David Lat on Race-Based Affirmative Action

I much liked his latest item on the subject, in his Original Jurisdiction newsletter. It's hard to say anything really new on the subject, but Lat sets forth his position well, as he always does. He begins:

I'm a moderate, capable of seeing shades of gray in almost any issue. There are only a few issues about which I feel strongly. Free speech is one, as my regular readers know. Another is affirmative action, by which I mean racial preferences—i.e., giving a candidate a plus or a minus based on nothing more than their race….

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm wondering if there have ever been any studies as to the short and long term effects of this self-identifying check mark attempt at "diversity".

How have "affirmative action" admissions fared while in school and after graduation?

[tkamenick]

Mismatch - the answer is, on average, worse than students who didn't benefit from affirmative action, and worse for those who did compared to attending a school with a curriculum more suited to their talents.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

You betcha. The universities are happy to show the racial breakdown of their admission policies. Good luck trying to find the racial breakdown of the graduates.

[Brett Bellmore]

Does that really matter, though, when their public justification for racially biased admissions is educational benefit to the other students, not the AA admitted students? I mean, that's what the diversity rationale says: They're admitting "diverse" students for the educational benefit to the OTHER students exposed to them.

Maybe they could just cut to the chase and hire them as actors, to play at being students for the benefit of the real students.

[Mr. Bumble]

Isn't that role being played by the DEI administrators?

[TW]

They don't care if these students appear at commencement so long as their pictures appear in the brochure.

[Randal]

Although his overall point is correct, Lat stumbles over the same strawman that captivates seemingly everyone on the right.

When Harlan applies to college, should he benefit simply from checking the Black and Latino boxes, even if he didn’t suffer significant adversity from being Black or Latino? Much as it pains me to say this, given how much I’d like him to attend a school like Harvard or UNC, I think not. He should not be able to “free ride” off of the experiences of applicants who have suffered on account of their race.

Of course Harlan should benefit from checking the boxes. He likely has a lot of valuable experiences stemming from his extremely variegated family, even in a privileged setting. The purpose of diversity is not to redress the “racial suffering” of applicants. And the last thing the universities want is a homogenous slate of black students who all have a similar experience of “overcoming racism.” Ugh, could you imagine? No, they want Theo Huxtable to be there too, who will still have a different perspective and outlook than another white upper-middle-class son of a doctor would have.

The Harvard advocate Mr. Waxman talked about this in his characteristically inarticulate way:

Harvard is attempting not to have … a class that is racially diverse only for people for whom their racial identity and their racial experiences is of such compelling importance that they write about it.

He then goes on to lay out an anecdote with three black students in a class who discover that they each have a completely different take on… whatever topic was being discussed, and so everyone learned a lot about stereotypes that day or something. It was pretty cheesily presented, but the point is valid. Diversity isn’t about admitting the most screwed-over minorities. It’s literally about diversity.

[Mr. Bumble]

Checking a box to indicate your "self-identified" race (or as Prof. Bernstein has noted, ethnicity in most cases) is no way to decide who to admit to a college or anything else for that matter.

[Randal]

Yeah, like I said, Lat's overall point was correct. He just took some wrong turns getting there.

[David Nieporent]

It is of course you who are utilizing a strawman. "Diversity" is not about diversity. Nobody believes this. Some people pretend to, for legal reasons. But it's the exact same policy of racial balancing that it has always been, just rebranded to pass muster with the courts.

[Randal]

That's such a fully stupid position. Your conspiracy fantasy would require all administrators and admissions officers at all universities to be lying. And not for the benefit of themselves, nor for the benefit of the universities. Just... to piss you off I guess.

Asinine.

[Noorondoor]

They are lying. They know what they're doing is effectively a quota, but misrepresent that fact to comply with Bakke.

[SoSoCoCoMoFo]

Moreover, of course, most people are more lazy than evil. If the easiest way to accomplish something is to simply process the check-boxes, those check-boxes will--by and large--get processed.

[Randal]

That's certainly true, but the checkboxes aren't the question, intent is the question. DN is claiming that "diversity" is a smokescreen that thousands of people are hiding behind in order to enact their true scheme: brown supremacy. Thousands of lazy people, plus their lawyers, all part of one enormous conspiracy to trick the legal system. That's the ludicrous part.

[Rossami]

I'm not sure what evidence you have for your assertion about David's claim. Your interpretation is certainly not provable based on the comment above. Nor by any of his other comments that I recall here on Reason.

[Randal]

Uh, he laid it out explicitly just a few comments up. "Diversity" is not about diversity, it's a legal pretense, etc etc

[MaddogEngineer]

That has nothing to do with "brown" supremacy. It's not about diversity, and it is a legal pretense, to hide trying to achieve a racial balance mostly unrelated to any objective merit standard. That's quotas, not supremacy.

Framing someone's position in crass apocalyptic terms is bad faith argumentation.

[Randal]

There's no conflict between diversity and racial balancing, so if he meant what you're saying, he's retarded instead of brainwashed, which is only slightly better.

There's mechanism, which is racial balancing (aka quotas) vs. "holistic" analysis.

Then there's the intent, or "compelling interest," which is diversity vs. redress of racial suffering.

You can be doing racial balancing for diversity purposes, or racial balancing for redress of suffering. Or you can do holistic analysis for diversity purposes or holistic analysis for redress of suffering. The only one that Grutter allows is holistic analysis for diversity purposes.

It seems pretty clear to me that DN is suggesting that the secret purpose of the universities' policies is redress of racial suffering and not in fact diversity. Which is an insane conspiracy theory.

[David Nieporent]

It seems pretty clear to me that DN is suggesting that the secret purpose of the universities’ policies is redress of racial suffering and not in fact diversity. Which is an insane conspiracy theory.

I am suggesting no such thing. I am suggesting that it is an open purpose, and that everyone knows that.

Although I don't really think it's about "redress of racial suffering," though that was certainly the original impetus for these things 50 years ago. It's now just pure racial balancing for the sake of racial balancing. I mean, it's often open, as when people talk about how a particular institution needs to "look like America." That is not about diversity. That is just crudely saying racial balancing.

The whole "holistic analysis" is just a dodge. Sure, they don't have a strict, rigid scoring system the way the U of M did in Gratz. But they use race on its own as a massive factor. Every analysis has come to the conclusion that being black is worth more than any other factor, and being Asian by itself is a major negative, irrespective of any other characteristics.

[Randal]

Hm so maybe you just haven't thought about it very hard. Focusing just on intent, like, what universities hope to accomplish, in that context how is "racial balancing" different from "racial diversity" in your mind?

[David Nieporent]

how is “racial balancing” different from “racial diversity” in your mind?

Racial balancing is having a specific desired racial breakdown of the class, generally (but not necessarily) based on the racial breakdown of the country. Diversity is about having people with lots of different backgrounds.

[Randal]

So… why would a university want a specific racial breakdown rather than simple racial diversity? I don’t get the motivation. You’re proposing this vast conspiracy, what’s the point of it?

[shawn_dude]

With a very large number of universities underenrolling at the moment, due mostly to a lower birth rate a couple decades ago but also effects from COVID, they are enrolling anyone that is qualified regardless of race or gender.

Fun fact: men often get priority over women in admissions largely due to the fact that more women apply overall and campuses trying to maintain diversity aim for something closer to 50/50. So, if race is not an allowable factor, should gender be? And if so, how many men will be denied admission to their first choice school because a woman had a slightly higher test score or GPA?

[tkamenick]

Yes, and being a member of -any- class tells you literally nothing about your actual attributes and experiences. It tells you what you might be statistically more or less likely to be, but it tells you nothing about what you actually are.

[Randal]

That's why the bonuses ("tips" at Harvard) are never automatic.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" being a member of -any- class tells you literally nothing about your actual attributes and experiences "

That's much of what makes white nationalists, nonsense-believing gay-bashers, immigrant-haters, antisemites, misogynists, and other bigots so repulsive.

[Bubba Jones]

The purpose of diversity is not to redress the “racial suffering” of applicants.

That is quite certainly the purpose of Affirmative Action.

[Randal]

Congratulations on knowing the names of things.

[shawn_dude]

Affirmative action and diversity are two different things when it comes to enrollment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Although it would be valuable as a matter of principle to have a full-throated opinion against racial preferences, I wonder if in practice it will make much difference.

If the universities lose, they will officially drop race from their “holistic” evaluation process, but as Lat and others indicate, the holistic stuff will still be in effect, and they would presumably find “race neutral” ways to get the results they want. Students will simply submit essays about their overcoming of adverse circumstances, and about their awesomeness in general even if their awesomeness isn’t fully reflected in their grades and test scores. Admissions officials will use their superpowers (/sarc) to decide which applicants, holistically considered, have the better life stories, and which stories are accurate and which ones are exaggerated. Perhaps – a cynical thought, I admit – these officials will be judged on whether their process produces whatever type and amount of diversity is required.

Also, with all these essays affirming their own awesomeness, and supposedly reflecting their grit, determination, etc., I imagine that the children of the affluent (especially black and hispanic applicants who have the misfortune of living in a suburb instead of a poor part of town) – may actually have some advantages vis-a-vis the poor: students with the sophistication and networks to write the right essays and get the right recommendations will get a boost, not to mention those extracurricular activities which the poor may not be able to utilize as fully.

(Also, I hypothesize that there’s going to be a lot of applications from middle-class and affluent kids whose essays describe how working in soup kitchens, or going on charitable trips to Peru – depending on what their ambitious parents could afford – widened their perspective and made them more compassionate, etc.).

So don’t panic yet, even an adverse ruling may not have much practical impact on the status quo, or only a marginal impact.

[Brett Bellmore]

What it's going to come down to is that they'll substitute looking at a photo for checking the box. While applicants will, not terribly subtly, be encouraged to mention their race in their application essays.

And they'll have all the information they need to continue implementing their quota system, without the check box.

Rooting out this deeply entrenched racism is going to be a very difficult task, because the racists in this case don't feel even a little guilty about it, their peers validate their views, they think they're enlightened, not bigots. And people who think the same way are in control of the accreditation process.

In various areas where a serious effort has been made to actually end racial discrimination, the only solution that has really worked is pure meritocracy with any clues to race being actively prohibited. Blind auditions for orchestras, for instance.

But it's going to be really hard to get a majority on the Court for commanding anything that extreme. So I think we can predict that racism in university admissions will continue for at least a couple more decades.

Well, my half Filipino son can pass for black as long as he's wearing sunglasses to hide his epicanthal folds; He's actually darker than half the "black" kids in the neighborhood. So there is that.

[Randal]

Of course that’s what’s going to happen. The whole case hinges on the fact that they can probably get close to what they want with “race-neutral alternatives.” So the reason Grutter can be overturned is because nothing much will change.

Even the conservative justices claimed to desire diversity. They just want the universities to stop saying that they use race in the process... even though they still will, like in California. Sotomayor was the only one to point out how stupid that is, and everyone else was like shhh! Don't give away the game!

[David Nieporent]

Of course that’s what’s going to happen. The whole case hinges on the fact that they can probably get close to what they want with “race-neutral alternatives.” So the reason Grutter can be overturned is because nothing much will change.

Weird that they're fighting so hard to keep their racial preference based policies, then.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a combination of thinking their racial preferences are right and good, and should be endorsed by the legal system, and trying to avoid the inconvenience of the workarounds they'll have to resort to if they can't openly discriminate.

[Randal]

It's also the fact that this is unlikely to be the last word on the matter. Eventually someone will litigate the race-neutral alternatives for being racially motivated, for example. Kavanaugh brought this up yesterday. He's already looking for how to define what counts as sufficiently "neutral."

[Brett Bellmore]

The longer they can push out the end of AA, the greater the chance that natural turnover at the Court, or possibly Court packing, will save it. So they're running out the clock.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, Med Screw-el applications been requiring Photos since at least 1982 when I submitted mine (Organization you submitted to was "AMCAS" (Rhymes with "Ass" appropriately) Remember it well because the pre-med adviser told me to get a haircut (had the "Johnny Cougar" mullet) also layed off the Marriage-a-Juana for a few days so I didn't have the "(redacted) eyes"

Frank M.D. (Mentally Deranged)

[Noorondoor]

Or they'll accept as "overcoming diversity" some inane essay from an applicant about feeling like a security guard at a store was watching him more closely.

[tkamenick]

Yeah, I mean, this is the problem with all laws that have an intent element, no? It doesn't mean you don't have those laws.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Rooting out this deeply entrenched racism is going to be a very difficult task "

I missed the switch to a discussion of Republican-conservative voter suppression programs and the Shelby County decision, but that seems a timely subject.

[MaverickNH]

I’m reminded of my 1st job in a Fortune 100 company in the 90s, which was largely populated by thousands of white employees. Having come from ~10yr of graduate/post-graduate education in Ivy League/elite universities, I was often in the minority at the university as a 2nd Gen Irish/Slovak white son of blue collar parents. My exposure to students of an array of cultures made life interesting. Thereafter, the lack of diversity in my workplace was astounding and remained so in most of my jobs through 2022. At that 1st job, I met sons of wealthy parents who spent several years traveling the world after earning an MBA to gain a diversity of experience, which was highly valued. I’m not exactly sure what a diversity of life experience brings to university students that they then bring to their subsequent jobs.

[Brett Bellmore]

More interesting conversation while waiting on the last guy to show up for the conference, would be my guess.

[shawn_dude]

For starters, the way a person internalizes the lessons learned in college, especially things like sociology, will be different if there are perspectives from students who grew up outside of white, privileged society. Preparing students for a world that isn't entirely white and privileged gives them a wider perspective which is, hopefully, expressed in their daily work lives. Though I should also point out that exposure diverse persons and backgrounds should be an end in itself and not everything should be measured by its value in employment.

Further, I interpret your point to also mean that elite schools graduate students into elite jobs and those are largely going to be populated by the scions of rich white people who will live in a world insulated by wealth. The UNC lawsuit, however, impacts non-elite schools and non-rich scions who will live in a world filled with non-white poor-to-middle class people from a variety of backgrounds. Wouldn't it be cool if they had some prior experience getting along in a diverse setting?

[OtisAH]

I guess like the justices themselves David Lat ignored every time the plaintiffs explained that race alone is not a deciding factor and that nobody gets admitted just for checking the right box.

[AmosArch]

If you gave KKK members or most any racist group, truth serum I'm pretty sure most of them will have some reasons they dislike minorities other than just straight up race.

[OtisAH]

I’m sure you imagine you’ve made a relevant point. So good job!

[AmosArch]

Your side would never have any patience for a KKK member excusing their racism by stating its not the only reason why they treat minorities differently why do you expect us to have patience for you excusing your racism by stating its not the only thing you take into account when treating minorities differently?

[OtisAH]

I already acknowledged your effort. I didn’t need the thought process behind your dumb “point.”

[Noorondoor]

It's not a dumb point. People understandably dislike the black "community" because they are overrepresented in crime, illegitimacy, welfare use, and everything else. If they were truly white supremacists, they wouldn't like Asians, either, but that is rarely the case.

[Brett Bellmore]

I hear that we like Asians because they're 'super-white'. You know, like my wife. Whiter than white.

[Noorondoor]

Yes. If people dislike a group because that group is overrepresented in antisocial behavior, they're not going to stop that dislike because you tell them to. They'll stop once that group stops being overrepresented in antisocial behavior, much like what happened with the Irish after 1850 or so.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not much chance of that, since the anti-social behavior has only gotten worst and is celebrated in the popular culture.

Go ANTIFA and BLM.

[Randal]

Worldwide, easily the most disliked group for being overrepresented in antisocial behavior is white Americans. How long before they get their shit together, do you think?

[Brett Bellmore]

I can pretty much guarantee that's not actually true. Outside of perhaps Montana, there's almost no place on Earth where white Americans are the leading anti-social group.

[Randal]

You've obviously never been abroad.

[Noorondoor]

Randal, that's absolute BS. Having traveled extensively throughout the world, I can say forcefully that many non-white cultures are jealous of whites, but no one dislikes them for anti-social behavior. If that was the case, white tourists wouldn't be fawned over.

[Noorondoor]

Correct. You incentivize and excuse bad behavior, you get more of it.

[Randal]

White American tourists' money is fawned over, sure. The tourists themselves? Not so much. Next time try passing as Canadian. Totally different experience.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" People understandably dislike the black “community” because they are overrepresented in crime, illegitimacy, welfare use, and everything else. "

What do those people think of downscale conservative whites living in uneducated, dysfunctional, superstition-riddled, bigoted, parasitic Republican backwaters?

[Noorondoor]

Look at the crime statistics of those backwaters. They're nowhere near as bad as blacks'

[Frank Drackman]

like former WVA Senator (D) and KKK Grand Kleagle Robert KKK Bird? the only Senator who voted against both Thorogood Marshall AND Clarence "Frogman" Thomas.
Probably didn't vote for Barry America either,

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course they ignored it. What were they supposed to do, remind the plaintiffs that lying in court is sanctionable?

Yeah, sure, it's not the only criterion, they're not going to admit some black kid who flunked all his classes. It's just the biggest criterion; Literally an Asian kid can have everything else going for him, and get beat out by a black kid who barely qualifies, because that skin color outweighs everything else once you clear the bar for even being considered.

[OtisAH]

Oh look, it’s Brett accusing sworn officers of the court of perjury without anything to support the charge. What a treat.

Tune in all day for more “That’s Our Brett!”

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, look, it's Brett not ignoring the evidence.

[OtisAH]

By all means, Brett, let’s see your evidence that the defense attorneys perjured themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I guess like the justices themselves David Lat ignored every time the plaintiffs explained that race alone is not a deciding factor and that nobody gets admitted just for checking the right box."

It's literally true that you're not going to be admitted by just checking the right box if you otherwise have no qualifications whatsoever. But since nobody thought that was the case in the first place, it's a strawman.

It is, however, also true that if you meet the bare qualifications for being considered for admission, checking the right box dominates every other factor. Literally the worst black applicant they would even consider has a marginally higher chance of being admitted than the best Asian applicant. According to the statistics submitted by the plaintiffs themselves!

Why? Because the Asians got systematically marked down on totally subjective criteria such as "likeability". Nice thing about subjective measures is that you can't prove they're just a cover for racism...

And the best part? Even Harvard thinks Harvard discriminates against Asians!

"The court documents, filed in federal court in Boston, also showed that Harvard conducted an internal investigation into its admissions policies in 2013 and found a bias against Asian-American applicants. But Harvard never made the findings public or acted on them."

[Noorondoor]

It's literally the same situation as what happens in co-op boards and condos in some places. They'll never admit they're rejecting a buyer because of race, but will say things like "We didn't think he'd 'fit in.'"

[OtisAH]

I’m man enough to apologize when I’ve done something wrong and this is one of those cases. When I challenged Brett for evidence to support his accusation of perjury I of course knew he had none. Worse, I knew whatever he posted in response would just be more of Brett’s basic “flood the zone with shit and give the appearance he’d supported his statement” modus operandi. True to form, Brett spent some of his precious time doing exactly that. And for that, for wasting poor Brett’s valuable time, I apologize.

[Randal]

And ours!

[not guilty]

The defense attorneys perjured themselves? What were they doing testifying?

[Noorondoor]

You're an idiot. The numbers don't lie. Look at the average SAT/LSAT/MCAT scores, when broken out by race. It's very clear that black and Hispanic applicants can get admitted to schools with credentials that would lead to a white or Asian's application to go straight into the trash.

If race is the "but for" cause, as it nearly always is, the "holistic" review idea is a farce.

[Social Justice is neither]

You can also look at the graduation:admission ratios by race to get an idea if the subjective measures are swallowing the more objective criteria.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you can to the extent they're not also grading on a racial curve. Which is the next step after admitting on the basis of race.

[Noorondoor]

Which is why it's important to look at academic programs (like law school and hard sciences) with more objective or blind grading criteria.

How well a black Ph.D student in African American studies does doesn't tell you much.

[Noscitur a sociis]

every time the plaintiffs explained that race alone is not a deciding factor

I agree that the defendants (the plaintiffs are the ones challenging the admissions policies) said that. But they also said that black and Hispanic enrollment would decline if the schools couldn’t consider race. Those don’t seem like things that could both be true.

[OtisAH]

They can both be true because people will simply revert back to viewing others who are like them more favorably than those who are not. It’s not even necessarily a conscious decision. By taking race *into consideration* it forces admissions to look deeper into the qualifications of other students rather than skimming and moving on.

[tkamenick]

Yes, because choosing to discriminate based on race is so much better than unintentionally discriminating based on race! (Also, you're ignoring steps that can be taken to make applications race-blind)

[shawn_dude]

Reverse discrimination arguments aren't convincing. No matter how much it's obscured by propagandistic rhetoric, we can still see the tiki torches.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're saying that Harvard gets to look at race because Harvard is racist, and consciously taking race into account is the only way their bigoted admissions officers have a prayer of not discriminating against blacks.

That's certainly a novel excuse for race based policies. Doesn't make the least sense, but it's novel.

[Life of Brian]

every time the plaintiffs explained that race alone is not a deciding factor and that nobody gets admitted just for checking the right box.

To be fair, the vast majority of the times I heard were in response to smug, leading questions from Sotomayor and Jackson, apparently just for PR soundbites. Since nobody ever claimed that checking the box resulted in an auto-admit, such a straw man wouldn't of course be the focus of the actual advocacy in the case.

[OtisAH]

“Checking the box is an auto-admit” is one of the primary “beliefs” of the entire anti-Affirmative Action effort. It’s the last line of Lat’s first paragraph! And you’ll find that accusation stated as fact throughout this comment section today. And Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett all repeatedly asked similar questions despite repeatedly being given similar responses.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Another is affirmative action, by which I mean racial preferences—i.e., giving a candidate a plus or a minus based on nothing more than their race."

So, you're saying that you're illiterate, and simply can't understand written English?

[Bored Lawyer]

It’s the last line of Lat’s first paragraph!

No, it isn't.

I’m a moderate, capable of seeing shades of gray in almost any issue. There are only a few issues about which I feel strongly. Free speech is one, as my regular readers know. Another is affirmative action, by which I mean racial preferences—i.e., giving a candidate a plus or a minus based on nothing more than their race.

Let me give you two pieces of free advice:

1. Misrepresenting facts, especially easily checked facts, is a bad idea. Destroys your credibility.
2. Opposing straw-man arguments makes your argument look weak and foolish.

[Randal]

You and Brett are mentally confused by your cult brainwashings. Obviously no one is suggesting that everyone who checks "Hispanic" gets into Harvard. That's retarded.

"Race alone is a deciding factor" means an automatic boost, effectively lowering the bar for Hispanics and other groups.

But none of these schools give an automatic boost. Lat suggests they do: "giving a candidate a plus or a minus based on nothing more than their race." Candidates aren't given pluses or minuses based on race alone. Just checking the box isn't enough.

[tkamenick]

So, do approve or disapprove of disparate impact analyses?

[Bored Lawyer]

This is not disparate impact. This is a conscious effort to give plus points to certain racial groups and minus points to others.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody thinks that "race alone" is the deciding factor; that's a strawman. Nobody thinks that a high school dropout with a 600 combined SAT score is getting into Harvard because he's black. Race is simply a huge factor.

[Bored Lawyer]

Let’s assume that is true, why does that matter? It’s still discrimination to give extra points for being of certain races, and deduct points for being of lesser races. Race alone is still a plus factor (or a minus factor), even if many other factors are taken into consideration.

Suppose a university decided to give a 20% break on tuition to blacks and Latinos and charge a 20% surcharge to Asians and Jews. “But everyone has to pay some tuition, it’s just part of the tuition.” That argument would be laughed out of court faster than you can say Rule 11.

[Randal]

Race alone is still a plus factor (or a minus factor), even if many other factors are taken into consideration.

No, it isn't. I don't know why this is so hard. Not all Hispanics, for example, get a boost. A person who checks Hispanic only gets the boost if their ethnicity is relevant to the overall narrative of their application.

[Noorondoor]

That's absolutely not true. While the Census says "Hispanics can be of any race," they are treated as the same race for affiramtive action purposes, whether they're 100% of white Spanish DNA or zambos from Brazil.

[Randal]

Who the fuck is talking about the census? Did you accidentally wander into the wrong room? The adults are talking in here, why don't you go play outside, hm?

[AmosArch]

"Another is affirmative action, by which I mean racial preferences"

Well yeah..affirmative action is basically just straight up racism renamed by leftoids because they like it in this case. Good job professor.

[Frank Drackman]

Haven't been an NBA fan since Rick Barry days, anyone have a current Player racial breakdown? Wonder if RB still has highest career FT %, lets go to the Google!
NBA/ABA
Rank Player FT%
1. Stephen Curry .9087
2. Steve Nash* .9043
3. Mark Price .9039
4. Peja Stojaković .8948
5. Chauncey Billups .8940
6. Ray Allen* .8939
7. Rick Barry .8931

OK, only other player I've heard of is Steve Nash, but looks like 4 of the top 7 are White Boys, so the one Basketball skill you can improve purely by hard work is..... oh never mind

Frank "when did the ABA/NBA merge?"

[Frank Drackman]

Gonna answer my own question before the "Reverend" calls me "Klinger"
"According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2021 was composed of 73.2 percent black players, 16.8 percent white players, 3.1 percent Latino players of any race, and 0.4 percent Asian players. " Lapchick, Richard (August 25, 2021). "The 2021 Racial and Gender Report Card: National Basketball Association"
Once again Asians taking it in the (Basketball) Shorts

Frank "Only white boy on my 8th grade No-fuck Vagina Intergrated Pubic Screw-el Team"

[OtisAH]

That must’ve been one fucked up question.

[Frank Drackman]

Ahh, superstitious ay? For the benefit of the Kernicterus disabled, Haven’t been an NBA fan since Rick Barry days, anyone have a current Player racial breakdown?

[Frank Drackman]

OK, got Free Throws on the (whats left of my) Brain, lets check the top 7 for total Career Free Throws Made
NBA/ABA
Rank Player FT
1. Karl Malone* 9787
2. Moses Malone* 9018
3. Kobe Bryant* 8378
4. LeBron James 7861
5. Oscar Robertson* 7694
6. Michael Jordan* 7327
7. Dirk Nowitzki 7240
only 1 POP (Person of Pallor) and who knew that Wilt the Stilt is higher on the list than Rick Barry, sleeping with more than 20,000 women in his life, ooops, wrong list.

Wilt FT 6057 FTA 11682 % 51.1
Rick FT 5713 FTA 6397 % 89.3

wow, Wilt missed almost as many from the Charity Stripe as Rick made

Frank "when did they widen the key?"

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, what's the odds of the top 2 having the same last name? I mean I could see if it was "Washington" or "Jefferson" but "Malone" ?????

[dwb68]

Surprisingly well written, for a stem robot and Harvard grad. Where were the equations, anyway?
/sarc.

I dont always agree with Lat.... but he is a very persuasive writer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nothing more heartening at The Official Legal Blog Of Faux Libertarian Clingers than a couple of disaffected Federalist Societeers commiserating about all of this damned modernity and progress.

[Noorondoor]

Okay groomer.

[Bored Lawyer]

Number of posts by RAK this week: Too many to count.

Number of posts with any substance: Still Zero.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you were interested in substance, you wouldn't be at the Volokh Conspiracy.

[dwb68]

Giving people points based on skin color is not progress.

[shawn_dude]

Even when subtracting points based on non-white race is still common across the country.

[Frank Drackman]

Can you imagine what Rick Barry's FT % would be with the modern NBA ball with the wide grooves and slightly reduced circumference? And a good chunk of his career was with that ridiculous ABA Circus Clown ball.

[Mr. Bumble]

It may have been played with a "clown ball" but it had some great players, Dr J among them.

[Frank Drackman]

and how many points would Barry and Jerry West have if the 3 point shot was legal in the NBA before 1979?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not as many as Pete Maravich.

[Frank Drackman]

Good one "Rev" Jerry, something tells me you have some experience with "Roundball" (and the other variety) especially back in the 70's when we had to wear those awful short-shorts...
Mom made me do all those Pistol Pete ball-handling (love handling (my) balls) drills, most dangerous was the one where you bounce the ball between your legs front to back faster and faster until you.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F60p0CcEa7Q
Amazing PP accomplished what he did with only 1 Coronary Artery (Jay-Hay must have had a few with Paul Pelosi on the celestial assembly line that day) instead of the usual 3, dropped dead of an MI at age of 40, despite being a vegetarian....

[Mr. Bumble]

Gee, maybe midnight basketball was the answer.

[not guilty]

Clarence Thomas reportedly told North Carolina's Solicitor General, “I’ve heard the word ‘diversity’ quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means."

Really? There is much as to which he has no clue, but diversity is not that. Thomas was not considered for SCOTUS when William Brennan retired, but when Thurgood Marshall retired, George H. W. Bush suddenly needed a House Negro.

Thomas made his bones as a Republican toady by criticizing affirmative action, only to become the most prominent beneficiary thereof in American history. If he had a sincere bone in his body, he would have declined the SCOTUS nomination to succeed Thurgood Marshall.

[Noorondoor]

Where's your evidence he was appointed because of his race?

[not guilty]

Clarence Thomas had remarkably thin credentials when he was appointed to the federal bench -- a few years as an assistant attorney general in Missouri and a couple of executive branch appointments in the Reagan administration. His tenure on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was brief and undistinguished. As I said, he received no consideration by the same president for the Brennan vacancy.

When Thurgood Marshall retired, George H. W. Bush suddenly needed a House Negro. He found one who has never been fit to carry Marshall's briefcase.

Bush said of the nomination, "The fact that he is black and a minority has nothing to do with this sense that he is the best qualified at this time. I kept my word to the American people and to the Senate by picking the best man for the job on the merits. And the fact that he's a minority, so much the better." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/07/02/bush-picks-thomas-for-supreme-court/943b9fda-e079-405e-974e-14c2d0cd999b/ That characterization of Thomas is perhaps the most egregious lie told by a president during my lifetime -- worse than "I am not a crook" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

[Frank Drackman]

You know you could say the same "had remarkably thin credentials " about Barry America, Oh, I'm sorry, "Barak" Insane Clown Posse Osama, who also only got his job because he's 1/2 Afro-Amurican (and I get it, worked about 1/2 the time) and has anyone noticed his stutters gotten worse?

[not guilty]

Whenever I get a tu quoque reply I know I have struck an exposed nerve. The hit dog hollers.

[Frank Drackman]

Tone Loc doesn't have anything to do with this! And speaking of exposed nerves, an exposed nerve would be extremely painful with or without being struck, stop trying to practice Medicine without a license.
And speaking of hollering, sorry for pointing out your 1/2 Black s-s-s-s-stuttering ex POTUS, who was against SSM before he was dragged to supporting it by that Pioneering Progressive Sleepy Joseph, re-started the Wah in Afghanistan that "W" had pretty much ended, doesn't have any clothes.

Frank

[Noorondoor]

HIs credentials were not that different from that of Elena Kagan or John Roberts. Is it possible he was appointed because of his ideology? Certainly. But that's not what you're claiming.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Where’s your evidence he was appointed because of his race? "

I dare any Volokh Conspirator to assert that Clarence Thomas was not nominated consequent to his race. Step right up, any of you with some courage.

As you were, cowards.

[Rossami]

Despite it's use in Jacobellis, "I know it when I see it" is not a workable standard for a legal definition. That was Thomas' point.

You may think you know what "diversity" means but neither you nor any of the defending lawyers have been able to articulate it in a way relevant to this case that doesn't also violate the prohibition on quotas.

[Rigelsen]

CT was making a legal point about the fuzzy nature of “diversity”. Considering we have SS and KJB on the court now with their very special approaches to argumentation, complaining about CT just shows up you for the racist toady you are.

Anyway, since I don’t care for racist toadies, muted.

[Toranth]

It's always amazing how many Lefties can't hide their racism and bigotry when it comes to Clarence Thomas.

Not only are they open about it, they somehow feel proud of flinging those insults.

[Bubba Jones]

30 years ago, Texas addressed this by using geography as a proxy for privilege and race.

They grant automatic admission to state schools for the top 10% (top 7% for UT) of graduates from each individual high school.

One "complaint" is that students often choose to attend the state schools closer to their location and level of academic preparation rather than attend the flagship UT or A&M. But the end result is a lower percentage of rich white kids than before the program. And kids are judged according to their level of academic achievement within the context they live in.

[Reallynotbob]

But it doesn’t do that. 2021 UT (Austin) racial identification proportions do not closely match 2021 Texas racial identification census. For example:

UT Blacks = 5.2% ; Texas Blacks = 13.2%.
UT Hispanics = 24.2%; Texas Hispanics = 40.2%
UT Asians = 20.6%; Texas Asians = 5.5%.

Sources:https://www.utexas.edu/about/facts-and-figureshttps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/TX

[Rigelsen]

There are multiple UTs (and A&Ms), with different levels of competitiveness, just as there are multiple UCs (and CSAs) in CA which has similar concerns. Placing students into cohorts above their ability to complete is just setting them up to fail.

Anyway, looking at just the statistics of UTA in TX, like just looking at the statistics of Berkeley in CA, is not particularly useful.

[Noorondoor]

But UT Austin is the flagship campus. So he's just saying that Texas' geography method is not making its flagship school representative of the state as a whole.