Affirming Affirmative Action

That familiar 5-4 split has upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmatve action program, but the more overtly quota-like undergraduate policy has been at least partially reversed… no details yet, but the slip opinions should be posted soon.

Expect massive confusion to result about exactly what means of considering race are now permissible…

Comments

[Tommy_Grand]

"Does UofM's Law School get state funding like the undergrad program?"

Yes

[cinquo]

ok, how about Chinese and Japanese, both of which also have faced entrenched social and economic inequality?

i guess "good grades = white" in your book.

disgusting.

[Rick Barton]

The tragedy of racial discrimination is that an individual is denied opportunity based on the collective catagory of "race"; the regard for that persons individuality is discounted. Government-mandated affirmitive action programs with "White" victims are no less tragic or unfair.

[fyodor]

None of this would matter if it weren't for government funding AND anti-discrimination laws.

Sure, neither of those factors are going to go away miraculously, but everything we do in the current situation ends up being like the proverbial dressing up of the porker. No wonder the Supremes don't want to commit themselves one way or the other!

[Ha, as if I'd say something li]

Maybe the reason Black people are so behind and entrenched is because they're proud of being Black. Ever seen how Blacks treat smart or successful Blacks? They get their asses kicked because they're "too white"....hmm what does this tell you?

[David Weigel]

Has anyone heard rumblings from "civil rights" groups in California, Florida, Washington, and Texas about whether they'll try to use this as ammo to reverse statewide affirmative action bans? They wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but damn if that has ever stoppped activists from raising hell ...

[David Weigel]

The decision is here, btw.

[Brian]

What troubles me about today's decision is that (based on my understanding of how the cases were argued) it appears that an arguement espousing the social objective of "promoting diversity in higher education" won out over an argument of constitutional principle, namely, "equal protection under law."

Even if you think diversity is a worthy end unto itself, this should scare the hell out of you. Why? Think of some other "worthwhile" social objectives that might be inconvienienced by constitutional principles...public order, freedom from want, family values...all of which (like diversity) are completely subjective in their definition.

Mob Rule 1, U.S. Constitution 0.

[Phil]

The anger of black people at entrenched social and economic inequality, on the other hand, can be dismissed without comment.

Oh, for heaven's sake, in the case that was under consideration, the people in question were applicants to the University of Michigan School of Law. These were people who already had B.A. or B.S. degrees -- and were probably quite middle class -- and whatever proportion of them were black, it's not as if they were stuck in the ghetto.

[joe]

Phil, I was not thinking about black law school applicants' anger at not gettng into their first choice college (which is a pretty whiny excuse for rage in the first place). I was thinking of black citizens anger at the widespread social and economic inequality in our society - black household's averaging one tenth the value of white households, 0/100 US Senators being black, etc.

My belief in the need for AA has nothing to do with what black law school graduates think they deserve. I brought up "black rage" only as a rebuttal to ugh's comments about white rage.

[Keith]

Even if this case involved a private university, these cases would impact them. If they recieve any federal funds, the Civil Rights Act would kick in.

[cinquo]

thanks joe for speaking on behalf of all 35,704,124 african-americans. i am sure they are as surprised as I am that you are their official spokesperson.

but where is your response on asian-americans?

[joe]

I'm not speaking for anybody but myself. But your refusal to believe that there is a widespread sense of racial injustice among African Americans is the type of cluelessness that takes years of study and practice to master.

Since I'm am Irish-Italian from North America, I guess I have to pretend to have no idea about the Palestinian public's feelings about West Bank settlements. Since I've lived my whole life in America, I guess I'm not allowed to comment on whether Russians favor Stalinism. And since I'm a Catholic, I'll just have to plead agnosticism about the Jewish response to Naziism.

"Your skin's the wrong color, so you have no idea whether most black people think we've achieved racial nirvana." Real strong argument you've got there, cinqo.

[Anonymous]

Joe - where do you find all these black people with good grades & test scores who are being refused entry to college? I'd like to visit this obscure little community.

[Anonymous]

you are streotyping and you know it! you were using "racial thinking", a lazy type of cluelessness that takes mere seconds of ignorence to master. not all blacks are poor or stupid, as much as you would like to think! how DARE you treat people as non-individuals on account of their skin color???

those blacks who happen to be poor or uneducated have themselves to blame at least as much as blaming anyone else! just as wealthy or educated people who happen to have black skin can take credit for their individual sucess!

lazy, RACIST nonthinkers such as joe are PART OF THE PROBLEM.

[cinquo]

you are streotyping and you know it! you were using "racial thinking", a lazy type of cluelessness that takes mere seconds of ignorence to master. not all blacks are poor or stupid, as much as you would like to think! how DARE you treat people as non-individuals on account of their skin color???

those blacks who happen to be poor or uneducated have themselves to blame at least as much as blaming anyone else! just as wealthy or educated people who happen to have black skin can take credit for their individual sucess!

lazy, RACIST nonthinkers such as joe are PART OF THE PROBLEM.

[joe]

When did I ever claim that such a thing was happening, Anon?

[Anonymous]

Joe - because there is no other justification for AA for schools.

[joe]

I generally find the confidence a poster has in his position has an inverse relationship to the number of exclaimation points, all caps words, and multiple punctuation marks in his posts.

eg, Bush doesn't have a CHANCE in the next election!!!!!!!

[Tommy_Grand]

"those blacks who happen to be poor or uneducated have themselves to blame at least as much as blaming anyone else!"

That is an interesting pronouncement. We are talking about college admissions. Is it really a 17-year-old kid's fault if he or she is dirt poor + attends a shitty school? I think the parents, teachers, & community deserve far more blame than the hypothetical kid. But something tells me that, rather than defend what you actually SAID, you'd rather change the subject...

[Anonymous]

Discussions with people without any intellectual curiosity & reasoned foundation for their opinions and who merely wish to feel that they think the way "good" and "morally superior" people do generally end with pathetic remarks about the syntax, grammar, punctuation, etc. of those who hold different opinions.

[Anonymous]

Tommy - you are 100% correct & those "root causes" need to be addressed, not painted over with the big lie of AA.

[cinquo]

joe: I have found that when all a poster can do is comment on my punctuation or spelling they really are just conceding my point. chew on that!

tommy: lots of sucessful people have risen from poverty. what sets them apart? in other words, WHOSE fault is it really? if we praise a poor kid who finds success, why can't we blame him for failure???

[fyodor]

joe,

Okay, let's hear your case for AA rather than just complaining that you've been misrepesented!

Not that it's likely to be anything we haven't heard before, but then that could probably be said about all of us!!

[Douglas Fletcher]

This decision makes as much sense as the obscenity decision way back when -- the one where "community standards" defines obscenity.

[Philadelphia Keith]

You know, I'm coming around to the SCOTUS combo decision in the 2 Michigan cases. Out with the fixed system in the undergrad admissions (good deal by me), but permit a policy that gives the university organization the ability to conform as best it can to social pressure and the uneven patchwork of laws (whether truly valid or halfassed and on the way to challenge or repeal - while they stand, that's the law) that encourage, incentivize, or consider AA, by allowing the university to holistically consider their applicants through a lot of professional staff and faculty work.

I mean this seriously - I am very grateful that I live in the US, where there is a great plenty and excess of higher education. Thank goodness I did not grow up in a society that had to take up the soulless and difficult (but justifiable) policies of J. Nehru administration in a double quota driven secondary education system. Post colonial India concentrated the bulk of their limited resources onto only the most elite students with a rigorous national examination to determine placement, and also simultaneously applied social engineering with quota based caste representation.

In comparison to the educational scarcity that India survived with a tough quota plan, allowing US universities to respond to social pressure and, granted, a muddy legal universe through the use of human resources and individual attention towards applicants seems to me entirely reasonable, and given the political environment, desirable. Universities shouldn't be machines for any group of ideologues.

[Tommy_Grand]

Cinquo said:

"If we praise a poor kid who finds success, why can't we BLAME HIM for failure???"

And

"Those blacks who happen to be poor or uneducated HAVE THEMSELVES TO BLAME at least as much as blaming anyone else!"

(Emphasis added)

So when black kid is born into poverty, we should blame the kid? That is a joke. Did you get to pick your parents? I say cinquo knows this is bunk but lacks the stones to admit it. It's not the kid's fault. Do we want to help these kids? Some do, some don't. Among those who do, there are legitimate debates, e.g. "what is the most effective way to help poor kids?" and "who should pay for this help?" But the question of whether a poor child should be BLAMED for his lack of resources is beneath us.

[Greg P.]

Joe says, "OK, deep breath. In concrete terms, what we're talking about here is a few ticks up or down in the percentage of non-white students."

Well, Joe. Get ready for deep sighs. Because this decision will have much wider ramifications that will be with us for the next 25 years, at least.

[Tyrone]

Are you ...

[_] Black
[_] White
[_] Red
[_] Blue

Questions such as these should be completely eliminated from not only college admissions forms, but from all those thousands of other such forms floating around the country.

I can see giving a kid a break, based on her family's level of INCOME, but not on his race.

Is it too late to stop this nonsense, now that Queen O'Connor has decided for the whole nation?

[Ron C]

ugh said: "Increased secrecy and reliance on "immeasurables" will erode public confidence in the process. More angry white people and the boil of American race relations continues to fester."

Why do you think this. It seems to me that the points system was much more easily recognizable as an unfair outcome for white applicants than something like what O'Connor suggests. It will cost universities more in recruiting and application review, and broader diversity goals (taking into account age, physical disability, religion, and the like). They can achieve diversity if they do it the right way: without "discrimination for its own sake" in Justice Powell's words. That is the only way to address the anger you describe.

[Brian Carnell]

So it's okay to take race into account -- just do it subjectively!

[dude]

Yes, thanks for clearing that up guys. You can take race into account, sorta, but not too much. Maybe.

[ugh]

I refuse to believe that Sandra Day O'Connor is really so wishy-washy on the issue as she appears. Rather, I have to conclude that she is simply chickenshit that the law reviews will declare that she's the next Taney and this is the next _Dred_.

So what we get, due to her ignominius fecklessness, is another horrible decision that will undermine American education and systematically ruin the lives of generations of Americans. Thanks, ho.

Increased secrecy and reliance on "immeasurables" will erode public confidence in the process. More angry white people and the boil of American race relations continues to fester.

How long before another opportunity to lance it?

It's too bad, because this problem is eminently fixable: Admissions standards for public universities should be set forth in the state legislature.

[Russ]

Does UofM's Law School get state funding like the undergrad program?

If not, then there's no reason to prohibit the school from being as discriminatory as it likes.

If it is funded by tax dollars, then I'd have to conclude that the Supreme Court Justices should be retitled "The Supreme Court Jesters", for their entertainment value.

[Anonymous]

Ugh,

"It's too bad, because this problem is eminently fixable: Admissions standards for public universities should be set forth in the state legislature."

It's way easier than that.... just privatize universities.

[Julian]

"It's way easier than that.... just privatize universities."

Well, the problem is that as a practical matter, that is not, in fact, terribly easy. So the question of what's the least-bad option within the system we've got remains live.

[Ig]

Hey here's a crazy idea...DON'T ASK WHAT RACE/GENDER/SPECIES,ETC...SOMEONE IS ON THEIR APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION!!!..OR JOB, OR CREDIT...Why is it so bloody complicated?!? If these things don't matter, then why should those making the selections even need to know? Judge all applicants on their merit. PERIOD. The idea that a student of law or anything else is somehow shortchanged academically if he/she/they are not rubbing elbows with a predefined multi-cultural student body is assanine! And to say that certain groups of people would never make it into the mix if it weren't for some assistance from the cultural elite is as biggoted a notion as could ever be had. If all applications were "blind" and selected solely on academic merit, we wouldn't have to make the further mistake of making way for incompetant graduates out here in the work world. From Universities to Community Colleges, AA only guarantees that a certain percentage of ill equipped students will be shuffled through to satisfy Gov. mandated percentages thus resulting in graduates ill prepared to ply their trade being "made way" for by companies under the same Governmental pressures. The result is a graduate/employee who can't cut it, and thinks that by virtue of their academic credentials that the reason must be bigotry of those with or for whom they work. The truth is the bigotry happened far earlier on.

[joe]

"...systematically ruin the lives of generations of Americans." OK, deep breath. In concrete terms, what we're talking about here is a few ticks up or down in the percentage of non-white students.

"Thanks ho." Charming. I hope Clarence Thomas never does anything to disappoint you.

"More angry white people and the boil of American race relations continues to fester." Yes, let's all remember that when it comes to race-related issues in this country, the most important factor to consider - the only one, really - are the feelings of white people. The anger of black people at entrenched social and economic inequality, on the other hand, can be dismissed without comment.

[cinquo]

joe: are asians considered white then?

[joe]

Well cinquo, since we're playing "smartass," Asians from the continent's southwestern region are usually considered white. Happy?

[Cas]

Tyrone said, "I can see giving a kid a break, based on her family's level of INCOME, but not on his race." Why keep race, or ethnicity, or whatever you wish to name it, a factor at all, especially in a public (read TAX-funded) university? Especially the LAW school! If there is one "class" of persons I am extremely biased AGAINST, it has to be lawyers!
If you insist on giving away my tax dollars to pay someone to attend a "state-run" university, you better make DAMN SURE that the BEST applicant, with the highest grades and therefore the best chance to actually graduate, rather than drop out, is the one that gets the slot.
If you insist the America is the Land of "EQUAL" opportunity, make sure that everyone has that same chance. If you want to discuss the level of preparation this person will receive from the public school he/she attends BEFORE entering that university as an undergraduate, well, let's have a in-depth discussion about the America's Teacher's Unions...

[Lucas Wiman]

The 14th amendment says (in part) "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The undergraduate amission system plainly denied whites the equal protection under the law. Whether or not diversity is good, that's what the constitution says.

However...

Does anyone here seriously think that success in the face of adversity shouldn't be considered as being in a student's favor? If so, then a student who comes from a poor school and a poor family who still does well deserves some brownie points. To the extent that there is still harmful racism in our society, that can also be taken into account. However, it must always be on a case-by-case basis. If it's plain that a student never suffered significant hardships and was successful, that shouldn't count in their favor. (Say a wealthy black student who went to a good private school.) If a student did suffer (possibly race-related) hardships and persevered, then this tells us something about his/her character. That should count in their favor.

The difference between this kind of plan (which the court endorsed) and the undergraduate system was that one takes the student's response to hardship into account, while the other only takes skin color into account. The former tells you something about the student, the latter just tells you about the student's skin color.

'Increased secrecy and reliance on "immeasurables" will erode public confidence in the process.'

I don't think so (well, it might erode public confidence, but it shouldn't). It seems to me that immeasurables are the most important part of an admission profile. I can't imagine trying to pick out a good mathematician or scientist based on test scores! Creativity and perseverance are what are needed, but, of course, these are hard to measure. I'd still take relatively poor measures of these (say in a subjective response to a student's essay) to objective measures of standardized-test-taking ability.

[Anonymous]

Lucas, you think that, "Creativity and perseverance are what are needed, but, of course, these are hard to measure."

No they're not.

There are many tests out there that can measure both.

[Tyrone]

Cas, please slow down. You totally missed my point. I said exactly the same thing you are saying, ?Why keep race, or ethnicity, or whatever you wish to name it, a factor at all ...?

(Notice that level of income has nothing to do with ethnicity.)

Go back and re-read what I wrote:

Are you ...
[_] Black
[_] White
[_] Red
[_] Blue
Questions such as these should be COMPLETELY ELIMINATED from ... college admissions forms.

(Did you miss that?)

[Rob Taggs]

I left the Army because of Affirmative Action. I will give you an example other than myself. A cavalry scout who was teaching map reading and compass skills to soldiers told me that he couldn't believe how many black soldiers could not pass written or oral exams on these subjects. The black soldiers still got to graduate even though they could not read a map at all. He also stated that he was able to follow these same soldiers careers to an extent. He found out that the black soldiers were being promoted to senior level NCO ranks with absolutly no skills on how to read maps, operate a compass, etc... Does this make you feel safe having a platoon sgt. calling in artillery rounds in on top of you and your comrades when the rounds were supposed to be on top of your enemy? This is the state of the military today whether choose to believe it or not. All affirmative action does in the military is breed anomosity towards black soldier who are not qualified for their jobs to lead. As a note the english language needs to be taught in the military also. Many a time radio communications could not be understood because of the black soldiers speech. You would have to ask time and time over to repeat the message. In the end a white soldier had to be pulled in to the situation to clarify the message correctly!!!!!