At the Sun-Times Alden Loury laments the Supreme Court’s ruling in the affirmative action case:
Even though affirmative action got me admitted to a predominantly white college, it didn’t mean that I was accepted. The officers chose only to question five Black men in a sea of white students parading along Green Street — including many who had also gathered briefly in small groups as we had.
The sympathy I felt for my white classmate who did not get accepted has eroded over the years, as I’ve gained a deep knowledge of the overt racism of our past and the more subtle forms of discrimination that persist. Affirmative action may have provided me an advantage in getting into the U. of I. But he has advantages in practically every other facet of life.
Data shows he’s more likely to be approved for a mortgage, hired for a job, benefit from generational wealth and see his property values appreciate faster. He’s also less likely to attract the suspicions of law enforcement or the public at large.
The six Supreme Court justices who voted to kill affirmative action may have followed the letter of the law, but their assessment that the policy is “unfair†feels tone-deaf in a nation that was literally built on a system of oppression — a system that most Americans don’t seem to be motivated to change.
Fifty years ago I argued in favor of preferential access to education for black Americans, the descendants of slaves. During that period I also opposed mass immigration on the grounds that black Americans, the descendants of slaves, would be injured by it. Unfortunately, I was right. The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action in the form it has taken have been African and Caribbean migrants. Today I think it’s time to try something else. I suggest providing preferential access to education based on poverty or even zip code of family residence but I’m open to other approaches.
I also think that a Supreme Court that follows “the letter of the law” and precedent is precisely what we need. I’m seeing precious few critiques of the SCOTUS ruling on legal grounds that wouldn’t also defend Plessy v. Ferguson. Most of the criticisms I’ve seen complain about the policy and setting policy is not the SCOTUS’s job. That’s the job of the Congress. I find it difficult to fathom how the longest-serving members of Congress have longer tenure than any of the SCOTUS justices with their lifetime appointments.
This article in the New Yorker is a good summary of an alternate view point.
Key quote, “But that is not, in fact, how affirmative action usually plays out at élite schools. Most reporting on the subject—including my own, as well as a story in the Harvard Crimson—shows that descendants of slaves are relatively underrepresented among Black students at Harvard, compared with students from upwardly mobile Black immigrant families. It is easy and perhaps virtuous to defend the reparative version of affirmative action; it is harder to defend the system as it has actually been used.”
The admission system as it currently operates is it discriminates on race/ethnicity against first and second generation Asian American immigrants to the benefit of first and second generation African American immigrants. Then there is the irony to help one group injured by racial discrimination (African Americans), Universities discriminate against another group that has been the victim of state sanctioned racial discrimination (Chinese Americans via the Chinese exclusion act, Japanese Americans via internment).
The sad part is reading the responses of Universities after the court ruling; Universities want to double down, blame the ruling on a “reactionary supreme court”, obfuscate their admissions policy and make them more subjective than to admit fault and to engage wholesale reform of admissions and their missions in general.
Things are different now than they were in 1970. It’s time to end AA as we now know it so I am OK with it ending. I do think we need to reassess what counts as merit. It doesn’t get talked about a lot but I have found, and other chairs in my area and specialties, that Asian docs underperform their test scores. 99th percentile test scores don’t get you 99th percentile performance. Our working theory is that we have to work in real time under pressure. You can’t go spend an extra 2 hours to study. They are fine, competent docs but really not any better than docs who score much further down. Rather than going for the highest test scores I think scores should be used for a threshold.
“I also think that a Supreme Court that follows “the letter of the law—
No such court exists. Courts make the law mean what they want it to mean.
Steve
Let’s say it another way. I think we should be striving for a court that follows “the letter of the law” and precedent. One that stays in its lane.
I doubt we can. agree on which precedents they should follow but I guess striving is good. Don’t see much evidence of it, but it would be good. Maybe if they behaved with just the slightest bit of integrity I could believe they were striving. Instead they are just as corrupt as all other politicians. Probably more since they are entirely self policing and there is really no way to get rid of them in practice.
Steve
Some of the reactions I’ve seen reminded me of what happens when a spoiled brat hears the word “No”. Moving on, agree a zip code lottery for the first say 25% of the admitting class could work as long as the school is willing and able to provide the year or two of remediable work those picked will need. As far as setting policy, thats the job of the law makers, who find fussing and fuming remunerative. That our laws are interpreted by humans is part of the system. lets see what the campaign season brings up in the way of reform.
Odd story about a man who got into the architecture program because of his race but ended up graduating with a journalism degree. Similarly the main student in that Harvard Crimson article involved a pre-med student who ended up graduating with a degree in African-American studies. These anecdotes recall a book that describes the phenomena of African-American students gravitating towards less practical degree than middle-class whites.
Is it necessary to point out that Caribbean blacks are also the descendants of slaves? Of course, they and African immigrants (Nigeria, Somalia, Ethiopia…) are likely middle and upper class.
Affirmation Action was always a black upper class perq. Think Obama. We have done nothing for the black working class and under class. In fact, our open borders policy actively harms them.
Caesar Chavez is despised by California liberals, because he opposed the unchecked immigration that harmed the farm workers he represented.
There is a gaping hole in our two party system: no one represents the working class and under class. RFK, Jr., might. He talks the talk. But the DNC is committed to Biden, and is suppressing other candidates.
I usually think of myself as dissident right, but maybe I really dissident left.
Again go to YouTube, and listen to Bobby Kennedy’s ad lib speech on yhe occasion of King’s murder.
“Is it necessary to point out that Caribbean blacks are also the descendants of slaves?”
Slavery has been so ubiquitous throughout history that we could all claim reparations or need for affirmative action. Further, the connection between past wrongs and current opportunities is so tenuous as to render absurd meaningful “analysis” of the link between the two. Honesty requires us to acknowledge that itis simply a money and power grab. And that doesn’t even address the efficacy or morality of affirmative action as proper redress, which is problematic at best.
Strictly on the law, it of course was a no brainer.
“Slavery has been so ubiquitous throughout history that we could all claim reparations or need for affirmative action.”
Really? How far back would you need to go? Excluding the Med. area slavery was gone in much of Europe by the 120Th0-1300s lasting a bit longer in the East. Then you had serfdom for a couple hundred years or so. So let’s say 1600. There is tons of work looking at how traits in people persist for along time. Scott-Irish characteristics persist long after people settled in the US. So it’s also pretty clear that the loss of human capital persists after slavery and then we had Jim Crow following so its not only human capital but also real capital.
I don’t see anyone serious claiming you need 400 years to recover from slavery and serfdom. But what you and Dave appear to want is to say that the day after civil rights legislation passed in the 60s everyone was suddenly equal and we should have made no attempt to account for past racial preferences.
Steve
BS, steve. I said I favored preferential access to education 50 years ago. Slavery ended 150 years ago; Jim Crow ended more than 50 years ago. Affirmative action isn’t working. That’s not “day after civil rights legislation”.
Furthermore, the single change after the abolition of slavery, reversing Plessy v. Ferguson and the Civil Right Act that helped black folk the most was the abolition of AFDC. That changed incentives.
That’s what needs to happen now: change the incentives.
Bullshit 1, steve. Slavery exists even today. Have you lost your mind?
Bullshit 2, steve. The progress of the black condition was steady and material for many years until the Great Society programs, in one master swoop, began the decay of the family. It has created a horrendous dichotomy between elite blacks and those living in perpetual squalor. Wards of the state and of course a reliable voting bloc.
You obviously don’t really give a damn about the black condition, preferring to recite the platitudes of the race grievance industry and the few winners of the AA lottery, who profit, while the majority of minorities and innocent majorities suffer. Its the worst of virtue signaling, and immoral.
And in other bullshit… Ever wonder why steve always cites Tulsa?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/red-states-blue-cities-whos-blame-americas-homicide-crisis
1) Not legally and widespread in Europe. (Hit a nerve did I?)
2) As noted recently the wide difference in marriage rates and out fo wedlock births was established before the Great Society. It advanced for both whites and blacks, but slower for blacks. Laws that didnt allow for welfare payments if there was a married man in the house probably didnt help. The War on Drugs and selectively imprisoning black males over white males for the same crimes made things worse.
So black pay now sits at about 74% of white pay. In 1959 (Brookings report) it was at 58%. You seem to think that was wonderful. So while true that black people weren’t getting lynched like they were in the early 1900s things weren’t great.
These are all real numbers, though in your mind i am sure that just means grievance since you dont have a better argument.
Hmmm, have I ever mentioned Tulsa? Certainly not in last couple of years.
Steve
Are you sure you are really an engineer? I thought you guys had to take real math courses? Anyway, if you look at the cities at the bottom of your list their mayors are also mostly Democrats. To be clear, by bottom of list I mean murder rate and not total murders as shown on this list. Note that NYC, LA, ElPaso, San Jose, San Francisco and San Diego are especially low. Large cities in general have Dems as mayors. Out of the 100 largest cities just 24 are Republicans.
https://ballotpedia.org/Party_affiliation_of_the_mayors_of_the_100_largest_cities
Steve
There was a difference in 1965 but nothing like as great a difference as there is now. To me that suggests that it was a factor.
BTW I’m not making this stuff up. Pat Moynihan pointed it out 50 years ago. Read the Moynihan report.
From memory but I think I am close in 1965 for whites it was about 5% and for blacks about 28%. It’s now about whites 28% and blacks 70%, roughly sixfold and threefold increases. Why would the Great Society have twice as much effect on white people as black? I dont believe taking away welfare benefits if a married man was in the house was part of the Great Society but rather a reaction to it.
Steve