November 13, 2020
"A two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process does not violate civil rights law..."
"... when the university selects an incoming undergraduate class.... The plaintiff alleged that Harvard... intentionally discriminated against Asian Americans in ways that benefited applicants from other groups seeking entry to one of the world’s most competitive universities.... Judge Juan R. Torruella, who had also been on the panel reviewing the appeal, died last month.... The university says it adheres to Supreme Court rulings over decades that have allowed the use of race within certain limits.... The court’s new 6-3 conservative majority, cemented with the recent appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to Ginsburg’s seat, could view the long-running controversy over race-conscious admissions in a new light.... Several states bar public universities from considering race. California voters on Nov. 3 rejected a ballot measure that would have repealed a ban on the use of race in public university admissions and other situations. But the politics of the issue are complex, as this year’s demonstrations for social and racial justice have shown the power of the Black Lives Matter movement...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
68 comments:
Send it to the Supreme Court.
Somebody has to stop this race-baiting bullshit once and for all...
Racists gotta be racists.
Democrats have never risen above their origins. They are the party of Slavery, Jim Crow, and Affirmative Action.
Harvard is a historically black college.
As long as Asians keep supporting Democrats, their children will be second class citizens. Not my problem if that’s what they really want.
Legal Insurrection has a story about this.
William Jacobson is a law professor and provides some useful input.
Unlike the Washington Post who has a room temperature IQ journalist write a story.
But Ann likes her sources of information to be lowest common denominator garbage.
What kind of bias leads one to think the Washington Post story written by a drooling idiot is a better source of information about a Supreme Court ruling than a law professor and to further call all of these other sources of information "trashy?"
"The politics...are complex..."
Right. Because politics is the art of denying what is obvious to any sentient human being.
California is barred from considering race. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH. Black students that get into UC just happen to have an average SAT score 230 points lower than the rest of students. Coincidence. Cuz, you know, it'd be illegal to consider race.
Just like election officials are barred from backdating mail in ballots or filling out absentee ballots. Coincidence that 100% of those 3:30 am ballots were for Biden. But it's illegal!
Just like that.
Assume Biden DOJ will drop the just filed case against Yale.
"allowed the use of race within certain limits"
Meaning, within uncertain limits.
Meaning, in effect, anything goes--until some court does something about it.
"We will fight discrimination by race by discriminating by race"
"And since the price to be paid by this solution will be borne by people who are not us we will what we do good, enlightened and fair."
the politics of the issue are complex
So it's not the issue itself that's complex, just the politics of it. In fact, the law seems pretty clear whenever the issue is addressed directly. Why should a court give a fuck about politics?
Oh, right. What complicates the politics is the fact that the Democrats don't like the law.
"It's so very complex, you rubes wouldn't understand. Just let us smart people figure it out for you."
Should all of the Harvard graduates recuse themselves? After all, branding Harvard as a racist organization will devalue one of their most valuable credentials.
What about anyone who has recently donated to Harvard? Giving money to a racist organization can get you cancelled.
What about anyone whose kids are in Harvard?
Blogger Readering said...
Assume Biden DOJ will drop the just filed case against Yale.
Agreed. Gotta give BLM some chips. Reparations are next. I assume you will volunteer?
Racial discrimination is bad when it is done by bad people for bad reasons.
Racial discrimination is good when it is done by good people for good reasons.
It goes without saying that university people are good and "diversity" is good.
So, QED.
Assume Biden DOJ will drop the just filed case against Yale.
Yale deserves some payback for admitting Hunter to Yale Law.
Diversity (i.e. color judgment), not limited to racism: affirmative discrimination.
I'm surprised the WaPo have it a somewhat fair hearing and admitted that there is widespread public opposition to race-based preferences, even if there is support as well.
At his point it is growing into a non-issue as the output of the product supplied by “higher education” becomes diminished by its own hand. Lowering standards of admissions will continue to drag colleges lower, rather than raise the intelligence of those admitted. It’s now about selling prestige. Education is secondary. Funneling money to the administrators and the tenured is the priority. The students are secondary.
At the company I work for in Hartland, WI we can’t even compete to get kids out of Waukesha Community Technical College. They are hired before they graduate. And they get jobs at $50K to $80K, and leave with very little debt. The Ivy League is now just an empty box with the word “quality” stamped on the outside.
"lowest common denominator garbage"
Which is what one gets when one uses .memeorandum as a new aggregator.
But the politics of the issue are complex, as this year’s demonstrations for social and racial justice have shown the power of the Black Lives Matter movement...
What power is that? By most accounts, the leftward drift of the Democrats hurt them electorally.
The "power" they are talking about is intimidation.
Racial... discrimination is good when it is done by good people for good reasons.
It goes without saying that university people are good and "diversity" is good.
Diversity [dogma] is a central tenet of the ostensibly "secular" Pro-Choice quasi-religion (e.g. "ethics") and Progressive Church. Diversity denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, normalizes color quotas, color blocs, and affirmative discrimination for social progress, social justice, political congruence, and other purposes. Liberalism is a divergent (e.g. generational, sectarian) ideology, mischaracterized as tolerant. Progress is one step forward, two steps backward, an unqualified monotonic function. #PrinciplesMatter
Basically what is going to happen is that schools that don’t discriminate and indoctrinate are going to pass Harvard and Yale, which are basically finishing schools now.
The "power" they are talking about is intimidation.
50 shades of their KKK-affiliated legacy. Today, the neo-KKK (e.g. diversity racket).
the politics of the issue are complex
No, they are not. Affirmative action, not affirmative discrimination. Diversity of individuals, minority of one. No more wicked solutions. #HateLovesAbortion
Racists gotta be racists.
Leftists like their final... wicked solutions, and the "good" people that go along.
But Ann likes her sources of information to be lowest common denominator garbage.
Maybe, or she may be a student of Sun Tzu, and trained in the Art of War. I, for one, am grateful, that there are strong woman and men, so I do not have to personally wade through these mainstream water closets.
the power of the Black Lives Matter movement
Some, Select Black Lives Matter, an incorporated sect of the Progressive Church, founded on false premises. So Pro-Choice. #HateLovesAbortion
tim in vermont said...
Basically what is going to happen is that schools that don’t discriminate and indoctrinate are going to pass Harvard and Yale, which are basically finishing schools now.
In a free society this would be true.
That is why the Aristocracy creates a large federal bureaucracy and attacks achievement and innovation.
In the past, the way you gained access to access to elite institutions was to by being born to a prominent family, marrying into a prominent family, or earning a fortune of your own. Harvard University was a training ground for the WASP ruling class, and the way you got your child admitted to Harvard was getting the admitted to one of several elite preparatory schools, like Milton or Exeter.
Around the middle of the 20th century, the system was mostly dismantled and replaced by a system that would rely on academic records and standardized test scores. the UK also reformed its schooling into the so called "tripartite" system. They did indeed provide opportunity for the talented rather than merely an entitlement to the privileged, though legacy admissions and other arrangements are still available.
Unfortunately, by using test scores to filter people into elite schools, you're selecting from a pretty narrow swathe of the population. They have come to dominate public and private institutions in the US, and they have pulled far away from the rest of America in terms of money and social segregation while simultaneously exercising a great deal of power over the whole country.
In that contest, I am not sure if having a technocratic class that is dominated by Asian-American overachievers is so great for social equality. Now, I can't defend discriminating against them in that manner, but it is a more complicated question than it first appears.
The cure for a meritocracy is Reparation H.
the politics of the issue are complex
First, they have a diversity of color (e.g. racism) problem. Second, perhaps if the differential can be explained through intrinsic differences, and affirmative discrimination could compensate. Otherwise, assimilate and integrate, normalize the best choices of successful individuals. The hard politics of the issue are about capital, control, and leverage where diversity (i.e. denial of individual dignity) matter.
The Lib's cure for discrimination is....more discrimination. To "flatten the curve"?
Harvard - the Home Of Experts!
Several states bar public universities from considering race. California voters on Nov. 3 rejected a ballot measure that would have repealed a ban on the use of race in public university admissions and other situations. But the politics of the issue are complex, as this year’s demonstrations for social and racial justice have shown the power of the Black Lives Matter movement.
How strange the claim BLM demonstrates "power" whereas a clear majority of voters (over 6 million) does not. Always minimize.
The truth is that most Americans support treating everyone equally even though the far left and out=r institutions pretend this is racist. This is one of the battlegrounds for the next 4 years.
__________________
Separately the article relies on "prior Supreme Court precedent" rather than the constitutional amendments and the civil rights laws. This is because the court reached yet another terrible conclusion allowing what the Amendments and law clearly prohibit simply because left wingers and their institutions wanted it. The precedent should clearly be overridden returning us to the rule of law.
Another wicked solution. Progressives need to lose their Pro-Choice quasi-religion (e.g. "ethics") and stop normalizing affirmative discrimination and exclusion. Diversity of individuals, minority of one. #HateLovesAbortion
"But Ann likes her sources of information to be lowest common denominator garbage." Or perhaps she just realizes that far more people read the WaPo than read Legal Insurrection?
Besides, if you call racism "Anti-Racism" then it's OK.
This campaign is reminiscent of Progressives spreading the phobia memes, social justice adventurism and anti-emigration reform CAIR policies, the rape...rape-rape culture campaign to socially justify a wicked solution (i.e. selective-child a.k.a. planned parenthood), and share/project responsibility for social progress: one step forward, two steps backward. Instead of affirmative discrimination, they could try affirmative action. But where's the capital, control, and leverage in that.
Besides, if you call racism "Anti-Racism" then it's OK.
And BLM. Of course, Baby Lives Matter. We should be wary of anyone exercising liberal license to indulge diversity dogma (i.e. color judgments), not limited to ageism, racism, etc. It is in principle and historically a progressive path.
I thought that at the start of things Harvard made materially false and misleading statements to potential applicants saying that admission would be based on merit, and then pretextually marked down Asian applicants based on “personality”. Is its argument now “so what if we lied before, because ‘diversity’”? Or did applicants apply knowing that Race discrimination against Asians was part of the admission criteria?
But what is the effect of this ruling on dark-skinned Asians vs. light-skinned Asians? Oh, it gets so complicated...
J. Farmer said...I am not sure if having a technocratic class that is dominated by Asian-American overachievers is so great for social equality.
On paper, I can get behind the idea that there should be more to admissions than test scores. There are many valuable aspects of a person that you will never find on the SAT or in their GPA. But unless it can be quantified, it will just be an excuse to discriminate and steer admissions slots to the people who fit the administrators' biases.
@tim maguire:
But unless it can be quantified, it will just be an excuse to discriminate and steer admissions slots to the people who fit the administrators' biases.
Yeah, I have no idea what to do about that problem. There's always the old Greek idea of sortition, or selection by lotter. Probably wouldn't go over too well with the Tiger Mom's, though.
We have reached the point where you no longer are allowed to believe your lying eyes. What Harvard does is full stop discrimination dressed up in some pretty clothes, but discrimination nonetheless. Harvard could use the same process to keep out all Asian applicants, and by the court's reasoning, that would also be ok.
J. Farmer said...
In that contest, I am not sure if having a technocratic class that is dominated by Asian-American overachievers is so great for social equality. Now, I can't defend discriminating against them in that manner, but it is a more complicated question than it first appears.
11/13/20, 1:05 PM
You know who dominates the actual elite. People with astounding "personal qualities," like Ben Shapiro and Hunter Biden.
Retch.
I've written about this case many times. Click my tags for more if you want to know what I think. This new opinion, predictable I didn't interest me. We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court does with it. Not much for the court of appeals.
The biggest joke about the suit is Asians have to sue. That way they can’t be accused of racism. And, we ALL know they blow he curve for everyone. You can’t bring the suit if your just a white tax paying family, and the University of Wisconsin gives a spot to someone in the name of diversity and your kid doesn’t get in with the same, or better grades / scores. But as I stated above, the joke is now on the ones admitted. They get a bunch of debt, drop out after two or three years, and end up working at Wendy’s. But non of that stops the colleges from bloating costs and salaries, paying outrageous lifetime pensions, accepting unreported Chinese money, and thumbing their noses at the "poorly educated".
>>A two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions process does not violate civil rights law...
They also found that freedom is slavery, war is peace, and ignorance is strength.
Rigged, rigged and re-rigged everything but justice system. I guess it’s a Science.
But what is the effect of this ruling on dark-skinned Asians vs. light-skinned Asians? Oh, it gets so complicated...
Southern Indians, more black than black; Northern Indians; urban Indians; rural Indians; beautiful Indians, handsome Indians, too; fat Indians; the diverse, colorful multitude of Indians. The established Asian diversity class is so narrow, suffocating really, and exclusive.
Rigged, rigged and re-rigged everything but justice system. I guess it’s a Science.
They really should lose their Pro-Choice quasi-religion, discover principles and qualify their liberal ideology. Social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
#doctrev:
You know who dominates the actual elite. People with astounding "personal qualities," like Ben Shapiro and Hunter Biden.
They're certainly part of the elite, Shapiro through credentialism and Biden through nepotism and credentialism, but I don't think it's accurate to say they "dominate" the elite. Everyone forgets "meritocracy" was coined to describe a dystopian future. It was coined in the late 1950's and was a fairly accurate description of what has come to pass.
They also found that freedom is slavery, war is peace, and ignorance is strength.
Baby... Fetal-American privilege: life worthy of life or selectively, opportunistically a "burden". Wicked.
In my opinion, in an ideal world, a private college – or any private institution or business -- would have the right to discriminate or not discriminate to its heart’s content; it’s no business of the government. I would make a partial exception in our real world for discrimination against African Americans, not only because their ancestors were brought here as slaves, but because after the slaves were freed, they were kept in a state of semi-bondage in the South and elsewhere by a vicious combination of State law and social prejudice. But even as to African Americans, government-imposed discrimination has been pretty much gone since the mid-1960’s. That’s at least half a century ago. Certainly, there’s no similar justification for the government prohibiting discrimination against Asians, or women (they’ve had the right to vote since 1920), or Gays, or transgenders, etc. As a personal opinion, I oppose discrimination against such people by Harvard, or your neighborhood baker, or a wedding photographer. But I would not punish them for acting otherwise.
I’m a graduate of Harvard, and they will never see another dollar from me, but I think they ought to have the right to do what they want. And the federal government has no need to give them any money.
It's a fast growing trend for F500 companies to recruit only from selected state flagship Us. Ivies are a source of elites not because they educate better, arguably they do, but because they select and get better students to attend. They are diluting that effect with AA so that the "above average-ness" is dropping. They still want to over represent blue blood too. They are damaging the brand. East Asians are willing to take technical PhD programs and over represent in business tech research. They do not dominate business operations and technical innovation. Indians are more represented there along with the whitey Gates/Jobs types. I am sure white shoe law is different, they can have a minority face with Jewish brief writing.
A two-judge panel? I’m not used to that. I’m used to panels of three, four and five.
The Chief is a Harvard man. He also, and 3 colleagues, attended HLS (Kagan, Breyer, Gorsuch). Any biases?
Of course, the YLS grads (Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor) may want to stick it to Harvard, especially Yale man Kavanaugh, but also Alito and Sotomayor from Princeton.
Maybe only ACB is unbiased (or maybe she hates all Ivies).
Universities are going out of business or at least drastically changing. Distance learning and mass enrollment online classes are changing the academic world. In a world as bureaucratic as ours, somebody will have to give out credentials, but there's no guarantee that in the future Harvard or Yale degrees will count for as much as they have in the past.
The third panelist for the case, Judge Torruella, died. Trump named his successor today. A judge in Puerto Rico who got bipartisan support for his appointment to the district court.
Can someone point me to the "science" that shows making an organization diverse makes it better?
Because my experience in life is that it goes the other way.
Liberals: undermining Brown vs. Board of Education every chance they get.
Translation:
The courts (as represented by a two judge panel) and Harvard are doing politics, which is tricky and violates equal protection.
Also, asians are now white.
And they study too hard so we have to put ugly masks on their faces and weights on their ankles.
And we shoot them if they break free and dance too well.
Students at the highest-ranked colleges vary greatly in ability. There are a relatively small number of extremely smart and capable students, but the majority range from just above average to mediocre to flat-out dumb. This is because, regardless of what criteria are used for admissions, it is impossible to identify the most promising applicants. Using grades and standardized test scores identifies teenagers who test well. Using Affirmative Action is not very different from recruiting athletes or accepting children of large donors -- or of Democratic politicians. It has very little affect on the overall ability of the student body.
Pushing for color-blind admission seems important, but it pales in comparison to doing something about the brainwashing that occurs on these campuses.
Pushing for color-blind admission seems important, but it pales in comparison to doing something about the brainwashing that occurs on these campuses.
Diversity (i.e. color judgment) dogma of the Progressive Church, which denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs, color quotas, and affirmative discrimination, not limited to racism, sexism, selective-child, forms the foundation of the brainwashing from which all other forms of liberal indoctrination stem.
I would make a partial exception in our real world for discrimination against African Americans
Why not other 1/2 Americans? There is a not so nuanced distinction between affirmative action and discrimination, which has been lost or misunderstood thereby engendering progress: one step forward, two steps backward (i.e. unqualified monotonic change), normalization of a diversity and exclusion racket, exploited for capital gain and Democrat leverage to gerrymander the vote.
women (they’ve had the right to vote since 1920), or Gays, or transgenders
The Constitution does not discriminate by sex. Women have always had the right to vote in America, with some notable, jurisdictional exceptions. The amendment only ensured a uniform right to vote. Another amendment, the Twilight Amendment, ensure, among other things, selective-child a.k.a. planned parenthood (i.e. affirmative discrimination of babies a.k.a. Fetal-Americans) or wicked solution for social progress and other purposes (e.g. Mengele/Cecile clinics). It only implicitly identifies the transgender spectrum, including: homosexuals, bisexuals, intersexuals, neosexuals, with the recognition of the People and our Posterity (i.e. native-born children, the children of a citizen couple).
So... Asian-Americans are just "white man-babies" now?
Quit your complaining, you white man-babies. We're tired of having to babysit you and we're tired of hearing how you couldn't get into Harvard. Now, go to MIT and like it!
I trust NOTHING in the WaPoo. (This is why I call it the WaPoo.)
"But the politics of the issue are complex..."
And we sure want the politics to dictate the Court ruling, right?
In that contest, I am not sure if having a technocratic class that is dominated by Asian-American overachievers is so great for social equality.
Interesting observation. I appreciate it.
How about a society run by a pool of the credentialed diluted by artificial score boosting based on skin color?
Post a Comment