Affirmative Action: My Argument Against Racial Preferences Prevails at Cornell Political Union Debate
Majority of CPU student members vote in favor of my opposition to racial preferences in admissions. My argument: “How about we stop obsessing over something so vaguely and inconsistently defined like race? How about we focus on the individual as an individual, not as part of a classification? … The [Harvard admissions] holistic model is a ruse for the equivalent of quotas.”
On Monday, October 31, 2022, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in cases challenging racial preferences in university admissions at Harvard and UNC. Typically referred to as “Affirmative Action,” the universities argue that they must take race into account in making admissions decisions in order to achieve the racially “diverse” student body they say advances their educational missions.
The impact of giving racial preferences is stark, with students of Asian descent losing slots and having to jump hurdles relative to favored racial groups. From the challenger’s Petition asking the Court to take the Harvard case:
“an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).”
Legal Insurrection Foundation filed an Amicus Brief supporting the Asian students’ challenge:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The grand judicial experiment of excusing racial discrimination in university admissions in the hope it would promote the educational objective of diversity of viewpoint has failed, and accordingly, this Court should overrule or modify its holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (“Grutter”). Despite the Court permitting the use of race in higher education admissions, viewpoint diversity is increasingly endangered on campus. Since Grutter, the range of viewpoints permitted on campus, particularly on matters regarding race, has narrowed. It’s time to return to the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination without an exception for education.
On October 25, 2022, I appeared before the non-partisan Cornell Policital Union, as I detailed in Affirmative Action On The Docket At Cornell Debate As I Argue Against Racial Preferences:
I have been invited to debate racial preferences, which is the core issue (but not the entire issue) in the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court oral argument on October 31 in the cases against Harvard and UNC. The format is that I get 30 minutes to give my view, then there are questions/debate with me from the CPU members, then the CPU members debate among themselves, then they vote.
The Proposition on the table is:
“Resolved: Stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Who could be against that? Well, Harvard, UNC, and hundreds of universities (including Cornell) and professors who have filed amicus briefs at SCOTUS in support of the use of race in admissions decisions.
The CPU Resolution is the second part of Chief Justice John Robert’s famous line, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
The format was that I present my argument for 30 minutes, CPU student members get to question me, then CPU members debate among themselves, and then they vote.
While “Affirmative Action” was not in the Resolution, it was obvious when the students debated among themselves that it was about Affirmative Action. Indeed, in the promotional material distributed on social media, the debates was given the title “A conversation on Affirmative Action.” A vote For the resolution was tantamount to a vote Against Affirmative Action. Many of the students voted to Abstain because they were against Affirmative Action being construed as being in favor of discrimination on the basis of race, and didn’t like the way the resolution was phrased. Yet that phrasing, taken from CJ Roberts, in fact forced student to confront the inconsistency of being for Affirmative Action but against racial discrimination.
The vote ended up 22 For, 13 Abstain, 7 Against. That means the no matter how you slice it, the absolute majority voted against race-based Affirmative Action.
Here is the recording of my initial presentation. The student portion of the debate was not recorded, which is unfortunately. Many of the students made excellent arguments on many sides of the issue.
Thank you to the Cornell Political Union for sponsoring this debate, which is not often heard on campus.
The lighting was tough because the lamps were behind me. And at around the midpoint there was a minute or so of buzzing. But otherwise, enjoy!
(auto-generated, may contain transcription errors)
“Thanks to Sarah, Rodge, and Sam for inviting me here. I do appreciate it.
I think that the Cornell Political Union is really the best that Cornell has to offer you. You invite intellectually diverse speakers and you engage in debate and that’s really, I think, one of the highest goals of Cornell University. So you applauded me. I applaud you for participating in this group.
The resolution tonight is “Stop Discriminating on the Basis of Race.” How can I lose? [laugh] Well, I’m going to try. [laugh]
It seems so self-evident, but there’s a lot of issues wrapped up in that, mostly because of the debate over affirmative action. I’m not arguing for or against it tonight, but I am giving you my perspective on why I think it is extremely important as a society that we treat people as individuals, not as mere proxies for groups based on skin color or ethnicity.
Chief Justice Roberts gave the full sentence from which our resolution is taken in the Parents Involved case, which involved, whether affirmative action as was permitted on a limited basis in higher education would apply to public high schools in Seattle. And the court ruled that it did not, that you could not discriminate on the basis of race. And he wrote the plurality decision. So there was no single majority decision, but it was a five to four ruling overturning that practice. And he wrote: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
It seems a little self-evident to me, but there are a lot of people who find that offensive, who disagree with that. That take the position that we do need to continue to discriminate on the basis of race in order to solve past historical wrongs.
A couple of preliminary points about the nature of the discussion that I’ll be having and perhaps the debate we’ll be having. First off is I use the term “race” in quotation marks, but that’s a highly contentious term. It’s a term we use all the time. It permeates this university discussion about race. But what does it really mean? Maybe a better view is perceived race or something else. Some academics will tell us that race is just a social construct, that there is actually no such thing as race. We’re all part of one the human race.
Nonetheless, we classify people and we’ve been doing it for many decades. There’s actually a book which I recommend to you by law professor David Bernstein from George Mason Law School, called Classified. And he talks about the mess that we have created over many decades from racial and other classifications, how inconsistent it is and how really irrational it is.
And the same, I think, takes place here at Cornell and almost all campuses where we throw around terms that we can’t really define, and then we use those terms as a basis for judging people. The Census, the US Census has the same problem. They talk about classifications of people and they identify certain people that they identify by race: White, Black, African American, American Indian, or Alaskan Native, Asian and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. But they also have other classifications that have to do more with ethnicity, particularly Hispanic. So you can be Hispanic according to the US Census and also one of these other races. So it gets very confusing.
They also have a definition of White, which is not really intuitive to me. I would’ve thought that meant somebody of European, perhaps even North European background. But according to the United States Census, the way they measure it, White is a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa.
So what we throw around on this campus and what Cornell throws around in terms of racial classifications may not be obvious. I would not personally, without looking into this, have thought that someone from the Middle East would be classified by the US Census as White. Just another way in which these classifications that we use are in many ways very both irrational and counterintuitive.
In this university we throw around those terms, and at most universities, the term White, the term Non-White, the term People of Color and the time term BIPOC, but none of those are really clearly defined. They’re just terms that get used trying to classify people mostly based on skin color and to some extent, ancestry into a particular group, which is then used for a variety of purposes.
And at Cornell, before I came here today, I looked at Cornell statistics and those statistics are actually pretty irrational. They have statistics on, I think they use the term, people of color or students of color. Well, what does that really mean? It’s all of this, these classifications that we use really are ill-defined. And in fact, the statistics on Cornell’s website for the student population seem very inconsistent because it depends how you count people. Yet it’s something we talk about all the time in our politics and it’s something we talk about all the time on this campus.
Which brings to me to one of the first points I want to make. How about we stop obsessing over something so vaguely and inconsistently defined like race? How about we focus on the individual as an individual, not as part of a classification?
Second point is that what I’m talking about tonight is not strictly about what we would loosely call affirmative action. There are a lot of other issues, a lot of other legal issues, a lot of other issues wrapped up in that. So I am not here tonight to argue the Harvard and UNC cases, which the Supreme Court is going to hear argument on next Monday. Big day. Affirmative action includes many factors, including past racial disparities and the argument by schools including Cornell, in an amicus brief, a friend of the court brief that it’s signed onto with about over a dozen other schools, that supports the use of race, racial preferences in admissions, for the goal, the educational goal of a diverse student body. And the Supreme Court will have to grapple with that.
Essentially what the schools are arguing is that the damage that we all know comes to society from racial discrimination, at least in one context, is worth a price to pay in order to achieve an educational goal.
So what I want do tonight is not really talk so much about affirmative action, but talk about the core issue, which I think will help inform a discussion of affirmative action, which is who are we as a society?
As a society, we are actually systemically against racial discrimination. I know that’s not a popular conception on campus. All we ever hear about is systemic racism, but I’ll repeat it because you’ve probably never heard it on this campus: As a society we are systemically against racial discrimination.
How is that so? Well, first of all, through the Constitution, through the 14th amendment, which says
“no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor to deny nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And so that’s what you’ll hear about equal protection. And that’s one of the issues at the Supreme Court. So right in our Constitution, at least as of 1868, there was the presumption that every person in this country is entitled to equal protection of the laws.
Federal law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also provides, it had many different provisions, but the provisions, prohibit, among other things, make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to engage in certain discriminatory acts based on a variety of factors, one of which is race and national origin. So as a matter of federal law, so as a matter of the constitution’s equal protection, as a matter of federal law, we prohibit discrimination on the basis of late of race.
There are also state laws. New York State has New York Human Rights Law, which prohibits the same conduct.
There are a variety of federal and state regulations which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. And there are even campus rules that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, including Cornell Policy 6.4, which addresses a variety of things and mostly you probably hear about it in terms of campus due process and the procedures that are used. But as a substantive matter, Cornell Policy 6.4 provides that the university does not discriminate on the basis of protected status and among the statuses that it does not discriminate on or race, ethnic or national origin.
So at every level of our society we have embedded into the law non-discrimination on the basis of race. You could certainly argue we haven’t lived up to it. That’s a different question. That’s just a matter of enforcing and better practicing what is, what our system provides.
We have accepted as a society and at Cornell University that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. So why do universities do it anyway?
So the question that I have is, are we willing to compromise or sacrifice a core value, which I presume everybody in this room and everybody or 99.9% of the people accept that we should not discriminate on the basis of race. So why are we willing to compromise or sacrifice that core value for some other perceived good? And is that good for society or bad for society?
So the issue is not just being, to me, kind of third point. The issue is not just being against racial discrimination, but it’s also how we measure it. And I think we have a tendency on this campus and elsewhere throughout higher education and, and really in many aspects of society to focus on groups to say that what the measure of justice is, Do groups have equal outcomes as opposed to are every, is every individual treated fairly without regard to race?
That’s certainly the philosophy at Cornell. There is an entire DEI set of rules and bureaucracy that is devoted to measuring group outcomes and to achieving as close to equal group outcomes. That’s the philosophy of just about every campus. But I would argue that to the extent to achieve those outcomes, we need to violate our core value of not discriminating on the basis of race, we are giving up something very fundamental to the campus and fundamental to our society and fundamental to the way we view people for a result which can be fleeting.
Results among groups change over time. If you look at, it’s not the racial aspect, but if you look at gender, you look at women in the sciences and you look at women elsewhere in just a couple of decades, those numbers have shifted dramatically. I remember seeing a statistic just recently that the percentage of people seeking, I think it was PhDs in psychology, is now something like eight or nine to one in favor of women. That doesn’t make it wrong. That doesn’t make it sexist. But if you’d gone back 20 years ago, it would’ve looked very differently.
And so my point is these group statistics, how groups perform over time, can vary dramatically and that we should not be giving up a core value of our society, kind of a guiding light of our society, which is you do not judge people based on their perceived race, for what could be transitory group results.
So I like to focus on the individual, and that’s my argument. When we move to viewing individuals merely as group members and to classifying and, and treating them based on race, we are violating our core value and we’re inevitably violating it. You can’t help but violate it because most things in society are zero sum gains. There are finite resources.
People compete for admission spots. There are only a certain number of admission spots. People compete for jobs. There’s only a certain number of job spots at a particular company. When you make those decisions based upon race, then you are depriving somebody else. It’s not just that you’re favoring somebody based on their race, but in a zero sum game where there’s a limited number of spots, you are depriving somebody else of that based on their race. And again, I’m using race in a very broad term here.
So discrimination in favor of some people is still discrimination and it’s something that violates our core value. Discrimination in favor of one group necessarily, in a zero sum world, is discrimination against another group.
The Cornell Amicus brief in the Harvard case that I’ve been reading, one of the things I read in preparation for today, is that they say they have no choice but to use race as one of the factors in deciding admission. That they could not achieve the group outcomes that they want, which is essentially their diversity percentages if they want, without engaging or using race as a factor.
And that is essentially, Ibram Kendi’s formulation, his anti-racism formulation. His most famous line is that current discrimination is not just okay, but good in order to remedy past discrimination and future discrimination is good to remedy current discrimination. The problem with that is that it’s a societal dead end. It pits people against each other. It views them as groups. It pits groups against groups.
We’ve seen that in the past, and Harvard paved the way. Harvard is now in the Supreme Court and they’re talking about the holistic model. That’s how they try to evade prior Supreme Court precedent. They say they only use race as one part of a holistic model. Well, the holistic model was not invented by Harvard for what we would call race now , was not for skin color diversity. It was invented in the 1920s to restrict the percentage of Jews at Harvard. That’s well documented. I don’t think anybody disputes that, that based on the grades. I don’t think they had the SATs back then. But based on those other factors, Jews were a starkly rising percentage of the Harvard College student body, and Harvard didn’t want that. So they dropped those measurements, those more statistical and objective measurements and created the holistic model.
And if you look at the chart, you see the percentage of Jews at Harvard in the 1920s. [gesturing] They come in with the holistic model. It drops down and it’s been more or less even throughout time. You see the exact same chart. You can lay one on top of the other, but fast forward 70 years with Asian admission, PR people of Asian descent, admission to Harvard. [gesturing] You see the number coming up and then you see it going down, and then you see it being held steady because the holistic model is just a ruse.
The holistic model is a ruse for the equivalent of quotas. It allows them to hide behind it, and look how damaging that is to our society. The people most commonly now fighting against that sort of system are not people of North European descent. They are people of Asian descent who are being treated unfairly. You can measure that in statistics by use of this holistic model. So look how damaging that is to our society where you have people being deprived of something because of their race. Again, using that in a broad term, which would include ethnicity, national origin, in order to achieve some other goal.
So this is a dead end. This pits students against each other. This pits groups against each other. This creates animosity. This creates bitterness.
I would suggest, or it has been suggested by Dorian Abbott, a professor at the University of Chicago, some sort of physicist, astrophysicist, I think he is. He had a big controversy because he was boycotted when he gave a lecture at MIT.. And he proposes that we use a Merit, Fairness and Equality standard instead of DEI, which expand the pool of people. It is not discriminatory to make sure you are reaching out to people, to bring them into the pool, to bring them into the system, to maybe offer them help not based on the color of their skin, but their need for help, to examine the systems we use. And he was talking about faculty hiring. Examine the systems we use to make sure there’s no bias built into it, that people are not discriminated against on the basis of race. One of the things he advocates getting rid of is alumni preference preferences, legacy preferences, because that I think statistically probably does favor whites, whites with quotation marks because of the history of past discrimination.
So he says, get rid of all these things, widen the pool, invite people in, give them help, make sure it’s a fair process. But at the end of the day, in this finite world of job openings, particularly in academia, you cannot make race the decision between two people. You have to find other factors for that. He was boycotted for that.
Where I’d like to wrap up is to focus you on some personal anecdotes that show me how damaging this system of racial classification, how damaging promoting people or not promoting them on the basis of race, has become and how we need to do better. One of the things I did in preparing for today is listen to an oral argument in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals this morning. And it’s a really interesting case.
The title of the case is William Jacobson v. Mary Barrett, New York State Health Commissioner. That would be me. So I’m the plaintiff in a case not arguing it. We had lawyers to do that. The case involves racially discriminatory Covid therapeutic guidelines issued by the State of New York. When the therapeutics were in short supply New York State issued guidelines in order to qualify for the limited supply, zero sum game. Can’t give them to everybody, therapeutics. You have to prove certain things. You have to prove you have Covid. So you need a positive test. You have to prove that you’ve presented yourself for treatment within five days because the therapeutics were are only good within the first five days. You can’t have severe, you can’t be hospitalized, you can’t have severe symptoms. You have to be 12 years old and a hundred pounds.
And then you need to show a risk factor and under those guidelines merely being non-white, and that’s the term they used, non-white is a risk factor. To qualify if you are white, you have to show something personally health wise is wrong with you. You have a heart condition, you have diabetes, whatever.
In what world is it okay to have medical decisions based upon or rationing of medications based upon race? If somebody comes into the room, you examine them as a physician, if one person is more sick than the other. But this presumes that because the African American community has higher rates of diabetes, that they are there for more at risk from Covid. That might be true as a group, but you’re treating a patient and not every African American has diabetes, test the person. Not every white person doesn’t have diabetes, test the person.
So that is a good example of how this focus on racial classification, this assumption of group outcomes, has really poisoned so much of it.
Another one, which I think highlights the absurdity of our current system. Where used to live at in Rhode Island, my next door neighbors were two physicians. One of them was from Colombia and one of them was from the United States. The Columbian woman was obviously of Spanish ancestry, not native South American ancestry, because she looked European. They had an Anglo last name. Their kids, even though we were in the best school district in the state, went to an extremely expensive private school. I lived next door to them for two decades. Never once heard them speak Spanish at home. I don’t think the kids spoke Spanish. There is no way either of these kids ever were discriminated against on the basis of their mother’s Hispanic origin.
Yet one day a card was misdirected to our mailbox instead of theirs. And the son was being solicited and invited to a multicultural day at Yale University. So he obviously had checked the box as Hispanic, and as part of their affirmative action program, they were reaching out to him to bring him in. In what world is that fair? That’s not. Rather than examine whether someone themself or their family has suffered because of discrimination, they just assign a classification to somebody and then use that as a basis for admissions.
Somebody who did not do that is my wife. My wife’s ancestry is from the Jews who were expelled by from Spain in the Spanish Inquisition. Her grandfather grew up on Isle of Rhodes, which had one of the ancient Jewish communities that were expelled from Spain. They spoke, led, you can look it up, Ladino at home. My father-in-law, may he rest in peace, grew up speaking Ladino at home. It never dawned on my wife to check the box. She could have probably checked Hispanic ancestry. How absurd would that have been? How unfair would that have been? So she didn’t do it.
So what I’m saying is the classifications, the use of race, these indefinite terms, ends up not being an argument over what’s right. It ends up being an argument over power and it ends up pitting people against each other. And we shouldn’t have it in the university.
The university has dedicated itself and sworn in rule 6.4, they will not do that yet in their brief to in the Harvard case. They say they do it, they say they use race as a determining factor, and without it, they say they could not achieve the end result that they want.
I do think that John Roberts had it right. Maybe these practices were justified 50, 60 years ago, but they’re not justified now. He had it right that at a certain point in time, we have to accept that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I do not think that even if “the grand judicial experiment of excusing racial discrimination in university admissions” had succeeded it should be continued, or ever was appropriate. IMO had public employee unions been banned (FDR’s view) and universal School Choice been implemented 50 or 60 years ago, where the money followed the child, the issue would have largely disappeared by now.
Exhibit A that the fashionable “equal outcomes” is crazy is when it comes to crime. When one group has a propensity to commit crimes at a much higher rate, equal outcomes delivers a large increase in victims, including dead people, mostly of minority groups.
Criminal activity by blacks is about 7 fold that of whites, that alone is cause for a large gap in in their and society at large outcomes.
I think that id Affirmative Action had stuck to the original goal of helping people achieve their potential, things might have turned out well. The assertion that environment was the cause of poor performance was flat out wrong. Intelligence set an upper limit for what a person is capable, environment can cause them not achieve their full potential, it cannot propel them past that upper potential. The problem with Affirmative action was that when they could not find enough blacks who were smart enough to meet their quotas. So they resorted to cheating and handing out cracker jack degrees. This resulted in large numbers of people who are not competent polluting all levels of our society. It has caused huge inefficiencies’ in our system.
The problem goes far beyond intelligence, culture and ethics are also deficient.
California allows citizen initiatives
An initiative called MLK’s dream should’ve submitted to the citizens for consideration. It would require that people be judged in every case by the content of their character not the color of their skin.
As Thomas Jefferson said, “There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.”
Who said, “God made wizards and God made muggles, Colonel Colt made them equal “?
Avada Kedavra, meet Avtomat Kalashnikova.
I also find it contemptible that only Asian students are considered discriminated against in these recent discussions about affirmative action. White students as well are discriminated against but apparently now that is ok.
Asian students brought the suit and have some of the best, direct statistical and otherwise evidence. And what you are fighting is the principle- if it’s removed as a tool it’s removed against everyone.
Just one suggestion from a longtime newspaper editor and writer: When you post a photo, put a cutline under it telling readers what they’re seeing!!! It might be obvious to you, but to many readers, it’s an unsolved puzzled. Don’t present your readers with photo puzzles. INFORM them: Use cutlines.
I’m a longtime newspaper reader. But I quit reading after they started making newspapers so small they looked like toys. I gave my last one away to a little girl so Ken could read to Barbie.
So, when the extremist radical tea-baggers get to present their case, it persuades people. No wonder they had to keep the wrongthink off The Twit.
And humor. Carpe Donkdum and The Babylon Bee are funny, and we can’t have that.
Ahhh yes, reminds me of the good ol’ days during the Obama regime when Barky got teabagged daily.
So people who hold different opinions than you progressive fascists are to have their speech suppressed? This is why you deserve to be called fascists.
I created a new Twitter alias 2 days ago, posted one tweet suggesting and asking when Trump might. I commented about enjoying his tweets, and that the way people chased their tails was even funnier.
And hour of so later they froze the account and demanded a phone number. Musk will need to fire lots more people.
Off topic: That is our school district that was on Fox news’ homepage today. She’s actively cheering for the riots and I’m actively cheering for the drug addicts and homeless to tear this city apart.
Our decision to start homeschooling this year has never looked better. Dealing with them has been complete madness, not only about politics but about everything.
Spent the day cleaning out the shop/pole barn as we are going to put the house up for sale in the early spring to get the hell out of Washington.
Everyone needs to get away from liberal cities, far away. That means not is suburb’s near the city. I made that mistake, what happens is that city cancer eventually spreads. Much of that is intentional section 8 seeds of neighborhood destruction.
Congratulations! I am so very glad to see such a tangible success for your laser focus, your difficult-but-honest assessments and your enormous devotion to “legal insurrection”.
Congratulations, not just on delivering the side of reason, but for persuading more than half the current generation of attendees.
“No greater injury can be done to any youth than to let him feel that because he belongs to this or that race he will be advanced in life regardless of his own merits or efforts.” ~ Booker T. Washington.
I will bet that Booker T did not even imagine the current situation – that because “of his own [superior] merits or efforts” the Asian student would be held back.
No one is calling this out, but I’ve worked in and around procurement for a while now.
Every company competing for government contracts is obsessed with race. I’m surprised the racket for women and minority owned businesses is not bigger than it is. Government contracts also fuel the race hustle in HR hiring as well (as if woke-ism alone weren’t enough).
Cut the diversity tracking in government contracting- a lot of companies will be far less concerned with skin color and more concerned about doing a good job.
In the role I’m in now it’s incredibly bad- and it’s obvious it’s been going on for a while. The number of women and black people thrust into manager and even VP positions who have not one bit of aptitude for these roles is astonishing. I’m refreshed that behind the scenes it’s talked about. In fact I was a little surprised how freely some talk about it w/out first really vetting who they are talking to as someone trust worthy.
Believe this is the same Chief Court Justice you quoted, he’s become scared of his own thinking
“The CPU Resolution is the second part of Chief Justice John Robert’s famous line, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
“The CPU Resolution…”
End the Intel / ARM duopoloy. CPU diversity now!
I find the cowards that abstained rather than admit that they knew, logically, that they were in the wrong a bit absurd.
I think the left’s racial constructs are as damaging as their “gender” fabrications. All designed to divide and separate people, so that they can be pitted against each other to the advantage of the “savior” leftists.
Has that worked out for any so called minority to date? Blacks are worse off than they were in the fifties, antisemitism abounds, Latinos are renamed without permission or approval, language is bastardized, and justice is at least two tiered.
Socialism always destroys countries, never uplifts them.
I’ve never understood why skin tone is the sole criteria for diversity.
True diversity would be age, ability, education, all incomes, disability, life experience, et al REGARDLESS of race.
I’ve never understood why black, non-African American immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean deserve a leg up. Who are they, Rosie Ruiz?
Ironically, the vast majority of African slaves during the transport age ended up in the Caribbean as well as South America, not North America. (Of course, North America owes them no reparations.)
So to whom does North America owe reparations?
Win , lose or draw, you were allowed to make your case with no verbal interruptions,. etc. The First Amendment appears alive and well in that corner of Cornell
“an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).”
Simple enough, if you’re Asian or Caucasian, just identify as whatever you feel like identifying as on the application. It’s already OK for men to identify as women to play on women’s sports teams, so go for it.
If you live in the portions of the US that were formerly Spanish colonies, it’s quite likely you are part Hispanic, by the way. Sephardic (from Spain, a very good place for Jews to be from, and I stress “from,” in 1492) Jews are of course Hispanic, and even people from the former Spanish Netherlands and Spanish-run Naples could be considered Hispanic. Japanese and Taiwanese could identify as Pacific Islanders as Japan and Taiwan are both big islands in the Pacific; come to think of it, Australia and New Zealand also are big islands in the Pacific.
Many apparently Caucasian people in the US may also have some Black or Native American ancestry; we are, after all, a big melting pot.
The bottom line is however that race, ethnicity, and similar protected characteristics are not bona fide qualifications so I would not have a problem with an applicant identifying as whatever he or she wants (as opposed to, for example, claiming a higher high school GPA than he or she really has because GPA is a bona fide qualification).
Technically, Australia is a continent. But I suppose it could identify as an island.
I’m not sure it’s in the Pacific, though (vice other seas).
Continents are nothing but islands with better talent agents.
Proud to know you through your blog professor, and one in person in Austin , I am not sure how I found this blog but am forever grateful.
Was wondering, have you stole your water away yet? I keep thinking I. See to get ahold of multiple 5 gallon bottles, or at least a water purification system,
the racially “diverse” student body they say advances their educational missions.
Understand that their mission is a religious one. The progressive church has successfully captured academia – along with gov’t and culture.
A legal scholar lays out the case in a way that is hardly refutable. Good job Bill! T haven’t been listening but hopefully the lawyers for the plaintiffs at the Supreme Court are just as cogent as you. If so, these preferences are a thing of the past.
The Left doesn’t think in terms of the individual. Everything is class identity; all their thinking is in terms of class-identity – which is why appeals to fairness for the individual make no progress against a Leftist mindset. The individual is of no consequence to them; only class membership matters.
Justice Ketanji said she would vote for “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and just include your picture with the application.
I’m Mayor Eric Adams and I approved this meaasge.
I’m Whoopee Goldberg Peabody and I mispelled “message”.
To me, the important point is that you were allowed to give an intelligent presentation without eggs or tomatoes being thrown and that students debated the issue after your talk.
The Woke movement is completely lacking in intellectual rigor or consistency. Hence, the big panic over Asian-American admissions. By definition kids admitted to Cornell have become “privileged” and by taking those seats are “oppressing” their high school classmates who could not attend an Ivy League school. Past generations (including mine) resolved that “guilt” by believing that the admission process was based upon merit.
Both the LIF and the Cornell Political Union are worth supporting because they are willing to bring a certain logic and rigor to these questions. However, we must understand that there are many Woke amici briefs being filed against the LIF at the Supreme Court, and there is an extensive and powerful staff group at Cornell to implement non-merit-based admissions and to counsel students as they struggle in an elite academic institution.
I can imagine a merit-only university or an admission-by-lottery university. Neither would involve a large support staff doing back-flips to cover up the inconsistencies in the current Woke agenda or its toll on society.
I’d love to see a group of rejected Asians and Caucasians get together and open up their own Institution(s) Of Higher Learning.
Maybe an independent thinking billionaire or two could provide seed money.
Call it THE INSTITUTE OF MERITOCRACY.
My expectation would be that in a few years it’s reputation for meritocracy would grow and spread far and wide.
Employers would come from all over in order to recruit.
– – –
If American regulations were a problem then open up outside the U.S. — e.g., Greenland, Bermuda, Jamaica
– – –
The reality is that none of this really is needed. My guess is that these young people who get turned down from Harvard wind up doing great. Really great.
(Wouldn’t you just love to see the comparison outcome data at, say, age 30 — those who attended Harvard or UNC vs those who didn’t………….