“Given what is occurring at Harvard and at other schools,” the lawsuit filed in Boston argued, “the proper response is the outright prohibition of racial preferences in university admissions — period. Allowing this issue to be litigated in case after case will only perpetuate the hostilities that proper consideration of race is designed to avoid.”More at the link.
The North Carolina complaint, filed in Greensboro, often uses some of the same language as in the Harvard case....
The lawsuits do not ask the courts to abandon the idea that racial diversity among college students is a valid educational goal. Instead, they contend that diversity can be achieved by race-neutral alternatives, so public colleges and those that receive federal funds should be ordered to end, altogether, any use of race in the process.
November 17, 2014
2 new affirmative action cases filed — against Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
SCOTUSblog explains:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
Both schools with terrible football programs.
Justice O'Connor said affirmative action had 25 more years but she's off the Court. By the time this makes it to the SCOTUS it will have been half so long.
Good. Here's hoping for a successful outcome to the lawsuits.
It will be easy to find a student who was denied admission to Harvard but hard to prove that the denial of that particular student was due to affirmative action.
I just wish some smart jurist would suggest a way for entities to stop discrimination on the basis or race.
Just end racial preferences completely. They are both morally wrong (bad for the "beneficiaries" as well as the "victims" of the scheme), unconstitutional (witness the constant legal acrobatics the Left has to go through to defend the scheme's constitutionality with ever more vague, litigation-inviting claptrap), and difficult policy-wise (the never ending questions about how to do it in a "fair" way--when there really isn't any). Just scrap any official preferential treatment on race.
Then, okay, let's say we suddenly see admissions of certain minority groups at universities plummet (though I don't think this would be as widespread as the Left suggests, but let's grant that that happens). Then maybe we can explore why certain minority groups are falling behind--is it substandard primary education? Is it cultural? Is it the effect of poverty, or geography? Is it long decades of being called "victim" that may have internalized itself?
At least then we can determine what if anything society can do to correct the underlying problem. But papering over it by accepting a few hundred more blacks and hispanics to your school (who will invariably come from the most advantaged part of those populations anyway) just to ease your consciences isn't helping anything or fooling anyone.
But how on Earth can we continue discriminating on the basis of race if the SCOTUS stops letting us discriminate on the basis of race?!
Diversity of color, gender, orientation, etc. policies are not a valid goal, in education, or anywhere else. These policies are thinly veiled efforts to normalize institutional discrimination, that if not intentionally, practically divide people on diversity boundaries. They denigrate individual dignity, sponsor the development of prejudice, and create moral hazards.
How do the complaints of Asian students change the evaluation of the law? If the Constitution does not prohibit a law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body, then, why would a complaint from an Asian, as opposed to a non-Asian, make any difference. Citing Wiki.
If you believe the BS that there is a compelling interest in obtaining the "benefits" that flow from diversity, that basis for AA does not change just because Asians finally figured out that this is hurting them too (maybe the most).
"they contend that diversity can be achieved by race-neutral alternatives"
You should be careful what you wish for, for you just might get it. There are indeed plenty of ways to adjust the admissions process so that nominally race-neutral criteria will produce the desired numbers, but, using these criteria has other costs.
In any case, the SAT gap between those admitted under affirmative-action criteria and everyone else is smaller at Harvard than at just about any other selective or highly selective school, simply because Harvard receives so many applications from high-achieving applicants of all races that it can achieve its "diversity" goals without compromising academic standards.
Which probably makes Harvard a poor choice to include in a challenge to Bakke.
Where is it proven that racial diversity is a valid goal? Schools seek to produce high-performing graduates and high-donating alumni. Companies seek profits and growth. How does racial diversity link in a causal manner to these goals?
Racial diversity is proven by statistics showing a sub-population is reflective of the whole population. If you achieve racial diversity by this measure but don't consider race in admissions, then there must be some other factor that is a perfect proxy for race, thus you ARE discriminating based on race. QED.
Since discrimination by race is a crime, a perfectly, racially diverse sub-population that is not selected by random draw is thus direct evidence of a crime.
Also, achieving a racially diverse sub-population relative to the overall population from an applicant pool that is not reflective of overall population racial percentages is also proof of racial discrimination and thus a crime.
The assumption of racial diversity as a valid goal absent tangible proof is merely a belief system.
Meanwhile, at UNC, Jane Boxill, the director of undergraduate studies for the Department of Philosophy, as well as the director of the UNC Parr Center for Ethics, has been accused of covering up fake classes for athletes and coordinating those classes, allowing dozens of phony independent studies, and doling out undeserved passing grades....for at least 114 students over a 10 year period
Diversity directors do not respect individual dignity; reject market distribution; and organic diversity. I wonder if they are also pro-abortion. That would go a long way to explain the paradox they seem intent on creating.
The goal is not diversity, but addressing bias and prejudice that denigrate individual dignity. It's ironic that diversity policies nurture bias and sponsor the creation of prejudice.
Peter:: "Harvard receives so many applications from high-achieving applicants of all races that it can achieve its 'diversity' goals without compromising academic standards.
If that is so, then there would be no need for special admissions standards. If that speculation is accurate, Harvard can come forward and describe that it does not give students any advantage in the admissions process based on race. But I doubt very much that they will make such a claim. Instead, because the allegation that high-achieving Asian-American applicants are getting screwed certainly sounds right, I think they are going to point to more 'holistic' standards that amount to the same thing as racial preferences.
Even more interesting were the ways in which the plaintiff suggested Harvard could use race-neutral means to achieve whatever level of racial and ethnic diversity the university deems best for all: end special preferences for 'legacy' applicants, as well as for applicants whose families have donated substantial sums. As it happens, both preferences end up preferring mostly the same team, and it's largely monochromatic.
My guess is that Harvard is not about to take either step (or any other that might be suggested). But they are not going to be happy campers in having to articulate in a public forum why those preferences are more important to the institution than Harvard's stated preference for diversity.
The entire "diversity" concept is wildly insane on its face. It seems to have arisen some 30 or 40 years ago when biologist formalized ancient folk wisdom (don't marry your sister or your first cousin to avoid recessive traits), namely, that some diversity is a good thing in biological systems.
The Left has extrapolated that bit of wisdom to apply to everything, far beyond the original application to biological systems. Per the left, diversity of every sort in every kind of system is a good thing. This is patently false. If you have a piece of iron with an inclusion (a chunk of non-iron, therefore "diversity"), it is less strong than a homogeneous piece of iron. The same is true of societies. When you remove common history, common culture, common religion, etc. from a society, you weaken the bonds in that society. The current mess in the USA is a laboratory demonstration of this fact. We are not nearly the strong nation we were 60 or 70 years ago.
if you have an educational system based solely on merit, the students in the higher education system will consist almost entirely of East Asians, whites, and Jews.
There will be consequences to having an educated class with very few Blacks or Hispanics.
I am a white kid from a working class background. I am against AA in any form, but at least I am willing to acknowledge that w/o racial set asides, there will be very few Blacks and Hispanics at prestigious universities in the US.
Well, on the face of it, the idea that using the full coercive force of Government to *require* *obsessing* over 'race' will result in diminished awareness of 'race' is ... what?
Diversity is not, and has never been, the goal of affirmative action. Diversity has always been, and was invented as, a fig leaf to obscure the real goal, which is simply to help black people. Not minorities, just black people.
That is at least a defensible goal, and if liberals wanted to try to defend it on its face, I would be a lot more respectful than I am to the bullshit they throw out now. "Let's help black people, because they need help." It's got a good ring to it. There's no lying involved. And you can come up with solutions that are better than a simple thumb on the scale.
Why can't they try it this way? Because, one more level down into the lies, they also know they're not really trying to help black people -- they're just buying votes with racial spoils. Genuine, well-designed help for black people might not be as simple as straight-up, old-school political rewards like, "We'll get your kid into college." Thus, lies and contortions and misdirection instead of talking about what we're really talking about.
fivewheels said...
"Why can't they try it this way? Because, one more level down into the lies, they also know they're not really trying to help black people -- they're just buying votes with racial spoils."
I have a very hard time seeing that AA buys any votes for anyone. In any case, the people who are most insistent upon AA do not need any votes. They are self-selecting educrats, and they are impervious to political pressure, at least of the electoral kind. The fundamental motivation of the people who created and defend AA appears to be their unwillingness to acknowledge that there is a clear racial hierarchy in the traits which lead to academic success, and that this hierarchy is largely the result of genetic factors.
Despite claiming to be "the Party of Science", they insist upon denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for this simple and obvious proposition. Their reasons are a grab-bag, some laudable and some craven, but their insistence upon denial is non-negotiable. They have seriously advanced the proposition that white men created IQ tests that are culturally biased in favor of Chinese, rather than accept even the possibility that there are genetic differences between people who are genetically different.
"Instead, because the allegation that high-achieving Asian-American applicants are getting screwed certainly sounds right, I think they are going to point to more 'holistic' standards that amount to the same thing as racial preferences. "
Bingo !
I sometimes wonder when Asians will wise up about their voting habits.
Exit polling showed that Asian Americans favored Republicans over Democrats in the midterms 50 percent to 49 percent. This is a 10-percentage point increase in support for the GOP over the 2010 midterm elections.
Michael K:
Observe their societies. Asians, of various ethnicities, can be equally opportunistic as everyone else. In America, they suffer under an additional burden of self-serving, appointed community leaders. The advantage Asians had stemmed from their conservation of family structures and values. Today, that first level of social organization and morality is subject to the same stressors and corruption as every other American family. It remains to see how they will fare with progressive disincentives for conserving organic structures.
n.n said...
"The advantage Asians had stemmed from their conservation of family structures and values. Today, that first level of social organization and morality is subject to the same stressors and corruption as every other American family. It remains to see how they will fare with progressive disincentives for conserving organic structures."
You just really don't want to believe it's genetic, do you? 'Cause that would make you a racist! What is the illegitimacy rate among Asian-Americans?
The Asians are starting to notice that when Progressives talk about "minorities", they are not speaking English. Asians, like males, are somehow not included.
As they have the qualities needed to be successful in America, and the Left has only punishment to offer the successful, I expect Asians will be as Republican as whites, maybe more so, in a few years. And Affirmative Action is the wedge that will split them off from the parasite coalition.
How about affirmative action for all? In other words, elite colleges should admit student bodies that reflect the ethnic and geographical diversity of the country as a whole -- the best and brightest representatives of every group, rural as well as urban, Mid-West and South as well as East and West Coast.
After all, isn't it all about networking in later life, picking our nation's future ruling elites?
(Places like MIT on the other hand, and med schools (though not law schools) should be strictly merit based with affirmative action for none.)
"How about affirmative action for all?"
You can't believe that this statement makes sense, Luke Lea.
Jupiter:
My statement asserts that nurture (i.e. environment) plays a primary but not exclusive role in the development and expression of intrinsic traits. This should be self-evident. It does not say much about intrinsic traits or their distribution, other than the value derived from social cooperation, beginning with a biological family.
There are many published studies of the number of Asian-American applicants admitted to the Ivies. By a remarkable coincidence, the numbers across all 8 universities cluster in a band around 14% to 16% consistently over time. No doubt, just a freak random event.
Post a Comment