The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Remarkable Moment at Oral Argument in the UNC Affirmative Action Case
Counsel for UNC did not know which box students of Middle Eastern Origin are supposed to check.
From the oral argument transcript:
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: How are applicants from Middle Eastern countries classified from Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and the like?
MR. PARK: My understanding is that just like other situations where they might not fit within the particular boxes on the common application, that we rely on self-reporting and we would ask -- you know, they can volunteer their particular country of origin.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: But if they honestly check one of the boxes, which one are they supposed to check?
MR. PARK: I -- I do not -- do not know the answer to that question. What I can say is that if a person from a Middle Eastern country self-discloses their country of origin, it would be considered in the same way that we consider any box that matches, you know, one of the boxes that's available in the common application…
This was a really strange colloquy, because there is a right answer to Justice Kavanaugh's question. The classifications are directly imported from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which in turn uses the standard "Directive 15" classifications used throughout the federal government. And, as explained in my book Classified: Thr untold Story of Racial classification in America, according to Directive 15, individuals of Middle Eastern origin are officially "White." In fact, the Biden administration is currently considering creating a new MENA (Middle East and North African) classification because Arab American and Iranian groups have been lobbying to take these groups out of the white classification.
But in case there was any doubt, here is the Common App's race question. It's a bit opaque, but nevertheless Middle Eastern is treated as a subset of "White":
Regardless of your answer to the prior question [regarding Hispanic status], please indicate how you identify yourself. (You may select one or more)
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
WhiteWhich best describes your White background? (You may select one or more)
Europe
Middle East
Other
Is it possible that Mr. Park, in preparing for the argument, never looked at the Common App? Or did he not simply not want to concede that Middle Easterners are treated as generically white because that tends to undermines the claim that UNC is looking for "diversity?"
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Oh well, Sonia Sotomayor didn't know the difference between de jure and de facto discrimination. Laughable to see people trying a clean-up on aisle 5.
She's a perfect example as to why AA attitudes and beliefs are horrible for the country.
She even had the temerity to imply that she's better than any white male. What a pathetic excuse.
Sounds like the wise Latina could use a Latin class.
Yeah, you'd think a Shyster would know that term, but then again, you'd think "Political" reporters would know the difference between "Impeachment" and "Convicted by the Senate", and don't even get me started when they talk about "Closing Guantanamo" a vital Strategic base we've leased from Cuber since the Spanish-Amurican war.
Meh, Texas wants geographic diversity and so factors in one’s high school when determining admissions…if one moves from disfavored high school to a favored high school between junior and senior year does that satisfy geographic diversity??
The question was asked
- most of the time the Justices have their own idea of the correct answer and are probing the extent of the lawyer's argument.
- this goes to the heart of the case
- at worst it merely undercuts the degree of violation
- at best, this decides the case in itself
Remember she said : "We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.”
"Sonia Sotomayor didn’t know the difference between de jure and de facto discrimination."
And it's not like it was a slip of the tongue. She was literally arguing about what it meant, and she was wrong.
Maybe schools should require DNA results to determine race/ethnicity.
DNA is no longer a reliable data source; it can't even tell male from female now.
I saw a Bill Maher piece that was hilarious. Someone had claimed that trans-women need to have a legal right to an abortion. "Yes, you have an imaginary right to abort the imaginary fetus in your imaginary uterus."
Hilarious! Almost as funny as people who claim to have a right to avoid generally applicable public safety laws consequent to illusory advice concerning a scam vaccine for a hoax virus from an imaginary man in the sky.
Carry on, clingers.
Rev -
Good thing the clingers want to cling to reality
Clingers exhibit disdain for the reality-based world. They prefer superstition to reason, dogma to science, and illusory "good old days" to history.
Other than that, though, great comment!
There are currently 500,000 excess deaths in the US.
I doubt any of those are Pure Bloods.
I know nothing about Pure Bloods.
I blame my failure to spend hours each day at FreeRepublic, Gateway Pundit, Instapundit, Stormfront, One America, Newsmax, and RedState.
I'm sure you're capable of making a guess.
Not interested.
We both know you know what a Pure Blood is.
As is customary, you are wrong.
Well of course your Internets time is limited at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
but hey (man!) maybe Stuttering John Fetterman will pardon you....
Stuttering John?
This is the audience you have cultivated, Volokh Conspirators.
Which is the reason your employers regret hiring you.
YOU seem to want to call almost all people stupid
7 days ago — Child vaccination rates vary widely across states, ranging from 2% to 35% receiving their first dose
--But if you had a baby you would check, woudln't you??
Rather than just live and let live, “Forcing others to adhere to your imagined worldviews all around!”
Monty Python said it best:
https://youtu.be/PObBA2wH5l0
Mr. Park no doubt knows he's losing. Good use of resources to ignore this case, so long as the check clears. He might win the case he paid attention to.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, 1808)
Umm "Towel Head?........"
Is it so remarkable that a lawyer did not know everything?
The lawyers for the other side, for example, still aren't sure whether Trump was reelected; whether Paul Pelosi met his assailant at a gay bar; or whether any vestigial racism exists in the United States.
Other than the racism that persecutes whites, of course.
Hey we could look at the SS video recordings of the night in question!
Oh wait, they vanished. lmao Good one.
No one expects lawyers to know everything. There is, however, an expectation that they will be well versed on the details of the case they are arguing, even more so when they are arguing in a precedent setting case (be it establishing, reaffirming, or overruling) that will likely be cited for decades to come, regardless of who ends up winning.
Getting into specifics, they should be aware of the argument that the racial categories are arbitrary because a brief was submitted to the court on that very topic. They should be aware that there is a chance that they will be called to answer questions on that topic. And given that chance, it not unreasonable to expect them to be well versed on what classifications exist and who falls under which. And because this was a lawyer arguing for those categories being lawful/constitutional, you’d expect them to be able to explain how they aren’t arbitrary, if not explain the underlying logic for deciding which people belong in which category (ie ‘The classifications are directly imported from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which in turn uses the standard “Directive 15” classifications used throughout the federal government. And according to Directive 15, individuals of Middle Eastern origin are officially “White.”‘).
Then again, you’d rather just play what-about-ism bingo, so its not all that surprising.
Are you a lawyer? I sense not.
Are you a Pedophile? I sense yes.
The Volokh Conspirators are grateful for your support.
My parents were arrested in Alabama for their marriage because my father is a Yiddish-speaking Ukrainian Jew (white) while my mom is a North African Jewish Berber (non-white by 1950s Alabama standards).
Did he piss someone off that just wanted to make his life even more difficult?
Because I struggle to believe that Alabamans were concerned about keeping Ukrainian Jews racially clean.
Did they not believe he was Jewish?
Jews were well-integrated into Southern white racist society during the 50s. A Jew was occasionally offered membership in the KKK. From the standpoint of Southern white racism, a northern Jewish anti-racist was an aberration, to which a native Southern white Jew almost invariably objected.
County/City/Date???, should be easy to find a Newspaper story https://go.newspapers.com (great resource) for your bullshit story.
Just as I thought:
Your search for "Affleck miscegenation from 1950 - 1965 in Alabama did not return any matches"
that's the thing with bullshit stories, sometimes peoples check them out.
I don't use my birth name. I am offended my by my psycho-Zionist relatives, who have been important Zionist leaders since the 2nd Aliyah.
Joachim here is a serial fabulist when it comes to his background.
...or just about anything.
David Nieporent is the fabulist. He makes up stories, which allege that he understands common carriage law, telecommunications law, and technology law.
When I worked at AT&T, I consulted on a number of common carriage cases. I can safely assert that David Nieporent is outrageously ignorant of all the above areas of law. You can read about two of the cases (ECom and Dial-A-Porn) in my draft petition for certiorari through this Gofundme web page.
https://gofund.me/9453f480
[When I use a direct link, the comment is filtered out. This website seems to reject a comment that contains a GoogleDrive link.]
It's possible they were arrested on suspicion of interracial marriage, but they undoubtedly were not prosecuted once they were questioned, because Middle Easterners were always considered white under the relevant laws. Indeed, light-skinned African Americans who sought to "pass" for white often claimed that they were Arabs.
You weigh in so confidently on what happened. But Berbers aren't Arabs, so your technical analysis is wrong. (And you can come back with Berbers were considered white too, but you were wrong on the facts. Wrong.)
Though even if you were right on the facts and the law, your confidence that the Alabama justice system, in the 1950s no less, would scrupulously follow your impeccable legal analysis is laughably arrogant. Yes, laughably.
To be clear, I have no idea if Berbers were considered white or some other category. They are not Arabs, though. And you could argue that they were considered Arabs, but that's different from actually being Arab. Which they most definitely are not.
Which kind of goes to the problem with your post. The question was what should a person from Jordan, etc., check on the box. That depends on the person. Surely Jordan is not 100% Arab. Thus, the question was sloppily framed. And noting that the applicant could disclose their country of origin was a legitimate answer.
Yes, it would have been better if he had made explicit the assumption that the questioner undoubtedly was making and then give the background you gave (assuming that's accurate, but you don't know an Arab from a Berber, so I have less than full confidence you are accurate on other facts). But it's a little tedious to quibble that he didn't know what an unidentified person from a particular country should check. Quick: Which box should a Brazilian check? It's a dumb question.
My father's lawyers got the charge dropped. Alabama had its own definition of white.
Sometimes a Sicilian was beat up or lynched for trying to date a white woman. I know Sicilian guy, who in 1952 had to flee Alabama with his Alabama fiancee.
See The Lynching of Sicilian Immigrants in the American South, 1886-1910.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263367742_The_Lynching_of_Sicilian_Immigrants_in_the_American_South_1886-1910
I was 4 years old. It was all very scary. My father claims I freaked out the police because I was wailing and because even at 4 I looked so much like my mother but was nowhere near as dark.
I'm surprised you brought this up, David. His answer totally destroys your false narrative about Harvard's use of too-coarse categories -- the federal checkboxes -- as their classification system for admissions purposes. Not only doesn't he know / care what they even are, he demonstrates that they're irrelevant. An applicant from the Middle East could essentially write that in, which would give them the potential racial / ethnic diversity boost, same as someone who checked Hispanic. And even in the follow-up quality-analysis phase, they measure such diversity country by country, not checkbox by checkbox as has been your unending claim.
You cut the quote off before it gets really good (or really bad, for you). Here's the full answer:
MR. PARK: I -- I do not -- do not know the answer to that question. What I can say is that if a person from a Middle Eastern country self-discloses their country of origin, it would be considered in the same way that we consider any box that matches, you know, one of the boxes that's available in the common application, which is it would be an individualized holistic analysis. And I can genuinely say that there would be a similar positive analysis in terms of the contribution that a student like that would contribute. And -- and we do track, in particular, again, after the admissions process, religion and -- and country of origin and that sort of thing.
Clingers don't go to the marketplace ideas with the ideas or evidence that can win; they go to the culture war (and lose) with the ideas and evidence that have.
What’s your prediction for the upcoming election?
Bitter clingers or their Democrat Betters?
I don't know, Sleepy Joe's brought gas prices down from the $5/gal it was when he took over (OK, he "took over" about as much as Prince Chuckles did in the UK) in January 2021, and funny, seems to me the opposite happened.
The average US retail gas price around the time Biden took office in January 2021 was just under $2.50 per gallon. Of course, the price was lower than normal because the US was still in a driving recession due to covid restrictions.
I perceive this election to be unusually unpredictable, for several reasons.
I perceive the trajectory of the American culture war to be substantially predictable, for many reasons.
I look into my crystal ball and see less homosexual child grooming and fewer men in dresses.
hbu?
Do you object to men in dresses?
How did you think I'd respond to a picture of Satan?
You read it here first,
and I was within 2 Electrical Votes of getting the 0-16 erection right, (which Nate Silver not only got wrong, but WAY wrong, and somehow still has a job)
HOUSE: Repubiclowns get 256 seats (of course it'll take Alaska a month to count less than 200K votes while Florida counts 10+million in one night.
SENATE: R's end up with 55 seats (same sitch-u-asian in Alaska)
Just heard Sleepy's making another "Democracy in Peril" speech tonight, nobody tell him he told us that one already....
Frank "Phillies in 5"
The marketplace of ideas values debate, not crushing down on those who disagree.
If they're irrelevant, why argue for the usage of them to remain legal? Either they are irrelevant, in which case them being unlawful to consider will do nothing to admissions, or they are relevant and the advocate needs to demonstrate how they aren't arbitrary. You can't really have it both ways here.
I don't think anyone will be sad if the outcome of this case is to simply ban the use of the checkboxes. That would be a win for the universities.
I think the reason they didn't push harder for that result is it would be a pivot in their argument that undermines their main point, which isn't worth doing sonce it's such an unlikely outcome. There's really no justification for drawing the line at checkboxes.
Yeah, I'm not sure I get David's supposed takeaway that either he didn't look at the application or that he was purposefully obfuscating. In Justice Jackson's questioning, Park responded as to the contents of the common application, so clearly he has looked at it. What potential benefit would he get from obfuscating on this point? His concession would not have affected the rest of his answer. Justice Kavanaugh can look at the common application and determine its contents himself, should he write an opinion on this case so Park can't run from the answer. Finally, if Kavanaugh had a point to make, why didn't he press it? Channeling David: Was Kavanaugh not prepared for oral argument? Had he not looked at the common application and was just reading questions his clerks wrote for him?
listening to the oral argument
- I laughed at the box checking
- if anything the box counting is the easiest part to change and is the most defensible part, as it is mandated by the government.
- The HARDEST part to change and worst part is what goes on behind closed doors where the real discrimination occurs
Randal, besides the fact that Mr. Park didn't disprove anything, you should at least know the difference between the lawyer arguing for UNC and the lawyer arguing for Harvard.
Great comment from a guy whose ostensibly scholarly blog regularly botches basic facts on Supreme Court history (if Prof. Bernstein has ever said a word concerning the shoddiness of Today In Supreme Court History, I do not recall it).
Carry on, clingers.
Well that’s certainly true! Lack of sleep gives me the brainfarts.
It still cracks me up that your argument is:
David: Hey! You say you want diversity but you’re going about it in a dumb way that proves you’re not really seeking diversity.
Universities: That’s not how we’re going about it. Here’s hundreds of pages of evidence to prove it.
David: Of course you would say that. I’ve already proven that you’re operating in bad faith, so I don’t have to believe anything you say.
"And — and we do track, in particular, again, after the admissions process, religion and — and country of origin and that sort of thing."
After it doesn't matter anymore.
Thanks for saving me the effort. They track, daily, blacks and hispanics. They may find someone's other background interesting in the particular case, but there is no tracking of it, and no institutional interest or pressure to consider it. The efforts of the lawyers to pretend they give the same weight to someone for being, say, an Uzbek, as they do for being "Hispanic" gave sophistry a bad name.
Oh! I’m glad you’ve abandoned one of your false talking points at least. You used to claim that even the post-game analysis was constrained to the federal categories. Now you’re admitting that it’s not. You’ve instead switched to a claim that, surprise, the post-game analysis doesn’t matter anyway. Well, baby steps!
Stop making up crap.
Ugh, I feel like your research assistant.
Here's you from six months ago.
Umm… the whole point of the post is that what universities (and the Supreme Court) have called “diversity” isn’t actually diversity, it’s assigning people to arbitrary classifications and then deciding that one has diversity if one has the targeted number of people from each classification. It’s balancing by arbitrary government ethnic/racial classification, not actual diversity.
The post-game analyses are how the universities measure their diversity efforts, how they know they got their "targeted number of people from each classification." Six months ago, you thought that was constrained to the "arbitrary government ethnic/racial classification." But now you seem to recognize that they go country by country as well, among other things.
It's great progress, really, I'm proud of you.
You are just making things up Randal, can you show us where NC or Harvard has tracked and Published any of the non-check marked diversity statistics?
Second, what kind of diversity are they measuring if it has no relationship to the "diversity" that's so important that they are awarding or denying admission based on it.
Its like an NFL team drafting based on 40yd time, but then once they draft players only tracking their performance based on hat size.
I'm glad you asked!
These "one-pagers" provide a snapshot of various demographic characteristics of Harvard's applicant pool and admitted class and compares them to the previous year. In addition to race, these sheets summarize the applicant pool on a variety of other dimensions (e.g., gender, geographic region, intended concentration, legacy status, whether a student applied for financial aid, etc.).
https://www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/06/first_circuit_court_of_appeals_opinion.pdf
They track all these stats both during the admissions process (these "one pagers" are the daily reports that David keeps harping on about, at least for Harvard) and afterward (the "post-game analysis").
The post-game analysis is not irrelevant, as you and David seem to think. It was of great interest to the district and circuit courts, as well as the justices during oral arguments, as proof of the universities' commitment to diversity on all these dimensions. Of course you have to study the ultimate outcomes in order to know that you're achieving your goals.
"Arab American and Iranian groups have been lobbying to take these groups out of the white classification."
Maybe we can take everybody out of the white classification. Just think, we can eliminate white privilege and whiteness entirely!
Yes! I would love that. Finally a good idea from the tiny pianist.
Just a Pubic-Screwel grad-you-ma-ate, but even I know "Iran" means "Land of the Aryans", and for the Daily Double, what was "Iran" (or as Barry America Hussein insists on pronouncing it, "Ear-Ron") called before it was called "Persia"?
What I find objectionable about the Common App is that it does not offer "Declines to state" as an option.
When we added a race/ethnicity question on our scholarship application form the majority of students chose "Declines to state."
Most people find such questions to be a microaggression.
"microaggression" is a made-up thing. It doesn't exist.
Microagression? I find it just plain offensive, as in none of your damn business.
I just thought I'd use the language favored by the folks who ask for such information. I agree. It's none of their damned business
I'm triggered by the word "microagression."
So when will the decision come down (or be leaked)? Will they wait to the end of the term(when new admissions have already been decided) or do it quickly before the next class is chosen?
Why would anyone expect a leak? Is Ginni Thomas invested in this case?
Now that there is a predicate with the Dobb's leak (still no word on who did it; seems like most of the investigations lately) why not expect a leak?
How soon is the next election, and what are the prospects the decision will swing some votes?
Put me down in the pool for the second-to-last opinion day in the term. I'll also predict that if they do overturn it, they'll still send it back to the lower court for ... something - so it will be at least two more school years before the decision is actually implemented.
I have said before that Prof. Bernstein’s book, “Classified”, although not ostensibly idealogical, shows that attempts to pigeon-hole people into racial/ethnic/etc. categories cause absurd results. Mr. Park’s inadequate response proves the point. (I must admit however that early in my career during an oral argument, I couldn’t remember the name of “Marbury v. Madison” until the judge suggested it to me. I survived, so will Mr. Park, both of us wiser for the experience.)
Oh, by the way, who could forget General Patton's comment, after defeating the Germans in North Africa, “Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!” At least, he said that in the movie.
Eric VonSalzen 6 mins ago (edited)
I have said before that Prof. Bernstein’s book, “Classified”, although not ostensibly idealogical, shows that attempts to pigeon-hole people into racial/ethnic/etc. categories cause absurd results. Mr. Park’s inadequate response proves the point. (I must admit however that early in my career during an oral argument, I couldn’t remember the name of “Marbury v. Madison” until the judge suggested it to me. I survived, so will Mr. Park, both of us wiser for the experience.)
Oh, by the way, who could forget General Patton’s comment, after defeating the Germans in North Africa, “Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!” At least, he said that in the movie.
Does Turkey count as part of the Middle East? I'm asking because I want to know whether Senator Oz will be non-white.
People with ancestry in Turkey are "officially" in the "White" classification. But so are Palestinians, and then doesn't stop Rep. Tlaib from identifying herself as a "woman of color." And the media tends to go along with it.
Why can't people accept that, with a few exceptions, we are all mutts?
“simply not want to concede that Middle Easterners are treated as generically white”
Bingo, got it in one