• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

SCOTUS - AA ... news from the future

How the Ivy League's Jewish quotas shaped higher education
We’re talking literally about exactly a century ago, give or take a year, when Columbia, Harvard and Yale all first ventured into artificially restricting the number of Jews who would be admitted. Simply put, the big difference is that back then, diversity was seen as an unquestionably bad thing. And now diversity is seen as unquestionably a good thing
Back then, they wanted mostly White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
The same devices that were being used back then are being used today. Think about the idea of geographical diversity. It seems so completely benign on the surface, a college saying that we have students from all 50 states. But that idea was invented by Columbia, and quickly adopted by other Ivy League schools, because they found that they were admitting an extraordinary number of New Yorkers who were disproportionately Jewish.
So instead of saying that they don't want Jews, they said that want more variety in their student body, like Southerners and Westerners. But that had the same effect, because there weren't as many Jews among those possible students.
All of these things that are baked into the admission process today—geographical diversity, the interview, legacy preferences—were invented expressly to keep the number of Jews down.

Q: Isn’t imposing quotas to increase diversity better than imposing them to limit diversity?

A: I mean, it’s very tricky. On the one hand, I think it’s progress that nobody is sitting in admissions offices right now talking about the “good” kind of Jew versus the “bad” kind of Jew—the assimilable Jew versus the unassimilable Jew. It’s progress that they’re no longer having conversations, as Dartmouth did, asking Jewish alumni to counsel the admissions office on how to get the “right” kind of Jew from among their own people.

On the other hand, the ways that a school like Harvard, it seems, is achieving its more admirable kind of diversity now, inevitably turn on mechanisms that reduce individual candidates to stereotypes. And the same stereotype that admissions officers had of Jews back in 1920—that they were nerds, they were grinds, they didn’t have the character to take full advantage of all of the extracurricular offerings because they would just go home at night to study—are absolutely the same stereotypes that are at play when Harvard assigns a ranking to something like character or courage and disproportionately grades down Asian American applicants. These things were pernicious then, and they’re pernicious now. And the other thing that they do in both cases, is they insert an element of dishonesty into the process.
So in an effort to keep them out, being very studious was held against them, despite the broader society claiming that it is a virtue and attacking people for supposedly not being very studious.
 
What were these universities like a century ago?
The Ivy League schools were in many ways quite similar in the 1920s, in that they were all in the process of becoming highly competitive bastions of status. Fifty years earlier, all the Ivy League schools were fairly provincial, and they did a relatively small number of things, whether it was training students for the clergy, or, as at Cornell, training them for agriculture. By 1920, they all developed this aspiration of being competitive places that students who want to succeed and be in the upper classes can matriculate at. They were all becoming more appealing nationally in different ways.
Why did those people not want lots of Jews?
Very little of it had to do with Jews’ adherence to Torah, specifically. Nobody was saying, “We need more Christ followers and fewer sons of Moses!” It was threefold: one, there was an ethnic prejudice that partook of certain stereotypes of Jews as lacking class, as being grasping or overly ambitious. Secondly, it was a prejudice against immigrants at a time when America was going through a very nativist period. The 1920s were a time when we were afraid of immigrants, like today, so a lot of it was a basic nativist concern about Jewish immigration, Italian immigration, Irish immigration and so forth. And then the third piece really was a simple question of socioeconomic status, of whether poor kids could or should be allowed to mix with wealthier kids who knew which fork to use.

...
There was always room for the “good Jew” in the eating clubs at Princeton. There was always the sense that Jews from wealthy families or from the right private schools could be admitted. And so in the Princeton episode, the Jews who didn’t get into the eating clubs were by and large Jews who were from public schools, who were not on sports teams. And also, if you believe [my interview with] one of the Jews in the sophomore class of 1958, Jews who didn’t dress well, weren’t tall enough and, worst of all, were intellectuals. You have to remember how anti-intellectual these schools were. They were deeply concerned about being seen as schools where everyone was concerned with study and learning all the time—that was a bad thing. It was thought that the qualities of leadership necessitated a kind of well-rounded, almost indifference to the life of the mind.
It's weird that they were so anti-intellectual. Almost as if the people who ran these universities saw them as social clubs or something like that.
The second moment was after the [1957] launch of Sputnik, when Americans grew very concerned that Russians were winning the space war, that we were falling behind in technology. And at Yale, for example, they pretty explicitly decided that they had to start admitting more for intellectual heft than just for, you know, skill with a squash racket and a good tenor voice.
Then some reasons why there are fewer Jews nowadays. Jews being considered white people. Lots of students from eastern and southern Asia and the Arab Gulf, students unlikely to be Jewish. Jews having made it into middle-class and upper-middle-class status and are thus not desperate social climbers.
 
These justices are imposing their theological preferences in a variety of cases.
That is certainly the case for Dobbs and religious freedom cases. I do not see any theology in the two racial preference cases before the court though.
You should tell that to these justices, not me.
Do you have Red Sonia's number? How about that of the Notorious KJB? Those two especially seem to be gung ho on ignoring constitution as well as laws such as Civil Rights Act in order to perpetuate preferences benefiting their racial and ethnic groups specifically.
 
Isaac Asimov in "Thinking About Thinking" in "The Planet that Wasn't":
I do not, myself, consider Jews, as a group, to be markedly high-IQ. The number of stupid Jews I have met in the course of a lifetime is enormous. That, however, is not the opinion of the anti-Semite, whose stereotype of the Jews involves their possession of a gigantic and dangerous intelligence. Although they may make up less than half a percent of a nation's population, they are forever on the point of "taking over".

But then, shouldn't they, if they are high-IQ? Oh, no, for that intelligence is merely "shrewdness," or "low cunning," or "devious slyness," and what really counts is that they lack the Christian, or the Nordic, or the Teutonic, or the what-have-you virtues of other sorts.
Much like  Stereotypes of Jews - "Jews have often been stereotyped as greedy and miserly"

Turning to Asians, I've found  Bamboo ceiling
The bamboo ceiling in the United States is a subtle and complex form of discrimination, and the umbrella term "Asian American" extends to include a number of diverse groups, including South Asians, East Asians, and Southeast Asians. These groups are often subject to "model minority" stereotypes, and viewed as quiet, hardworking, family-oriented, high achieving in math and science, passive, non-confrontational, submissive, and antisocial. In the workforce, some of these perceptions may seem positive in the short-term, but in the long-term they impede progression up the corporate and academic ladders.

While Asian Americans are often viewed as a "model minority" race, many feel that they are an invisible or "forgotten minority", despite being one of the fastest growing groups in the country. Because they are generally considered ineligible for many of the minority rights of underrepresented races, and Asian Americans have been shown to be less likely to report incidents of racial discrimination in the workplace, there are far fewer institutional avenues and programs for them to combat these labels and perceptions.

Causes and effects

Some analysts attribute the racial disparity in administrative capacities to negative extensions of the aforementioned stereotypes of Asian Americans, such as common assumptions that they are "lacking in leadership skills" or that they have "poor communication abilities". Asian Americans are also sometimes expected to have higher qualifications than their white counterparts, such as graduating from more prestigious universities, to achieve the same positions in American companies.
In effect, that they are too diligent for their own good, even though diligence in school and in one's work is supposed to be a virtue.
 
Simply put, the big difference is that back then, diversity was seen as an unquestionably bad thing. And now diversity is seen as unquestionably a good thing.
Except when talking about so-called HBCUs where their nigh monochromaticity is seen as a good thing. The supporters of HBCUs (which correlate highly with supporters of racial preferences in mainstream colleges and universities) see the fact that black students are surrounded by students and faculty who look like them as the big advantage of HBCUs vs. going to a mainstream institution.
lpetrich said:
So in an effort to keep them out, being very studious was held against them, despite the broader society claiming that it is a virtue and attacking people for supposedly not being very studious.
Sounds very similar to these personality tests Harvard uses to restrict the number of Asians. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...
 
Sure, but legality and constitutionality are matters of opinion, so justices can use whatever logic they want to reach the outcome they prefer.
Too often they are, but that's a bug, not a feature of the system. For example, left-wing justices like Sotomayor ignore the obvious illegality of racial preferences because they happen to like it.
I do not see how anybody can read Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and come to the conclusion that it's ok to discriminate based on race.
Civil Rights Act said:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Yes. Both sides make legal arguments in their opinions. There’s a reason they are called “opinions”. These aren’t the laws of physics they are deciding on, where the universe is the final arbiter. Many laws are vague enough that any interpretation can be made and backed up with legal reasoning. The legal reasoning that wins out just happens to be the more popular one (I.e,, supported by five or more justices) not necessarily the “better” one, if opinions can even be judged in that way. I see it as all subjective now.
 
Simply put, the big difference is that back then, diversity was seen as an unquestionably bad thing. And now diversity is seen as unquestionably a good thing.
Except when talking about so-called HBCUs where their nigh monochromaticity is seen as a good thing. The supporters of HBCUs (which correlate highly with supporters of racial preferences in mainstream colleges and universities) see the fact that black students are surrounded by students and faculty who look like them as the big advantage of HBCUs vs. going to a mainstream institution.
You keep riding this HBCU hobby horse.
HBCUs rose because black students were denied admission to institutions of higher education because of their race. HBCUs do not discriminate against non-black students.
 
These justices are imposing their theological preferences in a variety of cases.
That is certainly the case for Dobbs and religious freedom cases. I do not see any theology in the two racial preference cases before the court though.
Theocrats are theocrats. They’ve proven that they won’t let law or constitutionality get in their way.
Derec said:
Do you have Red Sonia's number? How about that of the Notorious KJB? Those two especially seem to be gung ho on ignoring constitution as well as laws such as Civil Rights Act in order to perpetuate preferences benefiting their racial and ethnic groups specifically.
Quelled surprise-insulting 2 women of color .
 
Theocrats are theocrats.
These cases have nothing to do with religion. So you are babbling about irrelevancies.
They’ve proven that they won’t let law or constitutionality get in their way.
If these cases break as everybody expects them to, it would be these justices who uphold law and constitutionality, and the so-called "liberal" justices who "won't law or constitutionality get in their way".
Both sides have politicized the Court. You really have to look at it from issue to issue, case to case, because one side will be in the right on some issues, and not others. Few cases are unanimous or break not along ideological lines, but too many are predictably ideologically tinged. And it those cases we should not fall into the trap to assume that one side has the monopoly on the correct interpretation of the constitution or the law. Or even that one side is always on the right side morally speaking either - not that that should drive rulings.
You are a partisan, so you view everything the lefty justices do as good and right, and everything conservative justices do as corrupt and evil. That kind of thinking is childish.
Quelled surprise-insulting 2 women of color .
I am not insulting anybody. I am criticizing two justices for their statements from the bench. Something that is perfectly legitimate to do regarding SCOTUS justices, particularly on a political forum. You criticize justices too, so your objection is hypocritical.
Why should SS' and KJB's gender and skin color be a shield against criticism?
 
You keep riding this HBCU hobby horse.
Not a hobby horse. It is a relevant part of the discussion of diversity in higher education.
HBCUs rose because black students were denied admission to institutions of higher education because of their race.
I know why they arose. That is in the past though.
HBCUs do not discriminate against non-black students.
I never said they were. But they are also least diverse colleges in the US.
And when people who champion "diversity" in higher education, even advocating for racial discrimination to achieve it, also support HBCUs as special and in need of special treatment (and funding!), then there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonance here.
 
Yes. Both sides make legal arguments in their opinions. There’s a reason they are called “opinions”. These aren’t the laws of physics they are deciding on, where the universe is the final arbiter. Many laws are vague enough that any interpretation can be made and backed up with legal reasoning.
Fair enough in part. These are manmade laws. And sometimes they are vague. But Title VI is pretty clear and it takes quite a bit of twisting into legal and logical pretzels, not to mention fallacious appeals to consequences (fewer blacks and hispanics at very selective universities) to try to justify disregarding the clear language, and intent, of the law.

The legal reasoning that wins out just happens to be the more popular one (I.e,, supported by five or more justices) not necessarily the “better” one, if opinions can even be judged in that way. I see it as all subjective now.
That explains why racial preferences have been upheld since Bakke. That does not mean that things are purely subjective though. Otherwise, why have a constitution at all? Why have laws at all?
 
Baltimore has perhaps the third highest public school budget in the country. Yet, …
Yet ...

And then ...

And the worst thing is that Mayor Littlefinger (Martin O'Malley expy?) defunded police to maintain the school budget without taking money from the State (which would have meant the State taking over the school district).
 
At Harvard it was Asian stents not whites making an issue.

We do not want SCOTUS to decide what they think is the right thing socially. We already see that depending on the majority of the court, as with abortion.

Race based admissions to arbitrarily create a statistical balance does what? It creates a sense of entitlement. If I fail it is bcause my skin is black.

Regardless of historical racism, blacks have to compete fairly for what an individual wants. Today I do not buy that blacks today dace an inherent barrier to higher education.

In the 70s I supported affirmative action. I worked at places where I knew if an application had a an address or an African sounding name from certain neighborhoods it was trashed.

What would the response be if the NBA or NFL selected white players who were not as good as black athletes in order to maintain 'diversity'?

As MLK said, no one shoud be judged by the color of skin.
From what I have read about encouraging racial diversity in higher education, it's not so much about having percentages that reflect the country or community, it's about the multi generational effect of bringing higher education to racially (and often economically) isolated communities. It's a long term solution.

It's already not a meritocracy right out of the gate, and realistically, economic inequality caused by race (which exists whether we want to acknowledge it or not) is going to take at least a few generations to turn around.

On it's surface it seems unfair, but it's only unfair if the status quo continues. The fact is, we know that certain communities struggle with generational poverty, stress, and despair, and avoiding it will continue to have bad outcomes that affect society as a whole.

In a nutshell - If a First Nations kid get a uni education, goes home and brings the value of that education to their community...You can see how this plays out over the long term with millions of kids. The health and well being of those communities have an impact on the health and well being of all communities within a nation.

there's lots of good info and studies, etc that do a much better job at explaining this.
 
. That does not mean that things are purely subjective though. Otherwise, why have a constitution at all? Why have laws at all?
One does wonder, indeed. Our laws only mean what we all agree them to mean. If the judiciary can retain integrity we will be ok, but there have been many examples of that not being true that one begins to worry.

And if the current trend continues and we begin to doubt the validity of our elected representatives then we may reach a time when people won’t respect the laws written by the lawmakers they don’t believe are legitimate.

Then the entire rule of law breaks down. Either we all agree to abide by law and order or ultimately it just becomes enforced upon us.
 
Theocrats are theocrats.
These cases have nothing to do with religion.
I am using religion in a more general sense.


Derec said:
If these cases break as everybody expects them to, it would be these justices who uphold law and constitutionality, <snipped irrelevant babble>….
No, they would upheld your beliefs “ (i.e religious views in a more general sense)
Derec said:
I am not insulting anybody. I am criticizing two justices for their statements from the bench. Something that is perfectly legitimate to do regarding SCOTUS justices, particularly on a political forum. You criticize justices too, so your objection is hypocritical.
Why should SS' and KJB's gender and skin color be a shield against criticism?
There is no requirement for you to deliberately alter their names in order to criticise their views or positions. Colorectal me if I am wrong, but have you ever referred to a white make SCOTUS justice with an insulting name like “ Yosemite Sam” or “Dirty Harry” ?
Or try this hypothetical, would you feel insulted if in a criticism of one of your positions, I referred to you as “white hooded Derec”?
 
You keep riding this HBCU hobby horse.
Not a hobby horse. It is a relevant part of the discussion of diversity in higher education.
HBCUs rose because black students were denied admission to institutions of higher education because of their race.
I know why they arose. That is in the past though.
HBCUs do not discriminate against non-black students.
I never said they were. But they are also least diverse colleges in the US.
And when people who champion "diversity" in higher education, even advocating for racial discrimination to achieve it, also support HBCUs as special and in need of special treatment (and funding!), then there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonance here.
Only to the cognitively impaired. If HBCUs claimed that by increasing their diversity that their effectiveness in helping black students is reduced or if they discriminated against non-black applicants, you’d have a point. Since they don’t, your hobby horse is just that - an irrelevancy.
 
Sure. Donald Trump would have been a resounding success even if he had not inherited a large fortune from his parents. Same with Elon Musk.
I think Musk would have been successful without his family wealth. Trump, probably not.
What does that have to do with giving preferences based on race?
PayPal wasn't his doing. Tesla isn't good. He's being a disaster with Twitter. The only real accomplishment he has is SpaceX and I continue to be amazed that he managed to accomplish that. I strongly suspect it's a case of him for once letting someone else do it.
 
Harvard administrators would disagree. Are you smarter than a Harvard administrator?
It's not a matter of who is smarter. It's a matter of values and ideology. Harvard admins believe it's ok to discriminate by race to achieve a racial mix they want. I believe that is not ok.
Another good reason you're not in a position to influence such matters; you think you are as privy to and savvy about all the considerations that a major university weighs in making decisions about admissions, as the people administering Harvard Admissions.
HINT: You're NOT

Hint: We can infer a lot from silence here. They've been sued over it--and presented no good reason for their behavior. Do they have some reason so secret that they'll throw a major court case rather than reveal it?! I don't think so!
 
In a nutshell - If a First Nations kid get a uni education, goes home and brings the value of that education to their community...You can see how this plays out over the long term with millions of kids. The health and well being of those communities have an impact on the health and well being of all communities within a nation.

there's lots of good info and studies, etc that do a much better job at explaining this.
That's the theory. In practice the number of slots that actually go to those with a bad upbringing is minuscule. Lots of poor blacks doesn't mean slots allocated to blacks will come from the poor ones.
 
Sure. Donald Trump would have been a resounding success even if he had not inherited a large fortune from his parents. Same with Elon Musk.
I think Musk would have been successful without his family wealth. Trump, probably not.
What does that have to do with giving preferences based on race?
PayPal wasn't his doing. Tesla isn't good. He's being a disaster with Twitter. The only real accomplishment he has is SpaceX and I continue to be amazed that he managed to accomplish that. I strongly suspect it's a case of him for once letting someone else do it.
Lots of assists from the US taxpayer on that one....
 
Back
Top Bottom