John Reid writes: Donald Trump has shifted the Overton Window, soaring to the top of the polls while championing issues the political class believed were off-limits. But even Trump seemed to side with the Left in deploring Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent remarks about Affirmative Action’s paradoxical negative impact on African-Americans. Of course, Scalia had an entirely reasonable point. However, it’s time to face up to the real scandal: the damage that Affirmative Action does to displaced whites (and Asians).
During oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, UT attorney Greg Garre argued that when school dropped Affirmative Action policies, diversity plummeted. Scalia commented:
“I’m just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer [black students without Affirmative Action]. Maybe it ought to have fewer…And I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.”
[Read the most controversial statement by Justice Scalia on admissions and race, by Robert Barnes, Washington, Post, December 10, 2015]
Scalia then said:
“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African–Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a less —a slower—track school where they do well,”
These remarks reportedly “drew muted gasps” from the attendees [Supreme Court Justices’ Comments Don’t Bode Well for Affirmative Action, by Adam Liptak,New York Times, December 9, 2015].
After the arguments, the gasps were less muted:
- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid [Email him] claimed that Scalia’s words do not belong in “the mouths of national figures” and show “just how out of touch he is with the values of this nation” [Reid: Scalia’s ‘racist’ comments worse than Trump, by Jordain Carney, The Hill, December 10, 2015]
- Haitian-American Tufts University professor Peniel E. Joseph [Email him] wrote:
That a sitting Supreme Court justice could feel emboldened enough to articulate the kind of boldfaced belief in white supremacy thought to have ended with formal racial segregation illustrates the contours of the nation’s New Jim Crow, a system that justifies the dearth of African-American bodies in predominantly white spaces by questioning whether they truly belong there in the first place. [Scalia Comments Shine Light on U.S. Institutional Racism, Newsweek, December 10, 2015]
- The NAACP claimed that “We were alarmed and extraordinarily disappointed to hear a justice of the Supreme Court make comments that were laden with racial prejudice and that were based on an assumption of racial inferiority.” It demanded that Scalia recuse himself. [Justice Scalia under fire for race comments during Affirmative Action argument, by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times, December 10, 2015]
- The Washington Post ran a piece about whether Scalia could be impeached [Can a Supreme Court justice be forcibly removed from the bench? A quick civics lesson, by Valerie Strauss, December 12, 2015]. Its conclusion: yes. (Further evidence that the much-denounced impeachment weapon is magically legitimate when the Left proposes it.)
- For reasons I still don’t understand (VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow suspects he simply hasn’t thought about it) even Donald Trump criticized Scalia [Trump: ‘I don’t like’ what Scalia said about Affirmative Action, The Hill, December 13, 2015]
Of course, those less-muted gaspers already favored Affirmative Action anyway. And Scalia had his defenders. But by shrieking and creating a scandal, the Left once again succeeded in shifting the Overton Window in its direction. What was once the most Politically Correct reason to oppose Affirmative Action—that it was damaging to blacks—is now Officially Offensive.
Note that Scalia was not suggesting that blacks are inherently unfit to succeed at top schools, merely that blacks who have inferior grades and test scores t o their white and Asian peers will not excel. This is known as the Mismatch Theory.
Admitting blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans to hypercompetitive colleges that otherwise would have rejected them, Mismatch Theory holds, just means that these students are more likely to burn out and fail. Even those who do manage to graduate often end up taking less challenging majors and ultimately learn less. Mismatch Theory suggests that these students would have been better off attending a less competitive school where they would have excelled.
The Mismatch Theory is popular amongst Conservatism Inc. intellectuals because it argues that we should oppose Affirmative Action because it hurts blacks—not because it hurts whites and Asians. This is not a new argument, but it’s more plausible than the “soft bigotry of low expectations” trope about black self-esteem, and much more acceptable in the current climate.
Even a brave conservative like Heather Mac Donald has claimed that Mismatch Theory “is the most powerful critique of Affirmative Action yet developed” . [A Devastating Affirmative-Action Failure, National Review, August 26, 2013] And the coauthor of one of the amicus briefs to which Scalia was referring was Stuart Taylor, co-author of the book Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.
But, though plausible, the theory may be overstated. To take an extreme example: one Kashawn Campbell, an African American student who lacked basic writing skills, was admitted into the University of California-Berkeley, where he struggled. He was profiled by the Los Angeles Times.
At Cal, he was among the hardest workers in the dorm, but he could barely keep afloat. Seeking help, he went at least once a week to the office of his writing instructor, Verda Delp. The more she saw him, the more she worried. His writing often didn’t make sense. He struggled to comprehend the readings for her class and think critically about the text. “It took a while for him to understand there was a problem,” Delp said. “He could not believe that he needed more skills. He would revise his papers and each time he would turn his work back in having complicated it. The paper would be full of words he thought were academic, writing the way he thought a college student should write, using big words he didn’t have command of.”
[South L.A. student finds a different world at Cal, by Kurt Streeter, August 16, 2013]
Campbell was an extreme example of racial preferences. He attended Jefferson High School, which was 91% Hispanic, 8.4% African American, 0.0% Asian, and is 0.0% white. When Campbell graduated from the school in 2012, only 4.1% of the students were proficient in Math and only 18.9% were proficient in English (that was an improvement from a few years earlier when the numbers were 0.6 and 12.9). Campbell was likely admitted through California’s policy of admitting the top students at every high school. Even under normal racial quotas, Campbell probably would not have been admitted. But because California ostensibly did away with racial preferences after Proposition 209 and now just takes the top of the class at non-white schools, this created distortions from which he benefitted.
Reflecting upon the story, UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh suggested “it seems likely that Campbell would have been more successful at a school such as Cal State, which is more likely to spend more time remedying the gaps in Campbell’s education” [The Mismatch Effect, in the L.A. Times, Volokh Conspiracy, August 23, 2013].
But is this true? During his first year, Campbell managed to squeak through by taking African American Studies classes. A year later he seemed happy at Berkeley, writing “I have learned more about what it means to be black in a new environment. It’s a beautiful struggle that warms me up like morning tea, knowing that I am making a statement with all of these activities and my ethnicity” [Beyond the banner: what inspired our poster students, The Daily Californian, November 3, 2014].
Between the tutors, teachers allowing Campbell (right) to retake classes, and African American studies courses, he will probably manage to graduate. He may lack basic writing skills, but Campbell no doubt has a profitable career ahead of him being black for a living.
Responding to the hoopla over Scalia’s comments, Stuart Taylor wrote,
[M]any recipients of large racial preferences would be better off in the long run—with more learning, better careers, and perhaps happier lives—if they went to less prestigious but still excellent schools where they could do well academically.
Prestige has obvious advantages. The question is whether they outweigh the costs of being near the bottom of the class.
[Scalia’s Poorly Worded Comment Has Merit, Real Clear Politics, December 15, 2015]
I’m skeptical. I attended a semi-prestigious undergraduate school and an elite law school. When I applied for jobs after undergrad, not one employer asked for my transcript. They were confident that I was smart enough just based on the school’s pedigree. To most employers, being a poor student in undergrad at a top-notch institution is better than floating by at a mediocre one.
I did have to give my grades when I applied to Law School, but of course, these law schools also have racial preferences. It’s hard to argue that most Affirmative Action admissions harmed their recipients at elite law schools. Virtually no one fails out and at the top 3 law schools in the country—Harvard, Yale, and Stanford—do not have grades, nor does UC Berkley (ranked 8h). While all these schools have some distinctions among students, it is impossible to determine who is at the bottom of the class. Most other of the elite top 14 (T-14) law schools do not let students know their rank and some do not allow them to put their GPA on their resumes when applying for jobs. Similarly, elite MBA programs do not allow students to disclose their grades until after they are hired.
Based on their test scores, it seems like many, if not most, blacks who attend the top three Law Schools would have not been accepted to any of the “T-14” schools, but may have been accepted on the merits at schools at the bottom of the top 20. Most of the students accepted at the other schools would have ended up in schools ranked 20th-50th without Affirmative Action.
At most T-14 schools, if you have decent social skills and have OK grades you can get a job at a corporate law firm, while at the 20-50 ranked schools, you need to have top grades and law review. As blacks rarely make law review or honors at any school (at my law school, not one black received honors for being in the top quarter of the class), the firms choose based on where they attended.
And of course, Affirmative Action continues through graduation with law firms giving jobs to minority students with poorer grades than the white students at the same schools…
COMMENTS:
* SCALIA HAS A VERY GOOD POINT—BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
Thanks for the great article, Sir. Well written and agree with almost everything you said. (Harry Reid, the election thief, is a disgrace and simply utters what he thinks his liberal masters want to hear).
The mismatch theory applies not just to admission, but even the pressure to graduate or get into college that is being pushed on blacks.
Maybe some blacks do not want to graduate. Maybe they are not that keen on going to college, let alone top colleges where they will do poorly. So why entice them with affirmative action towards a path they don’t wish to walk?
School standards have been watered down, and math and science classes diluted to allow blacks to graduate at the same rate as whites and the whole society pays the price.
Affirmative action is racist, not only because it discriminates against whites, but because it eventually hurts blacks by conning them into thinking they are capable in areas that they are not and leading them into fields they are not cut out for.
* The entire ‘scandal’ over Scalia’s sensible remarks is pure political cant. Unfortunately, reality-denial has now become a requirement for public service. Even our Courts are feeling the heat. ‘Equal treatment under law’ is constantly being tweaked and revised. This is a very unhealthy trend.
Significantly, ‘outraged’ liberal writers like Liptak, Rothwell and Savage (above) are probably very comfortable with the idea of diverging mental capacities among/between whites (and by implication, Jews). Of course they are.
After all, that’s why there’s Harvard, Princeton and Yale!
And that’s why Jews are found at elite universities in such great numbers. These are the children of Einstein!
Indeed, differences in human intelligence have always been taken for granted–even among siblings with the same two parents.
In fact, many ‘gifted’ students have siblings with average–and sometimes below-average–IQs. This should not be shocking. Like inborn athletic potential, intellectual capacities are bestowed by nature in unequal portions. True?
So why shouldn’t genetically-isolated populations (races) mirror this ‘diversity’?
Variations in human intelligence occur. Among families, tribes, ethnic communities, and races. Even breeds of dogs exhibit differences in innate mental capacity. This is biology talking. The rest is politicized nonsense.
But science has become a VERY BIG OBSTACLE for the ‘racial egalitarian enforcers’ who manage America’s political discourse. Genes and intelligence? Different ethnic backgrounds…. Race?
That’s white supremacism!
And so, the Social Justice Warriors must pretend (and declare) that the descendants of African slaves must have precisely the same proportion of intellectually-gifted children as Ashkanazi Jews, Boston Presbyterians, or Hong Kong Chinese. Call in the bean-counters!
The offspring of NBA players need equal representation at MIT.
But this ruse is even more absurd that it looks. Even the bean-counters have to pull their punches.
After all, we cannot (and must never) count (apply) ‘quotas’ to Jews. Heavens no!
Whites must bow (as well as Asians) but Jews are exempt from the machinations of affirmative action. Even the US government is prohibited from counting them.
On the other hand, sacrificing a little white ‘privilege’ is an appropriate and necessary step for achieving social justice.
But why should mandating an equal and proportional sacrifice from America’s most successful group be beyond the pale?
Why?
It’s anti-Semitic!
Just watch this movie or read that book if you don’t believe me.
So it’s whites (or Asians) who must pay for ‘unequal outcomes’ in education. No ‘social remedy’ or demographic slight-of-hand can be implemented if it victimizes you-know-who. That’s when ‘affirmative action’ slips down the ugly slope into ‘quotas’.
Therefore, Jews are exempt from numerically-derived (and politically-correct) policies of academic exclusion. This is a very kosher remedy for academic inequality.
When can we examine these policies and discuss their disparate impact?
When?
Not now. Maybe never.
* A well known economist/investment advisor mentioned in his Christmas newsletter that an associate of his, a wealthy hedge fund manager, had funded an academy in Somalia for boys and that we were encouraged to donate. He pointed out that this schools graduates had been ‘accepted” into elite schools in America and the UK. That they would be the leadership of tomorrow’s Somalia.
I about threw up upon reading this. While anyone is free to spend their own money as they see fit, the idea that it is, somehow, morally preferable to assist a poor African by sending him to school at an elite Western school and deny the American student a spot at his own universities is appalling. It is also naive to believe the Somalian, having had a taste of Yale or Cambridge, is going to be in any hurry to head back to Somalia and ‘build’ his own nation. Experience tells us he is more likely to overstay his visa and do whatever it takes to never return home.
* Black surgeon? Black lawyer? Black teacher? Heck, even a black mechanic, who on Earth wants to trust any of them are competent?
Affirmative Action is a stain on EVERY single black in the middle or higher class now.
By raising the actual cost of every black (brown, LGBT, etc.) employee (because each one carries a risk of lawsuit-publicity-settlement extortion), I can’t help wondering just how high is the dead-weight cost to businesses in America today.
* True story: about 15 years ago, while working as an intern in the Dept of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, I suffered a broken tooth, so I went to the nearest provider on my included healthcare plan to have it capped. Turned out to be a black woman.
What followed was the most horrifically painful experience of my life. A couple of hours of searing, excruciating pain, with the tears running down my face, while she kept insisting that all was well, it was nearly over, and there was no need for any more pain killers.
I assumed that she knew what she was doing – that this was just what you had to go through to get a broken tooth capped.
So when, ten years later, living in rural Missouri, I again broke a tooth, I put off fixing it for weeks, in fear of what it would be like.
Finally bowed to the inevitable and went to the local dentist – a middle-aged white guy who couldn’t seem to stop telling you about the latest news he’d gleaned from Rush Limbaugh.
Result? Totally painless procedure, out in half an hour.
To this day, I wonder about what that lady in Bethesda put me through: was it mere incompetence? Or active malice?
Regardless, the moral of the story is: never, ever, put yourself in the hands of a black professional, no matter how “qualified,” if you’ve got the option of some nobody white grunt instead.
* Granted that Japs are the most innovative East Asians, but Canada and Australia are not getting Japs right? They are getting Chinese. The vast majority of Japs seem happy to stay in Japan. About the Indian Brahmins, they ran India into the ground after the British left, what makes you people think that they will run the Canadian or Australian government any better once they are in charge whatever their IQ is, and what makes you people think that Indian Brahmins will be any more benevolent towards the black and Latino underclass, or towards the Abos and Canadian First Nations, or poor whites, than they are to the untouchable and lower castes underclasses in India?
* When AA hires prove that they can’t be productive in the stock in trade of the business or professional association that hired them, they can get shoehorned into “minority recruiting,” “event planning,” “VP of diversity,” “community liaison,” “head of pro bono practice group,” etc.
AA isn’t just necessarily bad for students – those who benefit and those who are displaced alike – but is corrupting to the institution itself. There was a scandal involving a Philadelphia area lawschool wherein the admissions office was reporting false (augmented) LSAT and GPA data for incoming students to the accrediting authority. One of those insiders scandalized and dismissed was the Dean assigned the responsibility for diversity and inclusiveness. Higher hard scores would boost U.S. News rankings. It’s fairly apparent that they were pursuing diversity at the expense of the quality of the incoming classes and simply lied to prevent the inevitable result from negatively affecting the ranking.
In my own Law School experience black students were offered special treatment by, inter alia but especially the black professors. What was rumored was anything from special and inexhaustible office hours through special tutoring in which the exam material would be “tipped” (and, of course, if the relevant material is reinforced enough by the professor it could be possible to “game” the blind exam system with a repeated recitation of a pattern of words). N.B. Exams were usually three to four hours a piece but cover only a limited scope of material such that knowing what would be on the exam before preparing would be an extreme advantage to the student. The other gambit was the offering of silly advocacy classes (“Women and the Law”) which were easy As and Bs, while serious students would take courses like “Federal Taxation” or “Corporations.”
