Showing posts with label university admissions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label university admissions. Show all posts

Thursday, June 29, 2023

VIDEO: Thomas Sowell told the truth about affirmative action in college admissions... 33 years ago!

As Walt told you in "SCOTUS bans racial discrimination in college admissions", today was a great day for America! President Trump said so and Walt agrees, not just because The Donald said it, but because the decision corrects an injustice that has been perpetuated in the name of "social justice" (more recently "DEI" -- "diversity, equity and inclusion") for decades.

Thomas Sowell, an American economist, author, and social commentator, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, recognized and talked about the unintended negative consequences of affirmative action 23 years ago.

This video is clipped from a C-SPAN Booknotes interview on 10 June 1990. Dr Sowell, while discussing his book Preferential Policies: An International Perspective, explained how affirmative action and campus ideologues create a vicious cycle of black student failure and resentment by both blacks and whites. Give a listen.

 

A brief history of the affirmative action debate.
Affirmative action has its pros and cons. [Some say affirmative action is itself a "con". Ed.] The issue has been hotly debated since the 1970s, when colleges and universities on the east and west coast, in a paroxysm of white liberal guilt, started to give priority to applicants for admission whose SAT scores were lower than others because the tests were Eurocentric, racist, yada yada yada.

Thet issue had been canvassed by the Supreme Court for half a century (!), and until now SCOTUS has geneally upheld affirmative action (read: reverse discrimination), with some limits. Racial quotas that reserve a certain number of seats for minority students have been deemed unconstitutional, but the court has said colleges can consider race as long as it's one of many factors in the decision. 

Prospective students' race can be used as a "plus factor" to give them an edge, said the court, can't be the defining factor. Schools must be able to show they consider race in a "narrowly tailored" way, because there is no "race-neutral" approach that would meet the same "compelling interest" in increasing student diversity.

That language comes from Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court decision which upheld admissions policies at the University of Michigan's law school. SCOTUS last examined affirmative action in 2016 -- 26 years after the publication of Dr Sowell's book -- when it upheld the admissions process at the University of Texas in a suit filed by a white Texan who was denied admission to the university

The lawsuits which were decided today were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a Virginia-based group that says race should play no part in the admission process. The group argued that Harvard and the University of North Carolina intentionally discriminate against Asian-American applicants.

Examining six years of data at Harvard, the group found that-Asian American applicants had the strongest academics but were admitted at the lowest rates compared to students of other races. It also found that Harvard's admissions officers gave Asian Americans lower scores on a subjective "personal" rating designed to measure attributes such as likeability and kindness... as if these things were indicators of intelligence or the likelihood of academic success!

In 2019, a federal judge upheld Harvard's admissions practices, saying they were "not perfect" but not unconstituional. The judge said race-conscious practices always penalize groups that don’t get an advantage, but are justified "by the compelling interest in diversity" on college campuses. An appeals court upheld the ruling in 2020. 

Students for Fair Admission brought similar claims against UNC, saying its process disadvantages white and Asian-American students. A federal judge sided with the university last year. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the group asked the Supreme Court to review both cases, and also to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, saying it was impossible to construct a "narrowly tailored" approach which would not offend the equal rights provisions of the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court of the United States agreed at last! It's a great day for America!

SCOTUS bans racial discrimination in college admissions

Two former US presidents disagreed strongly on today's ruling by the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action in college admissons, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies. President Donald Trump wrote on his social media network that the decision is "a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our country, are finally being rewarded." 

His predecessor, President Barack Hussein Obama, wrote "Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions -- it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table." A little problem with the structure of that last sentence doesn't prove that the Prez was himself a beneficiary of reverse discrimination.

The SCOTUS decision to which the presidents referred His predecessor  overturned admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation’s oldest private and public colleges. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that for too long universities have "concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice." 

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, who had long called for an end to affirmative action (and who happens to be black), said that the decision "sees the universities' admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes."
Both Justice Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor -- a Latina -- acknowledged that affirmative action played a role in their admissions to college and law school. They took the unusual step of reading a summary of their opinions aloud in the courtroom. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor said the decision "rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress." 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's poster child for affirmative action, called the decision "truly a tragedy for us all." She took no took no part in the case against Harvard because she had been a member of an advisory governing board. In the UNC case, she wrote, "With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life."

The vote was 6-3 in the North Carolina case and 6-2 in the Harvard case. The third dissenter in the Harvard case was Justice (((Elena Kagan))). All six men on the Supreme Court joined in the majority decisions. 

Further reading: "Democrats Devastated As Supreme Court Bans Racism", from the Bablyon Bee (of course!), 29/6/23.

VIDEO coming later today: Thomas Sowell on the unintended consequences of affirmative action.