How Race-Based Admissions Fuel Political Correctness on Campus
Fifty years of affirmative action has fomented racial inequality at colleges.
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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Even Robby’s HAIR is racist.
We will battle racism and discrimination with racism and discrimination. What could possibly go wrong?
Two wrongs = right, mister!
It is a double negative!
This is why I think LBJ was actually trying to exacerbate problems between races while brushing up his legacy with Affirmative Action.
Semi OT: Looks like google is celebrating a “human rights activist” who supports segregation.
And she also thinks:
I guess we’re all just kind of going off the deep end. The fireball can’t come soon enough.
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.
Yeah, she’s the very definition of creepy. She’d be the one running the torture camps in cambodia.
I guess we can thank FDR for helping to create that full-throated commie by interning her father in a camp.
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.
Being nominated for the peace prize actually means just about nothing, because the committee is not who does the nominating.
Todays google doodle? The non-black black separatist?
She’s talked all that shit from a country with a First Amendment.
“non-black black segregationist”, so, a white person who doesnt want to live around black people. that’s so… progressive?
he is in the category of Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro,
I agree with that much, at least.
Leave Malcolm X alone!
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.
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.
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.
+ XI
So, X + 1?
Solve for X.
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.
Or, as the Washington Post put it, “The thing about Kochiyama that many people may find astounding, deeply aggravating or alarming is that she was a longtime civil- and human-rights activist who embraced a kind of patriotism that does not involve displays of the U.S. flag.”
Well, one of the Post’s reporters, anyway.
Yeah, that’s it. You got me.
The fireball can’t come soon enough.
No shit.
Over-under on when the government issues a “Transgender ID card”?
Well son of a bitch:
Whew! Glad I took the “under.”
From the harp, I’m guessing this is an Irish law.
Something something Sinead O’Connor.
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.
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) 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.
You know what other government issued IDs for non-cisgender individuals?
The Galactic Empire?
Transsexual Transylvania?
Why not just drop gender and sex as a legal concept? Is there really any reason the law needs to make that distinction?
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.
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.
Why is it not a big deal for boys to hang out in the high school girls locker room?
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.
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.
Because it isn’t a problem.
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.
boner in a coed locker room. band or song name?
THERE ARE GAY AND BISEXUAL PEOPLE IN YOUR BATHROOMS AND LOCKER ROOMS AND THEY FIND YOUR TERROR AT THEIR PRESENCE VERY VERY EROTIC.
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.
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.
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.
Irish, take note: THIS is how you do racism.
I thought The Bell Curve had similar stats, not disproven.
Irish is just a piker.
Facts might be racist and you might be an intellectual coward. Neither of which is my problem.
Well which is it? If reality has a liberal bias and reality is racist it follows that a liberal bias is racist.
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?
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”
We Wuz Kangz
So you agree with the progressive notion that pale-skinned Europeans have always dominated the earth? Weird.
So you agree with the progressive notion that pale-skinned Europeans have always dominated the earth?
No.
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?
IQ tests measure g. A full-scale test is pretty accurate.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-years
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.
If the smartest 1% of X are obviously, unequivocally dumber than the smartest 3% of Y, what other conclusion could you draw?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dang. And I was about to nail Soave on saying things that can go without saying.
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 Flint Water Crisis
Collectivism is the antithesis of a free society.
Amen.
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!
I just hope you don’t consider yourself an individualist.
“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.
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.
This. Thank you, Zeb.
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.
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.
I have given up interviewing people from Caribbean Med schools.
Because I am racist?
Presumably because you know something about Caribbean medical schools.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Or – Yale should admit whoever the damn well it pleases.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What was you major?
My experience is that fancy school advantage last about a month freshman year.
So it’s just a coincidence that kids from fancy private schools tend to do better than those who went to shitty public schools?
Kids tend to be like their parents. Is this news to you?
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.
I think that would hold even for adopted children
Nope. There’s a ton of data on this.
or scholarship students
irrelevant
Comments like this only ever come from idiots (not you) and people who didn’t experience busing (you).
Um, what? Having attended a competitive high school and an elite college, that was not my experience.
Care to elaborate?
Too bad Fleming didn’t get to SCOPUS.
The bibliographic database?
I think he meant SCROTUS
I thought Mad Max killed him already.
Exactly. Before Felming was able to get to him.
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.
On this the SJWs have won. Everyone is on the defense, everyone except Trump.
AND ME!!!
*extends two middle fingers to the world*
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 white guilt
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.
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.
I think that same weak someone claimed the term “black hole” was racist.
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?
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?
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.
But…but…now I’m afraid to just emote! What if it turns out…
*whispers*
…that I’m a racist underneath my Che shirt?
Rico, this is how you do pm links, hat tip to Injun
Wait to go, Rico, ya done and pissed off Hitler
“…recruit Anna Merlan from Jezebel..”
That’s gold, Jerry, GOLD!
So Robbie went from SJW to Alt-right just like that.
Robbie’s alt-right persona
We talked about this. Alt-right is just anything the mainstream doesn’t like, right? Robby has always been alt-right with me.
Oh, you
Jesus is just alt-right with me.
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.
They may be just as smart, but it also takes a strong academic foundation to excel in a competitive undergraduate institution.
stahp
no
I like how you wave your hands to make your own first point disappear in a puff of non-sequitur.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.