Writes David Lat (at Substack).
In the UNC argument, Justice Thomas said this to Ryan Park: “I've heard the word ‘diversity’ quite a few times, and I don't have a clue what it means.”
Justice Thomas, I can explain to you exactly what “diversity” means to Harvard and UNC. Allow me to share a story....
Years ago, in preparing to send their oldest son through the gauntlet of Manhattan private-school admissions.... my Asian-American cousin and her white husband talked to an “admissions consultant.” The consultant told them that elite preschools value “diversity.” My cousin excitedly told the consultant that she’s from the Philippines, her husband’s from Australia, and their son at his tender age had already lived in multiple countries and been exposed to many different cultures and languages. “I’m sorry,” the smiling consultant said to them about their white-looking son, “but that’s not what these schools are looking for. Your child does not offer visual diversity.”
Visual diversity. That sad, shallow, hollowed-out vision of “diversity” is exactly the kind of diversity that Harvard, UNC, and other educational institutions are obsessed with....
An admissions system trying to promote diversity of experience shouldn’t treat me any worse than my white classmates; at most, it should treat us the same (or maybe give me a little bump up, since I had “diverse” experiences like hearing Tagalog at home and eating lumpia in addition to hot dogs). But giving white applicants a preference over Asians does make sense once you remember that the schools are looking for visual diversity.
Having a class that’s 43 percent Asian American, even if those Asian-American students have life experiences that are as diverse or even more diverse than their white peers, is terrible for visual diversity. The fact that many of us have dark hair and dark eyes—i.e., we don’t have the greater visual diversity of white people, who have more variation in hair and eye color as a matter of biological fact—just makes things worse. See generally AllLookSame.com....
पोस्ट्स
६० टिप्पण्या:
There are times where biological diversity is incredibly important as an objective measure.
And then there are times where biological diversity is being abused....tortured....so that people can pat themselves on the back and say "hey look at us".
Sadly, the latter is far more prevalent than the former.
"Sorry, Harvard, but 'visual diversity'—having a campus that looks like a Benetton ad—isn't a compelling state interest."
Damn, I couldn't have put it better myself
Sigh. Yes, superficial. Humans fall into simplistic solutions that bake failure in from the start.
Are they going to rotate back to Communist-style class warfare? The bourgeoisies versus proletariat? We know how well that turned out.
How about rotating back to survival of the fittest / eugenics? We know how well that turned out. [As we are currently in an anti-eugenics era of promoting / gifting to the least competitive and nonreproductive people. It's turning out as I expected: extinction.]
Let humans be organic and sloppy animals, as they will always distort pure ideologies into organic sloppiness over time.
Precisely. The colleges have argued that diversity is valuable, not to the student who provides it, but to the students who observe it. And the Supreme Court accepted that argument. The black kids are there so the normal kids can practice pretending they don't notice how "vibrant" they are. I call it the "Petting Zoo" theory of diversity. But if the black girls won't let the white girls touch their hair ...
It's about average IQ. It's unnoticeable in everyday life but shows up in two places (1) group averages and (2) the high end of the curve. The high end of the curve is where universities are recruiting, and group differences are everyday-noticeable there in terms of university population, because the probability ratios go all one way faster than exponentially there. So you wind up with all-Asians or all-Jews because that's the end of the curve you're selecting from.
Solutions are (1) stop taking group averages and (2) stop thinking it's a problem.
There are schools for everybody.
Basing affirmative action on class would weaken the elitist core of such institutions without providing the necessary "visual diversity."
Benetton diversity does matter in a way. The same people who would be appalled by a catalogue where every student pictured is White would also be nervous and hesitant about attending a college where most of the students were Asian. Schools may be gambling that applicants repelled by the school's affirmative action policy will be fewer than those who wouldn't want to apply to a school that had a reputation for being "too" Asian.
They all want to go to Harvard. And most of them come from wealthy families. And most of them are ages 18-22. So they aren’t diverse.
University of North Carolina is 60% female.
Why pretend?
If the people running this country and its institutions could import the population of, say, Poland, and transform them into people who looked as if they were African-Americans, and who agreed to identify as such, they would regard themselves as having solved the problem of race in America. That is in effect what they are doing by hiring and promoting African immigrants and people of African descent from Caribbean countries. Almost nobody gives a rat's patootie about the actual black people from the US mired in hopelessness.
If you want to see the predicaments of some real black people, watch some episodes of Last Chance U. Single parent families, bad education, crime all around, superficial cultural values, and insufficient habits of self reliance. Harvard plans to solve the problem with make-believe black people who allow Harvard to hit its numbers. Says Harvard: Screw the rest.
Wow, that was fascinating. Thanks.
Here’s the solution. Exclude the athletes and some slots for legacies, but every year just set a minimum SAT and GPA. And then do a lottery.
Chance.
I question whether there is a significant educational benefit from studying in a college with a "diverse" student body.
Affirmative action is akin to judging a book by its cover.
This is in the same mold as the LatinX bullshit.
My wife is from Hong Kong.
Her cultural differences with Japanese or Malaysians is as big as it is with me.
Democrats/Progressives are surface level shitheads. They are only interested in destroying the individual and lumping people into groups that they can control. This goes for their GOPe allies too.
It is way past time we relegate to these racists and purveyors of segregation to the dustbin of history where they can rot and be humiliated for eternity.
That's interesting. How many employers hire their workers on the basis of visual appearance only? I can tell you that, based upon my recent Big Box retail experiences, I would say more than a few - because I've interacted with more than a few 'visually diverse' employees that appeared to be clueless about their job description, store knowledge, and customer service principles. Maybe 1 in 5 is competent. The average is higher for 'non-visually diverse' employees, sorry, but it's obvious.
Next question: How many people here choose their brain surgeon, their dentist, their investment advisor, their lawyer, on the basis of visual appearance only? Personally I tend to favor demonstrated competence in the field, with very little-to 'no' regard for appearance.
"It's about average IQ. It's unnoticeable in everyday life but shows up in two places (1) group averages and (2) the high end of the curve."
That depends on where you live.
Thirty years ago I realized that diversity meant "a whole bunch of people occupying the entire range of melanin content thinking the same thing." No diversity of thought. I wish I had distilled it to the more accurate and penetrating two word phrase "visual diversity."
I don't think elite preschools and Ivy League colleges approach admissions the same way. Sorry.
Harvard is insanely rich enough that it will find and recruit suitable black students with or without AA. It will just cost more and take more effort. UNC will be in more of a bind.
Mike Sylwester at 12:22
I question whether there is a significant educational benefit from studying in a college with a "diverse" student body.
Same here. If there were the Austro Hungarian Empire would have been the big dog of Europe. I believe their army had units speaking eleven different languages when they embarked on WWI.
As soon as diversity devolves into identity politics, the goose is overcooked. Soon the emphasis is not qualifications but on being the first of this or that. The first black supreme court justice, the first female place kicker, etc. It doesn't matter if you are competent only that you are the first or you are contributing to the appropriate percentage.
Diversity of individuals, minority of one. #BabyLivesMatter(BLM) #PrinciplesMatter
Lat nails it. These leftist schools want visual diversity and for everyone to think exactly the same thing - woke bullshit.
The problem created, of course, is that much effort must then be made to account for the disparities between the qualified applicants and not-so-qualified. The schools admit underqualified minorities and then when those students naturally struggle, all sorts of accommodations need to occur - grade inflation and racial grievance studies majors and extra tutoring and non-white professors.
When that's enough or someone finds a banana lying around, the colleges have to do all sorts of segregationist nonsense like create segregated "safe spaces" (as if whites are inherently dangerous!) - segregated dorms, segregated cultural spaces like libraries, cultural centers, theaters and swimming pools, and segregated graduations. How that creates "diversity" where people from different backgrounds learn from each other is beyond me.
Of course, they don't want blacks to learn from whites. The diversity rationale exists so whites learn from blacks or browns or non-white whoevers. The diversity benefits are only supposed to flow one way - those racist blue eyed devils need exposure to non-whites so they can become anti-racist woke allies who grovel and bend the knee and apologize for their ancestors as if we're guilty of historical crimes of people dead for centuries. Of course, these woke idiots are probably exactly the kind of people that would necessitate the creation of a safe space, but that's not why those exist.
Don't forget - the colleges then need to start policing mundane conversations, i.e., "microaggressions." It all begins at the point where the schools start lowering standards to admit students because of the color of their skin rather than merit. The court should do away with this evil one and for all - the benefits will be enormous.
'It's about average IQ. It's unnoticeable in everyday life...'
It's very noticeable...
"isn't a compelling state interest"
But Harvard isn't a state.
The CRA prohibits race discrimination in any outfit that receives federal money, and it's understandable that the provision would be formulated that way back then, but it is still wrong, since it undermines the private nature of private institutions, and is bound to be dishonest in application (students at Howard and Morehouse and Wellesley still receive subsidies, don't they?). Harvard should be able to go all black, if it wants, though I have a feeling that might be a step too far even for them.
Those that raise cattle breed to have cattle less intelligent, which allows more control. Universities are the same, except they don't realize their "herds" are not being selected any longer.
That was a weird series of questions by Thomas, who found diversity in his higher education at The Cross and YLS. At one point he almost seemed to endorse his segregated early education.
Harvard is insanely rich enough that it will find and recruit suitable black students with or without AA. It will just cost more and take more effort.
Most of whom will be from wealthy black intact families. The rest will be immigrants.
Still waiting to see any - ANY - statistical data that suggests diversity in any organization is a benefit. Until then, "diversity is out strength" is bullsh!t.
Still waiting to see any - ANY - statistical data that suggests diversity in any organization is a benefit. Until then, "diversity is our strength" is bullsh!t.
Readering: Sorry if this is a silly question, but what exactly will colleges need to spend money on to find suitable black candiates if they are no longer able to implement race weighted admissions?
It seems to me that this is a "What's good for the goose" adventure. If we bail on "affirmative action," we must bail on all non-scholastic bases such as familial, alumnus, and investment relationships and college athletics will be gone as well. Yep, everyone must be treated equally by the school administrations so students and their families who cannot afford to pay full-boat tuition and fees will not be allowed to attend and any indiscriminate spending by schools will be punished.
Wait - that all sounds like liberal thinking - not a right-wing court.
"Sorry if this is a silly question, but what exactly will colleges need to spend money on to find suitable black candiates if they are no longer able to implement race weighted admissions?"
Burnt cork?
Not colleges in general. Harvard, the #1 brand in colleges.
I'm someone who did not apply to Harvard, in part because I did not expect to get in. But since I got in every place to which I did apply, I was possibly wrong, and if Harvard had been looking for me they could have made that known. I'm sure today there are students of all stripes who think that about Harvard, but if Harvard wants them and seeks them out.... It mostly does that for athletes, but has the resources to expand greatly.
Jupiter: John Rosenberg (discriminations.us) has been saying exactly that for 15 years or so. URM students admitted under affirmative action aren't there to learn; they're there to teach white kids about themselves. Affirmative action for the purpose of remedying past discrimination has been officially dead for almost 45 years.
Well, Harvard ain't winning any more Beanpot Tournaments, that's for sure.
"Visual diversity" means "optics." White liberals don't like the optics of a university that is 95% white or Asian. It's not because of any discernible educational benefit.
This is why so many of the black students admitted under these race-conscious policies are foreign students (or, if they are Americans, they're not descendants of slaves), or are from highly successful (upper-middle-class or upper-class) families. The liberals only want these students for their dark pigmentation, not because they have been disadvantaged somehow by America's history of slavery. Again, it's just the optics.
Still waiting to see any - ANY - statistical data that suggests diversity in any organization is a benefit.
@Doug, don't bother waiting. You never will. Jupiter is right on point with his "Petting Zoo" analogy.
Sebastian said...
"isn't a compelling state interest"
But Harvard isn't a state.
But vast amounts of state money flow into its coffers. Similar to liberal trust fund kids who demand higher taxes because they shouldn't have so much money, Harvard has the option of turning that money down. Then they would be free to do what they want.
Jupiter @ 11:59: "... I call it the "Petting Zoo" theory of diversity."
Hey! That's my coinage! [Insert "wounded sad indignant" emoji]
Seriously: great minds think alike. You are so right that "diversity" was a crock precisely because it patronized the recipients of AA who were allowed to enter the walled garden not to improve themselves (although, if that happened, it was a bonus) but to validate and enrich the ambiance of the other inhabitants. Like having the cruise ship tourists come ashore to "share" the luau.
And just like cruise tourism, it's a very big business.
Steven Wilson @ 12:48: "...Soon the emphasis is not qualifications but on being the first of this or that." Yes. And there is an infinity of such "firsts" that can be exploited. They form a kind of currency (which becomes wildly inflated as more and more such tokens are generated). They spare everyone the labor of having to examine the actual performance of the First Left-Handed Transgender Hemiplegic To Climb Everest and compare it that of anyone else. But due to that inflationary tendency, pretty soon the whole game collapses. People with real merit aren't going to waste much time playing in that arena.
PS: I share your chagrin that "visual diversity" was not trending many years ago. It's very nice. But for years I've referred to this business as "counting by color," which is reasonably compact and usefully dyspeptic. IMHO.
Gadfly, a fully blind and equal admissions process need not include any evaluation of ability to pay tuition, at least not at Harvard. Harvard is fully able to fund attendance of any or all students it finds desirable and admits.
Of course, that means riff-raff might be able to attend. Maybe I have to rethink this...
Gadfly, you seem to have missed the part about RACIAL discrimination being unconstitutional. Which is sort of the whole point of the case before the Court.
It is not the job of the Supreme Court to decide how to make Harvard (or UNC) a better or worse educational institution. So the other stuff is up to Harvard (or UNC).
'It seems to me that this is a "What's good for the goose" adventure. If we bail on "affirmative action," we must bail on all non-scholastic bases such as familial, alumnus, and investment relationships and college athletics will be gone as well.'
Athletes, donors, and alumni generate revenue.
Generic black kid with a 1200 SAT score not so much...
The branches of the military and corporations filing amici briefs seem to have concluded that ¹diversity matters. Those amici briefs reportedly swayed O'Connor in the Michigan case.
That was possibly the most assholiest statement that i have ever heard from Thomas, and he is a master at that. What a tool. Trying to prove, badly, a point.
Can he retire soon?
BTW, not a big fan of Affirmative Action,so attack away, you right wing trolls are always up for badness.
Vicki from Pasadena.
boatbuilder: "Gadfly, you seem to have missed the part about RACIAL discrimination being unconstitutional. Which is sort of the whole point of the case before the Court."
The Helpless gadfly didn't miss it, as a leftist he/she/xe just ignores it. That and the Hopeless gadfly only reads far left "analyses" of any event/case and is thus doubly burdened by Typical Lefty Blinders.
Clarence Thomas is too uppity for Vicki from Pasadena.
victoria: "That was possibly the most assholiest statement that i have ever heard from Thomas, and he is a master at that. What a tool. Trying to prove, badly, a point."
New Soviet Democraticals like victoria really dont like it when black men refuse to stay on the lefty mind-prison plantation.
Victoria is just another plantation would-be overseer.
The branches of the military and corporations filing amici briefs seem to have concluded that ¹diversity matters. Those amici briefs reportedly swayed O'Connor in the Michigan case.
Yes Readering. That must mean that racial discrimination is constitutional. It's just like abortion. It must be constitutional because all the right people approve of it.
1. In an "ideal world", a private institution like Harvard should be free to admit or not admit Asians, Blacks, Jews, or whoever they want. UNC is a public university and should be subject to more limits on discrimination.
2. In the "real world" we have laws against discrimination that apply to Harvard and a lot of other private Universities. Should we?
3. I was an undergraduate at Harvard in the early 1960's, and I can recall knowing only ONE Asian American, and ONE African American. When I went back for my 25th Reunion, on the campus (after graduaion and the end of classes) I saw a bunch of Asian Americans.
4. I believe that my college experience was benefitted by the presence of people who were different from me. Not Asians, but not all WASPS. Asians would have improved the esperience. If today's Harvard administration thinks otherwise, well, that won't be the first time their wrong.
The school administrators want more blacks, and will make any argument they need to achieve that.
The irony will be when they eventually take the libertarian viewpoint that they are private businesses and can do whatever they want. Their lawyers will be claiming the CRA is unconstitutional.
Some fifty years ago, a couple dozen guys from my top Jesuit high school in Chicago (and, yeah, they were all guys, though the school saved itself from going under, in part, by going coed in the late 70s) applied to Harvard. They admitted me and three black guys that I knew to a greater or lesser extent. Despite my whiteness (and Catholic upbringing!), I was considered to be an "underprivileged child from the inner city" (quite frankly, I was, in economic and other terms), at the top of my class, with a ton of academic honors and credits, especially in math, Latin, and science. One of the black guys was the school's star basketball player, though I don't know that he did anything athletic at Harvard. The other two were good guys who subsequently prospered in life, but nothing to write home about academically. They all probably also qualified as underprivileged inner city kids who got a good financial break from the school.
My freshman dorm was one of two that faced on University Hall, which had been occupied during the 1969 craziness. It was full of math and science wonks, quite possibly put there as a protective measure. Mostly from lower middle class to middle class backgrounds; we used to joke about being the ones who were there to provide academic heft. Of my later roommates from that group, one is now a biochemist retired from UCSF and another a retired botany professor who taught at a university in Puerto Rico for several decades. Another, not in my later roommate group, is a retired medical doctor.
I don't recognize what is going on at Harvard these days. Over the years, I gave them a relative ton of money (not nearly as much as I have given and continue to give to the Jesuit high school) because I wouldn't be where I am financially if I hadn't gone there. A couple of years ago, I cut them off completely from any further contributions. I have no idea of whether they've figured out why, though they still solicit regularly.
--gpm
I forgot to brag that our class had by far the most National Merit semi-finalists in the school's history, which included a couple of the black guys. The numbers in recent years have been pretty pathetic by comparison.
--gpm
Soon the emphasis is not qualifications but on being the first of this or that.
There has been a whole lot of that in the Biden administrations announcements on slots filled.
If it were me I'd hate for the announcement to be introducing JAORE the first left-handed, token Trinidad/Irish/Aboriginal illegal immigrant to be Under Secretary to the visual Arts unit of DOJ.... They don't even mention as an aside I know how to generate a computer graphic.
FWIW, JAORE is none of the above.
You can't spell "DIVERSITY" without "DIE YT".
Maybe diverstity is like pornography. You know it when you see it.
So the parents were excited when they thought the diversity racists were going to be racist for them but then were disappointed when they were told they were too white for the racists to be racist for their benefit.
Nice sounding people.
"So the parents were excited when they thought the diversity racists were going to be racist for them but then were disappointed when they were told they were too white for the racists to be racist for their benefit."
A sentence so fine it deserves to be read twice.
I will echo the sentiment that even this is too generous. They want more black people in noticeable places. Natives, Hispanics, Arabs, NE Asians and South Asians, Pacific Islanders, Saamis, Roma...those people can go f-- themselves. They are just there as a disguise for the only real diversity issue.
I'm still resentful that I was wait listed at Yale because they had too many Jewish girls from NY in 1970. I was told if I had resided in Wyoming I would have gotten in. I suspect my life has been better for not going there, but I still get a wave of annoyance when I think about it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा