, and income from, the market was ceded by the monarchy to the city of Norwich in 1341, from which time it provided a significant source of income for the local council. Freed from royal control, the market was reorganised to benefit the city as much as possible. Norwich and the surrounding region were devastated by plague and famine in the latter half of the 14th century, with the population falling by over 50%. Following the plague years, Norwich came under the control of local merchants, and the economy was rebuilt. In the early 15th century, a Guildhall was built next to the market to serve as a centre for local government and law enforcement. The largest surviving mediaeval civic building in Britain outside London, it remained the seat of local government until 1938 and in use as a law court until 1985.
fire proof home safeWedding Weight Loss
http://funniestonline.blogspot.com/ take me some time
charm braceletsflat screen tvs
We got a lot of white people up there on the dais.
electric remote control carscoach hire Birmingham
Why? Because if the system were administered in accordance with the Constitution, there would be very, very few minorities on elite public university campuses supported, at least in part, by the taxes of those selfsame minorities. Hence the crafting of what is a dishonest public policy to avoid the inevitable consequences of race blind admissions.
garage screen doorvoice artists
It's tribal. The thinking today defaults to my tribe against their tribe.
Combating that trend by forced ethnic mixing in schools is a worthy goal, but is too little too late to stop tribal thinking.
At issue in the Wisconsin case is simply whether racist action can be taken by a government mandated system of demeaning citizens according their skin color or heritage markers.
If it is not working, why keep doing the useless act that angers people?
wholesale dog clotheswhere to buy bean bags
We got a lot of white people up there on the dais.
funny picture
It's tribal. The thinking today defaults to my tribe against their tribe.
Combating that trend by forced ethnic mixing in schools is a worthy goal, but is too little too late to stop tribal thinking.
At issue in the Wisconsin case is simply whether racist action can be taken by a government mandated system of demeaning citizens according their skin color or heritage markers.
If it is not working, why keep doing the useless act that angers people?
free web hostingموقع فوركس
Details about Stanozolol 5 mgfibromyalgie
We got a lot of white people up there on the dais.
content developmentarticle writing service
It's tribal. The thinking today defaults to my tribe against their tribe.
Combating that trend by forced ethnic mixing in schools is a worthy goal, but is too little too late to stop tribal thinking.
At issue in the Wisconsin case is simply whether racist action can be taken by a government mandated system of demeaning citizens according their skin color or heritage markers.
If it is not working, why keep doing the useless act that angers people?
รีสอร์ทกาญจนบุรีusb-sticks mit Logo
We got a lot of white people up there on the dais.
restroom accessoriescar insurance comparison
Yes, Nowadays there is a race in Account.
Exhibition stand design
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा