The Trump administration is moving against any use of race as a measurement of diversity in education. And the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the end of this month will leave the court without its swing vote on affirmative action and allow President Trump to nominate a justice opposed to a policy that for decades has tried to integrate elite educational institutions.The NYT article is rather long, and I think it is designed to lure people into confusing the question of the legal permissibility of taking race into account and the policy judgment of whether race should be taken into account. The Supreme Court cases are about whether affirmative action is permissible (and they say that it is but only if you do it the right way, for the right reason). The executive branch decisions are about whether to encourage institutions to choose to do what they are permitted (but not required) to do.
A highly anticipated case is pitting Harvard against Asian-American students who say one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions has systematically excluded some Asian-American applicants to maintain slots for students of other races. That case is clearly aimed at the Supreme Court.
“The whole issue of using race in education is being looked at with a new eye in light of the fact that it’s not just white students being discriminated against, but Asians and others as well,” said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity. “As the demographics of the country change, it becomes more and more problematic.”...
July 3, 2018
"The Trump administration will encourage the nation’s school superintendents and college presidents to adopt race-blind admissions standards..."
"... abandoning an Obama administration policy that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses," the NYT reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
94 comments:
Start holding Jews to 2% of slots at elite schools — their actual share of the population — and Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan will put a stake through the heart and a voice of garlic in the mouth of diversity.
According to the Supreme Court we only need to put up with Affirmative Action for another 10 years ...right?
Just like Martin Luther King wanted.
Here come the Asians!
There goes the curve.
No nation has ever tried what the U.S. has embarked on, shifting from one culture/predominately-two-race society to multicultural/multi-racial society, within a couple of generations. There is going to be a lot of trial and error and no one knows what awaits over the horizon.
The Supreme Court cases are about whether affirmative action is permissible (and they say that it is but only if you do it the right way, for the right reason).
Thomas Sowell puts it more frankly.
The leftist racists will be along any minute to defend their overt racism.
First they force black and hispanic kids into shitty public schools.
Then they make them dependent on affirmative action to make up for the lack of skills the terrible public schools provide.
And shout RACIST! at anyone who points out the failings of their plantation.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2007, “is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Now just nominate Amul Thapar and capture a significant part of the Asian vote!
The Supreme Court cases are about whether affirmative action is permissible
Affirmative action was sold as advertising in ethnic media and ensuring inner city schools were aware of requirements so people had a fair shot at applying. It turned out that characterization was a lie disguising massive race preferences granted in violation of the equal protection clause.
Gahrie said...
According to the Supreme Court we only need to put up with Affirmative Action for another 10 years ...right?
Oh, what a great comment. Do you think that all of the readers will get the context?
Oh, oh. This won't sit well with the lefty class. Race-blind policies have this tendency to show which races/cultures value certain things whereas other races/cultures value other things. Asian cultures value academic success; black culture typically does not. Admissions to colleges if based principally on past academic success will have a student body reflective of value choices. I'm cool with that. The left is not because it reveals the value choices of others not in a favorable light. To which I answer, Tight Sneakers.
Oh, what a great comment. Do you think that all of the readers will get the context?
Those who follow Constitutional law should.
We did it in CA. race is not allowed as criteria for admissions. That's fair.
Even the comments in the NYT are not in favor of affirmative action.
Oh, what a great comment. Do you think that all of the readers will get the context?
Only the conservatives Chuck. We remember Sandra Day-O. Leftists have no memory only grievances.
"whether affirmative action is permissible (and they say that it is but only if you do it the right way, for the right reason)"
Haha. They do have a sense of humor, our overlords.
Anyway, as someone once said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
The scare tactics begin
Or actually continue
race is not allowed as criteria for admissions.
Not allowed is not the same as not happening. Harvard's use of subjective personal evaluations shows how its done. Each race is judged on a sliding scale to produce the desired outcome.
I'm all for discrimination as long as it's a private business. The government ought not discriminate.
For some reason though, we seem to be in favor of some racial discrimination while opposed to other racial discrimination.
This is just wrong. Let's have the same for everyone.
True Equality?? What a concept!!
Trump is definitely Hitler with this one!! haha!!
"Oh, what a great comment. Do you think that all of the readers will get the context?
Even though none of us are as smart as you Chuckles, some of us get it.
That's why we don't need a moderate conservative like Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS.
The Arc of Left:
1. We need to abolish all government-imposed racial discrimination against blacks. (Agreed)
2. That's not enough -- we need affirmative action for blacks to help remedy past discrimination (sympathetic, but dubious. Might inadvertently hurt blacks.)
3. That's not enough, we need to celebrate diversity by admitting blacks, hispanics, gays, women, eskimos and all people of color. (What about Asians?)
4. Fuck the Asians, they are over-represented.
Harvard's use of subjective personal evaluations shows how its done. Each race is judged on a sliding scale to produce the desired outcome.
Harvard still operates under the "race is only considered, not indicative" scheme that is transparently still race-based and race-focused. The law in California is that race may NOT be considered, and the applications do not say the race of the applicant, and yet Armageddon has not descended on our state. The race hustlers are wrong and we proved it.
I was curious on what Betsy Devos was up to in Education.
The only Cabinet Members I hear anything about are Defense, Home Land Security, and EPA.
I can hardly wait for the race blindness = racism arguments.
As Mike pointed out, Prop 209 prohibited racial quotas for state schools in California. There is an argument that quotas are harmful to minorities. Does anyone know if following Prop 209, the graduation rates for black and Hispanic students have risen?
To which I answer, Tight Sneakers.
Tight pussy, loose shoes, no butts.
So I looked, and here is a study that says that graduation rates did increase after 209:
http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/prop209.pdf
"Although enrollments for minorities fell post-Prop 209, two-thirds of the drop
came from the CSU system which consists primarily of non-selective institutions. More
notably, we find that minority graduation rates increased after Prop 209 was implemented, a
finding consistent with the argument that affirmative action bans result in better matching
of students to colleges."
"Might inadvertently hurt blacks."
Interesting assumption in that sentence.
Question: If blacks achieved equal economic footing with whites, why would they think they need to continue voting for Democrats?
It isn't 'inadvertent'. The Democrat party would not survive a significant reduction of grievance among the black population. They have no choice but to keep black people down, and then present themselves as the only solution. Forever.
Success. Empirical data. What a concept.
Hey whatever happened to Chuck after his O'Connor drive-by elitism?
Someplace else today suggested that the Trump Administration was expected to move strongly on this s subject in the next week or so. Justice O'Connor said that affirmative action for diversity alone was constitutional, but expected that it would no longer be necessary in 25 years. But AG Holder implemented policies to leave CJ it in concrete, stating, essentially, that he thought that it should be permanent. We are heading towards the end of that 25 years, and it is even more questionable whether AA for the states is justified under strict scrutiny, to not violate the Equal Protection guarantee of the 14th Amdt. Of course, Harvard, not being a state institution is in a bit different situation.
Race neutral advocacy and policies.
Just like Hitler.
Mike: "Hey whatever happened to Chuck after his O'Connor drive-by elitism?"
Chuck is curled up in a ball weeping while hugging his Dick Durbin life-size doll after reading about Trumps increasing poll numbers despite the lefts/LLR's sustained lie-filled pro-MS13 immigration offensive.
Mike said...
Success. Empirical data. What a concept.
Hey whatever happened to Chuck after his O'Connor drive-by elitism?
Serves me right, I guess, for telling someone else, "Great comment," and wondering if all of the readers will get it. The simple context -- O'Connor's garbled (one of a great many garbles, boggles and argle-bargles) opinion in Grutter v Bollinger -- is, I am certain, known to many of the readers, and unkown to some of the readers. Hence my wondering, "Do you think that all of the readers will get the context?" I only asked.
And for that, I am attacked.
I will say that some of you do make me feel elite. But it's not a terribly high bar. If you get the context.
@mccullough:
Start holding Jews to 2% of slots at elite schools — their actual share of the population — and Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan will put a stake through the heart and a voice of garlic in the mouth of diversity.
This, of course, is the question that divides much of the hereditarian alt-right. Many argue that Jewish over representation in elite academics and institutions is a result of higher mean IQ among Ashkenazi Jews. While this almost certainly plays a role, there are those who argue that it is insufficient to explain the degree of over representation and point to other factors, namely so called ethnic nepotism. Ron Unz addressed this in his famous essay The Myth of American Meritocracy, and Kevin Macdonald's trio of books.
Achilles said...
Just like Martin Luther King wanted.
King called for affirmative action before that term was invented.
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro."
Haley: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?"
King: "I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived?"
It isn't 'inadvertent'. The Democrat party would not survive a significant reduction of grievance among the black population. They have no choice but to keep black people down, and then present themselves as the only solution. Forever.
Yes, probably true. Can't argue with it. The Dems might argue with it, though. "How dare you question our motives?"
The racial hucksters have reached the societal rate of "diminishing marginal returns."
Francisco D said...
"Oh, what a great comment. Do you think that all of the readers will get the context?
Even though none of us are as smart as you Chuckles, some of us get it.
That's why we don't need a moderate conservative like Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS.
O'Connor. A Reagan pick. Part of Reagan's really mixed history with SCOTUS. Reagan got us Scalia (Yay!) Kennedy (some good; some terrible) and O'Connor (Meh, at best). Reagan made Rhenquist the Chief too.)
The Bushes are so frequently bashed, for their nominations. Yet they gave us Thomas (Yay!), Souter (Bleah), Roberts (Very good, on balance), and Alito (Yay!). Bush 41 and 43 were arguably better for conservatism on the Court than Reagan was. And Bush 41 stood by Thomas in a confirmation fight the way that Reagan never did with Bork.
The whole issue of using race in education is being looked at with a new eye in light of the fact that it’s not just white students being discriminated against...
A handy reminder that government and other institutions are not only permitted but encouraged and in many cases required to discriminate against me because of my skin pigment.
Chuck actually deigned to take the time the other day to helpfully explain that sometimes politicians will change their votes on key issues for political purposes if the vote outcome wont be affected.
LOL
He actually believed this would be news to some!
Too funny.
I will say that some of you do make me feel elite.
So how is what I wrote an "attack" on you Snowflake, if you really DO feel elite?
The Trump administration needs to keep courting black people, and this doesn't quite sound like it yet. They need to emphasize that _poor_ black people _ought_ to be favored. Poor everybodys ought to be favored, and an unusually high percentage of them are black.
We need to help them a lot earlier as well; it doesn't help to admit people to colleges where they will fail because they aren't prepared.
The real nonsense that needs to be stopped is favoring black wealthy people over white and Asian poor people - and frequently over black poor people as well.
The votes aren't from the black wealthy people - ignore them. The Republican Party needs to look for ways to help poor people get ahead.
Harvard, not being a state institution, is in a bit different situation.
But how different? The Feds used student loans to push nearly every private school around on other matters. Harvard also gets a yuge amount in direct grants.
Why would minority enrollment drop in non-selective CA schools? The Recession?
If Harvard wanted to do its affirmative action the right way, it would have eliminated test scores as a criterion.
The right way means for "diversity" which seems to have been premised on a fiction that diversity somehow automatically makes groups better.
The right way to get diversity is to identify as American.
Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived?"
In 1960 probably not. Blacks today though grow up very differently. I live in a white minority area and my kids attend the same schools as the black and Hispanic kids Harvard (and essentially every selective university) will grant preferences to. Many other black and Hispanic kids grow up far more privileged than my children are. Nevertheless black and Hispanic kids of rich government lawyers will be granted preferences over my kids and poor Appalachians.
Most race preferences go to middle and higher class backs and Hispanics.
The law in California is that race may NOT be considered, and the applications do not say the race of the applicant,
Laws don't make facts.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2009/11/racial-preferences-numbers-robert-verbruggen/
" Even when California banned racial preferences, its state universities didn’t stop using them. Last year, a UCLA professor resigned from the school’s admissions committee in protest of its flouting the law and issued an 89-page report explaining his reasons."
Anoth link from that page:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/elites-anti-affirmative-action-voters-drop-dead-12984.html
Thomas has been writing very pointedly about Affirmative Action in his opinions.
I would invite everyone to read his dissenting opinion in the Fisher/Univ. of Texas case. Pretty scathing review of the arguments for "diversity" and a pretty straight forward view of the unconstitutionality of using race in admissions policies.
"The Bushes are so frequently bashed, for their nominations. Yet they gave us Thomas (Yay!), Souter (Bleah), Roberts (Very good, on balance), and Alito (Yay!). Bush 41 and 43 were arguably better for conservatism on the Court than Reagan was. And Bush 41 stood by Thomas in a confirmation fight the way that Reagan never did with Bork."
"Bleah" and "Very good, on balance" are curious descriptors. Would you provide a bit of context for "bleah"? I'll wait right here.
rehardin at 1201h - spot-on! "Americans" are now clearly a (completely unprotected) minority. Since hyphenated identity groups now seem to be the norm, can we create a new American-American group? With no racial reference?
LLR Chuck is "elite" like the kid that already knows 2/3rds of the words to the latest "School House Rock" song.
Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived?
True, but admitting underqualified blacks to academic institutions in which they cannot possibly hope to compete is no cure for deprivation. In fact, it is a continuation of it. See the number of blacks admitted to law school versus the number that graduate and then compare that to the number who pass the bar exam. They are set up for failure from the very beginning. One really simply way to help blacks in America would be to stop importing low-skilled Latinos to drive down their wages. But everyone knows opposing limitless low-skilled immigration is just a sign of a hateful racist.
Why are you guys harshing on Chuck about federal judges? He likes Scalia and Thomas. From a Federalist Society perspective, he seems right on the money.
I musta missed a buncha threads where y'all were arguing about other matters.
Back in the dark ages of 2016, I was arguing with my recalcitrant pals that the best reason to vote for Trump was that his judges would be a zillion times better than Hillary's judges.
On July 9, we will know if Trump has followed-up once again with a smashing success like Gorsuch. All indications point to a Yes.
Considering anything on the basis of race is, by definition, racist.
The Obama Administration was - by far - the most racist Administration of my lifetime. Trump is attempting to undo some of that.
Good.
And for that, I am attacked. - Chuck
You were 'attacked' for your condescending tone.
"True, but admitting underqualified blacks to academic institutions in which they cannot possibly hope to compete is no cure for deprivation. In fact, it is a continuation of it.
I cannot recall who identified the "mismatch principle". Basically, the desire for elite institutions to bring in African-Americans students is so intense that they admit students with much lower skills than the average White or Asian students. That is pretty much a setup for failure.
The saddest part is that AA students who would do well (and build academic self-confidence) at their state university wind up at Ivy League schools where they lose their confidence (and often do not graduate) due to the skills discrepancy.
CJinPA,
" no one knows what awaits over the horizon."
That depends totally on the level of generality. I can confidently predict fire, smoke, blood, and suffering...
Chuckles,
" Do you think that all of the readers will get the context?"
Oh hell no. We're all dumb rubes; you're the smart one.
J. Farmer said...
King: "Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived?"
True, but admitting underqualified blacks to academic institutions in which they cannot possibly hope to compete is no cure for deprivation.
AFAIK, King wasn't referring to academics**, but that statement, and others, show that his "dream" was something he hoped for in the future, but was not something he was actually advocating at the time:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - but not right now.
**more likely he was referring to other race-based programs, like "Operation Breadbasket was an organization dedicated to improving the economic conditions of black communities across the United States of America."
Francisco D said...That is pretty much a setup for failure.
--
I would bet these institutions have incentive to somewhat "fix" that.
Chuck: And for that, I am attacked.
Yes, and?
Why is this a problem?
>>Poor everybodys ought to be favored
Why?
Equal opportunity, yes. Favored, given preference? No.
Fabi said...
"The Bushes are so frequently bashed, for their nominations. Yet they gave us Thomas (Yay!), Souter (Bleah), Roberts (Very good, on balance), and Alito (Yay!). Bush 41 and 43 were arguably better for conservatism on the Court than Reagan was. And Bush 41 stood by Thomas in a confirmation fight the way that Reagan never did with Bork."
"Bleah" and "Very good, on balance" are curious descriptors. Would you provide a bit of context for "bleah"? I'll wait right here.
Souter voted on the right side of Bush v Gore.
Souter voted on the wrong side of Planned Parenthood v Casey.
Souter had some pretty good instincts on the Supreme Court not doing too much; and he had zero instincts for movement conservatism and for taking on old liberalism from past cases.
And then, Souter resigned to give his seat to an Obama pick.
Bleah.
"Souter voted on the right side of Bush v Gore"
Partly so. On substance, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor & Kennedy were the majority; Souter was with Ginsburg, Stevens (another GOP #fail) and Breyer.
But on the Equal Protection violation, Souter and Breyer did join the majority, just not on the remedy. Weasels.
Souter was one of the most liberal justices on the SCOTUS, and as years went on, he voted with the liberals like Ginsberg and Beyer almost 90% of the time.
In Gore v. Bush, he disagreed with the 5 Conservatives that Dec 12th was the deadline for the recount. Instead he agreed with Beyer that the case should be resent to the FLorida Democrat Supreme Court for another bite at the apple.
IOW, Souter knew he couldn't help the Democrats win the Case, so he agreed to a CYA concurrence that was meaningless.
And then instead of staying on the Bench, he resigned so Obama could fill his seat with a Liberal.
Bush I was elected to on a platform to appoint Scalia like justices, but like his "Read my Lips" promise - it was just a lie.
Read his Bio. Bush had ZERO desire to fight for a conservative nominee. His only instruction to his AG and White House Counsel - was no more "Borks". So when Sen Rodman told him Souter would sail through - Bush jumped at it. He didn't care. Later, he picked Thomas because Sen Danforth assured him he would "Sail Through" the Senate because THomas was black.
Thank you, Chuck. He earns a slightly worse grade than "bleah" from me but his correct decision in Gore is a notable offset.
Bay Area Guy said, "Why are you guys harshing on Chuck about federal judges? He likes Scalia and Thomas. From a Federalist Society perspective, he seems right on the money."
As I'm sure you well know, Chuck-baiting is quite a sport around here. I think Chuck's thin-skinnedness invites it, but I do think it's overdone. If Drago and Mike and the others were to give it up, I think the comment section would be better for its absence.
[J Farmer:] True, but admitting underqualified blacks to academic institutions in which they cannot possibly hope to compete is no cure for deprivation.
Affirmative action's fundamental premise must be that colleges are indistinguishable, and, therefore, admission boards are really just elaborate lotteries. Really?
Kashawn Campbell overcame many obstacles to become a straight-A student. But his freshman year at UC Berkeley shook him to the core.
School had always been his safe harbor.
(The link is illuminating, btw.)
Growing up in one of South Los Angeles' bleakest, most violent neighborhoods, he learned about the world by watching "Jeopardy" and willed himself to become a straight-A student.
His teachers and his classmates at Jefferson High all rooted for the slight and hopeful African American teenager. He was named the prom king, the most likely to succeed, the senior class salutatorian. He was accepted to UC Berkeley, one of the nation's most renowned public universities.
A semester later, Kashawn Campbell sat inside a cramped room on a dorm floor that Cal reserves for black students. It was early January, and he stared nervously at his first college transcript.
He had barely passed an introductory science course. In College Writing 1A, his essays — pockmarked with misplaced words and odd phrases — were so weak that he would have to take the class again.
He had never felt this kind of failure, nor felt this insecure. The second term was just days away and he had a 1.7 GPA. If he didn't improve his grades by school year's end, he would flunk out.
Keeping in mind that College Writing 1A is a remedial course, it should be glaringly obvious that AA can't fix problems that started long before a student's freshman year.
Apologies.
(The link is illuminating, btw.) was supposed to be at the end of the comment.
"Race-blind admissions"? That's racist, man.
"Diversity" is a dog whistle for forced integration, which is every bit as loathsome and racist a concept as forced segregation was back in the day.
It's not an accident that the same political party pushed both ideas. The Diversity crowd should be met with the same contempt and derision that segregationists get. Their underlying principles are the same.
The correct answer to both ideas is that of the Founders: 100% complete and total Freedom of Association. It is those who seek to deny us that essential liberty that deserve the kind of shaming and expulsion from polite society that 'racists' (as defined by the real racists) get today.
Souter? The jackass who gave us Kelo?
Worse 'Republican' appointment of my lifetime. By a mile.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2007, “is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
As difficult as it will be for all of those who currently have some kind of advantage it really is the only way to go.
@Hey Skipper,
Excellent story, sad, but excellent.
That kid shoulda gone to Long Beach State or Santa Monica City college. Sending him to UC Berkeley, so that leftwing admissions committee could feel better about themselves, does a huge disservice to that kid.
Thomas Sowell talked about the "mismatch" problem decades ago. Yet, the left still prays to the diversity gods.
Another reason to oppose Affirmative action -- black kids will flunk out of prestigious colleges, while they coulda succeeded at solid colleges, a level below.
Will DOE file amicus for Asian plaintiffs?
Are they allowed to?
Or even intervene?
This will not end well.
MikeR said...
"The votes aren't from the black wealthy people - ignore them. The Republican Party needs to look for ways to help poor people get ahead."
Ahead of whom?
I agree with Bob at 2:44pm. I don't know what has triggered the animosity but Chuck seems far removed from the likes of Trumpit or Garage Mahal (for those who remember him). On the exchanges on this post the animosity seems misplaced.
The WORST thing about "affirmative action" is that it REQUIRES us to think of people in terms of their race -- "the color of their skin, not the content of their character". We need to stop doing that. There was a brief moment in our history after Brown v. Board of Education and on through the civil rights legislation of the '60's when we seemed to be moving toward adopting a "color blind" ideal, but then we fell into the affirmative action trap where the most important thing about you or me is what GROUP we belong to. It's not just race. It's gender and gender identity and sexual orientation and religion and all sorts of other "group" characteristics. We really and truly have to stop this.
NOW!
A very useful article on Affirmative Action is John McWhorter "Affirming Disadvantage" in The American Interest" Magazine of June 28, 2018. McWhorter, a Black professor of linguistics at Columbia (and an acute observer of the social dynamics of the United States) challenges all of the notions that power the urge to adopt affirmative action and demonstrates their profound weaknesses. Very much worth reading.
I don't know what has triggered the animosity but Chuck
Chuck turned every post into an anti-Trump diatribe. For two years he made the blog borderline unreadable. He deserves nothing but disdain no matter what else he does.
I have observed that first generation Asian students are often Ivy material, in fact the owner of a Vietnamese nail salon I frequent has a child at Columbia and one applying to top Universities. The parents speak and write broken English. How is this possible in racist America?
Hey Skipper said...
Kashawn Campbell overcame many obstacles to become a straight-A student. But his freshman year at UC Berkeley shook him to the core.
Education Realist sees some grade fraud, brain damage, and a misleading article:
"Why mention Kashawn’s unusual affect, his nomination as prom king, his faithful copying of Spencer, to make it fairly clear to a closer reader that there’s something really off about the kid? Why be so uncompromising on the point of Kashawn’s incoherent writing and his failure to improve in any way, unless it’s for the same reason he includes only one quote from his mother which suggests his birth was unusual?"
A baby step away from the progress of diversity including color judgments that have denied individual dignity and civil rights.
Jew privilege, White privilege, and Asian privilege are a progressive artifact of a minority ideology.
Gretchen said...
I have observed that first generation Asian students are often Ivy material, in fact the owner of a Vietnamese nail salon I frequent has a child at Columbia and one applying to top Universities. The parents speak and write broken English. How is this possible in racist America?"
You make the mistake of assuming that because the immigrant parents are working class people or small business owners here that they weren't educated people in their respective countries of origin.
[Bay Area Guy:] That kid shoulda gone to Long Beach State or Santa Monica City college.
As it happens, I didn't flunk out of Cal State LA instead of flunking out of Harvard. Why? Because with my high school grades, I wasn't nearly well enough prepared for Harvard. Had I been so foolish as to submit an application, the admissions board would have risked collective urinary incontinence due to uncontrolled and prolonged laughter. But I'm white, so I wouldn't have had to worry about being put somewhere I manifestly did not belong.
Universities didn't cause the problem. Lord knows why they think they can be the solution.
Blogger joshbraid said...
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2007, “is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
An idea so crazy it just might work!
People have an intrinsic color bias, but prejudice is progressive (e.g. learned, forced).
Wow, Skipper; a kid who can't even pass a remedial writing course earned straight A's at his high school? So what does that say about Jefferson High?
Post a Comment