Which Groups Have Received Racial Preferences in Higher Education Over the Years? (Updated)

(UPDATE: I have been rightly taken to task for not noting the earlier court cases in which either whites or non-black Americans were the group getting preferences. I of course am aware of that phenomenon and its significance. I happen to be working on an article about how courts dealt with (or ignored) the issue of racial classification in affirmative action cases, i.e., whether they addressed whether the classifications themselves were 'narrowly tailored' as opposed to other legal and constitutional objections to affirmative action preferences, and my post was created in that context. But my bad for not specifying. Also, to be clear, my point is not to criticize African Americans or any other group that received the preferences. Rather, just to show how the groups deemed entitled to such preferences has changed over time, because I think few people are aware of it and it's interesting.)

Looking at the underlying facts in major cases in the Supreme Court and circuit court cases, we see that Black Americans have always been eligible, the Mexican American classification expanded into all Hispanics, Asian Americans and subgroups thereof were initially eligible but later were considered "over-represented" and therefore at best ineligible for preferences, if not subject to higher standards than white applicants.

Defunis v. Odegaard: Black Americans, Chicanos, American Indians, and Filipino. Minority origin must be "dominant."

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: Black Americans, Mexican Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans.

Podberesky v. Kirwan: Black Americans (scholarship rather than admissions).

Hopwood v. Texas: Black Americans and Mexican Americans.

Grutter v. Bollinger: (1) African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans (according to the defendant)
(2) African Americans, Mexican Americans, Mainland Puerto Ricans, and Native Americans (according to the district court's findings)

Fisher v. University of Texas: African Americans and Hispanics.

SFFA v. Harvard: African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans.

Comments

[decline to state]

White people have had a long period of special preference.

[Toranth]

Indeed.
So, obviously, the only thing to do to about that long period of racism in admissions is to implement racism in admissions.

[David Welker]

Toranth:

Their logic seems to be that because their was an injustice in past generations against specific individuals based on race, there should be further injustice in the present against an entirely different group of people who are discriminated against based on race.

The idea is just so ridiculous, it is hard to believe that many college-educated people hold it. But they do.

If these affirmative action advocates were consistent, you would think that they would be rushing to amend the Constitution to bring back what we thought were obsolete ideas like corruption of blood and forfeiture, where family members of those guilty of a crime could be punished too.

They can't really do anything to punish the people they would really like to punish, so they target their presumed descendants. Of course, it is worse than that; whether the descendants actually have any relation to these past perpetrators of injustice doesn't matter... it is all skin deep. It is all superficial.

Another move. Well, maybe we can't expect certain people we are to presume are disadvantaged on the basis of race to perform as well as other groups in academic matters. It isn't their fault.

I believe that this rush to lower standards results in lower performance. If you hold people to lower standards and have lower expectations, many people will in fact perform at a lower level. This has beens shown in research on education where children are artificially sorted into groups randomly. If you tell one group that it is the high performing group, it will, in fact, be the high performing group. That we should do this on the basis of race is actually harmful, as the lower expectations will tend to result in lower levels of accomplishment.

Those advocating for affirmative action based on the supposed perpetual victim status of minorities should be more careful about what message they are sending. If you believe that society is truly racist, as leftists love to insist regardless of the facts on the ground, why would you try as hard in school? Some of these cynical kids think it is all a scam.

The way to lift people up is not by lowering standards, as affirmative action does. Instead, we should lift people up (of all races and backgrounds) by confidently presenting to them difficult material that challenges their thinking. And most of all, we should teach them critical thinking. That is, the ability to intelligently challenge assertions of authority and seek to understand the basis for claims of human knowledge.

[Ed Grinberg]

The idea is just so ridiculous, it is hard to believe that many college-educated people hold it.

You've got it exactly backwards. Academia is the main source of ridiculous (and, often, pernicious) ideas in our society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectuals_and_Society

[Malvolio]

The idea is just so ridiculous, it is hard to believe that many college-educated people hold it.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

[David Welker]

Specific white people had special preferences. White people born nowadays have not had any time in their lives when they have had such preferences.

You are guilty of overgeneralizing based on superficial race-based thinking. Try to be smarter in the future.

[bernard11]

Not true, David.

To the extent Blacks and other minorities were disadvantaged, anyone not belonging to the disadvantaged group enjoyed preferences.

[David Welker]

The word "anyone" isn't true.

If a person who did not know about an opportunity or did not apply for the opportunity, they didn't "enjoy" a preference.

So, the vast majority of people have not experienced these preferences.

Your logic does not justify the discrimination against marginalized people based on their skin color like you imagine it does.

To a white child living in a trailer park: "Because your ancestors were so privileged and OBVIOUSLY 'enjoyed" preferences arising from racism, you must be disadvantaged when applying to Harvard. We don't need many more of 'your kind' there."

Now imagine that this child doesn't even know who "their kind" is? And how many "privileged" kids from trailer parks do you think make it into Harvard anyway? Kids from trailer parks also have a "family history" that somehow didn't put them in the most favorable position.

Why does it MATTER if the reason your family history isn't as good as it could be is due to racism or some other reason??? In both cases, you had no control over it. Gee, I am sure glad my problem was caused by racism, because I get acknowledgment and validation that others do not???

The liberal instinct to explicitly invoke race to correct problems allegedly caused by racism just doesn't make any sense. It is both literally stupid and inflicts harm on innocent people. It doesn't treat all people as equal.

Some animals are more equal than others. Their problems actually matter. Is that what progressives or liberals stand for? The proposition that we aren't actually equal? That some of people's problems matter but others do not???

I am sorry, but I just will not accept such deviations from equality. The morally relevant factor is that people could not choose their parents and thus are EQUALLY not to blame for disadvantages arising from their starting position.

[Greg J]

"To the extent Blacks and other minorities were disadvantaged, anyone not belonging to the disadvantaged group enjoyed preferences."

Not really.

If you discriminate against 10% of the population, the vast majority of the 90% never see any benefits.

OTOH, when you discriminate against 90% to favor 10%, most of the 10% end up getting significant "bonuses".

Making their total incompetence for the positions they are awarded blatantly obvious.

Which is why people bag on "legacies". Because giving benefits to that small group means you end up with a fair number of members of that group getting promoted far beyond their level of competence

[Michael Ejercito]

Was that a bad thing?

[David Welker]

Yes, that is a bad thing. People should not be given preferences based on skin color. Skin color is a evolutionary adaptation to climate that is also sometimes usefully correlated with certain medical conditions, but other than that, is mostly irrelevant.

Do you have an argument that it was a good thing?

[Frank Drackman]

Afro Amuricans certainly get "Preference" in "Admission" to State Prisons.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

In the proportion of crimes committed, they are underrepresented.

[Akramzitt]

Discussing racial preferences in higher education is crucial for understanding historical contexts. Over the years, various groups have experienced differing degrees of advantages. It's essential to approach this topic with sensitivity and a desire to learn from history. If you're exploring this topic as part of your studies, seeking assistance with related homework assignments can be beneficial. Personally, I've found https://cwassignments.com/matlab-homework-help.html online services specific to my matlab assignment needs. When delving into such discussions, gathering information from reliable sources can enrich your learning experience.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

The beneficiaries of AA are the groups the Democrat Party is trying to buy votes from. The most recent is young people, through student loan forgiveness.
Surprised no lawyer has challenged student loan forgiveness on age discrimination grounds.

[bernard11]

Black Americans have always been eligible

What a remarkable, blinkered, statement. Unbelievable.

You probably think "identity politics" is a recent phenomenon.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Black Americans have always been eligible.

What a remarkable, blinkered, statement. Unbelievable.

Welcome to legal scholarship, Federalist Society/Volokh Conspiracy-style.

[Greg J]

One of the key takeaways for me from the SFFAs expert was the fact that economically underpriviledged blacks got almost NO "affirmative action" benefit.

ALL the benefit went to the children of privileged blacks.

I'ts the same in the UT case. What the Administration was fighting for was the power to give privileges to teh children of doctors and lawyers, so long as those kids were "black".

It's something that deserves a lot more attention. The fact that the "African American affirmative action" was consistently directed at those least deserving of a "hand up."

[David Welker]

Queen:

Most of the people you want revenge against are dead. Maybe stop trying to inflict the sins of past generations on the present, which had absolutely nothing to do with them.

That is not to say that whose parents you have don't matter. But the race of your parents doesn't matter. Would you rather be a white child born to a meth-addicted single mother who neglects you, or would you rather be a black child born into an intact black family with a mother and father who have a healthy relationship to each other and take care of you?

Starting places are not equal. And that is, in fact, not fair. But you don't remedy actual unfairness with policies that are literally so superficial that they are skin deep.

That the children of privilege benefitted from affirmative action at Harvard is itself a sort of scandal, in my mind. That you can have an intelligent university involve itself and embrace such superficial and unintelligent thinking is rather sad.

Some people have an axe to grind, and they are taking it out on people who don't deserve it.

[Greg J]

1: That case is from 1962, you pathetic buffoon.
2: The Meredith matter is before us again. This time the appeal is from a final judgment after a trial on the merits. The judgment denies James A. Meredith, a Mississippi negro in search of an education, an injunction to secure his admission to the University of Mississippi. We reverse with directions that the injunction be issued.

Which is to say that, unlike the cases with anti-white racism, in this case the appeals court ruled AGAINST the racism

3: You are pathetic

[Brett Bellmore]

You parents having gone to college is a strong proxy for their attitude towards academics, which in turn influences how they raise you. Parents who didn't work hard at getting good grades don't go to college, AND don't push their children to work hard at getting good grades, so their children in turn don't go to college.

To the extent college admissions aren't based on good grades, your parents college attendance ceases to be a good proxy. You could have parents who were academically inclined, and the fact that they weren't permitted to go to college won't cause them to raise you to not care about your grades and doing your homework.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s a legit point of view to note that there are large swaths of our population not working at capacity, and to find ways to harness their unrealized talent in our workforce.

Not punishment, just inclusion. It’s quite telling when people can’t see it as other than punishment, actually.

AA is not a required tool for that job, but is one of a number of tools that could be useful in maximizing the potential in our domestic population.

[Kleppe]

"AA is not a required tool for that job, but is one of a number of tools that could be useful in maximizing the potential in our domestic population."

It takes a truly addled brain to conclude that selecting less qualified applicants over better qualified applicants will "maximize potential." Do you even believe what you write?

[David Welker]

There are only so many slots in elite colleges.

To prefer one person on the basis of race is to discriminate against another person on the basis of race. To “include” one person on the basis of race is to “exclude” another person on the basis of race.

If you want to increase inclusion without increasing exclusion, that can be achieved. By INCREASING the number of students educated by these elite institutions.

But the brands of these institutions is PERPETUATED by exclusion. Unfortunately, getting into Harvard is valued partially because it is a rare accomplishment.

I say unfortunately, because learning isn’t a zero sum game. If you learn something, that doesn’t cause me to lose any knowledge. If you go to Harvard and earn a degree, in theory, that shouldn’t prevent me from getting one. There is enough paper to print everyone who does the work to earn a degree the degree.

But humans are still pretty stupid. We play these status games. The egos of thousands of Harvard graduates would be hurt if the prize were less exclusive. Their egos are fed by thought of being “special” and “better” than other people.

And that is something of a puzzle about human nature. Humans are, in fact intelligent. And, at the same time, humans are also extremely stupid, creating scarcity in situations where it need not exist.

Is there a reason that Harvard (and others) should not increase the size of the student body? Then you could have more inclusion without increasing exclusion. There is no LOGISTICAL reason (at present) for the university (and others like it) to not expand. It could be financially sustainable to do so.

But the problem isn’t logistics or finances. The problem is ego.

But let us say that Harvard did expand. Well, I am sorry, but you aren’t ready to take a Harvard calculus class until you learn some of the math that is prerequisite to that.

Maybe we can justify the idea mass exclusion that institutions like Harvard perpetuate based on the theory that if people feel “special” they will work harder? I don’t know about that. I am sure there are some people who do work harder because they feel special, but I also know there are other things (like inherent interest in the topic) that can motivate people to work sufficiently hard.

Affirmative action is really about maintaining exclusion that makes people feel special while feeling “woke” about race. But I think the truth is, all the people who want to exclude for the sake of exclusion are probably being jerks. Perhaps affirmative action let’s them perpetuate the pretension that they are “progressive” rather than “selfish.”

Anyway, Sarcastr0, we aren’t stupid here and either are you. Your line about how affirmative action is just “inclusion” (because that feels good to you) is just false. I hope you realize that. These institutions believe that their prestige is built on exclusion.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think I should add that your parents having gone to college half a century ago, when going to college was fairly unusual, was probably a better proxy for family academic inclinations than it would be for later generations, where going to college became much more common, and thus didn't so sharply distinguish a group of academically inclined people who'd presumably raise their children to be academically inclined.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if you assume hiring isn't a zero sum game, then hiring additional people who are presumed to be 'not working at capacity' would be helpful.

But it's a silly assumption leading to silly conclusions.

[Sarcastr0]

What does qualified mean, Kleppe? That's a threshold determination but you seem to be using it as an optimization metric. That's overdetermined and unneeded.

If you want to talk about best for the position, you should look not only short-term but long-term, so not just performance but ecosystem development and capacity building.

Don't eat your seed corn because you love how white people are the default.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't assume anything of the sort.

You're the one saying let maximize short term potential.

And, of course, you also assume the playing field is level and our meritocracy actually looks at the right stuff.

IIRC you are fine if rich people tend to be selected because they have the money to compensate for mediocre talent. Which has some pretty aristocratic implications, as well as ignoring bang for your buck in potential for future professional development.

Failsons got enough benefits already.

[Frank Drackman]

Well that's your problem, not thinking that "Banging somone's mom" isn't a crime. It's called rape, used to warrant public execution. See Bethea, Rainey
https://www.grunge.com/342564/this-was-the-last-public-execution-in-the-united-states/

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it's too much to ask you to understand formal logic, to understand the difference between a sufficient and a necessary cause.

My point is that "parents having gone to college" may be correlated with your going to college yourself, but it is likely not causal, the actual cause was being academically inclined, which is something that is passed on during child rearing.

OF COURSE if something else barred you from college, the fact that you didn't go would imply nothing about your academic inclinations. I suppose there's nothing that goes without saying if not saying it leaves open a chance to accuse somebody of racism.

[Kleppe]

"What does qualified mean, Kleppe? That’s a threshold determination but you seem to be using it as an optimization metric. That’s overdetermined and unneeded."

Do you believe that every time a manager fills a position the applicant pool contains only one qualified applicant? In the real world a manager's job is to look at all of the fully qualified applicants and then choose the best qualified from them.

"If you want to talk about best for the position, you should look not only short-term but long-term, so not just performance but ecosystem development and capacity building."

Fellas, find a woman who loves you the way liberals love their racism. They will do whatever it takes to hold onto it for as long as they can.

[Kleppe]

The soft bigotry of low expectations rears its ugly head again.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you believe that every time a manager fills a position the applicant pool contains only one qualified applicant?

That's actually my point - there are generally multiple qualified applicants. Which means you can look at other stuff like future growth potential. And an individual from an underserved community generally will have more growth potential compared to a similarly person who got on the qualified list because of course they did.

Add in that creative problem solving is better performed when a group includes differing backgrounds and it seems clear to me that maximizing whatever your qualification metric is short-sighted.

Note that underserved doesn't need to mean race. Class, gender, home region, first-time college, child of veterans, all have their unique challenges.

“If you want to talk about best for the position, you should look not only short-term but long-term, so not just performance but ecosystem development and capacity building.”
This doesn't say anything about race...

[David Welker]

Queen:

Couldn't go and didn't go.

Are these really that different from the perspective of future generations? Perhaps future generations are even better off it the parent couldn't go, but really wanted to go. As then they would perhaps transmit the DESIRE to their child.

What we have here is a problem that afflicts some people of all races. Namely, an under-appreciation of the intellectual, social, and economic benefits of higher education.

This problem is certainly IMPACTED by history. And history is IMPACTED by racism. But racism isn't the exclusive problem and when the problem has a historical cause due to things other than racism, it is just as problematic.

Also, in any individual case, it is very difficult to say when our particular ancestors would or would not have been inclined towards college in the absence of historical racism. It is extremely speculative.

Overall, what we have here is way to much focus on the past, and an insufficient focus on the opportunities of the present and the future.

And the vast majority of opportunities can't just be handed to someone. They have to work it. And, in fact, the overwhelmingly important variable is someone's inclination and passion to pursue a particular opportunity and work it.

[David Welker]

Queen:

A confession?

You really are pretentious. Do you imagine yourself like some sort of Catholic inquisitor, self-righteously extracting confessions from sinners?

1. It is extremely rare for people who are 65 and older rarely apply for admission at elite universities. So, what we are doing here is inflicting the psychological problems of older people on younger people who had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

2. Obviously, history is a factor. If I were never born, I wouldn't have applied to college. If my parents had never met, I would not have been born.

But history is much more complex than race. Advantage and disadvantage arises from much than just race. The problem with race-reductionism is that is extremely simplistic and superficial thinking. In fact, so simplistic that it is borderline unintelligent.

The children of meth addicted single parents have less chance of thriving REGARDLESS of race. And the children of those children are also likely to be disadvantaged.

Trying to distinguish racism as the only historical problem we seek to correct is completely arbitrary. Human problems are problems and their importance and severity is not solely determined by race or racism.

In fact, saying that one person's problem is "more important to solve" on the basis of race (based on problems of past racism) is actually nothing different than saying that some people are more important than others.

It doesn't surprise me that people compete to be the "most important." But it does disappoint me.

We should be smarter than that.

[Greg J]

No, Queenie, what YOU are justifying is "I got attacked by a black man, therefore it's right for me to hunt down and kill a completely different black man."

Brown v Board of Education was in the 50s. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 started pro-black gov't racism then.

It 2023. All your support for "affirmative action" boils down to "some whitie hurt my grandpa, therefore I'm going to go out and burn the houses down of other people I've decided are 'white', even though that have NO connection at all to the person who hurt my grandpa."

Looking for a scumbag racist pig? Look in the mirror