Affirmative Action

How Race-Based Admissions Fuel Political Correctness on Campus

Fifty years of affirmative action has fomented racial inequality at colleges.

|

Sad
Dreamstime

In 1969, Justice Macklin Fleming of the California Court of Appeal wrote a letter to the dean of Yale University's law school objecting to the institution's brand new affirmative action plan. Yale law intended to implement a quota system: 10 percent of the incoming class would be black, regardless of qualification.

Fleming was passionately opposed to race-based admissions, for one major reason: he thought that admitting students on the basis of skin color—rather than merit—would "serve to perpetuate the very ideas and prejudices it is designed to combat," in his words. If Yale routinely admitted under-qualified candidates because they were black, the result would be that black people at Yale would under-perform in class relative to other students. This could have the unintended effect of causing students to believe that black people were academically inferior.

"If in a given class the great majority of the black students are at the bottom of the class, this factor is bound to instill, unconsciously at least, some sense of intellectual superiority among the white students and some sense of intellectual inferiority among the black students," wrote Fleming. "Such a pairing in the same school of the brightest white students in the country with black students of mediocre academic qualifications is social experiment with loaded dice and a stacked deck."

Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor at New York University who recently wrote about Fleming's letter, points out that anecdotal experience with group differences is a powerful factor in the creation of stereotypes:

People notice useful social cues, and one of the strongest causes of stereotypes is exposure to real group differences. If a school commits to doubling the number of black students, it will have to reach deeper into its pool of black applicants, admitting those with weaker qualifications, particularly if most other schools are doing the same thing. This is likely to make racial gaps larger, which would strengthen the negative stereotypes that students of color find when they arrive on campus.

In other words, white students might come to believe that black people aren't as smart. They would be wrong to think this, of course—but their narrow classroom experience would suggest it to them, nevertheless.

Take careful note of what this means—and what it does not. Neither Fleming nor Haidt (nor I) are suggesting that racism is valid, or that people of one race are inferior to people of another race, in terms of intelligence or anything else. Rather, we are pointing out that when administrators artificially sort people according to race in a manner ordained by race-based college admissions, they will inflame tensions by creating a false race-based achievement gap. In this way, efforts to increase diversity and combat racism are actually worsening the problem.

And that's not all. Fleming's letter, according to Haidt, also predicts with stunning accuracy how these differences would eventually come to dominate campus life (emphasis mine):

No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training. Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands–the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards.

Of course, these are precisely the things that groups of marginalized students have been demanding with increasing frequency in recent years. They want social justice colleges that put activism before rigorous education, separate "safe spaces" for students of color, and emotional security.

For 50 years, race-based admissions have fomented racial inequality and feelings of inferiority on campus. The modern war on college free expression is, as Justice Fleming predicted, the inevitable result. We have university administrators to thank for that, too.

NEXT: New Wrinkle in UVA / Rolling Stone Lawsuit: Jackie Likely Accessed Imaginary Rapist's Email

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.

  1. Even Robby’s HAIR is racist.

  2. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands?the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards.

    That’s de Tocqueville levels of prescience.

  3. We will battle racism and discrimination with racism and discrimination. What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Two wrongs = right, mister!

      1. It is a double negative!

    2. This is why I think LBJ was actually trying to exacerbate problems between races while brushing up his legacy with Affirmative Action.

  4. Semi OT: Looks like google is celebrating a “human rights activist” who supports segregation.

    And she also thinks:

    I consider Osama bin Laden as one of the people that I admire. To me, he is in the category of Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro, all leaders that I admire … [who] had severe dislike for the US government and those who held power in the US. I think all of them felt the US government and its spokesmen were all arrogant, racist, hypocritical, self-righteous, and power hungry….. You asked, ‘Should freedom fighters support him?’ Freedom fighters all over the world, and not just in the Muslim world, don’t just support him; they revere him; they join him in battle. He is no ordinary leader or an ordinary Muslim.”

    I guess we’re all just kind of going off the deep end. The fireball can’t come soon enough.

    1. Christ, she supported the Shining Path. Outside of the truly deranged, nobody supported the Shining Path.

      In 2005, Kochiyama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

      Of course she was.

      1. Yeah, she’s the very definition of creepy. She’d be the one running the torture camps in cambodia.

        1. I guess we can thank FDR for helping to create that full-throated commie by interning her father in a camp.

      2. In 2005, Kochiyama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

        Which means practically nothing. The standard for getting nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is incredibly low. A social sciences professor just has to send your name to the committee.

      3. Being nominated for the peace prize actually means just about nothing, because the committee is not who does the nominating.

        Over time many individuals have become known as “Nobel Peace Prize Nominees”, but this designation has no official standing, and means only that one of the thousands of eligible nominators suggested the person’s name for consideration

    2. Todays google doodle? The non-black black separatist?

      She’s talked all that shit from a country with a First Amendment.

      1. “non-black black segregationist”, so, a white person who doesnt want to live around black people. that’s so… progressive?

    3. he is in the category of Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro,

      I agree with that much, at least.

        1. Yeah, he really doesn’t belong with the other ones. He didn’t actually murder tons of people and he was actually willing to revise some of his beliefs based on experience.

    4. Never heard of her but the funny thing is I got all that just from the doodle. It looks like something out of pre-war commie South America.

    5. I note that it’s always “Malcolm X” with these people, never “el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz”. They LOVE Malik back before he took the Hajj, when he advocated violence and open racism. It’s like they won’t even acknowledge post-Hajj Malik, or use the name he preferred after his pilgrimage, when he mellowed out and dropped racism from his ideology.

      1. So, X + 1?

        1. Solve for X.

      2. What’s also fascinating about Malcolm’s transformation is that he clearly bought into a moderate strain of Islam, and it helped to temper his more radical tendencies.

      1. Well, one of the Post’s reporters, anyway.

      2. Yeah, that’s it. You got me.

    6. The fireball can’t come soon enough.

      No shit.

  5. Over-under on when the government issues a “Transgender ID card”?

    1. Well son of a bitch:

      (3) The Minister shall consider an application under this section and shall decide to
      either?
      (a) issue a gender recognition certificate, or
      (b) refuse to issue a gender recognition certificate.

      (4) In considering an application under this section the Minister shall consider the
      information furnished by the applicant and may request further information from the
      applicant regarding any information or evidence furnished by the applicant or on his
      or her behalf.

      (5) The Minister shall give notice in writing to the applicant of a decision under
      subsection (3), as soon as practicable after it is made, which shall, in relation to a
      decision under subsection (3)(b)?
      (a) include reasons for the decision,
      (b) inform the applicant that he or she may, under section 17, appeal the decision
      within 90 days of the date of the notice, and
      (c) inform the applicant that the decision shall be suspended until?
      (i) the decision becomes final under subsection (6), or
      (ii) the disposal of an appeal under section 17(2).

      1. Whew! Glad I took the “under.”

      2. From the harp, I’m guessing this is an Irish law.

        Something something Sinead O’Connor.

        1. Yes, it’s an Irish law. So it’s not “here” but the fact that a Western Government has already decided that you have to have a pink star of david before you’re legally recognized and allowed to do… I dunno, Trans-gender-ey stuff is really disturbing. And you recognition is at the hands of some bureaucrat who can revoke it at any time.

          You should read the law. There’s some very interesting stuff in there which plays right into my earliest preconceptions about how a government would actually follow the logic if they couldn’t bring themselves to just say “quit discriminating, everything’s open” but insist on carving out special protections for a narrow class.

          1. What do you mean “not here”?

            Go look at NC’s law. It doesn’t issue a specific “transgender” card, but it does make using the right bathroom contingent on getting your birth certificate changed.

      3. (3) The Minister shall consider the application under subsection (1) and shall decide to
        either?
        (a) correct the clerical error or error of fact and return the corrected gender
        recognition certificate to the applicant, or
        (b) refuse to correct the clerical error or error of fact and return the gender
        recognition certificate to the applicant.

    2. You know what other government issued IDs for non-cisgender individuals?

      1. Transsexual Transylvania?

    3. Why not just drop gender and sex as a legal concept? Is there really any reason the law needs to make that distinction?

      1. You’re swinging at the same Pinata as I am. You don’t declare your bathrooms open to Transgender people, you declare them Unisex. But, If you DO declare them only open to those who maintain their genetic sex AND transgender people, ie, not people who walk into the ‘wrong’ bathroom, the ONLY option you have left is to issue a transgender card.

        1. Or everyone could just shut up and stop worrying about it because it’s really just not a big deal.

          I know that’s not likely. But, my god, what a stupid thing to get all worked up about.

          1. Why is it not a big deal for boys to hang out in the high school girls locker room?

            1. I’ve been in various lockerrooms, as a kid, a teen, and an adult. At no point have I ever “hung out” in a lockerroom. Get in, get changed, possibly get showered, and get on your way.

              So the problem with your scenario is the “hanging out” part, not the sex or gender of any of the participants.

              1. The locker rooms I’ve been in, there has been a lot of bullshitting going on where you may spend a few moments. Nobody’s arguing you take up flippin’ residence complete with mailbox. Sheesh.

            2. Because it isn’t a problem.

              1. Baloney! Dudes don’t care if women come in their bathroom or locker room, but women don’t reciprocate the feeling. That has always been the case. How much more does that need to be spelled out for people?

                Now we have reached the threshold of where men are starting to mind what’s going on. However, since men=evil, questioning these policies is now a thought crime or worse.

                1. boner in a coed locker room. band or song name?

            3. THERE ARE GAY AND BISEXUAL PEOPLE IN YOUR BATHROOMS AND LOCKER ROOMS AND THEY FIND YOUR TERROR AT THEIR PRESENCE VERY VERY EROTIC.

      2. As the military has dropped gender as a way for blocking admission to specific jobs, I wonder when the military will stop using gender quotas and stop having separate standards on physical fitness requirements (for the same pay). I wonder when sports teams will stop being men’s or women’s this sport or that sport. You know, if we’re all equal and or gender fluid, shouldn’t a person just show up and compete for a spot on the team?

        With all this selective dabbling, I am getting confused by the caprices of our government from federal down to local-which let’s not forget, overlaps with our education system and therefore extra curriculars and scholarships, etc.

        1. I agree, if gender isn’t a qualification for a job, there certainly shouldn’t be different standards for physical fitness or strength. Men and women are different, but the differences really exist, so they don’t need to be defined by law. Everyone just has to be held to the same standards.

    4. Blame cis-folk for that one.

      If they didn’t make having government identification with the right gender marker a necessary thing, then there wouldn’t be any trans* folk seeking one.

  6. In other words, white students might come to believe that black people aren’t as smart. They would be wrong to think this, of course?but their narrow classroom experience would suggest it to them, nevertheless.

    Well then, IQ tests must be wrong or the averaging of IQ tests within and between groups must be wrong. If so, make that argument Robby. I get that you don’t make that argument because it’s a tough hill to climb given the correlation between IQs and academic achievement, the inverse correlation between IQ and violent crime, and the correlation between national IQ averages and that county’s per capita productivity. Or you just ignore those strong correlations because you’re a coward who prefers wishful thinking to anything real.

    1. Irish, take note: THIS is how you do racism.

      1. I thought The Bell Curve had similar stats, not disproven.

      2. Irish is just a piker.

      3. Facts might be racist and you might be an intellectual coward. Neither of which is my problem.

        1. Well which is it? If reality has a liberal bias and reality is racist it follows that a liberal bias is racist.

        2. So it’s intellectually courageous to draw conclusions about whole vast swathes of humanity based on the most superficial expressions of their genotypes? Man, i been doing this “intellect” thing all wrong! It must be on account of some of my ancestors miscegenated, huh?

          1. So it’s intellectually courageous to draw conclusions about whole vast swathes of humanity based on the most superficial expressions of their genotypes

            I didn’t think IQs measured something superficial.

            Man, i been doing this “intellect” thing all wrong! It must be on account of some of my ancestors miscegenated, huh?

            You have been doing this intellect thing all wrong. That’s why you make pathetic arguments like this about your opponent being a racist rather than confronting any arguments or making any arguments for yourself.

            But for real, your problems go way deeper than anything that i’m up to. My thoughts and prayers are with you, though obviously they’re not worth as much as a white person’s since i got a couple drops of that Mesopotamian mud blood in my heritage.

            You’re only proving me more correct. I wish I could see you sticking your fingers in your ears while you chant “racist!” when you see arguments that conflict with your anti-scientific wishful thinking.

            1. I read the AM links for the first time in a while. Citizen X had some grade A ‘We Wuz Kangz’ shit. Dude has issues, e.g. “expressions of their genotypes” is retard for “phenotype”

              1. We Wuz Kangz

                So you agree with the progressive notion that pale-skinned Europeans have always dominated the earth? Weird.

                1. So you agree with the progressive notion that pale-skinned Europeans have always dominated the earth?

                  No.

            2. I don’t know about the IQ tests you took Free Society, but at the end of the day it isn’t actually that accurate of a test and is at least partially subjective, or at least the professional one’s I’ve taken were. Personally I think it’s at least a decent guideline of intelligence but what is the margin of error do you think?

              1. IQ tests measure g. A full-scale test is pretty accurate.

                1. ‘pretty accurate’ is why I asked about margin of error, specifically. I know for a fact the same person taking the same test days apart can and will yield a different result.

              2. I don’t know about the IQ tests you took Free Society, but at the end of the day it isn’t actually that accurate of a test and is at least partially subjective, or at least the professional one’s I’ve taken were. Personally I think it’s at least a decent guideline of intelligence but what is the margin of error do you think?

                Any conceivable test except that devised by a perfectly objective superbeing is going to be at least somewhat subjective. But nonethless it’s a better test than using something like SAT scores for obvious reasons. SATs are generally taken by people seeking higher education, that right there tells you that it will be biased towards members of the aforementioned groups that seek higher educational attainment, and so if a group has a lower overall average but higher variability (i.e. more geniuses from their ranks) it will bias the data to look like that group is smarter than the overall population actually is on average.

                1. Not sure of the margin of error, but the correlations with various things like metrics of productivity or income are definitely there and it would take quite a bit of clever argumentation to explain the correlations.

                  1. Look I get what you’re arguing, and again you’re not wrong per say it’s just that you’re making a purposefully shocking argument that has a razor thin margin of unknown error that relies on correlation as it’s only measurable metric. Most people wouldn’t bother making the argument based on a lack of concrete evidence that isn’t supported on the individual level but you, boy you are different. You have the balls to be edgy and shocking with half baked data. I’m very impressed. Or I would be if these arguments hadn’t been made for the last 100-200 years by a wide range of ideologies with a wide range of equally subjective bullshit to back them up. Sorry, eugenics isn’t new.

                    1. Look I get what you’re arguing, and again you’re not wrong per say it’s just that you’re making a purposefully shocking argument that has a razor thin margin of unknown error that relies on correlation as it’s only measurable metric.

                      IQ is measurable. And the correlations that stem from IQ are bountiful. One or two correlations and you might have a point, but IQ correlates with more life outcomes than I could possibly list here and that makes it a tough hill to climb for people saying that IQ doesn’t actually measure anything.

                      Most people wouldn’t bother making the argument based on a lack of concrete evidence that isn’t supported on the individual level but you, boy you are different.

                      I NEVER JUDGED ANY INDIVIDUALS. Robby made a claim about two groups, I brought up an empirical metric that disputes his claim. And for the record, there has not been one single counterargument to me that wasn’t a strawman or ad hominem. Like calling me a racist or telling me that I am judging particular individuals based on the data extrapolated from the group.

                      Sorry, eugenics isn’t new.

                      Right, acknowledging that IQ differences exist between groups and that IQ correlates strongly with all sorts of outcomes is eugenics. Jesus titty fucking Christ it doesn’t matter what I say, you and thirty other people are only going to argue against things I never actually said.

            3. I personally take IQ tests with a grain of salt. An acquaintance of mine (who is African American, since there are cultural and relatively large IQ differences between African Americans and more recent African immigrants) took all sorts of IQ tests and placement tests while we were in high school, and was not as academically successful in high school as I was. In college however, he ran circles around me in multiple subjects and is by far a better programmer than I am. I don’t necessarily believe that the IQ tests are testing for the right things if his logic centers are better than mine are.

              1. The short answer is that correlation isn’t causation, but Free Society is attempting to make the argument that it is. He isn’t necessarily wrong, there are correlations, but the inferences he’s trying to make from them ignore the fact that cultures, countries, groups of people, and individuals have differences that could explain why the correlation is just that; a correlation. Since he’s just looking for some shock value he’s not going to get into that and as far as I’m aware there isn’t a study controlling for those factors.

                Free Society is using data in the same way that results in there being a measured pay gap between men and women, and ignoring the differences in the data that show why using correlation in such a vapid way is intellectually dishonest and gives shitty results that don’t mean a damn thing.

                I’ll freely admit that calling him a eugenicist isn’t correct he’s just a troll. Something that’s obvious from his name link, but it needs to be called out as intellectual bullshit.

                1. The short answer is that correlation isn’t causation, but Free Society is attempting to make the argument that it is. He isn’t necessarily wrong, there are correlations, but the inferences he’s trying to make from them ignore the fact that cultures, countries, groups of people, and individuals have differences that could explain why the correlation is just that; a correlation.

                  I repeatedly stated that all you need to do is explain away the correlations. Are you denying that IQ is inversely correlated with criminality? Are you denying that IQ is correlated with higher income? Higher GNP? Are you denying that IQ is correlated with positive life outcomes more generally?

                  Since he’s just looking for some shock value he’s not going to get into that and as far as I’m aware there isn’t a study controlling for those factors.

                  The fact that your sensibilities are shocked, and clearly they are, does not mean my aim is shock value.

                  I’ll freely admit that calling him a eugenicist isn’t correct he’s just a troll. Something that’s obvious from his name link, but it needs to be called out as intellectual bullshit.

                  Says the guy who can’t finish a post without some ad hominem. Debating you is pigeon chess.

              2. In college however, he ran circles around me in multiple subjects and is by far a better programmer than I am. I don’t necessarily believe that the IQ tests are testing for the right things if his logic centers are better than mine are.

                When I’m talking about averages of a group it should be pretty clear that I’m not claiming that the average applies to all members of a group, else I wouldn’t be using the word ‘average’. What you just offered here, is called an ‘anecdote’.

        3. But for real, your problems go way deeper than anything that i’m up to. My thoughts and prayers are with you, though obviously they’re not worth as much as a white person’s since i got a couple drops of that Mesopotamian mud blood in my heritage.

    2. Who said anything about IQ years tests besides you? I’m the context of the scenario as stated, they would be wrong to draw any conclusions about blacks generally.

      1. Yes, I was the first to mention IQ as an empirical measurement of intelligence, very astute observation you got there. And of course there are highly intelligent blacks. The averaging of IQs within and between groups can only speak about generalities, not ironclad universals.

        It would be wrong to draw conclusions about individuals. You have it precisely backwards.

      2. If the smartest 1% of X are obviously, unequivocally dumber than the smartest 3% of Y, what other conclusion could you draw?

        1. You could draw any number of conclusions depending on whether or not you bothered to actually look at the data. Like for example, that some groups have a more even spread across the spectrum, while other groups are more clustered around particular points in the bell curve, which says nothing about the overall average or even necessarily about the overall number of outliers.

          You seem to be making a emotional argument that assumes the worst unthinking bigotry on the part of your opponent. Which is entirely common on topics of race and gender when someone deviates from the conventional wisdom that is radical egalitarianism.

          1. You could draw any number of conclusions depending on whether or not you bothered to actually look at the data.

            Sure. If you’re willing to ignore how actual human traits (that aren’t the result of congenital defects or extreme environmental insults) are distributed.

            You seem to be making a emotional argument that assumes the worst unthinking bigotry on the part of your opponent.

            Well that’s something I’ve never been accused of. Perhaps I should change my screenname to “Unthinking Bigot” to avoid further confusion.

            1. Sure. If you’re willing to ignore how actual human traits (that aren’t the result of congenital defects or extreme environmental insults) are distributed.

              When discussing IQ averages among groups, the distribution is precisely the topic of conversation. As for the finer points of that distribution, that wasn’t even brought up. Robby claimed that blacks and whites have the same intelligence levels, he didn’t mention sub-groups (like income, educational attainment, nationality et cetera) of either of those two categories. Which is actually interesting to read about if you have the stomach for it. Though people committed, however unwittingly, to the unscientific ideology of radical egalitarianism generally don’t.

              1. Of course, you’re under no obligation to assert how ‘perfectly accurate’ a test is that measures an unquantifiable subjective like ‘intelligence’. Why not just use S.A.T. scores as your baseline, or A.C.T. scores, or hell why not your A.S.V.A.B.? Why rely on the most subjective test? And while we’re on the subject, which IQ test are you even talking about?

                1. unquantifiable subjective like ‘intelligence’

                  What? IQ tests do precisely that, quantify intelligence.

                  Why not just use S.A.T. scores as your baseline, or A.C.T. scores, or hell why not your A.S.V.A.B.?

                  IQ tests are signifanctly more g-loaded than SAT and ACT. ASVAB is largely a skills test. AFQT is the military’s quick and dirty IQ test.

                2. Of course, you’re under no obligation to assert how ‘perfectly accurate’ a test is that measures an unquantifiable subjective like ‘intelligence’.

                  I never asserted perfection. But between the options of empirical data and gut feeling, which is the better metric? Because Robby didn’t offer anything in the way of empiricism.

                  Why rely on the most subjective test?

                  I suppose I could have used how quickly a person can tie their shoes but I picked a test that is the most widely administered across the globe. If you want to deny the efficacy as IQ, that’s fine. But you’ll have to explain away the litany of correlations between IQ and things like educational performance, wealth, national GNP et cetera, as mentioned above.

                  And while we’re on the subject, which IQ test are you even talking about?

                  Pretty much all of them point to differences between groups, whether those groups are nationality, ethnicity, or socio-economic. Charles Murray wrote a little book called The Bell Curve that discusses the variation and methods of attaining the data in depth.

              2. When discussing IQ averages among groups, the distribution is precisely the topic of conversation.

                To rewind, me: “If the smartest 1% of X are obviously, unequivocally dumber than the smartest 3% of Y, what other conclusion could you draw?”

                you: “You could draw any number of conclusions depending on whether or not you bothered to actually look at the data.”

                There’s two possibilities in my hypothetical. 1) Whites are much smarter over the entire distribution than blacks. 2) Human intelligence is distributed like no other continuous trait. (We probably would’ve heard about that one already).

                That’s it. You don’t need to pore over the minutia and stroke your beard wondering what it all means. Robby is wrong. Commodius spittoon is wrong.

                1. “If the smartest 1% of X are obviously, unequivocally dumber than the smartest 3% of Y, what other conclusion could you draw?”

                  But you’re talking about sub-groups. I just want to be clear, I didn’t make any claims about sub-groups or how scores are distributed within the population. I’m not sure if the smartest whites are smarter than the smartest blacks or if that’s even a meaningful question. I spoke only of the average among the whole population. For all I know, blacks produce more geniuses. I just need to read more on the variability within the two groups to draw a conclusion.

                  Though, that doesn’t seem to be where the data more generally points to. But for example, I’ve read that men have a greater variability in intelligence than women do, which results in women’s intelligence clustering more around their mean while men’s intelligence exists more on the fringes than for women, so while there are more male geniuses there are also more stupid men than you’ll see in the female distribution.

                2. Too many loud voices, but relying on data to come to a conclusion when the test in question produces non-reproducible results isn’t ‘science’ in the traditional sense, it’s ‘science’ in the social sense.

                  So, sorry but not sorry, an I.Q. is not as scientific as virtually everyone tries to make it out to be. It’s a fuzzy math at best, and trying to compare razor-thin percentage comparisons with such data is a fools errand that a whole lot of people appear more than willing to engage in.

                  That being said, I don’t disagree with Free Society in the sense of what’s being measured, and what conclusions should flow from it. I just take issue with the idea that I.Q. tests accurately measure a persons actual intelligence down to the decimal; they don’t.

                  1. Too many loud voices, but relying on data to come to a conclusion when the test in question produces non-reproducible results isn’t ‘science’ in the traditional sense, it’s ‘science’ in the social sense.

                    That’s simply not true. IQ tests have produced reproducible results. They’ve been testing and retesting that data for decades and Charles Murray has yet to be disproven.

                    So, sorry but not sorry, an I.Q. is not as scientific as virtually everyone tries to make it out to be.

                    And yet there is a strong correlation between IQ and income, national IQ and that countries GNP and on and on. It’s certainly more scientific than college admissions tests and if you can’t see that right on it’s face, you really need to reexamine what you think qualifies as scientific.

                    I just take issue with the idea that I.Q. tests accurately measure a persons actual intelligence down to the decimal; they don’t.

                    Well then we’re in agreement because I never said it was capable of perfectly describing everyone’s intelligence or that conclusions about groups should be taken to apply to ALL members of that group. Nonetheless, the correlations of IQ with all sorts of life outcomes is very strong and can’t simply be hand waved away like so many people are trying to do by simply calling me a racist.

                    1. I’m forced into a corner of arguing two different peoples points at the same time, but I’m not the one calling you racist. I’m the one calling you a bullshit social scientist eugenicist. I only say that, because that is exactly what you are.

                      No more snipped block quotes friend, I tire of that ancient tactic of bullshit virtually as soon as I see it.

                    2. I’m the one calling you a bullshit social scientist eugenicist

                      Right, so you call me a fancy word for racist. Such a huge differences.

                      No more snipped block quotes friend, I tire of that ancient tactic of bullshit virtually as soon as I see it.

                      Blockquotes tell the person exactly which points I’m responding to. Since I’m not in the habit of fabricating strawman arguments, unlike yourself, I find blockquotes are helpful for clarity. Not to mention that blockquotes are not exactly “ancient”, but whatever. You want to be a twat, be a twat. You’re a waste of time.

    3. Dang. And I was about to nail Soave on saying things that can go without saying.

    4. I believe the liberal explanation is that IQ differences are caused by lead paint, which of course is the result of institutional racism (and corporations).

      1. +1 Flint Water Crisis

    5. Collectivism is the antithesis of a free society.

      1. Amen.

      2. Right, that tired old “don’t collecitvize bro” argument that so many people think applies to everything. So don’t ever make statements about socialists or groups that you tend to disagree with, don’t EVER discuss statistics of any kind, don’t take ever take out an insurance policy and don’t ever lock your car doors when driving through a bad neighborhood… becuz collektivizm!

        1. I just hope you don’t consider yourself an individualist.

          1. I just hope you don’t consider yourself an individualist.

            I just don’t hope you consider yourself a rational thinker. You get so emotionally caught up in your preconceived notions you can’t even muster a counterargument. Just personal attacks and insinuations.

        2. “Right, that tired old “don’t collecitvize bro” argument that so many people think applies to everything. So don’t ever make statements about socialists or groups that you tend to disagree with,”

          Yeah, groups of people who make a certain choice are just the same as groups of people born with certain traits.
          According to racists, that is.

          1. Yeah, groups of people who make a certain choice are just the same as groups of people born with certain traits.
            According to racists, that is.

            Statement: “Chinese people on average, are shorter than Dutch people, on average.”

            Response: “OMG You racist!!”

    6. I think the point is that is is wrong to assume a particular individual is less smart because he belongs to a particular racial group.

      Of course different populations of humans are going to differ in ways other than pigmentation. So what? Groups aren’t real things, only individuals are. It’s not radical egalitarianism to judge each individual on their own merits.

      1. This. Thank you, Zeb.

      2. I think the point is that is is wrong to assume a particular individual is less smart because he belongs to a particular racial group.

        I never cast a judgement on any individual. In fact I pointed out earlier to Commodious Spitoon that is precisely the wrong conclusion to take from the data.

        Of course different populations of humans are going to differ in ways other than pigmentation. So what?

        That’s exactly what I’m saying. Robby was denying the differences in intelligence between two groups. I pointed out a strictly empirical metric that shows that purported equality on the trait he mentioned is not true.

        Groups aren’t real things, only individuals are. It’s not radical egalitarianism to judge each individual on their own merits.

        It’s radical egalitarianism to deny the existence of differences between groups. It would be nonsense to say that all Dutch people are taller than all Chinese people. It would be a simple fact to point out that on average Dutch people are taller than Chinese people are on average.

        But you and your cohorts are stuffing arguments into my mouth that I didn’t make because topics like this elicit emotional responses even from otherwise rational people.

        1. For what it’s worth, I don’t think you are some horrible racist.

          What I do think is that while it may be perfectly true that black people on average do less well on IQ tests, what are you supposed to do with that information? Maybe people should be less hesitant to state facts like that, but then what? It doesn’t change how you should treat any individual person.

          1. For what it’s worth, I don’t think you are some horrible racist.

            I’m glad to know it.

            What I do think is that while it may be perfectly true that black people on average do less well on IQ tests, what are you supposed to do with that information?

            Try to falsify it or acknowledge it for what it is. I for one, prefer truth to falsehood even if it’s uncomfortable, even if it makes people hate you and even if makes social problems seem harder to figure out. If I were arguing that the racial group with the highest IQ should be some kind of master race I’d be bowing down before the Japanese, Koreans, Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese as my rightful overlords.

            This lie that all people are fundamentally blank slates that can be molded and programmed to be equal to everyone else in every capacity sets entire generations up for failure and social conflict. Conflict predicated on the assumption that all differential outcomes between groups is the result of evil racist [insert successful group] people that must be eradicated with government policies like Affirmative Action and social crusades like the various cults of white guilt or Jew hating. It limits all human potential and it’s worth fighting.

      3. If by wrong you mean immoral. Because because as Walter Williams points out, statistical profiling pays off economically. Say if you’re a hiring manager and have a cost associated with the time wasted interviewing candidates who turn out to be unqualified.

        A person who uses all information at his disposal to make a decision will do better on average than a person who ignores some information. They just need to use it correctly, i.e. use all the terms in Bayes law.

        1. I have given up interviewing people from Caribbean Med schools.

          Because I am racist?

          1. Presumably because you know something about Caribbean medical schools.

      4. assume a particular individual is less smart because he belongs to a particular racial group.

        The psychologist mentioned in the article, Lee Jussim, claims there isn’t a single example of this in all the stereotype literature. NAXALT is a thing humans intuitively understand.

        1. NAXALT is a thing humans intuitively understand.

          As far as I can tell, my great crime in this thread is having no typed out “not all Individuals are like that” after every single sentence I wrote. And I agree with you, people do intuitively know that NAXALT, but they forget that pretty quick when they get the opportunity to call someone a racist.

    7. If blacks underperform, how is that not evidence of a smart-gap?

      I think what they really mean is that they don’t want the current gap to be used as evidence that it couldn’t be closed in a better environment.

    8. Well then, IQ tests must be wrong or the averaging of IQ tests within and between groups must be wrong

      Oh, for the love of Social Justice–don’t ever bring up IQ tests. IQ tests say things that no one wants to face and result in a gigantic blizzard of social signaling.

      We are all now required, by catechism, to denounce you as a vile Racist, so that we may all be absolved of being fully aware of these Facts That Must Never Be Spoken or Written.

      Get thee behind me, Racist!

  7. The greatly reviled Charles Murray had something to say about black students underperforming in high caliber programs due to academic mismatches as a result of Affirmative Action, and the psychological and emotional toll it takes on them. Rather than graduating near the top of the class from a state university, they’re graduating at the bottom from a well-meaning Ivy League school, or not at all. It’s got nothing to do with being black, a white student plucked from a relatively uncompetitive background would have just as difficult a time making up ground against his wealthier and motivated peers.

    1. An easy solution: Yale should admit, into each law school class, 16 African American applicants who are every bit as smart as their Anglo & Asian Yale Law peers. These African Americans would have zero trouble competing academically; indeed, several would graduate at or near the top of each class. If Yale did this, no myopic whites would ever be fooled into thinking, in Robbie’s words, “that black people aren’t as smart. They would be wrong to think this, of course?but their narrow classroom experience would suggest it to them, nevertheless.”

      1. Or – Yale should admit whoever the damn well it pleases.

        1. Whenever universities try that, doing what they please rather then what busy-bodies want, the busy bodies get upset and sue because they think Yale, and other universities, are racist.

        2. Yale should admit whoever the damn well it pleases.

          This. They’re a private university, they should be free to determine their own admissions criteria.

    2. It’s got nothing to do with being black, a white student plucked from a relatively uncompetitive background would have just as difficult a time making up ground against his wealthier and motivated peers.

      Horseshit. Undergrad classes, even at elite schools, require little background knowledge.

      1. Admissions tests and and High School grades have a very high correlation with performance in college. Colleges, especially the ivy league, would love for this to not be the case so they could social engineer the crap out of society, but they can only do a tiny bit and it comes at the high price described in the article.

        1. Admissions tests and and High School grades have a very high correlation with performance in college.

          Yes, but hardly universal. I dropped out of high school with a 0.8 GPA, and graduated UC Berkeley summa cum laude

          1. Sure. I also think its still possible to teach anyone if you devote enough resources to the person. But top colleges don’t remotely have the best teachers, probably the opposite, since they’re used to having the most motivated and best prepared students.

      2. Undergrad classes, even at elite schools, require little background knowledge.

        Not true.

        I come from a lower-middle-class family and attended some pretty shitty public schools, eventually dropping out. I did 4 years at a JC and then transferred to UC Berkeley and had to work my ass off to stay up to speed with the rich kids who went to good schools.

        1. What was you major?

          My experience is that fancy school advantage last about a month freshman year.

      3. So it’s just a coincidence that kids from fancy private schools tend to do better than those who went to shitty public schools?

        1. Kids tend to be like their parents. Is this news to you?

          1. I think that would hold even for adopted children or scholarship students. But I got no data, so never mind. You clearly have already decided that you have the correct answer.

            1. I think that would hold even for adopted children

              Nope. There’s a ton of data on this.

              or scholarship students

              irrelevant

        2. Comments like this only ever come from idiots (not you) and people who didn’t experience busing (you).

      4. Um, what? Having attended a competitive high school and an elite college, that was not my experience.

        1. Care to elaborate?

  8. Too bad Fleming didn’t get to SCOPUS.

    1. The bibliographic database?

      1. I think he meant SCROTUS

        1. I thought Mad Max killed him already.

          1. Exactly. Before Felming was able to get to him.

  9. For 50 years, race-based admissions have fomented racial inequality and feelings of inferiority on campus.

    But those aren’t the feelings affirmative action is all about.

  10. Take careful note of what this means?and what it does not. Neither Fleming nor Haidt (nor I) are suggesting that racism is valid

    because everyone is so retarded that they should naturally be expected to jump to that conclusion.

    The knee-jerk moral-didactic thing is the worst millenial-tic ever. Its bad enough they suffer under these illusions, its worse that they project these assumptions on everyone else.

    Like an audience is *expected* to grasp their pearls and go, “well this sounds suspiciously racist! i also can’t be expected to distinguish between a person summarizing an argument, and the person who makes that argument themselves!? Unpossible!”

    1. On this the SJWs have won. Everyone is on the defense, everyone except Trump.

      1. AND ME!!!

        *extends two middle fingers to the world*

    2. because everyone is so retarded that they should naturally be expected to jump to that conclusion

      Except, unfortunately, that’s what the idiot punditry class does. I recall, following the 2012 election, a writer at RealClearPolitics wrote a three-part series diving into the voting patterns and statistics to conclude that the left’s meme about the GOP needing to court Hispanics was overstated. The backlash was dozens of articles proclaiming that Sean Trende is a racist TEATHUGLIKKAN who thinks the GOP should kill all Mexicans or something like that.

      1. The backlash was dozens of articles

        Yeah well exactly.

        its *caring* about other people’s predictably-stupid attacks which leads to this endless series of disclaimers and disavowals from people like Mssr Soave. It gives those stupid attacks credence and treats them as serious and legitimate before they’re even made.

        Its not pre-emptively disarming those predictably-stupid arguments – which is how some people generously like to portray it – its pre-emptively conceding the legitimacy of their irrational feels-based mentality.

        It reminds me of the guy who got censured for using the term “niggardly” and was dumbfounded because he knew everyone in the room *knew what the word actually meant*.

        He was told, “oh, of course we know you meant nothing racial at all… its just = *how would people see us* if we didn’t dress you down?”

        Its playing along with the insane… because that’s *easier* than telling people the truth and dealing with their confusion.

        1. +1 white guilt

        2. And yeah, they’re gonna write you off no matter how many disclaimers you make because when facts conflict with their feels-based world view, facts must yield.

        3. If you want to make a career as a journalist, you probably do need to care about what predictably stupid attacks you are likely to be subjected to.

        4. I think that same weak someone claimed the term “black hole” was racist.

    3. because everyone is so retarded that they should naturally be expected to jump to that conclusion.

      Like an audience is *expected* to grasp their pearls and go, “well this sounds suspiciously racist! i also can’t be expected to distinguish between a person summarizing an argument, and the person who makes that argument themselves!? Unpossible!”

      You haven’t spent much time around SJW’s have you?

  11. Everyone knows some races are better than others, and some races are worse than others. You can tell which races are worse because Universities have quotas to meet to make those groups feel more ‘included’, and even once they’re accepted they never perform as well and are essentially given ‘merit awards’ because, hey, they participated! They throw tantrums every so often because they either don’t understand a word or don’t like a word, and sometimes the professor gets fired to keep the dumb races from rioting, but it’s a small price to pay for including inferior creatures in the value chain!

    Oh, wait, that’s not the reason? Now I’m just confused on why we’re doing this. You’re saying we’re all equal, but some people are more equal than others? How is that not saying exactly the same thing as above?

    1. You see, we’re all equal, but some of those who are less-equal need a helping hand but that doesn’t mean we’re not equally equal.

      Just stop thinking, and start emoting.

      1. But…but…now I’m afraid to just emote! What if it turns out…

        *whispers*

        …that I’m a racist underneath my Che shirt?

    1. Wait to go, Rico, ya done and pissed off Hitler

    2. “…recruit Anna Merlan from Jezebel..”

      That’s gold, Jerry, GOLD!

  12. So Robbie went from SJW to Alt-right just like that.

    1. We talked about this. Alt-right is just anything the mainstream doesn’t like, right? Robby has always been alt-right with me.

      1. Oh, you

      2. Jesus is just alt-right with me.

  13. You shouldn’t end up with a race based achievement gap in schools with affirmative action unless a) you try to inflate the proportion of accepted minority students above that of the minority in the applicant pool, and/or b) the distribution of academic qualification is shifted downward in the artificially selected-for group of applicants.

    Since the applicant pool is probably self-selecting based on achievement anyway, we’re left with the basic underlying assumption that minority students are on average less qualified. (But it was a good attempt to not sound racist, Robby.) And it’s true, let’s not dance around it. They may be just as smart, but it also takes a strong academic foundation to excel in a competitive undergraduate institution. Hence the whole argument that affirmative action should right some preexisting socioeconomic disadvantage fundamentally doesn’t work.

    1. They may be just as smart, but it also takes a strong academic foundation to excel in a competitive undergraduate institution.

      stahp

    2. I like how you wave your hands to make your own first point disappear in a puff of non-sequitur.

      1. The point was that you wouldn’t expect the application rates to differ from the makeup of the student population unless the qualification distribution was already shifted anyway. I assume here that colleges don’t try to overrepresent minorities relative to the student population. Should have explained my thinking better.

        1. Should have explained my thinking better.

          It doesn’t matter how you explain your thinking. With this particular commenter, the more argumentation you offer, the more material he has to bastardize your argument. It literally doesn’t matter what you wrote, he took all his conclusions about your argument from the fact that he finds it icky.

  14. “In other words, white students might come to believe that black people aren’t as smart. They would be wrong to think this, of course?but their narrow classroom experience would suggest it to them, nevertheless.”

    A wider experience would suggest otherwise to them, of course, of course.

    And so the remedy to a narrow-classroom, false conclusion would be to expose white students, who rarely wander from the classroom, to the smarter black people, who are found in non-classroom environments. It’s so obvious that schools should stop excluding the smarter black people from the narrow classroom.

    Of course.

    1. And so the remedy to a narrow-classroom, false conclusion would be to expose white students, who rarely wander from the classroom, to the smarter black people, who are found in non-classroom environments. It’s so obvious that schools should stop excluding the smarter black people from the narrow classroom.

      LOL well done

  15. If you have an admission capacity of 100 students, giving 10 seats to blacks doesn’t mean we will pick the smartest 90 whites and the dumbest 10 blacks.

    Maybe back in 1969 the 10 blacks from throughout the USA were not as qualified as the other 90 whites.
    I don’t believe that this is the case today.

  16. I teach classes to adults. They come from all walks of life. Many are stupid. Many are smart. Most are in between. The biggest problem I see is how each race sees the world around them. Smart or dumb the race of the student seems to matter most. Show an event on video of a person being assaulted/killed and ask what happened? IQ is out the window. Race of assailant/victim is all that seems to matter.

  17. Why is this still a black/white issue? I thought a group of Asian students who were denied entrance to an ivy league school were fighting these practices in court…? What about American Indians? Middle eastern descended students? What about rust belt poverty stricken white folks? Where’s the fairness program? How can our fairness programs be dictated so much much on a black and white dividing line when America has so many sub types of demographics? Sorry for the Napolitano like string of questions.

    1. It’s a racial issue. Black/white is just one of them. Don’t include sex issues please. It used to be “simple” Male/Female. Now there are so many x/y sexes I have no idea what’s going on. Combine race and sex issues and I swear I will shoot myself to avoid the math of finding all the combinations.

    2. Students of Asian descent are well aware that they must do a little better than white students on SATs etc. Women students are much ‘overrepresented’ in STEM fields, not something white feminists ever seem to own up to. Colleges do sometimes pretend to be more diverse than they really are, like this amusing ad from the American University of Antigua, “Not every medical student from the Carribean interns at Brown: http://tinyurl.com/gl4pu8r .

  18. “In other words, white students might come to believe that black people aren’t as smart. They would be wrong to think this, of course?but their narrow classroom experience would suggest it to them, nevertheless.”

    Why would people, even white people (gasp), be wrong to think that? I know the boiler-plate, PC answer, but why would anybody be wrong to doubt their own, lived experience?

    Free Society has made the point more eloquently than me, and been properly beaten by a few for his discomforting observations, but nothing I have seen contradicts what he said.

  19. I think Haidt himself doesn’t disavow the data showing slight differences in reasoning ability among groups, nor does Pinker, his eminent colleague, who noted recently that for all the failures to reproduce psych data from repeated testing (covered at Reason), psychometric data has almost alone stayed reliable. And it is hard to explain away differences in math scores (boys outnumbered girls 2 to 1 in getting above 750 on the SAT math portion as recently as two or three years ago.) And there will always be people who say that doesn’t matter, girls are actualy better at math, and chip design, and coding, and painting and skiing and chewing gum. Can’t think of a reason to keep arguing with them, they are the angrier and more insistent of the two “sides” regarding intellectual ability.

  20. In other words, white students might come to believe that black people aren’t as smart. They would be wrong to think this, of course?but their narrow classroom experience would suggest it to them, nevertheless.

    You are wrong, Robby, they would be right to believe this, as it would be an accurate stereotype.

    The black students they encounter are less smart, on average. And these students have been selected – by the university – based on ability. That means these black students, who are less smart on average, are the best black students. In other words, the best black students, on average, are worse than the best white students. This says nothing about the cause (evolution/heritability, social environment) of this phenomenon, but it accurately captures this phenomenon. So: “They would be right to think this, of course.”

  21. Your link isn’t a graph.

    This is a graph.

    And so is this one, a personal favorite:

    One can find appropriate academic links at bottom of relevant article if Wikipedia is not good enough to appeal to your inner love of authority.

  22. Now, coming to the Showbox app, this is another superb app developed for movie lovers who want to get a better experience of watching movies and tv show on a bigger screen with more detailings.

  23. And one of those applications is Showbox apk app. It is one of the best online streaming application for watching Movies and TV Shows. In the starting, this application has been released for only a few of the mobiles and allows users to watch shows online.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.