Asks Jeannie Suk Gersen, in "After Affirmative Action Ends/The next big question for school admissions will likely be the legality of 'race-neutral' methods that are designed with the continuing goal of producing diverse student bodies" (The New Yorker).
Notice that the phrasing of the question assumes — there's no "if" — that the Supreme Court will "end affirmative action." The decision may come this morning, so it's a good time to think about what to look for in the new opinion. How much will be off-limits in this fast-approaching future?
What if schools move, as many surely will, to obey by adopting race-neutral measures—for example, deëmphasizing test scores, or boosting applicants from poorly funded high schools—that are designed to produce racial diversity, trying to create some semblance of what they achieved when using affirmative action? Would those moves be lawful?...
In 2013, the Court, in Fisher v. University of Texas, discussed a race-neutral admissions method that was enacted by the Texas legislature: the top ten per cent of students in every high school in the state were automatically guaranteed admission to any of the state’s public colleges or universities.... Three years later... the majority ultimately found U.T.’s race-conscious affirmative-action program lawful....
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg... expressed that the distinction between “race-conscious” and “race-neutral” was dishonest or illusory. She pointed out that even the Top Ten Percent plan was not actually race-neutral: Texas lawmakers had adopted it with the explicit goal of insuring the admission of a large number of minority students. “It is race consciousness, not blindness to race, that drives such plans,” she wrote. She disparaged the “kind of legal mind” that “could conclude that an admissions plan specifically designed to produce racial diversity is not race conscious.”
Ginsburg’s sentiments are now most likely to be echoed by conservatives, or by plaintiffs suing schools for adopting new admissions plans that are race-neutral but still designed with the goal of producing a racially diverse class.... [I]n the lawsuits that may soon follow, courts—and, eventually, the Supreme Court—will have to decide whether the adoption of race-neutral means of producing diversity is any more lawful than the use of race-conscious affirmative action....
Since the late twentieth century, the Court has made it exceedingly difficult to win discrimination cases in which a race-neutral government policy had a racially disparate impact.... In Washington v. Davis (1976), the Court held that a race-neutral civil-service exam that was used to select police officers, and that resulted in four times as many Black applicants failing as white applicants, did not violate the equal-protection clause, because there was no discriminatory purpose. In Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977), the Court upheld the denial of a zoning permit for low-income housing, which had a disproportionate impact on Black people, again because the plaintiff couldn’t prove that there was a discriminatory purpose. Such cases have been a bugbear for the liberal civil-rights cause....
Will the Supreme Court apply its precedents similarly or differently when the discriminatory impact is not on Black people but, rather, on Asian Americans?...
ADDED: This really is an old conundrum: If you outlaw more obvious race discrimination, it will continue, but in a more subtle form, and we'll be plagued by litigation with difficult evidentiary problems having to do with what human beings had in their mind.
I am reminded of Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion in Gratz v. Bollinger (the 2003 that rejected the undergraduate admissions process at the University of Michigan:
The stain of generations of racial oppression is still visible in our society... and the determination to hasten its removal remains vital. One can reasonably anticipate, therefore, that colleges and universities will seek to maintain their minority enrollment... whether or not they can do so in full candor through adoption of affirmative action plans of the kind here at issue. Without recourse to such plans, institutions of higher education may resort to camouflage. For example, schools may encourage applicants to write of their cultural traditions in the essays they submit, or to indicate whether English is their second language. Seeking to improve their chances for admission, applicants may highlight the minority group associations to which they belong, or the Hispanic surnames of their mothers or grandparents. In turn, teachers’ recommendations may emphasize who a student is as much as what he or she has accomplished. See, e. g., Steinberg, Using Synonyms for Race, College Strives for Diversity, N. Y. Times, Dec. 8, 2002, section 1, p. 1, col. 3 (describing admissions process at Rice University); cf. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14–15 (suggesting institutions could consider, inter alia, “a history of overcoming disadvantage,” “reputation and location of high school,” and “individual outlook as reflected by essays”). If honesty is the best policy, surely Michigan’s accurately described, fully disclosed College affirmative action program is preferable to achieving similar numbers through winks, nods, and disguises.
The boldface is mine, intended to encourage you to see what she's saying: If we say they can't do it, they'll do it secretively.
Posts
96 comments:
I don't see reverse discrimination ending anytime soon (Like "gender affirming care" for trans grooming, I'm not going to use their Orwellian terms). It's been going on for my entire adult lifetime. The sneaky people running things will find a way to continue to do it. It's what they do.
One thing is certain and that is colleges have figured out a way to keep doing what they are doing. One aspect is no longer requiring standardized test scores.
Maybe they will keep right on going and roll back the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's difficult to imagine a society with freedom of association.
We know the outcome.
Back alley admissions will become commonplace.
Tank's (and others') guess:
1. Ban the submission of SAT and other "objective" test scores.
2. Utilize a holistic approach allowing wide discretion to choose whoever the choosers want, keeping in mind that they are virtually all all-in on the diversity train.
3. The lack of objective scores of applicants will make it difficult to show the discrimination in lawsuits or otherwise.
Lifestyle and culture play a large role in life outcomes. Consider the early commitment required to become a doctor (extensive biology coursework) or engineer (advanced math starting in middle school).
Any sincere Affirmative Action program must look at school engagement and coursework from age 7 to 18 before playing games with college admissions or being shocked by income gaps at age 35. "Affirmative Action" implicitly requires "Affirmative Lifestyles" -- equal outcomes demands that all racial groups spend the same hours in school and complete science and math courses to have any shot at most high-end jobs.
But, equal school performance isn't reality when some individuals refuse or cannot complete advanced coursework. In today's political environment, forcing lifestyle changes from lower income, lower achievement persons or groups would treated as "supremacist" or "colonialist." So, Affirmative Action has typically been empty Kabuki Theater and utopian wishful thinking.
Let each culture and person be organically different, or force all the pegs into identical achievement holes. Allow flexibility and accept natural differences, or create a dystopian Brave New World.
Most of the "race-neutral" measures being brought forth by academia and allies are profoundly anti-merit in their effect, and I see no possible way that is good for America and our future. A truly race-neutral approach would be one in which applicant review is made "blind" by removal of name and and all address other than city and state, etc.
It should be strongly test-based: not only the standard ACT/SAT, but also some basic psyche evals and critical thinking as well, along with writing test(s) on neutral and nationally-consistent topics. These tests should be tightly proctored -- to prevent AI and Google-based cheating -- issued at random and without advance knowledge of the topic, and include an intellectual topic, a moral/character topic, and a highly practical situation solution.
I don't care if a cat is orange or grey, so long as it can catch -- and kill -- mice. ALL American effort and enterprise should be as merit-focused and race-neutral as the NFL, NBA, MLB, and other pro sports leagues.
What happens? Massive resistance! But overcoming bureaucratic and legislative resistance is a necessary step on the path to discrediting racial discrimination.
Disparate impact theory is the devil's child of affirmative action. It is absurdly easy to allege and show "disparate impact" (as opposed to disparate action) where no discrimination actually exists. This result of the Griggs case has warped society in this country and needs to be jettisoned tout suite.
What if schools move to obey …?
That is quite the hypothetical. There is evidence already of them moving to subvert.
Maybe we can get back to fairness and character instead of the color of someone's skin?? Hell, Barack got 2 terms as President. IF we were so racist, and biased against color, he NEVER would have been elected. (he shouldn't have been, but people had rose colored glasses on, and thought he would HELP with RACIAL healing, instead of igniting more hate and division, like he did.)
Every kid who wants to attend a certain school, and ponies up the application fee, has his/her name entered in a lottery. All applicants are selected, 1 through N, and the school works through the list until the class is filled.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg... expressed that the distinction between “race-conscious” and “race-neutral” was dishonest or illusory. [snip] She disparaged the “kind of legal mind” that “could conclude that an admissions plan specifically designed to produce racial diversity is not race conscious."
Ginsburg is being devious and manipulative. If racial concerns created a racially unbalanced student body, then race-neutrality is sufficient to change the racial make-up. She's trying to erase the distinction between a system that improves racial balance by removing barriers to some groups, allowing merit to find its own balance, and a system that simply replaces old racial barriers with new racial barriers.
Ginsburg is fine with artificial manipulation of the numbers, of playing games with people's lives, she just wants the numbers manipulated with a different goal in mind.
Wrong is wrong and Ginsburg (as she so often was) is wrong.
Diversity needs to start at the K-6 grades. And you don't do it by looking at peoples skin color and doing a mix and match. You do it by improving the schools, getting parents to parent. Getting bad teachers out of schools. ALLOWING SCHOOL CHOICE to open up ways to increase options for people. Vouchers for charter schools (like Wisconsin is doing), private schools.
Improve the education of the kids in grade school. Get them to love learning, instead of decrying it as 'acting White'. They move into middle school and high school learning, ready to take on more. They're directed to learn and...then they can apply to any college they want and get in based on what they have learned, instead of their skin color.
It seems so obvious and necessary. I've long believed Democrats love Black people not having a chance, so they can depend on Democrats who tell them everyone else is racist. Sounds preposterous, except that I've been watching it take place for decades. (PS- Republicans are too stupid to use it to their advantage and demand systemic education changes.)
Looking forward to the headlines, "The left goes crazy!"
Examples,
https://ponderingprinciples.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Tolerance-1024x744.jpg
https://ponderingprinciples.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Point-Counterpoint.jpg
The New Yorker headline gives the game away: "'race-neutral' methods that are designed with the continuing goal of producing diverse student bodies".
The problem here is "the continuing goal of producing diverse [meaning, racial distribution of student body equals racial distribution of relevant population] student bodies."
It shouldn't be a question of the method used, but the measuring stick for success. If the measuring stick is population-matching racial distribution, then you are discriminating on the basis of race, you're just trying to hide it.
How about this: define what you want your student body to be, without any mention of skin color, racial identity, ancestry or ethnic origin. Then, develop your admission procedures and standards to find and admit those students.
If it was true, as so many schools claim, that "our diversity is our strength," wouldn't you think there would be objective research to prove it? It's all just race-mongering.
What if schools move, as many surely won't;
to admitting law students with the abilities to become lawyers? Oh, sorry; i FORGOT the point!
The point is: to saddle minority students with crippling debt.. Not to educate
Only idiots believe that bringing kids who lack the preparation to do the work into highly selective universities actually benefits those kids.
Sandra Dsy O’Connor was a gullible dolt.
"What if schools move, as many surely will, to obey by adopting race-neutral measures—for example, deëmphasizing test scores, or boosting applicants from poorly funded high schools—that are designed to produce racial diversity, trying to create some semblance of what they achieved when using affirmative action? Would those moves be lawful?"
Meritocracy is dead. And the universities killed it. Whodathunkit.
I wonder if an opinion that says the Constitution requires us to love the humanity of all people would be met with harsh opposition?
"We're all human beings and the Civil War was fought to acknowledge the humanity of human beings."
Racism is the (secular) sin -- attack it and fight for our right to have our humanity recognized.
(And when I say "our" I mean all human beings).
Equal protection cases are a cluster-fuck of identity politics. Start over! Read the language and try to follow!
Althouse, you're surely right that universities are so wedded to racial diversity that they will maneuver around the law. Seems to me the only honest way to maneuver would be to use family income as a rough proxy for race.
Does this law judge actions? Then the clause is satisfied.
"Firefighters must be able to carry 120 pounds down a ladder."
Satisfied.
"People designated as crippled or handicapped cannot be firefighters."
Unconstitutional.
What if the Supreme Court had said in 1954, "Those Southern states will continue to discriminate against Negroes even if we declare it unconstitutional. They'll just do it in less obvious ways. So we should allow them to do it above board."
No one would accept that today. They shouldn't accept Ginsburg's similar argument about "good" discrimination today. After all, there is always a "discriminated against" when there is a "discriminated for".
NOTHING happens if the Supreme Court ends affirmative action. Does anyone expect college admissions departments to obey the law? Universities, like all liberals, are above the law. Lawns are meant for small people.
Other than the further deterioration of our society, it doesn't really matter. College is a waste of borrowed money so the credentialed can live cush lives, retire on a tax payer pensions, and look down their noses at the people who build their houses, build and fix their, mine the coal that keeps them warm...farm the fields that feed them.
The long term affects of meritocracy's death will be felt when the mediocrity fully takes over. We already see it in modern medicine....
"If we say they can't do it, they'll do it secretively."
Or sort-of secretively. The University of California system has been using the winks, nods, and disguises method since 1996, but they simply haven't been able to fully overcome the academic abilities of Asian students. Back in the day, the story was "Jews are too smart, let's keep 'em out." Now it's a different group, but the same narrative: we will keep our quotas, one way or another. Justice Ginsburg was right in recognizing the basic dishonesty of the people in charge of (most) universities.
---"may resort"
Universities may resort to subtler racism. Or some may, and some may not. Or some may go more strongly for merit-based admissions.
Why try to outguess the future? Because of someone's hypothetical, an unjust law should be sustained?
Logic, liberal-style.
We are fucked.
As many here know, decades ago musical tryouts were changed from face-to-face to blind because Jews were discriminated against. The blind tryouts did produce an increase in Jewish representation.
In recent times, groups have sued against blind testing because they argue "disparate impact".
No shit. Some groups will do better than other groups in some things.
IMO, "disparate impact" is one of the worst 21st century phrases. One factor why I say we live in "Untruth Times".
All of these sneaky ways of discrimination have to stop. How are we better as a society if less qualified people are given spots because of their race, and everyone knows it? How is it helpful if white and asian kids continue to look at their black classmates and wonder "do you really belong here?" How poisonous!
The UT 10% policy resulted in even more kids failing out than before, so now it's the 6% rule. UT couples this with what to me is fairly blatant discrimination based on where you go to HS. So St. John's School in Houston, probably the "best" HS in the city, now has 7% of its students attend UT, down from 50% historically. While Strake Jesuit, another HS in town, has something like 12% attend. Why? Because SJS is mostly white and asian and SJ is only 1/2 white (lots of Hispanic kids, since it's a Catholic school). And it's far easier to get into UT from Lamar HS, the public school across the street (literally) from SJS. Because in UT's mind, public school = far more minorities, so we'll let you in. Everyone knows this, knows there are ways to game the system, and who does it benefit? I've never really drunk the UT Kool-aid like most Texans have, so I don't think it's the greatest undergrad school to get into - but it is the state's flagship university and shouldn't be playing these childish games.
All the variants are saying that blacks can't measure up.
"Meritocracy is dead. And the universities killed it. Whodathunkit."
It was Scalia, at oral argument in Grutter, who challenged the state schools to give up meritocracy, as I discussed here.
He diminished "Michigan's desire to have a super-duper law school."
Scalia: "Now, if Michigan really cares enough about that racial imbalance, why doesn't it do as many other State law schools do, lower the standards, not have a flagship elite law school, it solves the problem."
Lost in the shouting is the purpose of these educational institutions, private or public, that society pays to support.
The purpose is not to reward deserving individuals who have overcome hardships and therefore have earned a place in medical or law school.
The purpose of these institutions is to produce the best possible physicians, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc.
The child of immigrants who has overcome poverty and achieved a high MCAT, LSAT, GRE score has accomplished more than an upper middle class white suburban kid with the same score, and that should be recognized.
That is not what is happening, unfortunately. What is happening (and I know this as a former member of an admissions committee) is that kids with mediocre records but approved ethnic backgrounds are being favored over middle class white whiz-kids. The favored applicants then struggle with their studies (due to "mismatch"), drop out or fail at a significantly higher rate, and graduate in the lower quintile of their classes if they do survive. This does nobody good.
We as a society are paying for top tier graduates, and we are getting too many mediocrities for our investment.
All race, sex, and ethnicity based discrimination should be stopped, now and forever.
"Firefighters must be able to carry 120 pounds down a ladder."
Satisfied.
"Women cannot be firefighters."
Unsatisfied!
And before you joke, "all women are unsatisfied," I remind you to get into the ring, bitch!
"Sodomy is a misdemeanor."
Now that's a stupid criminal law, but equal protection is satisfied. Why? Because it punishes everybody who engages in sodomy.
I love sodomy. Cunnilingus is a delicacy of my people. But I would have to acknowledge that this stupid law applies to all human beings. So equal protection is satisfied.
"Men sodomizing men is a misdemeanor."
Unsatisfied! You're discriminating against half of humanity!
I did not read Scalia as challenging state schools to give up meritocracy; he was calling put the incompatibility of claiming high standards were maintained with diversity.
How will schools choose without standardized tests? High schools are inflating grades for equity already. Will our future doctors be equity admissions, equity graduated, and equity hired?
"All human beings must undergo whiteness training."
That's a really shitty law, but (arguably) equal protection is satisfied. You're indoctrinating all of humanity into hating a subset of humanity.
Personally I would smack that shit down with the establishment clause. Because that's a fucked up religion if I've ever heard of one.
The graduation rates for those shoe horned into elite schools should be examined carefully. I can guess. It is cruel to let some cohorts into institutions where they have no chance of success. Kids with excellent grades from sub par schools are invariably crushed by the reality of elite college rigor. So, of course that proves systemic racism.
Althouse said...He [Scalia] diminished "Michigan's desire to have a super-duper law school.
Hilarious. Is there really such a thing as a "super-duper" law school? LMFAO!
What to they do? Crank out Super Villains?
"It was Scalia, at oral argument in Grutter, who challenged the state schools to give up meritocracy, as I discussed here."
======================================
"Scalia: "Now, if Michigan really cares enough about that racial imbalance, why doesn't it do as many other State law schools do, lower the standards, not have a flagship elite law school, it solves the problem."
======================================
Curious. So you're saying that Scalia is responsible because they followed his advice? Or were they being told that's what they must do? I'm trying to isolate the specific instance where the control of academic standards ceases to be within the power of the Universities and became a power within the purview of Antonin Scalia.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
That is the truth of equal protection.
Nobody is allowed to study the Affirmative action students' outcomes. That would be "racist." Most beneficiaries of AA are upper middle class blacks and foreign students who are black. People like Colin Powell's son. Poor blacks are buried in shitty schools run by union teachers. The teachers' unions fight to block vouchers which would get those kids into decent schools. Arizona has a school voucher program and the Democrat Governor is trying to gut it.
"Hilarious. Is there really such a thing as a "super-duper" law school? LMFAO! What to they do? Crank out Super Villains?"
To justify racial discrimination, U of M needed to point to a "compelling state interest." It could have lowered its standards and still had a law school — and you might still question why a state needs a law school — but it was trying to maintain a Top 10 law school. Scalia was challenging that idea that that could be considered a compelling state interest. What's so important -- important enough to justify race discrimination -- about the state running a very highly ranked law school — a "super-duper" law school. It sounds ridiculous -- straight out of "Young Frankenstein" -- but it's a good question.
"This really is an old conundrum: If you outlaw more obvious race discrimination, it will continue, but in a more subtle form, and we'll be plagued by litigation with difficult evidentiary problems having to do with what human beings had in their mind."
Since there is no real penalty for racist discriminators in higher ed, there is no conundrum. Certainly, prog discrimination will continue in "more subtle form" but the litigation will just be more theater, not "plaguing" anyone in higher ed. "What human beings had in their mind" is just part of the games the judiciary plays. Progs have institutional power; they'll do their prog thing. You might call it systemic racism.
Well, from my perspective, this is a side-show. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Higher education generally is going down the toilet and we need to be discussing what to replace it with.
"If honesty is the best policy, surely Michigan’s accurately described, fully disclosed College affirmative action program is preferable to achieving similar numbers through winks, nods, and disguises.
If honesty is the best policy, and I think few principles are more true than that, we would ask honest questions about why blacks do poorly in schools and fix that.
You can not bandaid the problem beginning at age 18. That strategy is bound to fail. But that would require honesty from that section of society responsible for lower grade education and that'll happen when pigs fly.
I have been appalled at the denigration of virtues such as hard work, preparation, intellectualism, perfectionism, and even punctuality, as "whiteness" and things to be shunned. That pretty much gives the game away, doesn't it? The purveyors of critical race theory do not think the black population is capable of exhibiting the traits society needs to flourish.
If we're going to be honest, let's be honest about that.
It’s hard to win disparate impact cases where the defendant did not have a conscious intent to discriminate. It can’t be that hard where the defendant does have a conscious intent to discriminate, as in the adoption of a poll tax or a reading qualification to vote. That will be the case with the colleges and universities adopting “race neutral” plans for the purpose of discriminating in favor of black applicants. And unless they do everything orally and commit nothing to writing and are prepared to lie under oath, it will all come out in discovery.
What happens after the Supreme Court ends affirmative action, as is anticipated this week?
Nothing. California banned affirmative action more than twenty-five years ago, and in 2020 that ban was reaffirmed by popular vote 56-44 percent. If affirmative action is unwelcome in California, you can bet it’s unwelcome in the rest of America.
Althouse said...It sounds ridiculous -- straight out of "Young Frankenstein" -- but it's a good question.
Yeah. I get Scalia's point. But I question the reality, and obviously think "Top 10" college or law school education rankings are a joke. They just openly sell prestige. Nothing tangible.
In reality, these super-duper "Top 10" institutions will continue to water themselves down with mediocrity. Just like UW Madison and the Ivy League. But, people will pay for the prestige and continue to believe the can see the Emperor's Magic Cloth.
In WI, a kid is pragmatically better off going to UW Whitewater, Slosh-Kosh, Platteville, WCTC, or MATC and saving some money rather than over spending at UW, UWM, or Marquette. None of them are smarter, better educated, or more qualified going in, or coming out after graduation.
"Top 10" is a joke. I like that you called it "Super-Duper". I don't think we are that far apart.
Blogger West TX Intermediate Crude said..."Lost in the shouting is the purpose of these educational institutions, private or public, that society pays to support.
The purpose is not to reward deserving individuals who have overcome hardships and therefore have earned a place in medical or law school.
The purpose of these institutions is to produce the best possible physicians, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc."
THIS! Anything else is societal suicide.
At the University of Wisconsin, our Super-Duper flagship college in Madison, the 2022 IN-STATE acceptance percentage for the fall 2022 Freshman class was 46.6%. That means that more than half the spots go to out of state applicants, even though WI Taxpayers are forced to support this ultra-liberal, prestigious institution.
Between that scam, and "diversity" requirements, a white boy from a red WI county doesn't have much of a chance of getting in based on grades and test scores.
The other UW schools are just as "good", except a little cheaper, maybe not as insanely liberal, smaller, with smaller class sizes, but lack the marketed pre$tige. They're the dumping grounds for WI kids who's spot at UW Madison went to another out of state kid for the increased tuition.
Waukesha Community Technical College is phenomenal, inexpensive, and you can't even recruit out the there because the graduates are gobbled up so fast. They graduate with less debt and get good paying jobs.
In reality, other than ripping off the Wisconsin Tax Payers, UW Madison is doing a lot of kids in WI a favor. You can always drive there and buy a ticket to a Badger game if you want to "jump around" and get drunk for a night.
I hope the Supreme Court doesn't overturn Affirmative Action. Let these bullshit institutions continue to water down their output, by lowering the qualifications of their input.
Saddest part is, it's the diversity kid that gets admitted to UW, drops or flunks out after Freshman or Sophomore year...and takes the $50K debt home with them. That was a Justice Scalia point as well for which he was widely criticized.
Currently elite universities actively discriminate against white students. It is not just that they admit minorities according to their percentage in the population independent of merit. They actual admit a much higher percentage of minorities. For example, whites are admitted to Johns Hopkins University at half their percentage in the population! And they do not try to hide this fact. Each year, Johns Hopkins University proudly indicate the percentage of each group admitted to their undergraduate class.
Tactics will change. Outcomes.... not so much.
Discriminate smarter declares the courts.
Temujin said: Diversity needs to start at the K-6 grades. And you don't do it by looking at peoples skin color and doing a mix and match. You do it by improving the schools, getting parents to parent. Getting bad teachers out of schools. ALLOWING SCHOOL CHOICE to open up ways to increase options for people. Vouchers for charter schools (like Wisconsin is doing), private schools. …
The post goes on. As usual, Temujin crushes it. The problem is NOT lack of diversity in college. It is lack of qualified candidates. This is what causes the mis-match problem we are all familiar with.
Quit wasting resources trying to fix the problem in college where it is far too late. Fix the early schools, the families and the culture! Can you imagine if Barack Obama devoted himself to talking exclusively about how important it was that he studied and stayed in school instead of harping about racism (which obviously did not hurt him)?
"Affirmative Action" must be one of the earliest examples of Lefty word wrangling.
What if schools move, as many surely will, to obey by adopting race-neutral measures—for example, deëmphasizing test scores, or boosting applicants from poorly funded high schools—that are designed to produce racial diversity, trying to create some semblance of what they achieved when using affirmative action? Would those moves be lawful?...
In 2013, the Court, in Fisher v. University of Texas, discussed a race-neutral admissions method that was enacted by the Texas legislature: the top ten per cent of students in every high school in the state were automatically guaranteed admission to any of the state’s public colleges or universities.... Three years later... the majority ultimately found U.T.’s race-conscious affirmative-action program lawful
Fisher was about the fact that the Top Ten Percent program didn't let UT admit the "right" minorities, which is to say the academically / intelectually inferior black children of black doctors and lawyers who went to good schools, and were nowhere near the top 10%.
So yes, they could show a preference for kids from "poorly funded high schools". but that would mean having to let in a Buch of Appalachian white kids, and not let in a lot of upper middle class black kids, so I dont' expect them to do that
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg... expressed that the distinction between “race-conscious” and “race-neutral” was dishonest or illusory
No, RBG lied, as usual.
The Texas legislature passed the plan to help ALL Texas kids in academically less challenging areas, regardless of their skin color. The sad fact that black kids were a higher % of that pool, than the general pool, doesn't make it a "race based plan."
But, just as a thief sees the whole world as crooked, a racist pig like RBG saw the whole world as being just are racist as she was
Divide and conquer has worked so well for so long that if it isn't called affirmative action, it will be done the same and called an AI algorithmic balancing of all legal applicant attributes chosen to maximize excellence of the student body, and universities will continue to circle the drain for this and other reasons.
Having watched Roberts and Kavanaugh flip on the voting cases and embrace the Democrats racist position, I think claims that "of course" SCOTUS is finally going to stop the systemic racism of "Affirmative Action" to be unsupported by the evidence at hand.
All the variants are saying that blacks can't measure up.
Actually, I'm saying that "the blacks" is an idiotic way to classify human beings.
Learn to read, amigo.
There will be a test later.
Dave Begley said...
One thing is certain and that is colleges have figured out a way to keep doing what they are doing. One aspect is no longer requiring standardized test scores.
I think there's going to be some really nice lawsuits about that, if SCOTUS does the right thing and bans racist admission policies. Because if they have to explain how it is they're taking that rich doctor's kid who's black, rather than that poor white Appalachian kid who's the first person in his family to go to college, the believable excuses are going to run out pretty fast
Original Mike at 10:24
Ditto.
Tank said...
Tank's (and others') guess:
1. Ban the submission of SAT and other "objective" test scores.
2. Utilize a holistic approach allowing wide discretion to choose whoever the choosers want, keeping in mind that they are virtually all all-in on the diversity train.
3. The lack of objective scores of applicants will make it difficult to show the discrimination in lawsuits or otherwise.
nope, actually the lack of objective measures will make it much harder for them to defend what they're doing.
Because other than the "objective measure" of "we like / hate your skin color", none of those "holistic" measures, honestly applied, are going to get them the student body they want.
There's going to be a lot of Appalachian, rural, and Asian student who match all those "holistic" criteria, yet who won't be getting the invite.
So if SCOTUS, for example, rules "Harvard's pattern of Administrator rankings of student personality coming in on average 1 point lower for Asians than for whites is clear proof of racial animus on the part of Harvard Administrators", which is what they should rule, there's a lot of lawsuits, right there.
And if GOP State Legislatures pass a law banning racial discrimination in schooling, and requiring the use of objective scores for admissions decisions, that's all she wrote for State schools.
And what are the private schools going to do, move to another State?
Christ, the attempt to repeal the CA prop banning racist school admissions policies failed hard with the CA voters. This really isn't winning issue for the Left
Nothing will change in university/college practices, no matter how authoritatively the Court ends the legal protection in using race as a factor in admissions. The Democrats everywhere will simply ignore the decision- this part of why the leftist media has gone after the Republican justices so hard lately- battle prep for ignoring rulings like this.
Where the change might come is in the fact that it will make easier to sue these institutions into bankruptcy for violating the civil rights of students denied entry because of their ethnicity. You get a few billion dollar class-action lawsuits filed and won, then the universities might think twice about being racists.
However, this all presupposes that the Court actually ends affirmative action- I think it quite possible, even probable, that John Roberts finds a way to punt the issue or openly support the practice- all he needs is one of the other Republican justices to go along with it.
Most state universities depend a great deal on state funding- where conservatives control the state government, they should take a more active role in ensuring this practice ends fully if the Court rules against it. They have the power to do so, will they exercise it given the correct decision.
The other day, a bunch of kids shouted out the word "nigger!" in my apartment complex.
I was walking my (big) dogs, and one or two of the kids wanted to pet my dogs, and one was scared of my dogs.
I would estimate their ages (four guys and one girl) around 14. Maybe slightly older. On the verge of manhood but not there yet.
Anyway, I'm a free speech absolutist. But it also annoys the fuck out of me that our society is still dividing on race.
So I marched over to the kids and barked at them. "Hey! I don't like that word. This is my neighborhood. Don't be shouting your obscenities around here."
They could see on my face how serious I was. I stormed away with my dogs. All the kids started roaring in laughter, either at me or at the kid who said "nigger."
After I calmed down, I walked back over to them and apologized for barking at them. I explained that I used to say "faggot" when I was a kid. And that faggot is a bundle of sticks, which is why people in the UK say "smoke a fag" and that means something different than in Chicago. But then I found out that homosexuals were burned at the stake. And that's where the bad word comes from -- killing innocent people. And I said, "You know about the evils of slavery. Don't be glib."
Believe me if you want. I had no fear. They were kids.
We who are adults need to instruct children that racism is bad. Full stop. You racists who are afraid to talk authoritatively to children of a different race? You are dehumanizing people and you need to stop that shit. Adults need to act like adults.
As for you Supreme Court fuckers, don't make me buy The Sneetches and educate you fuckers (again). It's annoying spending my charity money on Ivy League fuckers who have been badly educated.
All the variants are saying that blacks can't measure up.
You are assigned to write "Obama is a honky" 10,000 times on a blackboard.
Or prove that he's not one. Your choice.
Gusty Winds said:
"Lawns are meant for small people."
You mean like jockeys and gnomes?
Ginsburg had no problem with affirmative action because it didn’t limit Jewish admissions to 2% as it would if it were applied fairly.
These schools should be 66% “white” with the the German Americans and Irish Americans getting the lion share of the slots. The Anglo-Americans would get more than Jews but they would both combine for about 10% of the population
Mexican-Americans would get the most slots, more than Black Americans.
Chinese Americans and Indian Americans would get more than the Jews but not much.
America's economic wealth, technological advancements, medical innovations, and ultimately its military supremacy were all built under the principle of meritocracy. Without it, all of these will crumble and eventually vanish. And they already are in the process of doing so.
It's unbelievable how so many are simply acquiescing with no serious resistance.
Nothing. California banned affirmative action more than twenty-five years ago, and in 2020 that ban was reaffirmed by popular vote 56-44 percent. If affirmative action is unwelcome in California, you can bet it’s unwelcome in the rest of America.
If you think affirmative action does not go on in CA, I have a nice deal on the Golden Gate Bridge for you.
Blogger rhhardin said...
All the variants are saying that blacks can't measure up.
Disagree. Somebody like Glenn Loury just resides at the right tail of the Bell Curve. Others do too. The mean is one SD to the left. That is all.
Gusty,
Maybe..the out of state tuition subsidsizes in state.
Dunno..
But even in state has risen much higher than inflation.
I was able to pay my own tuition by splitting apartments, eating cheaply..no car and part time work.
But..no climbing walls then.
walter said
Gusty,
Maybe..the out of state tuition subsidizes in state.
It absolutely subsidizes the University, and the bloated amount of worthless administrators, but they don't subsidize the taxpayers of the state, or the students. They subsidize liberal admins and profs.
When Scott Walker froze tuition rates in the UW system they threw a temper tantrum. "Hitler is destroying higher education in Wisconsin" they screamed. Give us a break. It didn't harm the UW system at all and saved a lot of kids, a lot of money.
UW Madison has a $4 Billion endowment fund. Maybe some of that could benefit the admission of more Wisconsin kids.
On Wisconsin!!! Jump around!!
Michael K @ 2:22: “…the mean is one SD to the left…”. In Loury’s case I think it is about 3 SD’s to the left.
Everybody: great comments. My own take is, you can select for excellence, or you can select for “diversity” which is IMHO defined as “specious superficial attributes that do not reliably correlate with ‘excellence’ on any relevant axis”. Your choice. If you choose “diversity” you will get some overlap with excellence but not in a predictable or manageable way. In fact by choosing “diversity” you will have invited everybody in the admissions process to invent reasons to indulge their own fetish, whether race or sex or queerness or autism or (my fave) chirality. And as these idiosyncratic criteria proliferate, the selection process becomes increasingly and visibly incoherent, excellence (or rather the lack of it) gets excused away more or less completely, and the public concludes that the process is utterly corrupt and the game is not worth the candle. (I think we’re pretty much there right now).
Excellence or diversity. You choose.
Somebody like Glenn Loury just resides at the right tail of the Bell Curve. Others do too. The mean is one SD to the left. That is all.
Also, if we are humanitarians -- or lawyers --then we recognize that the mean is irrelevant. (And mean!)
Our Constitution uses a word -- person -- that has a specific individual focus.
And brain size or "IQ" is irrelevant if people refuse to think. I'd rather have a low IQ janitor speak about the humanity of human beings than Ivy League fuckers. Every day of the week and twice on Sunday. (That's also mean, I guess -- I'm mean about the Ivy League mean and the mean meanies who love their mean).
Race is a myth.
If you think affirmative action does not go on in CA, I have a nice deal on the Golden Gate Bridge for you.
Google ‘black enrollment UCLA and UC Berkeley 1990 to the present’ and get back to me. I expect you’re too lazy so I’ll cut to the chase: Black enrollment today is a fraction of what it was under affirmative action, while Asian enrollment at those schools now approaches 50 percent. Compare that to Harvard’s Asian enrollment and you’ll understand the significance of California’s approach.
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/lilly-forks-over-24m-settle-federal-agencys-age-discrimination-lawsuit
Just to make it clear, we're talking about government sanctioned and imposed discrimination against people based on their race (and sex).
How much longer are we going to tolerate this? The Left clearly plans on supporting this practice forever if allowed.
Gusty,
I meant subsidizing in state tuition.
But yes, the bloat needs addressing.
"What happens after the Supreme Court ends affirmative action, as is anticipated this week?"
My cousin’s kids with a grandmother who had a maiden name of Cesar no longer have an automatic advantage over my other cousin’s kids with a grandmother who had a maiden name of Nguyen?
Blogger Gahrie said..."Just to make it clear, we're talking about government sanctioned and imposed discrimination against people based on their race (and sex)."
But it's fair. And in our best interest. Smart people have said so.
At my college reunion this Spring the president gave state of the uni remarks in which he noted the expected outcome of the affirmative action case. He pretty much promised to whatever possible within the law to maintain diversity. Thunderous applause from the alums.
It doesn't matter what the court says. The school administrators want diversity and they're going to get it, good and hard.
Their school's reputation doesn't matter to them any more than sales of bud lite mattered to Alissa Heinerscheid.
No state shall deny any person the equal protection of the laws.
Love the sinner (person) and hate the sin (bad act).
Jim Crow University sounds great!
Earnest Prole said...
"Google ‘black enrollment UCLA and UC Berkeley 1990 to the present’ and get back to me."
Having done so, I see that black enrollment at UC Berkeley has gone from slightly above the black share of California's population to slightly below. Black people make up around 5% of California's population, and around 4% of Berkeley's student population.
Regarding other campuses, from the Los Angeles Times: "Black and Latino students increased to 43% of the admitted first-year class [at UC] for fall 2022 compared with about 20% before Proposition 209."
"...by 2021, UCLA’s California first-year class included more Black students — 346, or 7.6 % — than their 1995 numbers of 259, or 7.3%."
Having done so, I see that black enrollment at UC Berkeley has gone from slightly above the black share of California's population to slightly below.
Yeah, no.
"According to the latest census data, the state's population is 6.5% Black [and] 16% Asian . . . . Black students represented only 3% of the incoming 2022 freshman class, or about half of what they represented in 1995. Asian students made up 43% of Berkeley's freshmen in the fall of 2022."
Put differently, Black enrollment at Berkeley is less than half their share of the California population; Asian enrollment at Berkeley is nearly three times their share of the California population.
If California is capable of accepting the end of affirmative action, the rest of America will too.
Earnest Prole said...
Compare that to Harvard’s Asian enrollment and you’ll understand the significance of California’s approach.
Yes, the anti-racist CA approach rewards individual merit.
What is disgusting and appalling is how many racist pigs there are, like you EP, who are desperate for people to be judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character or the quality of their work
Saint Croix said...
Actually, I'm saying that "the blacks" is an idiotic way to classify human beings.
This. 1000 times this
What is disgusting and appalling is how many racist pigs there are, like you EP, who are desperate for people to be judged by the color of their skin
Reading is hard but I’ll cut you slack since it appears English is not your native language. Do wander upthread to get a better sense of what I’m saying.
Earnest Prole said...
Reading is hard but I’ll cut you slack since it appears English is not your native language. Do wander upthread to get a better sense of what I’m saying.
I know exactly what your'e saying, you racist piece of shit.
You're saying that what's "important" is that everyone be racist pigs like you, and decide everything based on the color or people's skins, rather than the quality of their work.
Before Prop 209 passed, a lot of unqualified people were let into UCLA and Berkeley just because they had the political approved skin color. Stopping that was the right thing to do.
Complaining about that is something that only a racist piece of shit does.
I doubt we're going to get the proper ruling, but the proper ruling would be "no one may ever give out any benefit of any sort to anyone based on skin color. No quotas, no 'the % of X must match the % of X in the population', none of that bullshit."
They way you stop discrimination based on skin color (we only have one "race": human) is to stop discriminating based on skin color.
If "black" kids have such poor academic performance that they can't get into competitive schools, then go after teh public schools, and teachers unions, that have failed those kids. What's that? You're a Left wing scum bag and would never go after Left wing power sources?
Yeah, FOAD
I know exactly what your'e saying, you racist piece of shit. You're saying that what's "important" is that everyone be racist pigs like you, and decide everything based on the color or people's skins, rather than the quality of their work.
Take a breath, wipe the spittle from your beet-red face, and read my first comment upthread (10:39 AM): “California banned affirmative action more than twenty-five years ago, and in 2020 that ban was reaffirmed by popular vote 56-44 percent. If affirmative action is unwelcome in California, you can bet it’s unwelcome in the rest of America.”
Now does that sound like an argument a proponent of affirmative action would make?
Everyone has the right to be dopey but you abuse the privilege.
Earnest Prole said...
Now does that sound like an argument a proponent of affirmative action would make?
Ah, so it's your position that be a "proponent of affirmative action" you have to ignore reality?
That's good.
But your reaction above was "that mean nasty horrible Prop 209 drove 1/2 the black people out of Berkeley", rather than "Prop 209 showed that 1/2 the 'blacks' being accepted at Berkeley weren't qualified to be there. I'm glad that was changed so that now they're there because of their individual merit".
If the later was what you meant, great! I take everything back.
Otherwise your position is "I'm a racist pig, and proud of it"
If the later was what you meant, great! I take everything back.
Then we’re in violent agreement.
As I noted, reading is hard, particularly for people whose lips move while engaged in it.
Post a Comment