The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
An Embarrassingly Unbalanced Law School Webinar on Affirmative Action
Seattle University is hosting eleven speakers for the webinar, all of whom support racial preferences.
Seattle University Law School is promoting a "webinar with national legal experts to analyze upcoming SCOTUS affirmative action decisions," to take place the day after the Supreme Court releases its opinion in the pending cases challenging racial preferences in admissions at Harvard and UNC.
Putting aside Seattle U. lawprofs who are participating, for whom I'll give the law school a pass, every single one of the eleven invited participants is a supporter of racial preferences. There is ideological diversity, but only in the sense that some of the participants are "mainstream" liberals, and some are Critical Race Theorists. Several of the panelists are known for arguing that current affirmative action policies, especially under the diversity rationale, are too conservative.
It strikes me that regardless of one's ideology, or what one thinks of affirmative action, a webinar on a decision to be issued by a conservative Supreme Court, which very likely will significantly restrict affirmative action preferences, should include experts whose views align to some degree with the Court (and, as a matter of public policy, with around 75% or so of Americans…)
The panelists are certainly diverse in terms of complexion and continent-of-ancestral-origin. But for an academic institution, a panel on a Supreme Court affirmative action decision that ranges in views from something like the far fringes of the left to just-to-the-right-of-Bernie Sanders is embarrassing. (And note that the two types of diversity need not be in conflict; there are plenty of Asian, Hispanic, and African American experts who are skeptical of or hostile to affirmative action, on both constitutional and public policy grounds.)
Seattle U's choice of speakers, ironically, suggests why the "diversity" rationale for affirmative action is a sham. Academic institutions that purport to be pursuing diversity rarely care about having the sort of diversity most important for such an institution, a diversity of worldviews. If anything they tend to prefer what one might call the Seattle University version of ideological diversity, views that range from merely "progressive" to "far left."
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
What a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive. The tangled web is that Africans are intellectually as capable as Europeans.
That's some tangle web you've duped yourself into believing. I would have thought Frederick Douglass at least would have demonstrated how you have fooled yourself, but apparently the universe keeps on inventing more foolish fools.
If you think one high IQ African proves that they are not genetically less intelligent as a group, you're even dumber than most of them are.
Some of those rap lyrics are pretty sophisticated, "My Hoe, My Bitch, My Bitch, My Hoe" and (the "Reverend") Al Sharpton was building pyramids in Africa when the Greeks were inventing Homosexuality.
There's a reason why sub-Saharan Africa has never produced a civilization or a real language. They're not capable.
What distinguishes a real language from languages that are not real?
Their "languages" are just cavemen grunting at each other.
Lack of natural harbors because it is all >1000 feet didn't help.
A day without racism (and other flavors of right-wing bigotry) at the Volokh Conspiracy is a day that doesn't exist.
Over time, that bigotry is dragging just about every other conservative preference down into political irrelevance with it, which is beautiful.
China's going to win this cold war, AIDS. Your entire political weltanschauung will die and you will be replaced.
Like China, the rest of the world consciously rejects your -- garbage -- values, AIDS. Embrace your future in the rubbish bin of history.
Carry on trolling, AIDS. Till your betters Breivik you.
You’re looking at this the wrong way — you need to exist that any debate exists within the underlying context of certain beliefs being established as unchangeable bedrock values: Affirmative Action is essential, any opposition to it is intolerable and must be opposed by all means necessary.
Hence the debate will be over (a) what part of the SCOTUS decision sucks the most and (b) what tactics should be employed to oppose and defy it. It could be an interesting debate as long as you understand THAT is what is being debated.
It's like the time UMass Amherst had a debate over the upcoming Governor's election, but it was limited to the reasons why the Democratic candidate would be a good Governor.
The saddest part of all of this is that somehow it has been decided that how a person looks, something they have zero control over, is now an important, if not the most important qualification.
Isn't this what we fought to eliminate during the Civil Rights era?
Well, Dr King did say it was just a dream.
or
One person's dream is another's nightmare.
Yes, but according to his more radical defenders, King made clear later that color blindness was more of an aspiration for the remote future than something to be adopted in the here and now.
If only he’d inserted a footnote to that effect in his I Have a Dream Speech, much misunderstanding would have been avoided.
Supposedly, Biden has appointed 97 federal judges, and only 3 out of 97 were straight white males.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/26/grothman-almost-impossible-for-white-men-to-become-federal-judges/70261241007/
According to wiki, it seems the number is closer to 140 total federal judges. He is doing more judicial appointments on a faster pace than Trump (well not him, his handlers).
I'm thinking we are going to do impeachments.
Why?
Biden may be a racist in choosing judges, but that doesn't mean they are unfit from that alone.
And if any judges are so unfit as to need removal, you shouldn't care about who appointed them.
Why? Because it's Dr. Ed. I'd ask if you're new here, but I know you're not, so why would you be surprised?
You expected balance from Seattle University?
Balanced speech doesn't mean racist hate speech!
Indeed.
It's not the school's fault if a large majority of Americans, including a majority of the Supreme Court and about half of all self-described Liberals, are malignant, poison-spewing fountains of hate on this issue.
I regularly attend events where every single speaker and everyone in the audience agrees that merger control is a good idea. The only topic of discussion is the how. Isn't that crazy unbalanced?
It would be, indeed, if half the country believed otherwise.
Any panel or conference where only one perspective is presented as crazy unbalanced.
What about blogs?
Do you ever attend events discussing a recent Supreme Court opinion in which all eleven speakers are known to have views contrary to the Court's ruling? Because such a panel would be similarly embarrassingly unbalanced.
How many Volokh Conspirators had views contrary to the Court's Obamacare ruling?
Related question: How many Volokh Conspirators are there these days?
As always when this topic comes up, I think y'all need to take a deep breath and remember: outside of lawyers and university administration, no one gives a shit.
Affirmative Action exists because of lawyers. It has continued because of lawyers. If it ends, it'll be because of lawyers. The rest of the US doesn't get a say in it, and broadly doesn't actually care. They may have opinions if asked, but this isn't going to a riot/cheer in the streets decision no matter the outcome.
What's your take on a strikingly white, archaically male blog -- ostensibly an "academic" and "legal" blog -- that (1) consists of nothing but clingers and (2) publishes vile racial slurs far more often than it publishes anything by a professor who isn't a movement conservative?
Maybe you and Heterodox Academy should issue a white paper on diversity at the Volokh Conspiracy!
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit. If culture war losers want to huddle together for warmth as you await replacement, that's fine by me. But quit whining about others who are just following your lead on diversity and partisanship.
AIDS, your multicult doesn’t meet replacement rate. It’s a suicide cult, one that’s desperately dependent upon outsiders to immigrate and keep the system afloat. You are doomed, AIDS. Your country and your values are doomed. America will be a third world shithole within forty years. Your power and influence has zenithed, and you have discredited yourselves.
You and your values aren’t the future of anything, and the people the world KNOW this. Before your ship sinks, however, it’s clear that the poor and middle class will Breivik you for ruining their society and republic.
Carry on, clinger, till you are rendered into soylent green.
I love your phrase 'archaically male' too. As if sex wasn't a biological category but rather a socially constructed one like the gender concepts. It's a perfect example of why your society is doomed and why you're a blithering imbecile. You're too dumb to even ape your own cult's ideology and rhetoric coherently.
Re-posting this here especially for you, AIDS. So you can see why the rest of the world thinks you're a joke and the opposite of real progress.
Most American legal academics aren’t actually trained to be scholars. Instead, they have JDs, coupled with clerkships and/or some ‘white shoe’ experience. (They’re also connected, with placements not having anything to do with scholarly merit.) Most have general training as advocates, NOT as academics. (Even quite a few of those with further academic training regularly betray a lack of commitment to doing proper research, publishing recycled ideological pablum.)
Look at the seventeen participants (including the two moderators): only four hold doctorates (one’s from Arizona State) and a fifth is earning her PhD (in LAW) now! Name even one other Western country’s university system where that would happen.
Why, then, should anyone be surprised by this conference’s lack of intellectual merit, let alone lack of scholarly interest in different viewpoints? These folks haven’t the slightest (professional, academic) interest in having their beliefs and scholarship challenged on the merits.
Will the conference papers be published in a student-run journal afterwards?
This is something I have noticed especially common on the left of late. Even among academic circles such as Lawyers and Law students there is this avoiding of even acknowledging right leaning legal arguments or worse yet attacking a straw man of those arguments. Then when they lose it is the Supreme Court being political not the opposing side had a better more seasoned argument. I honestly feel the left loses a lot of cases they would win if they brought a better understanding of the right's arguments to the table.
They have both kinds of politics, far left and progressive...
Most American legal academics aren't actually trained to be scholars. Instead, they have JDs, coupled with clerkships and/or some 'white shoe' experience. (They're also connected, with placements not having anything to do with scholarly merit.) Most have general training as advocates, NOT as academics. (Even quite a few of those with further academic training regularly betray a lack of commitment to doing proper research, publishing recycled ideological pablum.)
Look at the seventeen participants (including the two moderators): only four hold doctorates (one's from Arizona State) and a fifth is earning her PhD (in LAW) now! Name even one other Western country's university system where that would happen.
Why, then, should anyone be surprised by this conference's lack of intellectual merit, let alone lack of scholarly interest in different viewpoints? These folks haven't the slightest (professional, academic) interest in having their beliefs and scholarship challenged on the merits.
Will the conference papers be published in a student-run journal afterwards?