April 23, 2013

The Fisher v. University of Texas affirmative action case is now the only undecided case argued in October.

SCOTUSblog tells us, after live-blogging the announcement of Moncrieffe v. Holder this morning. Moncrieffe, a case about the meaning of "aggravated felony" under the immigration law, was written by Justice Sotomayor, and that makes it extremely likely that Justice Kennedy is writing the hotly anticipated Fisher case:
[T]he Court tries very hard to distribute the authorship of majority opinions evenly not just over the course of the Term, but also within a sitting (the two-week periods from October through April when the Court hears oral argument). So going into today, Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor were the only Justices without majority opinions in October.... Now he's the only one without an October opinion, which leads to the assumption that he is writing Fisher
Does this help predict the outcome of the case? Here's my effort, from last October, to read Justice Kennedy at the oral argument. Remember, Texas has a very odd kind of affirmative action, adding an individualized approach, with race as a plus factor, after a facially neutral program that admits the top 10% of students from every Texas high school. At oral argument, Kennedy focused on the detail that the additional race-based selection was done to bring in more privileged black and Hispanic students, because the 10% program tended to admit underprivileged blacks and Hispanics (which reinforced a stereotype about black and Hispanic people). I said at the time (referring to the Court's most recent affirmative action case, Grutter):

So, it seems, the additional affirmative action is needed to get a more varied group of minority students, in which case, the point is to bring in privileged minority students, because these are the students who — in Grutter terms — might provide the classroom benefit of teaching all the students that minority students don't have "some characteristic minority viewpoint." ...

I'm not taking a position on whether UT's admissions policy is good or whether it's constitutional.... All I am saying is that if Grutter is to be applied (and not limited or overruled), an affirmative action program that's all about boosting the most privileged minority students actually makes sense.
Kennedy seemed to have trouble seeing the sense of that at oral argument. He said "So what you're saying is that what counts is race above all," which is missing the point. I'm sure he ultimately understood the point, but I think we saw — in real time — that the point isn't intuitively appealing to him.

That said, Fisher could narrowly reject the odd UT program and leave the more typical Grutter-style affirmative action alone. But Fisher presents an opportunity to overturn Grutter, and Kennedy dissented in Grutter, which was a 5-4 decision with Justice O'Connor casting the deciding vote. O'Connor's successor, Justice Alito was instrumental at oral argument — as I said at the time — in extracting that point about privileged minority applicants receiving the advantage.

So I'll make a rash prediction: a narrow decision, determined by Kennedy and Alito (and maybe Roberts), striking down only the Texas program. Scalia and Thomas concur, complaining that Grutter should have been overruled. Everyone else dissents.

120 comments:

Michael K said...

Standard affirmative action programs, based only on race, benefit privileged blacks at the expense of poor whites. Privileged blacks like you-know-who. You're fine with that, I guess. So Colin Powell's son gets in and a fireman's son, like John Bolton has to be extra smart to get in.

OK.

Hagar said...

Oh, what a tangled web we weave ...

Ann Althouse said...

@Michael K Maybe so, but the UT program is doing something much stranger, which is specifically designed to bring in more privileged minority students after it has a program that is working quite well to bring in a lot of minority students who happen to be underprivileged, and that's regarded as a problem to be solved.

The Drill SGT said...

I'm just a poor Sergeant. Son of a teacher and a Railroad worker. I guess I am missing the point with AA.

First it was to right wrongs and help the disadvantged minorities.

Then we had to have it, to help the rich white folks who needed their experiences broadened by learning along side poor minorities who had different life experiences

Now we need it to bring in rich minorities so the rich whites can learn what? how rich people think?

Sure sounds like the rationale keeps shifting to defend a racial spoils process.

Don't get me started on how this screws poor whites and poor asians.

The Drill SGT said...

Or is it that by having just poor minorities inn the classroom, the white kids were learning the wrong things about minorities? Need to bring in the doctor's sons? so the white kids can see that minorities can potty trained?

Why does a doctor's son need an advantage in getting into school? His grades aren't good enough? Fuck him. Not acting white in HS has its consequences. Get thee to a JC.

ed said...

@ Althouse

What do you think Affirmative Action programs do? Bring in underprivileged minorities? Seriously?

Consider.

Just how capable are underprivileged minority students in maintaining their grades in a college? How difficult must it be to come from such a background and enter into a tremendously competitive arena without such massive remedial education as to practically redo the entire K-12 educational experience? How much easier would it be to enter into a college as an minority from a middle-class or upper-class background?

How many underprivileged minority students drop out after their first year? How many colleges track this? How many tout their diversity programs including only the freshman students but do not show how rapidly these students fail to keep up?

ed said...

Higher education wants diversity? Fine base it on financials and force a level playing field with SAT scores and none of this utter bullshit of "community" crap. It just gives colleges a license to pick and choose and makes what should be a straightforward process into an opaque one.

And if higher education doesn't want to play along? Fuck them and shut off the money spigot.

Ann Althouse said...

"What do you think Affirmative Action programs do? Bring in underprivileged minorities? Seriously?"

I think the University of Texas 10% program brings in underprivileged minorities. Please read my link to my analysis of the October argument.

Texas has a law that automatically admits the top 10% of every Texas high school to UT. Because there are racially isolated, underprivileged places in Texas, the top 10% of the students at these schools tend to be underprivileged.

I absolutely am serious about this and if you want to understand the Fisher case, you must get up to speed on this point. Seriously.

mccullough said...

Affirmative action exists solely because a large majority of middle and upper class blacks and Latinos don't score well enough on standardized tests.

Bruce Hayden said...

I see Ann's point. The 10% plan was supposed to eliminate the need for Affirmative Action, and then UT just grafts AA on top of the 10% in order to get their Black numbers up even higher.

What has been obvious for a long time is that AA primarily benefits rich and upper middle class minorities (and, esp. Blacks), and does little for their lower class brethren. Two kids sitting next to each other all through prep school, and the white kid will have to score 100 points higher on their SATs and have a higher GPA to get into the same top schools as the black sitting next to them to get into the same colleges. (Mostly Black, because we found with Campbell and Senator Fauxihauntis that being a fake Indian may be even better).

Why? Why so significantly benefit esp. Blacks who were raised little different from their White neighbors and classmates?

I think that the fundamental answer goes back to the nature of the Democratic party, and that is that it is as a collection of interest groups, with each group providing something of value to the party, and getting something in return. Unions provide muscle and money, and get legal preferences (as is becoming evident with all their carve outs in the new immigration bill). Jews don't give them votes, but rather, money, intellectual weight, and control over much the media, and get a lot of leadership posts in return.

So, what about Blacks? Thanks to Lincoln, they were primarily a Republican constituency for a long time. But, thanks to LBJ's Great Society, and now Obama's election, they are the most reliably Democratic constituency there is now. Sure, they get a bit of extra representation through Majority Minority districts. But a lot of the policies that the Dems have pushed over the years have hurt Blacks more than almost anyone else. Their illegitimacy rate has soared from maybe 1/4 to 3/4 since LBJ, and as a result very many of the males are no longer civilized, since they now grow up effectively fatherless and then don't marry in their own turn. The prisons are filled with these violent Black men, as they commit such a high percentage of the violent crimes in this country. The party of slavery, the Confederacy, the KKK, Jim Crow, etc. has finally figured out how to effectively implement their racism, and that is by forcing society to throw so many Black males into prison, and don't give most of the rest much of a chance at success.

Why though does the Black community go along with this war on it? And, I think that a big part of the answer involves racial quotas. The Black leadership provides a large voting block, and get a certain percentage of the pie in return. And, note that the people who benefit from this are primarily that Black leadership. It is their kids getting into Harvard, and, yes, here UT. Not just the political leadership, but also their community leadership too now, as evidenced by their votes for Obama. Most Black doctors, lawyers, etc. also back the Dems now, and one of the reasons is that they are the ones benefiting from the racial quotas, and for a lot of them, one of the most important is preferential admission to colleges for them, and then the next generation.

George Grady said...

Texas has a law that automatically admits the top 10% of every Texas high school to UT. Because there are racially isolated, underprivileged places in Texas, the top 10% of the students at these schools tend to be underprivileged.

Note that this was imposed on the universities externally. This is emphatically not what the university administrators want affirmative action to be; this is what they are claiming is a problem that they need to be allowed to fix. Their problem, however, is that this is how affirmative action has traditionally been sold to the public: That it is to help disadvantaged minorities.

This is why the explained rationale for affirmative action has been changing lately, to an explanation in terms of students' "viewpoints". That is such a loose concept that it lets universities do whatever they want in terms of admissions. And what they really want is to get as many students from wealthy backgrounds as possible, because ultimately, this is about long term hitting up of alumni for donations. And who is more likely to donate money? The answer is obvious: people whose families are already wealthy.

Michael K said...

" All I am saying is that if Grutter is to be applied (and not limited or overruled), an affirmative action program that's all about boosting the most privileged minority students actually makes sense."

So, you want the privileged minorities ahead of poor whites.

Yes ?

That is an acknowledgement that affirmative action doesn't work. It puts unprepared students ahead of those who are more deserving of help.

My daughter went to law school out of state because UCLA admitted a room mate of hers who was Hispanic and had lower grades and a lower LSAT.

Since I went to college and medical school on scholarship in the 1950s and 60s before AA, I'm interested. My father was a bartender.

Of course, my daughter's father was a doctor so maybe she was less deserving.

cubanbob said...

I'm not taking a position on whether UT's admissions policy is good or whether it's constitutional.... All I am saying is that if Grutter is to be applied (and not limited or overruled), an affirmative action program that's all about boosting the most privileged minority students actually makes sense.

If this is what is in front of the court then AA has become a mockery of what AA is supposed to remedy. If that is so, then AA has reached it's 'jump the shark' moment.

Lem said...

... you must get up to speed on this point.

We don't care about this professor...

We want to know if bombers found time to stop at Dunkin Donuts to order from the DDsmart menu.

We offer a wide variety of food and beverages that get you going and keep you running.

Not Seriously...

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"How many underprivileged minority students drop out after their first year?"

@ed

AA is about providing opportunity, not ensuring your definition of success. Getting into UT might be the highest achievement that student's family has acheived academecially. And for the next generation, it might be getting into UT and graduating.

cubanbob said...

Why though does the Black community go along with this war on it? And, I think that a big part of the answer involves racial quotas. The Black leadership provides a large voting block, and get a certain percentage of the pie in return. And, note that the people who benefit from this are primarily that Black leadership. It is their kids getting into Harvard, and, yes, here UT. Not just the political leadership, but also their community leadership too now, as evidenced by their votes for Obama. Most Black doctors, lawyers, etc. also back the Dems now, and one of the reasons is that they are the ones benefiting from the racial quotas, and for a lot of them, one of the most important is preferential admission to colleges for them, and then the next generation.


Interesting observation Bruce. The democrats have brought class warfare to blacks.

Bruce Hayden said...

In respect to Ann's point, I maybe should have started my last post by saying that what we are talking about is a racial preference system grafted on top of the 10% plan, which was specifically designed by the state to eliminate the need for affirmative action racial preferences. The right, through the Legislature, said that if diversity is required, then lets have real diversity, based on some sort of merit. And, then, the school, notoriously far more liberal than the state population, decided to implement AA on top of the 10% solution in order to advantage the children of the Black leadership (and their next generation).

I think that even if this decision is very narrow, if it dwells on the reality that most AA goes to the Black (etc.) leadership, and their children, and despite how it is sold, all that is really being looked at is skin color, not anything else, and it thus does not advance true diversity, then it is very possibly a wedge to use against AA in other state schools. How else do you justify a state giving blatantly racial preferences despite the explicit wording of the 14th Amendment that requires that "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This may be the camel's nose under the tent, with a rejection of highly visible racial quotas designed to primarily benefit minority community leadership first, then possibly followed by banning less visible state action in terms of college admissions that do so the same, but is hidden in university diversity programs.

t-man said...

The theory now supporting AA is that minority students are not autonomous individuals with their own self worth, but are nothing more than a means to further the moral development of privileged white students. It is quite revolting actually, and I would be furious if I thought that the University establishment viewed me that way.

I would do away with AA entirely, but if the law accepts that these "privileged" minority students can treated as a means and not an end in and of themselves, why not take the next logical step? They should be forced to attend in poor, minority high schools. That way, they can (1) set an example for the lower-achieving minority students; and (2) most likely end up in the top 10% of their classes, thereby ending up a UT anyway, where they can fulfill the highest purpose of alleviating white professors' guilt.

Dante said...

I don't understand this argument:

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the majority approved of the idea of assembling a class that includes "a 'critical mass' of minority students," which does not mean "racial balancing, which is patently unconstitutional" but is "defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce."

If the minority students are coming from the schools that produce better SAT scores, why is it an assumption diversity comes from racial background? That sounds so, skin deep. Hey, if it would help, I'll have my kids put on some of that tanning gel everyday, and put in brown contact lenses. If they do that, can they get in?

And if diverse opinion is so good, why not bring in red-necks, Nation of Islam members, and La Raza members? Get some Nazis in there for good measure. And if it's good for students, surely it must be good to have diversity of opinion in the teachers. Instead of all these socialists/Marxists, perhaps the school ought to balance out their humanities departments by hiring some capitalists.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"It puts unprepared students ahead of those who are more deserving of help"

@Michael K

Not true. When you get accepted into a school under AA, you may have to work fives times more just to keep up with the others academically but you bring to the table something the others don't have/know--relevant life experience (something the others need to learn). That's why you get accepted under AA--not because you are less smart (unprepared), but because you are less educated. I am not saying that privileged blacks (whatever that term menas) have more life experience than poor whites (whatever that term means), just that privileged blacks may bring something to the table that poor whites can't (or poor whites bring to the table something others should learn but are incapable of learning). "Relevant life experience" changes based on the educational goals of the institution/students.

Michael K said...

"Not true. When you get accepted into a school under AA, you may have to work fives times more just to keep up with the others academically but you bring to the table something the others don't have/know--relevant life experience (something the others need to learn)."

So, Obama and Colin Powell's son bring some new perspective. Well, that certainly is the party line. You've learned it well.

Æthelflæd said...

The other thing the top 10% rule has done is inadvertently make it harder for homeschooled and out-of-state students to get in. If johnny at Podunk High School (and I live in Podunk, not making fun of rural areas here) has a 1050 SAT, and gets in the top ten % taking easy classes, he's an automatic in. Homeschooled kid from same town taking calculus and 1250 SAT doesn't. I think you have to have a 1300 to get automatically admitted to UT or A&M as a homeschooled student. No biggie, so be it.I think they miss out on a lot of good students that way.

There is also a big to-do going on right now in the Texas system concerning the ultimate purpose og higher ed. Perry has the laudable goal of keeping costs down, but seems to want to turn A&M and UT into giant vo-tech systems. There is a huge fight going on that involves the legislature, regents, college presidenst, etc. It doesn't split along party lines at all. Dewhurst is on the opposite side of Perry.

cubanbob said...

T-man I applaud your magnificent cynicism. Reverse bussing. Sheer genius! That would result in elimination of teachers unions and AA.

Susan how are minorities benefitted by being set up to fail?

Æthelflæd said...

The 10% rule also works against poorer parents who have sacrificed to put their kids through private school to give them a better education. If they don't score in the top ten percent, but still have good grades and good SAT scores, too bad. You may still get in, but it is a harder row to hoe. Better have lots of extracurriculars and awards to list on your app.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"So, Obama and Colin Powell's son bring some new perspective. Well, that certainly is the party line. You've learned it well."

@Michael K

Of course they do. I'm not saying that is a good thing, I am saying that is what is going on. I personally want both Obama's daugther's education as well as Farmer Dan's. I also want Middle class-mary's and Latina Laura's. I want to learn from every other "perspective" that reflects the national/international tapestry. The point is, we, the consumer, make that decision when we choose certain institutions over others. We could have a very different type of diversity, but clearly this is the one that is important to people now.

Terry said...

AA isn't the only thing this country has done to spread the 'privilege' of attending college to more people. After the Civil War we had land grant colleges and 'historically black' colleges. After WW2 there was the GI bill. The AA solution may go back to the 1960's but the problem it was meant to solve has been recognized for over a century.
What would the U.S. look like w/o affirmative action in college admissions. All white and Asian is my guess. Is this really what the U.S. wants?

cubanbob said...

Not true. When you get accepted into a school under AA, you may have to work fives times more just to keep up with the others academically but you bring to the table something the others don't have/know--relevant life experience (something the others need to learn). That's why you get accepted under AA--not because you are less smart (unprepared), but because you are less educated. I am not saying that privileged blacks (whatever that term menas) have more life experience than poor whites (whatever that term means), just that privileged blacks may bring something to the table that poor whites can't (or poor whites bring to the table something others should learn but are incapable of learning). "Relevant life experience" changes based on the educational goals of the institution/students.


That maybe all well and fine for a private institution but public universities exist to benefit the general public. It's not the place for publicly owned universities faculty and administrators to willfully undermine public policy as put forth by the public through referendums or legislation by elected officials.

Æthelflæd said...

The 10% rule also squeezes out poorer students whose parents sacrificed to send them to private schools or homeschool them. It isn't only wealthy parents that use private education. So if you don't make the top ten percent in your rigorous private school, you get knocked out by someone from a public school with lower SATs and easier classes on the transcript.

Paco Wové said...

"We could have a very different type of diversity, but clearly this is the one that is important to [college administrators] now."

FIFY, as they say.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"It's not the place for publicly owned universities faculty and administrators to willfully undermine public policy as put forth by the public through referendums or legislation by elected officials."

@cubanbob

Good point. But we the people vote for our legislators. Voting is a type of consumerism. Different, obviously, but similar.

I went to a state school before graduating from a very inexpensive private school (Brigham Young University) so my perspective is a bit skewed.

Æthelflæd said...

For every "The Hockaday School" in Dallas, there are ten St. Anne's Catholic or Calvary Baptist schools (at least in Texas). The latter are not primarily attended by the wealthy. They are attended by working class kids and minorities whose parents are trying to keep them out of the gang-banging culture and get them a decent education. UT is trying to getaround a bad rule with bad reasoning.

Rabel said...

Susan Stewart Rich,

Thanks for trying to make a reasoned argument from the left side of the political spectrum.

That doesn't happen here very often. From the left we mostly we get screamers, disruptors and the occasional communist.

I don't agree with you, but I appreciate your effort.

Rabel said...

Terry wrote:

"What would the U.S. look like w/o affirmative action in college admissions. All white and Asian is my guess."

That statement is as blindly racist as anything whoresoftheinternet has ever posted.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"They are attended by working class kids and minorities whose parents are trying to keep them out of the gang-banging culture"

@Æthelflæd

There is "privileged" and there is "slightly-more-privileged" than the most underprivileged. Children of working class parents who send their kids to private schools may only be from the "slightly-more-privileged" category, but they are still more privileged than the most underprivileged, right?

cubanbob said...

Good point. But we the people vote for our legislators. Voting is a type of consumerism. Different, obviously, but similar.

So you are anti-consumer? Are you arguing the help knows better than the owners? That consumers can only choose what is offered by their betters? Constitutions be damned. Elections be damned. Parliaments be damned. Lets be governed instead by the self-annoyed Wise Men. Is that what you are implying?

cubanbob said...

There is "privileged" and there is "slightly-more-privileged" than the most underprivileged. Children of working class parents who send their kids to private schools may only be from the "slightly-more-privileged" category, but they are still more privileged than the most underprivileged, right?

No point in making the sacrafice if no good deed goes unpunished. A lot of working poor famies send their kids to private schools on a needs based reduced tuition basis. Consider that.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"Thanks for trying to make a reasoned argument from the left side of the political spectrum."

@Rabel

Thanks.

My MO is to fight for the underdog. Believe them? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Bruce Hayden said...

Susan - keep in mind that the 10% rule was implemented by the state, either through the lrgislure or by referendum, specifically to achieve diversity w/o affirmative action. The unelected bureaucrats at UT then imposed the questioned plan on top of this to reimplement at least some racially preferential admissions. UT was vehement at the time about their opposition to the 10% plan. Academics in general tend to be left of center, and UT is notorious for how far left they are of the rest of Texas. These AA add on was imposed by unelected bureaucrats likely with strong job protection, most likely against the strong sentiments of the citizenry of Texas. All, of course, in the name of academic freedom.

Terry said...

Rabel wrote:
"That statement is as blindly racist as anything whoresoftheinternet has ever posted."
What makes you think so? I believe most blacks and most college admissions officers would agree with me. There is a reason that they want race-based affirmative action, isn't there?

Æthelflæd said...

Susan, who do you think has the most chance to succeed at UT or A&M? A minority student with a decent SAT score and a decent basic education, or a student who has skated through with no real basic education and abysmal SAT scores? Who are you setting up to fail? The kid with a low budget private school education, who has at least one parent that values education, and a decent SAT score is much more likely to succeed. In reality, the unprepared kid will flunk out of UT, the prepared one will get into UH or Texas State, and get a degree. They'll be fine. But the first kid would have been better served to go to junior college for a year or two, then go on to a smaller state school. But neither one of them will have a UT or A&M degree, because the more capable one was kept out. The only minority kid with the UT degree will be the kid of the alum with deep pockets, who went to The Hockaday School. The Tyranny of Good Intentions strikes again.

mccullough said...

Columbia and Harvard were not diverse when Obama attended. This is why he turned into a typical liberal.

Rabel said...

Terry,

It was the "all" in your post that drew the whores comparison.

Æthelflæd said...

There is another battle going on right now in the Texas system. The question of" What is a university?" It is a hornet's nest with no clear party lines drawn. Perry wants to turn UT and A&M into giant votech schools (which is what A&M started out as anyway, so there is some poetic justice there). The colleges have brought it on themselves by not keeping tuition, etc under better control, though Texas schools have done better than many in this regard. Also, the liberal arts have not done themselves any favors by jettisoning Latin, Greek, and Shakespeare for Womyn's Studies and Basketweaving. Brother is divided against brother in this battle: Perry vs Dewhurst, Aggie vs Aggie, T-sip vs T-sip, conservative vs conservative, liberla vs liberal. It is all rather fascinating.

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

Obama felt disenfranchised, so he hung out with the disenfranchised punk rockers & Marxists.

It's true, it's in his book.

I always ask, so why were Marxists disenfranchised in the 80s?

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"Susan, who do you think has the most chance to succeed at UT or A&M?"

The one who has the ability to respond to your post without getting too tired (it's not you, it's me). That would take me right of the running.

Bottom line is that true AA accepts people who have achieved success but not the type determined by test scores.

Seeing Red said...

underprivileged"

With the money we spend on education, why is this still so?

Head Start is a failure. Universal preschool will be a failure.

Kids going to college & having to take remedial math & reading classes screams failure.

Why isn't our children learning?

There used to be a site which broke down how much each state spent.

There have been articles about what we're really spending on education, but they're blips, it's just more money more money.

The system is broken. When I heard Rahm was closing schools because there were 100,000 extra seats, I thought where did that money go, it was still allocated somewhere.


Plus, if the state's solution works, then the state may feel it doesn't need as many diversity positions, they're protecting themselves & the cash cow.

Seeing Red said...

And I thought Florida also takes the top 10%?

ed said...

@ Althouse

"I absolutely am serious about this and if you want to understand the Fisher case, you must get up to speed on this point. Seriously."

And my point is that it is an unserious treatment of the issue to blindly assume that all K-12 educations are equal and that a 10% top cut will work. For some it will. For many it is just setting them up to fail.

Calypso Facto said...

privileged blacks may bring something to the table that poor whites can't

Drivel. You could say that ANY segment of ANY race in ANY geographic location "may" bring in unique experience. Life experience is unique to the smallest minority of all: the individual. That's why INDIVIDUAL rights should be paramount to racial or even status-based affirmative action.

I want to learn from every other "perspective" that reflects the national/international tapestry. Wishing for infinite access to college because that will somehow improve the learning experience, is not only obviously impossible, but also an unproven assertion that such an education would be "better" in any meaningful way.

we, the consumer, make that decision when we choose certain institutions over others. No, we, the non-benefited consumer, don't. The only people "voting" for a certain college in this manner due to its AA program are the people who stand to directly benefit from the flexible standards provided by that program.

My MO is to fight for the underdog. Except in this case, apparently, where the truly underprivileged are set to be displaced by the moneyed class of minority racial/ethnic groups.

Terry said...

Yeah, Rebel, I should have used another word. I usually try to avoid absolute statements. 'Overwhelmingly' would have been a better word-choice than 'all'.

Michael K said...

"Susan, who do you think has the most chance to succeed at UT or A&M? A minority student with a decent SAT score and a decent basic education, or a student who has skated through with no real basic education and abysmal SAT scores?"

She doesn't know or want to know. What is the drop out rate at Howard or other historically black colleges compared to Harvard AA students ?

The left thinks those colleges are lower class and not worth attending when you can get into and drop out of Harvard. Once the Harvard left wing faculty figured out the problem, we began to get grade inflation. Now the AA students couldn't flunk out but the white and Asian students get much less of an education than they did in 1950.

Why do you think Obama's grades are a secret ?

Why do you think we will never see an Obama dissertation or essay on some serious topic ?

Why was Obama the only Harvard Law Review editor who never write an article ?

Come on. Do they think we are that stupid ?

ed said...

@ Susan Stewart Rich

"AA is about providing opportunity, not ensuring your definition of success. Getting into UT might be the highest achievement that student's family has acheived academecially. And for the next generation, it might be getting into UT and graduating. "

What an opportunity!

$50,000 of debt to fail compounded endlessly into a hopelessly immense debt and a life changing history of failure that will follow that person forever.

The purpose of an admissions process is to determine who will succeed best at a specific college/university. Not for some nonsensical Dr. Feelgood parody. What precisely would be the point of admitting someone to a college who could not possibly keep up and who is almost, barring an astronomical event such as being aided by space aliens, destined to fail?

Are you really suggesting that the family would be proud of someone who incurred that much debt and dropped out? Yeah I can see that.

"This is my nephew. He bankrupted the family going to University of Texas and then failed. We are so proud."

Repeat that a few times aloud and consider the giggle factor.

Æthelflæd said...

There is another battle going on right now in the Texas system. The question is: "What is a university?" It is a hornet's nest with no clear party lines drawn. Perry wants to turn UT and A&M into giant vo-tech schools (which is what A&M started out as anyway, so there is some poetic justice there). The colleges have brought it on themselves by not keeping tuition, etc. under better control, though Texas schools have done better than many in this regard. Also, the liberal arts have not done themselves any favors by jettisoning Latin, Greek, and Shakespeare for Womyn's Studies and Basketweaving. Brother is divided against brother in this battle: Perry vs Dewhurst, Aggie vs Aggie, T-sip vs T-sip, conservative vs conservative, liberal vs liberal. It is all rather fascinating.

UT is rather proud of its research tradition, but Perry has stuufed the Board of Regents with Aggies who are hostile to UT's mission. Even the Aggies aren't happy with their most famous alum and governor. It is all a very strange brew.

ed said...

@ Susan Stewart Rich

"... That's why you get accepted under AA--not because you are less smart (unprepared), but because you are less educated. ..."

An inspired reason for admission into higher education.

Wanted: A fumble-fingered gomer for bomb disposal unit. No experience needed.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"privileged blacks may bring something to the table that poor whites can't"

@ Calypso Facto

I didn't say that.

"The only people "voting" for a certain college in this manner due to its AA program are the people who stand to directly benefit from the flexible standards provided by that program."

"Only people?" Really? I vote for people and support referendums that don't "directly" benefit me all the time. We all do. Moreover, we ALL benefit (or not) from the policies implemented at State Colleges because we all live in states.

I stand corrected. My MO is to fight for who I believe is the underdog.

ed said...

@ Susan Stewart Rich

"... The point is, we, the consumer, make that decision when we choose certain institutions over others. We could have a very different type of diversity, but clearly this is the one that is important to people now. ..."

No.

The point is that we do NOT have a choice since this choice is enforced by law. If we had a choice then this argument wouldn't be taking place and the case under discussion would not be before the SCOTUS.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"fumble-fingered gomer"

@ed

Your too kind. Seriously.

Rabel said...

Terry,

I apologize for being too harsh. I frequently overstate my opinions and should be more careful when throwing stones.

ed said...

@ Terry

"... What would the U.S. look like w/o affirmative action in college admissions. All white and Asian is my guess. Is this really what the U.S. wants? ..."

First you mention historically black colleges and then you write this? You realize you refuted yourself right?

As for what I want:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

David Funk said...

The problem is that our betters, the progressives (black and white) absolutely hate the straight up top 10%. Florida has the same thing and the progressives absolutely hate it. More poor blacks than ever get into and graduate college. But that is not the point. Our betters do not get to control it. Individual students are in control and that is wrong. The arguments and contortions necessary to support this hate is beyond belief.

Rabel said...

"Wanted: A fumble-fingered gomer for bomb disposal unit. No experience needed."

You shouldn't talk about the President that way.

Æthelflæd said...

" Except in this case, apparently, where the truly underprivileged are set to be displaced by the moneyed class of minority racial/ethnic groups."

It's actually a double whammy. The 10% rule discriminates against the lower to middle class who don't go to bad public schools. If they go to a competitive public school or a private school, they are at a disadvantage. Then UT tries to fix it by discriminating against them again for the sake of upperclass Hockaday and Kincaid school minorities. So if you are working or middle class, and manage to own a home, you pay for public schools via property taxes, and if you need to put your kids in private school to get them a decent education, or defer a second income to home school, you are paying twice. Then to add insult to injury your kid may not be able to get into a higher tier state college over someone with an SAT score 200 points lower, who will almost certainly not succeed. That kid would also have been better off somewhere else.

As others have said, it does not do that kid any favors to flunk out of UT with debt, when they might have graduated form Texas State with a decent job at the end to pay for it.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"If we had a choice then this argument wouldn't be taking place and the case under discussion would not be before the SCOTUS"

@ed

How are "the choice in a matter" and having the case before SCOTUS mutually exclusive? We have choices and don't make good ones (knowingly) all the time.

I eat junk food and enjoy it. I drink soda pop and enjoy it. Would I sign a referendum banning soda from being sold in elementary schools? Yes. Do I have a kid in elementary school. No. Do I pay taxes for those kids who suffer from obesity. Yes. Do I blame the chidlren for their bad choices, not entirely. Do I think they could make better choices? Yes. Do they? No.

ed said...

Interesting article on differences in minority graduation rates link: Daily Beast

ed said...

@ Susan Stewart Rich

"How are "the choice in a matter" and having the case before SCOTUS mutually exclusive? We have choices and don't make good ones (knowingly) all the time. "

Fine. Choose for me a good computer science college that does not employ any form of Affirmative Action whatsoever and relies solely on SAT scores for admissions.

I'll wait.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"good computer science college"

@ed

What is your definition of good?

Smilin' Jack said...

...might provide the classroom benefit of teaching all the students that minority students don't have "some characteristic minority viewpoint." ...

And learning that is what makes $100K of debt for a college education worthwhile.

All I am saying is that if Grutter is to be applied (and not limited or overruled), an affirmative action program that's all about boosting the most privileged minority students actually makes sense.

Hmm...I thought minority students needed a boost only because they're underprivileged. Saying that even the most privileged minorities need a boost is tantamount to saying that minorities need a boost because they're, well, dumb. Which is, of course, unsayable.

ed said...

@ Susan Stewart Rich

"Your too kind. Seriously."

Note: I am not calling you a "fumble-fingered gomer".

As you have seen by now I'm pretty plain in my writing and if it is my intention to insult someone I generally not only do so openly but with excessive relish.

What I was contrasting is the idea that the way to improve higher education by inclusion of less educated students with the idea that the way to improve bomb disposal squads is to have inexperienced "fumble-fingered gomers" hired to do the job.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

If "diversity" is supposed to mean "diversity of life experience, of opinion, of thought," then the original 10% provides it more surely than any other. You've got your geographical and socioeconomic diversity built right in. Plus you're rewarding the kids who did the best academic work in the environment they grew up in.

What the UT/Austin fix is about, basically, is well-off Black and Latino parents upset at their kids (who are good students, but maybe not 10% material in the competitive high schools they are in) not getting to the "flagship" school, combined with UT/Austin professors unhappy that they have to deal with all this rural peasant riffraff. But notice that the assumption of the "supplementary" AA boost is that it's unreasonable to expect a well-off Black or Latino kid to have just as good a chance as a similarly-situated white or Asian-American kid to make the top 10% at a good suburban public high school. Do we really want to be thinking that?

Someone above mentioned homeschooling. Does anyone here know how the TX law handles homeschooled students?

Æthelflæd said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rabel said...

Maybe one of the reasons administrators dislike the 10% method is that they recognized that admitting "underprivileged"
and unqualified minority students was exacerbating racial animosity and wish to minimize this by having the power to select the "right kind" of people.

And maybe some of that animosity was within their own ranks.

Æthelflæd said...

David Funk said...
"The problem is that our betters, the progressives (black and white) absolutely hate the straight up top 10%. Florida has the same thing and the progressives absolutely hate it. More poor blacks than ever get into and graduate college. But that is not the point. Our betters do not get to control it. Individual students are in control and that is wrong. The arguments and contortions necessary to support this hate is beyond belief."

David, I am in no way a progressive, but I am not a fan of the top 10% rule, because all schools are not equal. I agree that it is an improvement on the way AA was done in the past. At least it is less political.

As an example, besides the examples of the private and home schools I mentioned earlier: an hour away from me are two public schools 30 miles apart. One school spends millions on its athletic facilities and next to nothing on academics. The other, very rural, school prioritizes academics and even dropped football to save money. This school was sued by the first school because students were fleeing to the smaller, academically-minded school, and current rules allow that. I can almost guarantee you that the top 40%, at least, of students in the second school are stronger than the top 10% of the first school. But they will get into UT and the other students won't. What is fair about that?



Æthelflæd said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ed said...

@ Susan Stewart Rich

"What is your definition of good?"

*shrug* I'm open to ideas. Personally I could probably qualify under any number of exceptions as I am Asian, Veteran and Disabled. And since I've got 3+ decades of experience in the field I could probably just get a job with some college and pay for my education that way.

But I've been considering finally getting a degree in the CS field. Mostly for the hell of it since it would not add appreciably to my career. All in all frankly I think I'd rather get an English Literature degree but I'll reserve that for when I retire.

As for the discussion at hand: An example might be Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ campus.
College Results Online: graduation rates broken down by ethnicity

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"UT/Austin professors [are] unhappy that they have to deal with all this rural peasant riffraff"

@

They don't have to deal with it, they get to deal with it.

Æthelflæd said...

Michelle,
Homeschooled students are shut out of the 10% rule. They have to compete against out of state students, and those students not in the top 10%, for the few spots left.

When I say to 10%, I mean school class rankings, not actual ability and accomplishment.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

@ed

Why is Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ campus "good?"

Susan Stewart Rich said...

@ed

Have you considered linguistics? CS and lit. If I could do it again that would be the way I'd go.

n.n said...

The problem with their conception of "diversity" is that not only does it denigrate individual dignity, but it actually denies it.

The premise for their conception is a prejudiced distinction between nature and nurture. They do not recognize the individual as the unit of diversity. They instead arbitrarily select a nurture argument, which is legitimate within a limited frame; but, it does not support their justification to discriminate against individuals.

This is the same conceptual problem faced by the "wise Latina". She can claim a relatively unique experience, but she cannot claim a unique outcome or development. Not even within the limited frame to which she claims a title. Human beings are not nearly as single dimensional as people like her would like to believe and assert to be reality.

Another problem with "diversity" is classifying individuals as "minorities" by virtue of their "skin color." While there is a reason to recognize differences which arise from individual prejudice, the goal should be integration, not division, of diverse individuals.

The people involved in developing "diversity" programs are providing the wrong solutions, and the people who support them are demanding the wrong relief.

Whether it is "skin color" or class politics, there is a fine line which we cannot cross and still hope to preserve individual dignity and the value of human life.

fivewheels said...

Sometimes people say they're "for the underdog", and sometimes I believe them and sometimes I think they're full of it.

SSR is trying to be reasonable, but when you take an admissions structure that looks at, say, the child of poor Cambodian refugees, born in America but living in an urban ghetto with English as a second language in the home, going to a crappy school where both the white and black kids are violently racist toward your brand of "other," but studying hard enough to be one of the better students in it ... you think an admissions officer should look at that kid and say, "Let's discriminate against this student harder than anyone."

That's rooting for the underdog? No, obviously not, so obviously the purpose of AA is not to help underdogs, the purpose is only crass racial spoils. It's helping the people you politically choose to help without regard to "underdog" status. There is no other possible justification, except other outright lies like the idea that AA supporters want to help "underdogs."

Bruce Hayden said...

Homeschooled students are shut out of the 10% rule. They have to compete against out of state students, and those students not in the top 10%, for the few spots left.

I can definitely see this - until you have close to 10 kids, it is hard to be in the top 10%, unless you are talking an inclusive 10%, and then most home schooled would qualify. Don't know how else this could work, except maybe take the top 10% of home schoolers by SAT and AP scores. But, since the left hates home schooling, probably worse than vouchers, ain't gonna happen.

Terry said...

Ed wrote:
"... What would the U.S. look like w/o affirmative action in college admissions. All white and Asian is my guess. Is this really what the U.S. wants? ..."

First you mention historically black colleges and then you write this? You realize you refuted yourself right?
-------------
What are you saying here, Ed? That if historically black colleges became integrated they would still be historically black colleges? They have an explicit mission to educate African-Americans, for God's sake.

Bruce Hayden said...

Yes, the 10% rule isn't perfect. But, I would suggest that it works much better than what it was designed to replace, and that was an explicit AA program with implicit quotas, where the diversity was primarily that of skin color, and not of life experiences, background, etc. Where black prep schoolers, children of doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc., were being preferenced over whites who had gone through adversity purely on skin color. What they got was a lot more diversity of background, as contrasted with mere skin color.

Marshal said...

Rabel said...
Terry wrote:

"What would the U.S. look like w/o affirmative action in college admissions. All white and Asian is my guess."

That statement is as blindly racist as anything whoresoftheinternet has ever posted.


And yet this was the very stance of race preference supporters during the recent period when several states had referenda proposing a ban on race preferences. How revealing.

Æthelflæd said...

Even with 10 kids, it wouldn't work, because they won't be in the same grade. Plus, if you have 10 kids from the same family, they will tend to run fairly close in their SAT scores (not a perfect correlation, but...)

I have actually wondered out loud if this policy might hurt private school enrollment. I wonder.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

"outright lies like the idea that AA supporters want to help "underdogs."

@fivewheels

I believe I am fighting for the underdog. Not a lie, a belief. An incorrect one? Maybe, maybe not.

AA implemented well rewards success, not test scores. If a person is not going to succeed, they should not be accepted in any job, school, etc. that would be cruel. Question is, what is success? If we use graduation as the measure of success we aren't seeing the big picture.

fivewheels said...

But you are also fighting to keep Asians in their current position, which is that they're forced to score higher than whites to be treated equally, and astronomically higher than blacks and Hispanics and native Americans?

Is that because they're such powerful overdogs in the United States, all full of Asian privilege, with the decks all stacked in their favor, in your honest opinion?

Æthelflæd said...

SAT still correlates with college success, otherwise schools would have dropped it long ago.

Susan said: "If we use graduation as the measure of success we aren't seeing the big picture."

What is your measure of success? Life enrichment? The college experience? What is to be gained?

Poor students can't afford to waste time and money getting life enrichment. I was a poor college student - I know. College isn't real life anyway.

fivewheels said...

I suppose if you want to define academic success as "awarding prizes to an important party constituency as defined by race, after taking them from people who actually might have things tougher," then sure, affirmative action is pretty great.

Terry said...

Look, I'm against racial preferences in public schools admissions policies.
But I am also aware that, if these preferences are removed, the percentage of the student population of public colleges that is black and hispanic will drop dramatically. The problem that AA was meant to address will not go away.

JimMtnViewCa said...

Since the white government of South Africa is no more, is there another nation on earth more race obsessed than the USA?
I'm serious, not being polemical. Are there other countries which collect your racial identity when you attend college, buy a house, apply for a job...in fact, on nearly every form you fill out?

Seeing Red said...

...The problem is pronounced at public universities. In 2007 (the last year for which Education Trust, a nonprofit advocacy group, has comparative statistics) the University of Wisconsin–-Madison—one of the top five or so "public Ivies"—graduated 81 percent of its white students within six years, but only 56 percent of its blacks. At less-selective state schools, the numbers get worse. During the same time frame, the University of Northern Iowa graduated 67 percent of its white students, but only 39 percent of its blacks. Community colleges have low graduation rates generally—but rock-bottom rates for minorities. A recent review of California community colleges found that while a third of the Asian students picked up their degrees, only 15 percent of African-Americans did so as well....

Seeing Red said...

...Private colleges and universities generally do better, partly because they offer smaller classes and more personal attention. But when it comes to a significant graduation gap, Bowdoin has company. Nearby Colby College logged an 18-point difference between white and black graduates in 2007 and 25 points in 2006. Middlebury College in Vermont, another topnotch school, had a 19-point gap in 2007 and a 22-point gap in 2006. The most selective private schools—-Harvard, Yale, and -Princeton—show almost no gap between black and white graduation rates. But that may have more to do with their ability to cherry-pick the best students. According to data gathered by Harvard Law School professor Lani Guinier, the most selective schools are more likely to choose blacks who have at least one immigrant parent from Africa or the Caribbean than black students who are descendants of American slaves. According to Guinier's data, the latter perform less well academically.....

fivewheels said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

...There once was a time when universities took a perverse pride in their attrition rates. Professors would begin the year by saying, "Look to the right and look to the left. One of you is not going to be here by the end of the year." But such a Darwinian spirit is beginning to give way as at least a few colleges face up to the graduation gap. At the University of Wisconsin–Madison, the gap has been roughly halved over the last three years. The university has poured resources into peer counseling to help students from inner-city schools adjust to the rigor and faster pace of a university classroom—and also to help minority students overcome the stereotype that they are less qualified. Wisconsin has a "laserlike focus" on building up student skills in the first three months, according to vice provost Damon Williams.....

Revenant said...

The Constitutionally correct decision would be a 9-0 decision ruling that racial discrimination by government agencies is forbidden under the 14th amendment.

But there are a lot of Baby Boomer types like Ann who still have their panties in a bunch over the days, a half-century ago, when blacks were discriminated against by universities. So I expect support for government racism to continue.

Marshal said...

Terry said...
Look, I'm against racial preferences in public schools admissions policies.
But I am also aware that, if these preferences are removed, the percentage of the student population of public colleges that is black and hispanic will drop dramatically.


This has been proven not true. Certain states had to remove their race preference programs based on court rulings and referenda. In those states the overall percentage of blacks remained the same. Only the percentage at elite universities dropped.

Terry said...

I think that the case is not as clear-cut as you present it, Marshal:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/03/study-race-neutral-admissions/1609855/

Selectively 'reaching out' to minority students and changing admission requirements to increase the percentage of minority students admitted is just affirmative action under another name.

Michael said...

Because the 10% rule brings in the top kids from crappy racially isolated schools the diversity UT gets can rarely cut the mustard and reveals that which should not be revealed. Ergo the University has to devise another method to get better outcomes simple. That which should not be revealed cannot be revealed.

Marshal said...

Terry said...
Selectively 'reaching out' to minority students and changing admission requirements to increase the percentage of minority students admitted is just affirmative action under another name.


I think your conclusion is completely wrong. Race preferences are significantly different and worse than outreach and other non-race based efforts.

Calypso Facto said...

@SSR "privileged blacks may bring something to the table that poor whites can't"

I didn't say that.


You certainly did, at 12:06 pm.

"Only people?" Really? I vote for people and support referendums that don't "directly" benefit me all the time. We all do. Moreover, we ALL benefit (or not) from the policies implemented at State Colleges because we all live in states.

Glad you agree with me. You vote in referenda ... and you live with college admission decisions ... but you don't vote for college admission decision.

I stand corrected. My MO is to fight for who I believe is the underdog.
I don't know how you've arrived at your curious conclusions, but picking rich minority kids as underdogs against poor minority kids is, for most of us frankly, unbelievable.

Chuck said...

I like and agree with Professor Althouse's general analysis on this case.

There is an even more compelling case for SCOTUS to weigh in on affirmative action that will be argued next year:

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682.

Also from Michigan, this is the case wherein the State of Michigan saw a state constitutional amendment which banned affirmative action pass by a substantial majority in a referendum vote. (It passed, despite the pro- side being outspent heavily by large corporations, the state universities and all of the mainstream media players like the Detroit Free Press.

The referendum has been challenged in court, and in a completely screwy decision, the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that found the state's voter-approved ban on affirmative action unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution (!?)

The Scheutte case might be a lot more fun this time next year, than Fisher is this spring. Who knows who might be on the Court by then?

Treven said...

I've had several students admitted to UT/A&M/Tech due to the 10% rule, and many (if not most) of them fail miserably because they came from crappy high schools.

Terry said...

From the USA Today article:
California spent tens of millions of dollars expanding outreach, de-emphasized standardized tests and even implemented a policy similar to Texas' Top 10 percent plan, the university told the court. But the results weren't satisfactory. In 1995, black students accounted for 7.3% of admitted freshmen at Berkeley and 6.7% at UCLA; the figures today are 3.9% and 3.8%, respectively.

"The University of California has tried almost everything (to recruit more minority students)," said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA. "It's true the least selective colleges of the University of California are highly diversified, but we've had almost a disappearance of black students here at UCLA."


So the UC system is explicitly linking its outreach and its de-emphasized standard test results to the recruitment of minority students, or that's my read of it, anyhow.
Imagine if you were a kid from a school whose students were mostly poor and mostly white. UC sends recruiters and forms a partnership with the poor minority school, but not yours. How is that different from affirmative action? They are making decisions about who they want in their student body based on race.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

@Calypso Facto

the underdog on this forum . . .

Seeing Red said...

I read a couple of years ago African Americans are leaving Kalifornia.

Did they take out migration into account?

Terry said...

I think that it is important to keep in mind that education, especially subsidized education, is a scarce good.
Suppose the public schools in Cali spent a hundred million bucks financing AP classes in minority dominated schools, and the return is that 10% of the students in those classes went on to graduate from the UC system. This increases minority college graduates in a satisfactory manner.
Now suppose that Cali's public school system spent the same amount of money, not on minority schools, but in an indiscriminate fashion, and the result was that 20% of of the students in those AP classes went on to graduate from the UC system, but weren't satisfactorily representative of minorities in California.
Who decides which outcome is better?

Calypso Facto said...

@SSR the underdog on this forum . . .

Do you need us to lower the standards?? :p

Michael K said...

"What the UT/Austin fix is about, basically, is well-off Black and Latino parents upset at their kids (who are good students, but maybe not 10% material in the competitive high schools they are in) not getting to the "flagship" school, combined with UT/Austin professors unhappy that they have to deal with all this rural peasant riffraff."

Another topic that is loudly ignored is the fact that foreign born blacks benefit from AA that is intended to compensate American blacks for slavery and Jim Crow. I have quite a few of them in my medical school groups. I can tell you that they have none of the hangups that so cripple American blacks and are good students, by the time I get them. USC is a private university and I see more foreign born black students than American born.

I wonder what percent of successful black students at Ivy League colleges are foreign born. I knew one at Dartmouth in 1994. He worked nights in the food hall (open 24 hours at Dartmouth) and did his homework there. He was mystified by drunken American students who would show up at the food hall at 3 AM to try to sober up. He was African as are some of my medical students.

Paco Wové said...

"Who decides which outcome is better?"

The voters of California?

Michael K said...

"Imagine if you were a kid from a school whose students were mostly poor and mostly white. UC sends recruiters and forms a partnership with the poor minority school, but not yours. How is that different from affirmative action? They are making decisions about who they want in their student body based on race."

My son, who is a firefighter, was standing in line for a Long Beach city fire fighter recruiting day. 5,000 people showed up for about 200 jobs. Behind him in line were several girls who were applying. A guy from the city went up to the girls to make sure they had their papers filled out.He had called them earlier to make sure they had directions to the place.

My son took the exam and placed high enough to be in the next hire.

Then the entire test was thrown out because the Black Firefighters Association had had a copy of the test, not an old test, to teach applicants to pass. A friend of my son, who is Hispanic, had attended the session and was kicked out by the association because "it was only for blacks." He was the one who ratted them out.

The test was rescheduled and my son couldn't get the day off for that one.

The whole system is rotten and all these preferences have sucked the merit out of all of it.

Paco Wové said...

"...the 10% program tended to admit underprivileged blacks and Hispanics (which reinforced a stereotype about black and Hispanic people)."

So, the original program, which was presumably designed to benefit underprivileged people, brought in the wrong kind of underprivileged people? So they decided to bring in privileged people instead?

When a program operates at such a divergence to its stated aims, it makes me wonder what the real purpose of the program is.

Unknown said...

I think the out-reach program for public California colleges should be illegal, since the state is prohibited from any sort of racial discrimination. Admission to a state college or university is a financial benefit. Financial benefits should be given out in a race-neutral way.

Suppose California had a program to give away money. Suppose they chose to publicize that program in white neighborhoods but not in black neighborhoods. I don't think that would be legal. By the same token, I don't think it's legal for them to use race to decide where they publicize subsidized education.

David in Cal

Anglelyne said...

Terry: Look, I'm against racial preferences in public schools admissions policies. But I am also aware that, if these preferences are removed, the percentage of the student population of public colleges that is black and hispanic will drop dramatically. The problem that AA was meant to address will not go away.

No, it won't. Unfortunately, papering over the reality of unequal achievement with AA doesn't make the inequality go away. Persisting differences in group outcomes will continue to cause resentments and social friction, but the rancor may be (or already is being) exacerbated by increasingly desperate efforts to pin the blame for the differences on anything but, well, the differences.

All of this was very, very, badly thought-through from the beginning, and its eventual and inevitable clusterfuck doom was pretty much assured the minute AA was allowed to metastasize beyond its original purpose of rectifying historical injustices perpetrated against black Americans.

Terry said...

Angelyine-
About a decade ago I passed through the St. Louis airport. It was crowded. The passengers were the usual mix, mostly whites with smaller groups of asians and blacks (to go by looks). But every single service person I saw I saw holding a broom, working behind the counter at a restaurant, or pushing a cart stacked with other peoples bags was black. Every single one.
If we really get rid of all affirmative action, I think the United States might eventually look a lot like the St. Louis airport did on that day, and that is not something that anyone wants (I hope).
We're fooling ourselves if we think that Affirmative Action won't result in greater economic and education gaps between racial groups in America.

David R. Graham said...

Interesting but irrelevant. Only an idiot would want to pry their way into somewhere they are neither needed nor wanted. And only a mush brain would want to help that idiot do that. Life will go on regardless and by its own internal necessity, not by law or screaming. If law tries to stand on its own, apart from the inner necessity of life, it becomes an object of derision. So it is with "AA." And no mere court can make it stochastic.

ed said...

@ all

Sorry for being a bit unresponsive atm but I do want to continue this discussion. The future of education is of some interest to me but something went "pop" in my back and right now I dont trust myself to make a logical argument with the painkiller I just took.

cya tomorrow. o7 (<- emote for salute)

Regional College Of Pharmacy said...

Your blog is very informative and gracefully
your guideline is very good.Thank you
Engineering college
Best engineering college in india
Private engineering college
pharmacy college
pharmacy college in india
top pharmacy college
Polytechnic college
Top polytechnic college
Top private polytechnic college
Top polytechnic colleges in India
Techanical colleges
Polytechnic college in india
Leading call center
Outbound call center india
Cheap Seo services india

pigpaws said...

But every single service person I saw I saw holding a broom, working behind the counter at a restaurant, or pushing a cart stacked with other peoples bags was black. Every single one.

Because the airport is near predominantly black neighborhoods.

The education and economic gaps continue mainly because of cultural rot and failing unionized schools more concerned with pensions and diversity than educating. The city of St. Louis spends more money per pupil than other cities in the state, and has a 50% drop out rate. Many kids who don't drop out and graduate, can't read or do math at grade level, are then quota'd in to state colleges/universities where a large percentage fail even after remedial classes. Many also do not think they have to work for their education at said colleges, because they get a free ride. Whereas equally underprivileged whites work long hours at crap jobs to afford their remedial classes.

As desegregation was put in motion, many blacks were fast tracked through Harris Stowe, and as a result, you had the ignorant teaching the dumb because it's racist to hold them to the same standard of white privilege or some rot.