America's Preferences

New at Reason: Are you outraged that today's SCOTUS ruling didn't do enough to protect affirmative action? Are you outraged that it didn't eliminate affirmative action completely? Maybe you're just out of touch with the American people. Jeff Taylor explains.

Comments

[joe]

And study after study shows exactly the opposite.

"Above their level." Charming.

[fyodor]

joe,

Maybe "above their level" is a sloppy and poor choice of words, but before you throw the race card over it, please consider that Thomas Sowell says essentially the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Why didn't you just aks Horton for his notes?

[Anonymous]

Black people love us!

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

[Anonymous]

joe -study after study doesn't show the opposite and why is 'above their level' a poor choice of words? A student who would do just fine at UMass for example might experience difficulty at MIT or Harvard. Why? Because those programs are above his/her level. It's really not very complicated.

[joe]

"Why didn't you just aks Horton for his notes?"
D'oh!

"http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/"
Greatest site ever!

"why is 'above their level' a poor choice of words?"
You really don't know, do you? I understand the point you were trying to make, thanks. You phrased it poorly. Just...trust me.

[Anonymous]

No mister pc joe, tell me what is wrong with saying an individual his above or below a certain level of aptitude - I sure as hell couldn't study biochemistry at MIT 'cause it was way the fuck above my level.

[Anonymous]

hey Joe!

okay, now we know your free-time activities:

"OK, I also sell crack to children, kick puppies, and knife rape retarded nuns"

*grin* this forces two obvious questions: are you in favor of acid rain and what do you feel about the whales?

🙂

cheers!
drf

[joe]

thoreau,

I realize the fire-in-a-crowded-theater analogy is imperfect, but you seemed to be making the argument that constitutional principles are inviolate regardless of circumstances, and I reached for what was nearest at hand.

"No, rights are inalienable, except when they conflict with others' rights (or perhaps when they operate in a context that deligitimizes them, such as patent irresponsibility)." Exactly whose rights were being violated by the 18 year old Italian conscript who got shot through the heart (was deprived of life without due process) during the invasion of Sicily? You could make a tortured demonstration of how the existence of fascism imposed on people's rights, etc, etc, but doing so would undermine your individual rights argument, since that unfortunate individual being deprived of his rights wasn't depriving anyone of anything.

The idea that the only compelling government interest is in the preservation of individual's rights is interesting, but you've got 200+ years of constitutional history stacked against you. And yes, I have read the Dec. of Ind., and its "...governments are created..." language is no more legally binding than it "...endowed by their Creator..." language.

And if the admission of a black student over a white one with higher SATs is a violation of equal protection, than why isn't the admission of athletes with lower test scores? I just don't see an inalienable right to college admission.

[david f]

sorry= that last one was me...
drf

[joe]

drf,

Let's just say, when I say "Fuck the whales!" it's not an expression of hostility.

The fact that Anon doesn't understand why it's bad form to talk about black people getting above their level is the best argument for promoting interracial conversation I've yet seen. I understand the meaning you were trying to convey. Your words conveyed an additional meaning as well. Context matters in language.

PS - Black People Love Us was me before college. Had I not interacted with black peers and professors, it would have been me after college as well.

[Anonymous]

accepting b-ball players with low test scores and black students with low test scores are both harmful lies. Lies because you're telling them that they have an academic level that they don't. And generally, the truth comes out when they try to go onto graduate school or enter the job market.
Hey, but if the lie makes people like Joe feel better about themselves....

[Anonymous]

Joe- you are still like the geeks at that site if you are so afraid to use certain expressions concerning black people. Personally, I have no problem saying that some of the mixed race members of my family perform above or below their level - meaning their aptitude. But I guess I should have gone off to college like you so I would know how to talk with and about my family you smug prick.

[md]

Joe wrote:
"And if the admission of a black student over a white one with higher SATs is a violation of equal protection, than why isn't the admission of athletes with lower test scores? I just don't see an inalienable right to college admission."

Red herring argument. The 14th Amendment deals explicitly with race, not athletic prowess. We fought a civil war over race, not legacy status.

Second, I have read the studies that show that those students admitted to schools with lower test scores and grades do tend to congregate at the bottom of the class, if not dropping out altogether. That's problematic to me, and to many. What REALLY troubles me, though, is that the compelling state interest advanced here by Joe is that white kids need to learn about minorities. God that's messed up.

And I'm not picking on you Joe. You're the only one here representing an awfully popular point of view. I'm using you as a shorthand for the five Supreme Court justices that agreed with you.

[joe]

Anon,

What is it about "context matters in language" that is so hard for you to grasp?

Don't bother to reply - I'm done with you.

[joe]

md,

If I was afraid of getting ganged up on, I wouldn't post a libertarian blog, now would I?

[md]

No, you wouldn't. But I still don't like to be thought rude. Glad you're game.

[Anonymous]

poor little preacher joe sits in his white house in his white town dreaming he's the champion of the black people. he studied all about them in books and would know just what to say and how to say it and what not to say if he ever actually met one. to this day he still can talk on and on about that one black professor he had many years ago and how it changed his life. oh, joe won't you shine your light on the poor ignorant fools living in the real world.

[Anonymous]

deep down joe will always be the same racist he was before his life changing experience of meeting an intelligent black person. he still thinks black people are inferior and get into school on their own records.

[Anonymous]

eep down joe will always be the same racist he was before his life changing experience of meeting an intelligent black person. he still thinks black people are inferior and can't get into school on their own records.

(ooohhh, he said "inferior")

[fyodor]

anon @ 1:52 PM,

When your words are easily left open to an alternative interpretation, one that may seem deragatory in nature, then I think it is fair to call it a poor choice of words. That said, I know what you meant, and I believe the remainder of my post on the matter indicated such.

joe,

First of all, I AIN'T THOREAU! 🙂

Next, if you're agreeing that the yelling fire in the theater analogy isn't a good one, thank you for saying I'm right! 🙂

Your replacement analogy about fascism and conscripts was hard for me to follow. Are you raising the issue that rights are not respected during war? Well sure, but where you're going with that I have no idea.

I didn't say that preservation of rights is the only compelling state interest, but I do think that's the basic underlying justification of government. I think things like national security or preserving public order might fall into that category. Still, I'm perfectly willing to form my own opinion even if it contradicts two THOUSAND years of people disagreeing with me. Wouldn't you, or do you bow to tradition? 🙂 Plus, if you think that history is on your side on the "compelling state interest" question, please inform me what precedent there IS to include diversity as such?

Lastly, about your point about athletes being treated differently, well, how is being treated differently for athletic achievement any different from being treated differently for academic achievement? After all, one is not born an athlete, one achieves it (even if some have inherent advantages or disadvantages for BOTH athletics and academics).

That said, the fact that no one is automatically entitled to college enrollment DOES touch upon what I do find questionable about applying the equal protection clause to college admissions. I.e., there's inherently unequal treatment. That's why I said I was undecided on the issue (see my first post on this thread). But raising that issue is different from saying it's a balancing of values!The valid question is still whether the equal protection clause applies!

[Anonymous]

jesus fucking christ, when did reason become home to such pc faggot crackers? If I can't speak freely 'bout my spic wife, nigger half brother and drunken paddy grandpa here, then where can I?

[joe]

Actually, coward, that's a pretty good description of me before I went to college. You think I'm insufferable now - would it have been better if I hadn't had any black classmates as an undergrad, either? Anyway, my loathesomeness has been described and stipulated already - do you have any ideas beyond asserting the racism of those who disagree with your politics?

BTW, I live in the most racially diverse census tract of one of the most racially diverse cities in my state. Sorry to burst your comfortable bubble. The enemy you're facing is a bit different from the enemy you trained for.

[david f]

hey Joe,

back in the PC early 90s at school, there was a tendency to talk about "them and us" in terms of race. socioeconomics were never involved, although many seem to feel that there's a reasonable proxy for race (race correlating with socioeconomic standing).

in areas where there's a huge, well-educated, diverse (races, creeds, colors, national origins, sexual orientations, sports fans, you name it), the issue of affirmative action seems to be less important than in poor, perhaps rural areas. parts of the DC area -- NW, parts of PG county, wisconsin ave, etc. spring to mind... (not saying places like anacostia are easy, care-free places, but this doesn't apply to there) -- are "racial balancing" measures appropriate in such well-off areas? similarily, the poor white from south eastern ohio wouldn't be afforded the same opportunities, and all of a sudden is out of consideration?

i don't mean to oversimplify, but we have the issue of race, how it's regarded, but we also have socioeconomic components here, too. would racial preferences have a negative impact on this poor white person? and where, then, would the boundary for "fairness" be drawn?

and, it's pretty cool, by the way, how you're discussing (with name, etc) with the group here. and not to worry about the trolls. when they (there's probably one or two of them) get sent off to CIT at camp northstar to learn "the kids are brats, the food is hideous", they'll quiet down.

and, you have illuminated, finally, the pun behind the movie "free willy"... ha ha!

cheers,
drf

[Anonymous]

Joe-
1) you started the stupid moral superiority, one upmanship game by freaking out over an expression used
2) i'm glad you met a black person in college and it transformed you somehow. however, are saying that without AA you wouln't be able to meet black people in college nowadays? that I find insulting.

[joe]

drf,

Racial AA in no way precludes socioeconomic AA. A poor kid from SE Ohio who gets 1300 on his SATs will leave tire tracks on a rich kid from Long Island who got 1400 as he rolls ahead of him towards admission.

My God - did the coward troll actually raise a legitimate point? "are saying that without AA you wouln't be able to meet black people in college nowadays?" The inferior quality of many inner city schools, etc etc etc reduces black achievement on the "objective" criteria used to rate college applicants, significantly reducing the number who would be admitted under a non-AA policy. I think the concept of critical mass is relevant here; a school with .5% minority share of its student body is less able to provide opportunities for interracial interaction. What's more, the quality of that interaction is likely to be lower, because of the normal peer pressure to fit in with the larger group. At a school with a considerable minority share, there will not only be more opportunities for black/white interactions, but there will be enough of a black peer group that the peer pressure effect will be less likely to make black students try to "pass."

Yeah, it's not a perfect solution. It's not a perfect world. It's just better when people have an opportunity to become aware of their prejudices or inexperience, and overcome them.

[fyodor]

And so to continue, either AA is a violation of the equal protection clause or it ain't. If it is, then publicly funded colleges are required to be color-blind in their admissions, whatever other factors they may consider. If it is not, then colleges should be legally free to discriminate -- in ANY manner or direction! One thing to ask yourself is whether you would consider it valid to resort to the Constitution if whites were consciously being given preference over equally qualified blacks! Of course, it's hard to imagine such a thing nowadays (at a publicly funded institution, anyway!), ain't it.....

[Tommy_Grand]

The main reason the O'Connor opinion is stupid: the Michigan Law School clearly used a quota system & racial quotas are illegal - even when used to achieve diversity.

I happen to believe that racial diversity is valuable in the education context - but I recognize that this proposition is by no means settled. Even if I'm right that diversity is good; it may not be important enough to justify racial discrimination in college admissions. On the other hand, many very smart people think racial quotas should be legal and that there are legitimate reasons to use quotas. Alternatively, there may be methods of creating diversity which don't require us to infringe any student's 14th Amendment rights. Maybe there aren't. All of these opinions are appropriate topics for informed debate. But if you believe Michigan's horseshit lie that engineering its law school admissions to produce a 14% "critical mass" of black + Hispanic + Native American students isn't a quota system, you are a damn fool.

[Anonymous]

"we expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary."

- i'm no lawyer, but how can something be constitutional now and unconstitutional in 25 years.

all hail our new unelected legistlators, the left is surely proud about this wonderful development in "democracy."

[Anonymous]

1) no matter how you slice it, AA signifies fudging numbers & lying to young people, setting them up for failure and frustration. The solution is to attack the root causes, ie the poor performance of inner city schools, which is complicated since many problems there stem from the home environment as seen by the number of students who still do succeed and go on to college without AA help.
2) Due to the strong influence of identity-group fraternities, sororities, etc. interracial interaction is often less likely at universities with larger percentages of minorities. You?re much more likely to establish a true relationship with someone who is not obsessed with being part of a certain group.
3) That comment about "passing" is just whack. Should they interview black students and only give them AA points if they use inner city slang? Should a white kid from Dorchester who?s keeping it real get AA points? Christ.

[fake shrink]

Joe-

I read hit and run on a fairly regular basis. I have followed your comments and beliefs for several months now. I am also a psychoanalyst by training and profession. I would make the following recommendation to you. Quit feeling guilty about your privileged past. Its not your fault that you were born into your position, or that others didn't have the opportunity that you enjoy. Consequently you don't need to feel responsible for changing the world.

[Anonymous]

joe is no longer here. he is out walking the streets in search of the authentic black person. if anyone sees joe sixpack, please send him to help joe in his search.

[joe]

fyodor asks in an earlier thread, "joe, Okay, let's hear your case for AA rather than just complaining that you've been misrepesented!"

OK. I grew up in an overwhelmingly white suburb, and had 0 black teachers from k-12. Then I went to college (in DC no less - no culture shock there!). For the first semester of American History, I was fortunate enough to have Dr. James Horton, one of the most brilliant scholars of American History ever to come down the pike. You may have seen him on the History Channel. He is African American. One day in lecture, he was holding forth about something, and used the word "provide." Except he has a bit of an accent sometimes, and pronounced it "puh-vide." OK, no biggie, lots of people have accents. But unlike someone with a Boston accent, or a southern accent, or a California accent, I found myself thinking, "What the hell? Why can't this guy talk right? He sounds like an idiot!" A few moments later I realized that I had missed about 30 seconds of his lecture because I was busy running his intelligence down in my head - BECAUSE HE HAD AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN-TYPE ACCENT.

There I was, with the incredible good fortune of being able to listen to this genius speak about the subject he knows best, and because of my own unfamiliarity and, maybe, prejudice towards black people, I had deprived myself of 30 seconds - think of how much information a genius packs into 30 seconds of a lecture - of his wisdom.

I drew two conclusions from this. First, the reason I had missed what he said was the utter lack of racial diversity in my hometown schools. If I had been used to listening to different people's accents, and if I had some experience to counter big media's indocrination into the idea that people with "black" accents (blaccents?) were stupid and uneducated, then I wouldn't have missed out. Second, because of having had this experience, and having interacted with black people in substantial numbers for the first time in my life while in college, I no longer do that when I talk to African Americans. Maybe I could have had a white teacher tell me that people with black accents aren't stupid, but it probably wouldn't have sunk in without experiencing it personally.

If you come out of school, and you aren't experienced with or comfortable with having people of different races, cultures, religions and nationalities as your peers and superiors, you are not prepared to get by in our society and in the job market. You are not an educated person, and your school has, in one area, failed in its mission. That's why I support Affirmative Action.

[Anonymous]

So we need AA because Joe is a fucking moron who can't figure shit out by himself?

[joe]

Way to miss the point, Cinquo! My lack of experience with racial diversity caused me to fail to effectively judge Dr. Horton as an individual, and my having interacted with black people in college helped me to overcome that problem.

This is the difference between people who support racial neutral laws, and those who support racial equality and integration in society.

[Anonymous]

we're going to have to have some massive schools to accomodate Joe: bascially he's saying that each school has to have a student representative of some group that someone is ignorant of: 1 lisping Albino, 1 limping WASpified Asian, 1 stuttering Wigger, 1 tattooed Maoist Ethiopian Orthodox Jew...............

[joe]

So far we've got ad homenim, reductio ad absurdum, and straw man. Anybody up for a little appeal to authority? How 'bout some if this than not that?

So far, the argument against racial preferences is that I'm a racist moron. OK, I also sell crack to children, kick puppies, and knife rape retarded nuns.

Now that that's out in the open, why exactly is it bad to make sure people like me (middle class white Americans who didn't have much interaction with different races and cultures growing up) have an opportunity to overcome that deficit?

[md]

Another problem: why is higher education the environment for folks like Joe to figure this stuff out? I believe Scalia made this point in his Grutter opinion. Why not kindergarten? Fifth grade? Summer camp? Youth group? High school? In one's first job? Is three years of law school the only time in one's life that this "lesson" is to be learned? It just doesn't make any damned logical sense.

[md]

And it CERTAINLY doesn't rise to the level of a "compelling state interest," usually reserved for issues of national security, etc.

[joe]

I would have preferred to have gained this experience in kindergarten, too. But I didn't. Most middle class and wealthy white Americans don't. That's too bad and should be fixed.

But we have an imperfect system where lots of people are going into college without that experience. Do you prefer to send them out into the real world without having that deficit addressed?

As for compelling gov't interest...I think the benefits of having a society in which people of different races interact comfortably, racial lines are commonly crossed, and the networks of power do not foster the elevation of one race over another, to pretty damn compelling. I guess it's a question of values, and I suspect that the weak-assed arguments by Anonymous Coward are an attempt to avoid showing his hand.

[joe]

"change must grown organically, if people really want change they will send their kids to culture camps, teach about other cultures, send their kids to culturally diverse schools, etc."

I didn't realize I needed to change. Intellectually, I was very devoted to racial equality, integration, and multiculturalism. And still, I found myself thinking those things about Dr. Horton.

And are you really taking the position that favoring integration over segregation, equality over castes, and cultural diversity over conformity, is merely a matter of opinion, about which there is no right or wrong answer?

[joe]

Cinquo,

I always wanted to be the head of a mob!

I am not classifying Dr. Horton when I call him African American or black, just describing. Like when I call you a rude asshole, I'm not saying that you are in a category of rude assholes, just commenting on traits that describe you.

[fyodor]

Unlike the rest of y'all, I think Joe may have raised a valid issue. Of course, note the "may have." In other words, I think this is an issue of educators to decide. There will always be theories back and forth and I don't claim to know which one should win out.

The question for the Court, however, was whether the means to effect this goal violated the good ol' Constitution. And that's the question that they entirely ducked, as Mr. Taylor aptly points out.
The only valid question to my mind for the Court was whether creating this more "diverse" campus in this way violated the equal protection clause because whites and blacks (and maybe others, I don't know enough about it) ARE treated differently at an establishment receiving public funds. (And maybe the secondary question is if so, then is it the proverbial "compelling state interest.")

I'm not sure about that primary question (though I think an affirmative on the secondary question mocks the entire idea of a "compelling state interest"), I can see it both ways, and maybe the court shouldn't interfere if it's not clear cut? But it's too bad that they didn't decide based on that issue (O'conner's warning that AA shouldn't last another 25 years is pathetic), though again, as Mr. Taylor points out, it's typical.

BTW, Joe doesn't address the issue either. Joe, do rights not matter to you if you think there's some benefit to a system that might trample on them? After all, someone somewhere might go out and kill someone because of something they read that pissed them off, does that mean we should censure offensive speech? Principles and rights don't mean much if they can be discarded based on missing 30 seconds of a professor's speech!

But anyway, thanks for taking up my challenge!

[Anonymous]

Having grown up in the Northeast US, I was shocked by my professors' accents when I went to college in the South. I mean, I just assumed people with southern accents were ignorant redneck hillbillies like the cops in James Bond. From that moment on, I decided that all colleges in the Northeast should be required accept any student with a twang, no matter what their grades or test scores.

[joe]

"Joe, do rights not matter to you if you think there's some benefit to a system that might trample on them?"

In other words, is it appropriate to violate a constitutional right if there is a benefit in doing so? I am all for violating the free speech rights of a guy who wants to yell fire in a crowded theater, so as to gain the benefit of not having people trampled to death. We should take Constitutional rights very seriously, but recognize that there are times that justify their violation.

The real question is, when do we do so? The answer is, when there is a compelling state interest in achieving the benefit. It's a matter of weighting things. In this case, I do not believe that the right of an applicant to be accepted to a school because his SATs were 20 points higher is anywhere close to being as significant as the benefits of having a diverse student body. Others consider the benefits of racial diversity to be less important. Question of values.

BTW, Anonymous Coward, do you really think people are being admitted to UM "no matter what their grades or test scores?" Visions of admissions staffers driving around Detroit's bad neighborhoods with boxes full of acceptance letters in the back seat, while little Johnny Whitebread's waitress single mom tells him there are lots of people with 4.0 averages at Pontiac Community College.

The question is how to whittle down 2.5x number of qualified applicants to x number of available spots.

[Anonymous]

Not true Joe - study after study shows that black Americans are often accepted to schools above their level, leading to frustration and failure. A kid with the grades and test scores corresponding to a community college gets accepted to the university and ends up flunking out & never returning to school. Now that is tragic and is why schools should only judge by ability.

[fyodor]

joe,

Please notice that the instances in which speech is not free involve patently irresponsible speech that also violates others' rights (by causing them undeserved harm). To make the fire in a crowded theater analogy meaningful, you would need to show that being accepted into college with higher test scores is somehow patently irresponsible and violates others' rights. Looked at that way, your simple balancing act of values seems a little silly! No, rights are inalienable, except when they conflict with others' rights (or perhaps when they operate in a context that deligitimizes them, such as patent irresponsibility). Plus, when you speak dismissively of someone's right to be accepted into college with higher test scores, please remember that we're talking about the right to equal protection under the law, the same right that abolished slavery.

[joe]

I think the superiority of racial integration vis-a-vis (freedom-yo-freedom?) de facto segregation are self evident - for black people, white people, and society as a whole.

[joe]

"And so to continue, either AA is a violation of the equal protection clause or it ain't. If it is, then publicly funded colleges are required to be color-blind in their admissions, whatever other factors they may consider. If it is not, then colleges should be legally free to discriminate -- in ANY manner or direction!"

So by that logic, either government censorship is a violation of the First Amendment, or it ain't. If it is, then people are allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater. If it is not, then the government can censor any speech it wants to. I think you're ignoring the facts of the case.

"i'm no lawyer, but how can something be constitutional now and unconstitutional in 25 years."

This is the problem with Legalism - it ignores the real world context in which decisions are made. What O'Connor is saying is that AA in a society in which there is widespread racial inequality is constitutional, but that in a society with real equality of opportunity, it is unconstitutional. She, and I, hope that there will be no justification for Affirmative Action in a generation.

[joe]

Actually, fake shrink, if you read the arguments I made (instead of the more easily refuted ones you would like me to make), you'd notice that I argued for Affirmative Action from a position of self interest. You Randoids are supposed to eat this shit up!

Anyway, if you think guilt is the only reason to want to do good for people and improve a situation, I'm glad I don't have you as a neighbor.

[Anonymous]

Joe - my problem is that you do act purely from self-interest. basically, you support AA because it makes you feel good about yourself, but you offer no proof that it actually does anything to improve the general condition of black Americans.

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough

[Anonymous]

dough