Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Can't Fix University Admissions Policies

Universities have a history of ignoring the law to engineer the right ethnic mix on campus.

|

The charming assumption of the plaintiffs in Fisher v. University of Texas—a case the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear—is that if five robed justices behind mahogany desks tell universities to stop discriminating by race in their admissions policies, universities will stop. (Fisher involves a white female student allegedly passed over for admission in favor of less-qualified minority candidates.) Yet regardless of what the justices say, university officials will give up their firstborns before they let go of their beloved racial preferences.

Fisher backers hope that the presence of John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the bench means that the Supremes will shut the door that their ruling in 2003's Grutter v. Bollinger flung open to racial preferences. In Grutter, the Court accepted the University of Michigan's argument that "diversity" was a compelling state interest. And consideration of race on an individualized basis was constitutionally acceptable to promote it.

After Grutter, the University of Texas went to town.

A little history: The 5th Circuit Court's 1996 Hopwood ruling had banned the University of Texas from explicitly using race in admissions, prompting then-Gov. George W. Bush to sign Texas' pioneering "10 percent solution," a race-neutral way to help state schools keep their minority numbers up. Under his solution, Texas automatically admits the top 10 percent of every school's graduating class, including inner-city schools. Even liberals admit that this strategy was better for campus diversity than the regime of straight-up preferences.

But once Grutter gave the green light to race-based admissions, UT decided that the 10 percent strategy was not yielding a "critical mass" of minority students in every major and every classroom. Hence, it tacked its old race-based standard onto the new scheme. The upshot? The university's Hispanic and African American population went up from 23.23 percent to 26.65 percent—a whopping 3.42 percentage-point bump.

Racial preference opponents are hoping that the Supreme Court will overrule the racial component of Texas admissions and—if they get lucky—the Grutter decision itself. But what if they get their wish? Will that usher in a new era of colorblind campuses?

Not a chance.

For starters, the 10 percent solution is something of a scam, one that seeks a specific racial outcome via race-neutral means. But the instructive case of Michigan's public universities offers more evidence as to what happens when race-ban activists get what they want: nada. In 2006, outraged by the Grutter ruling, Michigan voters approved Proposition 2, a ballot initiative that outlawed race in government hiring and college admissions. Undeterred, University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman defiantly declared that she "will find ways to overcome the handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for greater diversity."

She wasn't bluffing.

She enlisted the College Board, the company that administers the SAT, to develop Descriptor Plus, a geo-demographic tagging service, to filter applicants. This involves using demographic factors other than race to identify under-represented "neighborhood clusters." Here's how it works, in theory: Descriptor Plus could identify, say, two clusters of low-income students living in single-parent homes, one cluster in a predominantly black Detroit ZIP code and another in a majority-white ZIP code in upper Michigan. The University of Michigan could then decide that it wants to give the Detroit cluster greater preference than the one in upper Michigan, thus achieving a racially balanced student body without openly using race.

Such flouting of voter will would be bad enough. But UCLA law professor Richard Sander maintains that the university's claims that it had given up the explicit use of race for Descriptor Plus were "total bulls***." Sander, a self-avowed liberal who opposes preferences because he believes they harm minorities, filed a Freedom of Information request to obtain Michigan's admissions data for 2008. The university's minority numbers had barely budged, something that was hard to explain, even with Descriptor Plus. The only way this could have happened was if the university was still explicitly using race, Sander's regression analysis revealed.

This demonstrates that universities will use proxies, subterfuge and outright violation of the law in their quest for the "right" student mix. And it raises a troublesome question: Is there some way to get them to stop? There's nothing foolproof, unfortunately. Going through courts and legislatures is an exercise in futility. For example, getting the University of Michigan to give up race requirements would require more time-consuming FOIA requests to gather information, then filing lawsuits (in which the university would outspend and out-lawyer its opponents). Meanwhile, the legislature would have to engage in an intrusive examination of the university's books, inevitably inviting accusations of abrogating academic freedom.

The best option might be to open up university admissions to public scrutiny through full-disclosure laws. Just as publicly traded companies are required to disclose accurate financial information to investors, public universities should be required to declare what admission standards they use for which groups (including, incidentally, children of alumni and donors, the other big beneficiaries of preferences) along with each group's graduation rates. This would force the universities to defend any blatant double-standard in public. And smart kids who felt that the university was diluting its standards too much might choose other schools—as might minority students who feel the university is setting them up for failure.

This solution is far from ideal, of course. But realism might be a better friend in fighting this battle than starry-eyed appeals to the Supremes.

Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia is a columnist at The Daily, where this column originally appeared.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

198 responses to “The Supreme Court Can't Fix University Admissions Policies

  1. University administrations know that they are much more intelligenter than everyone else, including justices. No United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is going to force them to let go of their soft racism. I can picture Mary Sue Coleman making a defiant stand at the door of the University of Michigan while the National Guard escorts non-minority students into admissions.

    At some point employers are going to decide sheepskin ownership is a neutral factor in judging applicants.

    1. The genetic basis for inequality of intelligence has also become increasingly evident, despite the emotional abuse heaped upon such studies by fellow scientists as well as the lay public.

      ~Murray Rothbard

        1. or just chickenshit?

          1. Am I Rothbard? Address my comment or make a separate thread of your own. If you wanted the top spot you should have gotten up earlier. No hop-ons.

            1. Am I Marx Rothbard?

              Address my comment or make a separate thread of your own.

      1. This just begs SOOOOO many questions;

        Are the Intelligence tests neutral? (I severely doubt it)

        What, exactly, do they measure, and to what extent does it matter?

        Just for example.

        1. are they neutral? No, they tend to discriminate against the stupid, the uninformed, and a good percentage of those graduating the public school system after 1985. A bigger question is, why do so many colleges have remedial math and English courses? That reality speaks poorly to both the quality of students admitted and the K-12 track that led them to State U.

          1. ^^^THIS^^^

    2. NOTE TO THE WARY

      Here be White Indians.

    3. There are some fields where degrees still mean something–mostly engineering and science.

      1. The next time that you give a viewpoint, provide an explanation.

      2. Yes, STEM courses. The rest are useless shit.

        1. I didn’t really mean that everything else is useless. But science and engineering fields are (to date) less susceptible to the dilution effect of the practice of granting degrees in heretofore unrecognized fields like all the “x”-studies majors that seem to have popped up like weeds. I have respect for philosophy majors and others who devote themselves to rigorous though and the study of logic. The study of communication has much to yield in our understanding of how people and societies interact and sometimes attempt to dominate one another. I am not an anti-intellectual. It’s hard to be one if you’re a libertarian.

          1. “I didn’t really mean that everything else is useless.”
            I pretty much do.
            ” I have respect for philosophy majors and others who devote themselves to rigorous though and the study of logic.”
            Yes, could be considered a sub set of math.
            The rest pretty much stuff you should have learned in high school.
            A few generations back that was the case.

    4. I should be a university administrator.

      1. You sure as hell are stupid enough.

        1. You sure as hell are stupid enough

          And Rainbow Liberal enough!

  2. In short; RACIALIST SCIENCE is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors. ~Murray Rothbard

    “I disavow, during election year. Nevermind what I signed.” ~Newt Paul

    1. Heap big smears on opposition for exaggerated claims of distant past, distract attention from Chief Obama’s murderous present-day African adventures.

      Right? Who is with OBOMBA 2012?

      1. …bustin’ a few heads, Fibertarian style!

        “Cops [DRONES] must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment … unleash the cops [DRONES] to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?”

        ~Murray Rothbard [Nobel Bomber]

        1. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

          1. Don’t bring logic into this.

    2. Barack Obama runs the most racialist race-baiting administration since who knows when. All while he callously slaughters innocent Afghan children — then sends his wife on another million-dollar tax-funded vacation.

      Smearing the opposition candidate is fun and games. Keep the blinders on. Who is on the OBAMA 2012 reelection committee???

      1. you know it

    3. not to mention the original *channner

      1. He’s the one who came up with the label.

        It’s funny watching Marxist and Fibertarians squirm.

        Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was the dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism ~Lew

        1. …bustin’ a few heads, Fibertarian style!

          “Cops [DRONES] must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment … unleash the cops [DRONES] to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?

          ~Murray Rothbard [Nobel Bomber]

  3. in states that have passed anti-racial preferences legislation, there are still countless examples of cities, etc. doing everything possible to TRY to skirt around them.

    however, it is still better to outlaw racial preferences than not to. just because some people will try to skirt the law, and sometimes be successful at it, doesn’t mean that it’s better to leave the injustices of racial preferences in place. that’s still a much worse option

    1. It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians…

      ~Murray Rothbard

      1. …hides behind fake racist claims.

        1. Only a fibertarian fool evades reality.

          READ ROTHBARD!

          source:
          lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

      2. “It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what’s wrong with any of that?”

        Nothing like taking shit out of context…

        1. “And of course the mighty anti-Duke coalition did not choose to oppose Duke on any of these issues. Indeed, even the most leftist of his opponents grudgingly admitted that he had a point.”

  4. And it raises a troublesome question: Is there some way to get them to stop?

    Fire all public university admissions personnel and require their replacements to have no admissions or HR experience.

    It’s a sociology problem now. For two generations, admissions staff have seen achieving diversity as their mission. It’s in their blood now. Nuke them from space; it’s the only way to be sure.

    1. ….”aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population.”

      ~Murray Rothbard

      WHITE POWER! (just be libertarian about it)

      1. …”turd sandwich.”

        ~White Indian

    2. Not going to happen; the big money now-a-days is in international recruiting. They get to “achieve diversity” by admitting the sons and daughters of Chinese, Middle Eastern, and African despots and crony capitalists…and they get to charge them out-of-state tuition!

  5. I still smell nigger!

    White Power!

    Brother Clayton Bigsby
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf17W212Ps0

  6. I am guessing that Indians do not qualify for affirmative action, when the fact is that Indians come from a much poorer country than Mexico ever was.

    1. “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land … Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

      ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974

      Academic questions on “rights:”

      ? Is any white person‘s right an individual or collective right?
      ? Is the right to take a negative or positive right?

      1. Moron I was talking about Indians from India. Can you ever think for yourself ? or can you only post the same crap over and over again ?

          1. Clearly you cannot think, you can only post links and the same shit over and over again.

            1. you keep evading over and over again

              So when you shit in here, I rub your nose it it. Over. And. Over. Again.

              1. Who is evading here ? should Indians get affirmative action, yes or no ? No doubt you are going reply with something that has absolutely nothing to do with the question.

                1. …make up a little for genocide of their race and being shoved into marginal land concentration camps?

                  If not, what would be just?

                  1. What genocide ??? the Indians are the second most populous race in the world, soon to take over China in fact to be number one. Sure they were colonised by Britain, does that mean they get affirmative action in America ?

                    Keep on evading though, difficult questions like this don’t fit into your neat little black and white world.

                    1. Holocaust deniers like to point out how many Jews are alive, “NotSure,” just like you do.

                      The American Indian Holocaust was many times bigger.

                      American Holocaust
                      by David Stannard
                      Oxford University Press, 1992

                    2. “The American Indian Holocaust”

                      Doesn’t exist.

                      They just lost.

                    3. “The Jews “just lost.””

                      Don’t care, back toy you being butthurt about your side losing.

                    4. LOSER FEMALE JUST “BUTTHURT” ABOUT BEING RAPED

                      FIBERTARD TOLD ME SO

                      What happened to that non-aggression non-principle of yours?

                      Oh, right, it’s a “principle” of convenience.

                      “How convenient.” ~Church lady

                    5. It’s too often the sad result when cultures that differ by several tech levels meet.

                      References:

                      1. GURPS
                      2. Star Trek

                    6. I repeat I am talking about Indians from India, ever heard of India before ? Keep on ignoring the facts and making up strawmans though.

                    7. MY BUTTHURTS CAUSE MY SIDE LOST!

                    8. What happened to that non-aggression non-principle of yours?

                      Oh, right, it’s a “principle” of convenience.

                      “How convenient!” ~Church Lady

                    9. “LOSER FEMALE JUST “BUTTHURT” ABOUT BEING RAPED

                      FIBERTARD TOLD ME SO

                      What happened to that non-aggression non-principle of yours?

                      Oh, right, it’s a “principle” of convenience.

                      “How convenient.” ~Church lady”

                      OH MY GOD MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH CAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    10. Fibertard no care if he profits from it.

                    11. “Fibertard no care if he profits from it.”

                      I CAN’T EVEN POST COHERENTLY MY BUTT HURTS DO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    12. “Losing” makes aggression right, to a Fibertarian.

                    13. “”Losing” makes aggression right, to a Fibertarian”

                      SO MUCH PAIN! MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    14. …when aggression is profitable.

                      It’s the way of the duplicitous Fibertarian.

                    15. “It’s the way of the duplicitous Fibertarian.”

                      MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    16. MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    17. MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    18. MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    19. “Fibertarians get 0.26% vote”

                      MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    20. MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    21. MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

            2. MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

            3. MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

              1. MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

            4. MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

              1. MY BUTT HURTS SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                1. “Fibertards WHINE about PELOSI
                  Fibertards WHINE about ROMNEY
                  Fibertards WHINE about OBAMA
                  Fibertards WHINE about POLICE”

                  MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                2. “Fibertards WHINE about PELOSI
                  Fibertards WHINE about ROMNEY
                  Fibertards WHINE about OBAMA
                  Fibertards WHINE about POLICE”

                  MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                  1. MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    1. “Fibertards LOSE EVERY ELECTION”

                      MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    2. …argument with MOM.

                      MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    3. …dinner argument with smarter college professor brother in law.

                      MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    4. “Fibertards LOSE EVERY T’Giving
                      …argument with MOM.
                      Fibertards LOSE EVERY Xmas…
                      …dinner argument with smarter college professor brother in law.”

                      MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

            5. Only hard-core Republicans make enough money to win hot chicks and elections.

              MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

              1. “Fibertard LOSE EVERY HOT CHICK
                Only hard-core Republicans make enough money to win hot chicks and elections.”

                MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                1. At least neocons don’t bullshit people about their non-aggression non-principle.

                  1. “At least neocons don’t bullshit people about their non-aggression non-principle.”

                    MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    1. “you butthurt bro?”

                      MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    2. MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    3. Ron Paul White Power!

                      MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    4. It takes about 15 seconds for a Fibertard to abandon his non-aggression non-principle and go full neo-con.

                      Give us another neo-con hit on the crack-pipe of aggression, fibertard.

                    5. Fibertarian=Might Makes Right|3.13.12 @ 10:29AM|#|show direct|ignore
                      “It takes about 15 seconds for a Fibertard to abandon his non-aggression non-principle and go full neo-con.

                      Give us another neo-con hit on the crack-pipe of aggression, fibertard.”

                      MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

                    6. go apeshit

                    7. Fibertards lose election|3.13.12 @ 10:32AM|#|show direct|ignore
                      go apeshit

                      MY BUTT REALLY REALLY HURTS SO SO MUCH BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST

        1. Ignore her, NotSure. Someone will wake up in D.C. soon and ban her again.

          (Soviet officer blah blah, thread cop whine whine)

          1. Now that’s funny, comrade zampolit.

            1. After troll blog, me go chase tatonka today.

  7. Is there some way to get them to stop?

    Ban employment discrimination on the basis of education credentials.Not “libertarian”? Sure, but it is more pro-liberty than forcibly marching all college faculty and administrators into the countryside at bayonet-point and forcing them to harvest the rice crop by hand. Although there is a certain poetic justice appeal to the latter solution.

    1. How about not giving these Universities taxpayer money ? I hope you don’t think that is equivalent to marching them to killing fields.

      1. If you don’t give them taxpayer money then you can’t put conditions on how the money is spent.
        How else do you expect to write their rules for them?

    2. Been reading Ayn Rand, SIV? Feel like restarting civilization after a good bit of blood letting?

      Pol Pot’s goal too was “restarting civilization” at “year Zero.”

      Maybe Pol Pot read Ayn Rand? She had the same murderous fantasy: blow the whole thing up and start over.

      Pol Pot wanted to:?
      (a) “restart civilization”?
      (b) by cleansing civilization of liberal influences?
      (c)and punishing and starving out people he regarded as subhumans?
      (d) at Year Zero.

      Ayn Rand wanted also to:?
      (a) restart civilization?
      (b) by cleansing civilization of liberal influences?
      (c) and punishing and starving out people she regarded as subhumans?
      (d) with a wave of the dollar brand cigarette.

      Not much difference. But what else would you expect from a philosophical movement inspired by the serial child killer, William Hickman?

      1. White Idiot’s tiny little brain just cracked.

        1. All Enemies of the City-State have mental problems, da?

  8. Laws regarding discrimination are laws regarding the thought process someone goes through when making a decision.

    Orwell would have called it thoughtcrime.

  9. It’s doubleplus ungood to ask tough questions about professed principles, so I’ll do it again. Because its even worse to evade them.

    ? Is any white person‘s right an individual or collective right?
    ? Is the right to take a negative or positive right?

    “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land … Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.” ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974

    1. Can you name a single person here who has claimed what you are trying to get at ?

      Lets make it very simple, if you are not sure whether you can take something from somebody else, ask them if they are trading voluntarily or not.

      1. When asked about the hellish nature of their doctrine, concentrate on the Love of Christ, evade all else.

        1. Like I said, nobody believes what you are trying to state in the first place, until you find somebody here who does, you are simply showing your stupidity.

          Oh and that author is not white but libertarian, I suggest you ask her that question as well.

          1. Please stop feeding it.

            1. If only there was a way to feed it arsenic

              1. Scruffy “Arsenic” Nerfherder

                Typical sentiments from an agricultural city-Statist.

                1. ok, now you’re hurting my feelings

          2. Liar. That’s why I call you a Fibertarian.

            1. Ghandi once said blacks are inferior, therefore people don’t believe anything what Ghandi said.

              Lets make it very simple for your brain of mud, if you believe absolutely everything that somebody else said then you are beyond help. You follow your hunter paradise as the word of gospel, nobody here follows the words of one person as gospel truth, thats what you do.

              1. …to Marx?

                Yes or No?

                1. Sure he said some things that are correct, everybody has in fact. So what ? that still does not make his core theories any more valid or desirable.

                  1. Marx, Mises, Rothbard, Rand, etc, are mainly full of bullshit.

                    And we’re compelled to point out that prevalence of bullshit.

                    But they did say a few correct things.

                    1. The only bullshit here is you. Mises and Rothbard are known for their support of individual economic freedom, not the obscure quotes you bring up. Just like Ghandi is known for his ideal of passive resistance, not his quotes on blacks.

                      You on the other hand detest the idea of individual freedom, I doubt you have ever read a single work of Rothbard or Mises, you simply quote the same parts you like and claim that is what they are about.

                    2. Mises and Rothbard are known for their support of aggressive agricultural city-Statism (civilization,) WHITEWASHED with the spin of individual economic freedom.

                      Fixed it for ya.

                    3. Ghandi was a racist? Who knew?

                      /snark

                  2. Give it up NotSure, for your own sanity. You’re dealing with someone who thinks appeals to authority are how smart people prove their cases. Pretty much everyone here argues from principles and facts (except me, natch) but that’s really hard. Far easier to cut ‘n’ paste a quote and then triumphantly cry “ta-dah!”

                    1. “…everyone here argues from principles and facts…”

                      LOL
                      LOLOL
                      LOLOLOL
                      LOLOLOLOL!

                    2. MOM
                      MOMOM
                      MOMOMOM
                      MOMOMOMOM!

                      I WANT MORE CHEEZY POOFS!!

    2. I’ve already answered you, multiple times.

      When encountering a nomadic hunter-gatherer population, YES – anyone who wants can plop down on any land they want, and they do not have to ask permission. Even according to the principles YOU have professed.

      If you encounter an agricultural population with discernible land claims, then no, you can’t just seize their land.

      Rand’s error with regard to the American Indian population was anthropological, not moral. She mistakenly believed the ahistorical claim that the American Indian population was a nomadic hunter-gatherer population.

      1. I made a similar point below. By the time I edited mine 15 times to get below 900 characters you had posted yours. Doh!!

      2. Plus making up bullshit that I haven’t said.

        Fibertarians gonna lie, and aggress. It’s their way, as long as they can profit from it, and whitewash it enough.

        1. How is what I posted JUST NOW not an answer?

          I’ve posted the exact same thing to you before.

          You have to give me a basis for respecting the land ownership claims of nomadic hunter-gatherers. This is something you have never done.

          Tell me why I should respect their claims, and then we can talk some more.

          Because I say I don’t have to. YOU have asserted that only evil agricultural city-statists have land ownership. I’m just agreeing. You’re right. Non-agriculturalists don’t have land ownership. That means I can walk up and occupy any land I want and do whatever I want to it.

          1. you continue evading

            Questions again, real simple:

            ? Is any white person’s right an individual or collective right?
            ? Is the right to take a negative or positive right?

            “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land … Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

            ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974

            (Whether Ayn Rand said it or not matters little; Rand was merely parroting popular American sentiments regarding the American Indian Holocaust.)

            1. My answer to you was that Rand was in error.

              She also thought that tap dancing was a high art form and that ginger men were really good looking.

              She could occasionally fuck up.

              And I went beyond that and gave you an actual answer to the underlying question, namely, “Can anyone who finds themselves among hunter-gatherers claim whatever land they want?”

              The answer to that is “Yes.”

              It’s an individual right.

              And it’s a negative right. No one is required to take any positive action to allow me to occupy it.

              There you go.

              Questions answered.

              Now you never have to ask again.

              1. …then her whole philosophy is in error.

                1. Not at all.

                  As I addressed above, she made an error of historical fact. She applied a colloquial understanding of an issue from American history. She wasn’t a native American, you know. She didn’t go to public school sixth grade and make shoebox dioramas of the different types of American Indian.

                  It may as well be a spelling error.

                  If you could somehow prove that she was wrong to think that any man who finds himself among hunter-gatherers can claim whatever land they want, that would expose a fundamental error. All you’ve proven is that Rand didn’t know all the anthropological facts she should have acquired before making this particular evaluation of the relative justice of settler and Indian land claims.

                  1. She was correct about historical fact and agricultural city-Statist (civilization) attitudes towards Non-
                    State people. The land was taken by force by capitalist/libertarian city-Statism.

                    Her statement destroys her whole philosophy, because she didn’t check her premises.

                    Reality shows that agricultural city-Statism (civilization) is aggressive and occupational, which goes against any “non-aggression principle.”

                    1. No, it doesn’t.

                      There is nothing in her philosophy that contradicts the idea that it is possible to establish a moral claim to property by labor.

                      In fact, Rand is often accused by other libertarians of having “mystical” ideas about property, because she believed that the moral basis for a property claim was the relationship between the man and the object. So she firmly supported intellectual property, while other libertarians do not.

                      Rand would have told you that you can morally employ violence against those who violate your intellectual property, too.

                      These aren’t “secret flaws” you’re discovering. They’re features, not bugs.

                2. So if one liberal is in error, I can say every liberal is wrong about everything, right?

                  1. You’d be closer to right than wrong if you did.

    3. Feeding the troll.

      Rand at West Point was one line at a speech. You have to look at her principles.

      The thing on the “Indians” was based on beliefs that were not always correct. One, that the Indians were nomadic, did not respect rights of other tribes, and had not “homesteaded” the land. That it is hard to homestead huge areas when you migrate semi-randomly. Indians who improved the land, were not nomadic, this would not apply. Those who “brought civilization”, meaning civil/property rights, had a right to “take over” land that was not worked. This is a charitable interpretation.

      I like parts of Rand, but she tried to be consistent. She would have agreed it was wrong to take land from settled tribes, wrong to break treaties and if settlers did not bring civil rights with civilization then they had no right to “take over” the land.

      1. Agricultural city-Statism (civilization) is aggressive and occupational.

        Ayn Rand whitewashed aggression. One person’s “principles” is another person’s spin factory.

        But every now and then, the masquerade comes down, and the plain truth is spoken. It might be only one line, but it is revealing.

        1. It’s occupational, that’s absolutely true.

          If I land on a continent occupied by human bison wandering from place to place grazing, what’s your basis for claiming I can’t graze there as well?

          Enlighten me.

          And if I can get by that initial conceptual gate – if I can have an equal right of occupation to the grazers that are moving about the land the moment I arrive – then I’m in.

          You’ve never given me any basis for thinking otherwise.

          Because to DO that – to have a basis for telling me I can’t move in – you’d have to bring back “owning” and “deserving”, and I know you don’t want to do that.

          1. Good for you, you sound just like any typical Republican neo-con now.

            1. I’m not giving it up at all.

              Let’s say it’s the Paleolithic and everyone grazes.

              I invent agriculture.

              While everyone else is off grazing, I till some earth, plant some seeds, pull weeds, water seedlings, etc.

              The crops grow, and the other grazers come back and say, “Hey, thanks for doing all this, Fluffy. We did absolutely nothing, but we’re taking all this food now. Thanks a lot!”

              I would say, “Nope. You’re not taking it.”

              And if they tried to take it anyway, I would say:

              BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG (or the Paleolithic equivalent in sound effects).

              Then I would say, “Man, it sucks that now I have to bury all these dead fuckers.”

              Do I think this violates the non-aggression principle? No.

              If you think that makes the non-aggression principle misnamed, we can talk about that if you like.

              But I am morally comfortable with the idea that the labor I did made those crops “mine”.

              1. and anthropology, and holds a Fundamentalist view of the past.

                It’s a given, Fluffy. Agricultural city-STatism (civilization) has been the aggressor for 10,000 years.

                Your non-aggression non-principle is so much bullshit.

                1. I am absolutely morally comfortable with the idea that I know what is mine.

                  I am absolutely morally comfortable with the idea that I am entitled to kill you if you try to take what is mine.

                  I’ve never hidden these things or tried to pretend otherwise. I’m not entirely sure why you think it’s this big argument point for you if you “uncover” this.

                  “Wah! You aggressor!”

                  Putting that label on the act of me defending what is mine doesn’t dissuade me from that defense in the least, chubbs.

  10. Yet regardless of what the justices say, university officials will give up their firstborns before they let go of their beloved racial preferences.

    RACIST!

    1. You did it wrong. You’re supposed to link to this video.

      1. COOKIE!

    1. “…there is a certain poetic justice appeal…” ~SIV

      http://yearzero.nin.com/yearzero_lo.html

  11. White Indian come to enlighten us today. He in full glory.

    LOL. Go White Indian. It is like chimps in suits. Gets funnier every time.

      1. White Indian use hip cool terms like Bro. He know how to talk to white man. White man feel sorry for him because he is fat and a little slower than other men.

        1. HEY YA HI YA WHITE INDIAN SAY WAR NOT DETERMINE WHO IS RIGHT. WAR DETERMINE WHO IS LEFT.

          1. Let’s talk about our perceived opponent’s body.

            It’s the way of the Fibertarian.

        2. Let’s talk about our perceived opponent’s body.

          It’s the way of the Fibertarian.

    1. John, what do you think it is that gets rather in these moods?
      Is it when she gets laid? (*guffaw*).
      Is it when she gets a new round of meds?
      Is it when Zebra Cakes are on 2-for-1 special?

      1. She just likes to entertain us I guess. Some say it really is Godesky. And that no way could rather, unless she has multiple personalities could pull off so much humor. I still think it is rather. But others disagree.

        1. Let’s talk about our perceived opponent’s body.

          It’s the way of the Fibertarian.

        2. White Indian say multiple personalities make foraging that much more efficient!

          1. Fibertarians really have no principles.

            1. White Indian crying now. Don’t worry, it just makes him tougher.

              1. White Indian say Brother Iron Eyes Cody has taken all the tears.

              2. Let’s make up delusional lies about our intellectual opponent “crying.”

                It’s the way of the Fibertarian.

      2. Let’s talk about our perceived opponent’s body.

        It’s the way of the Fibertarian.

        1. White Indian sensitive about weight and inability to be with squaw. But the gamboling life is hard. White Indian must be harder.

          1. Let’s talk about our perceived opponent’s body.

            It’s the way of the Fibertarian.

  12. White Indian make us all laugh. Wish he would stop embarrassing himself in front of white man though.

    1. Let’s talk about our perceived opponent’s body.

      It’s the way of the Fibertarian.

      1. Must be thin to gambol. Can’t get Cheesecake Factory in the field.

        1. Let’s talk about our perceived opponent’s body.

          It’s the way of the Fibertarian.

          1. White Indian cry if you call him fat. He get angry and sad. But necessary part of him learning the gamboling life.

            1. Fibertarians have no principles.

        2. HEY YA HI YA WHITE INDIAN SAY SQUAW MAKE CHEESECAKE, BUT NO COMPARE TO KEY LIME SLICE AT WHITE INDIAN’S FAVORITE MALL RESTAURANT.

          1. Let’s talk about our perceived opponent’s body.

            It’s the way of the Fibertarian.

            1. …obsession with Jason Godesky, High Priest of the Primitards!

    1. Let’s rhapsodize about delusions.

      It’s the way of the Fibertarian.

  13. …as long as I profit from it, and can’t be directly linked to it.

  14. And let them ignore law to do it. Let them have their disneylands of diversity. I never understood this idea that without the law forcing them to do so, our colleges would start solely accepting white males, as if universities aren’t already way more liberal than the rest of the country.

  15. The solution is to sue them and get civil damages out of the deal. If fifty students a year sued over their status of non-admission due to race and received a settlement in the $100,000 range, or more, based off of their lost lifetime earnings due to non-admission to college the behavior would stop quickly.

    1. Gotta love lawsuit-happy librulz Fibertarians.

    2. how much of your life are you willing to waste in order to sue an arm of the state? Your presumption of settlements rests on universities’ admission of wrongdoing, which they will not do.

      They see diversity as sacrosanct, an end unto itself. A better lawsuit, or argument, would be from minorities who want an end to the soft bigotry perpetrated by their wanna-be masters but the racial warlords are not going to do that.

      1. Got a problem with evolution, warmonger?

        Thesis #1: Diversity is the primary good.
        Thesis #2: Evolution is the result of diversity.
        The Thirty Theses
        by Jason Godesky
        http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/index.html

        1. Gee, make up thirty statements, and there’s at least one schmuck dumb enough to bleeve them.

          1. …and get called a philosopher by acolytes.

            1. I’m all butt sore because acolytes hate me.

          2. to bleeve

            [Max puts the bellows to Westley’s mouth, and blows
            air in.]

            Hey! Hello in there! Hey! What’s so important? What
            you got here that’s worth living for?

            Westley: T-R-U-E L-O-V-E.

            Inigo: “True Love”, you heard him? You could not ask for a
            more noble cause than that.

            Miracle Max: Yeah, True Love is the greatest thing in the world,
            except for a nice MLT—mutton, lettuce and tomato
            sandwich, when the mutton is nice and lean, and the
            tomato is ripe. < makes puckering sound > They’re so
            perky. I love that. But that’s not what he said—he
            distinctly said “To blave” and as we all know, to
            blave means to bluff, heh? So you were probably
            playing cards, and he cheated–

        2. …about evolution. And Godesky’s first thesis is axiomatic. Primitard, show us some more of your pearls of wisdom!

    3. That’s what this Supreme Court case is. A lawsuit. I’m sure there have been many others dismissed early on because of the earlier Supreme Court ruling that racial preferences are legal. It takes the right case + right argument + right judge to move things up the ladder.

  16. What about changing the make-up of the Board of Trustees? You would htink a “good” Board would take seriously the application of the law to admission standards,a nd compel the President of UM to do right, or be gone!

  17. Dude seems to know what he is talking about.

    http://www.Getting-Privacy.tk

    1. Dude looks like a lady.

  18. “The best option might be to open up university admissions to public scrutiny through full-disclosure laws. Just as publicly traded companies are required to disclose accurate financial information to investors, public universities should be required to declare what admission standards they use for which groups (including, incidentally, children of alumni and donors, the other big beneficiaries of preferences) along with each group’s graduation rates.”
    Who will make them do this….politicians? This is no solution at all. It is just one more example of what happens when stupid people vote.

  19. The author is right. Years ago in the late 60s, one Ivy League admissions officer admitted off-the-record that, yes, they did indeed have quotas for the number of Jews admitted: “Look, if we only took those who scored in the top 10% on the New York Board of Regents and SAT Exams we’d ALL have entering classes that were 90% Jewish.” LOL. And this is NOT going to change. The same could be said of entering classes at Berkeley if Asians were admitted in numbers reflecting their test scores. Universities do not want to turn off their WASP dominated alumni base and risk future donations, simple as that. Follow the money..

  20. *Why* do white libertarians who oppose racial quotas play into the racist engineer’s hands? To my knowledge I am at least 75% caucasian (could be 100%- not sure)but that will not stop me from instructing my children to bubble in “black” on all applications. Just what are the companies or universities going to do about it, eh? Demand dna? Not unless they demand it of everyone they won’t (LAW$UIT!.) And they certainly will not start demanding it of everyone (that would mean establishing racial purity standards!) Even if they did somehow get dna, my children will testify truthfully that their mother told them they were part black and hispanic. That’s my right, and under law, they will be operating under “good faith.” Anyone ever seen Ben Jealous of the NAACP? If he’s black, I’m black.

    I’m not playing their rigged game anymore.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.