When Affirmative Action Ends…

 

It appears likely that the Supreme Court is going to declare affirmative action unconstitutional, on the grounds (essentially) that the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

There have been any number of analyses predicting the real-world fallout from such a decision, ranging from the philosophical let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may to the apocalyptic (there will be No Black Students At Harvard!)

What I haven’t seen predicted is the outcome I believe to be most likely: Black students, and black families, will simply up their game.

Following the Dobbs decision, returning the abortion question to the states,  Twitter was suddenly filled with the Tweets of outraged feminists declaring their utter and complete unwillingness to hook up with random men until Roe v. Wade was restored.

Now that the Handmaid’s Tale was coming true, parents Twittered that they were holding family meetings with teen and tween daughters about the need to exercise extreme choosiness re: sexual partners, and encouraging their kids to take a belts-and-braces approach to contraception.

In such communications, these Americans were ironically confirming a pro-life point. Legalized abortion had, indeed, created a culture of sexual license and irresponsibility, one in which women did hook up with random men and parents did not feel obligated to stress self-protection and self-control when discussing sexuality with their offspring.

But the tweetsters also demonstrated a more universal fact about human beings: Alter the incentives, and people will tend to alter their behavior. If abortion becomes less available or acceptable, women and girls will not be left helpless in the face of natural urges (their own or those of their “partners”). They can and shall make different decisions, and assert more control over their own bodies and the uses made thereof. Where abortion is not available as a fallback, parents who care about their children’s futures will work harder to protect daughters and sons from their own immaturity by, among other measures, imparting very different messages about acceptable sexual behavior. The result could easily turn out to be largely positive—fewer unplanned pregnancies, lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases, and the end of what has been termed “hook-up” dating culture, one that frankly does not serve women well.

At the moment, I believe it is fair to say that the stated goal of affirmative action advocates—equality of academic outcome— has not been achieved. Affirmative action was already operating when I went to college some forty years ago. A kid admitted to Harvard today on the strength of a good application given extra weight because of his black skin is probably the offspring of parents whose own applications to college were similarly weighted. The original assumption was surely that affirmative action would simply become unnecessary, as racism dwindled away and well-educated, middle or upper-middle class black professionals raised bright, educated, ambitious offspring. By now, surely, a purely colorblind, merit-based Harvard application process ought to have been able to generate all the skin color diversity needed to soothe the most anxiously anti-racist Harvard dean?

The problem—Harvard’s problem— is revealed in the following charts:

I would note, here, that the point of the SAT test back when it was first created and administered was to reduce the influence of bias on college admissions. The idea was that the test would provide an objective measure of academic qualification that a prejudiced admissions official would not be able to overlook.

Why—particularly in a “white supremacist” society— are Asian students so wildly over-represented among the top scorers? Why are African American students under-represented?

The racist would say, “because black students are defective by nature.”

The anti-racist would say, “because black students have been rendered defective by centuries of white and white-adjacent anti-black racism.”

Both would agree that the defect is essentially permanent.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that no one now reading these words is a racist.

That is, none of you believe that there is something about having straight black hair and epicanthic eye folds that allows Asian students to excel in an academic context, or something about having brown skin and kinky black hair that prevents black students from doing so.

And let’s assume, also, that everyone reading these words prefers the reality of academic achievement to the mere appearance thereof.

The SAT is a concrete, measurable marker of academic achievement as well as of academic potential. In other words, doing well on the SAT means, among other things, that a student has not only the talent, but the basic skill set required to thrive at college. Math skills and reading comprehension, yes, but also self-discipline, the ability to delay gratification, attention to detail, and a willingness to persist through the hard and boring parts of mastering a subject. It is not a test merely of natural aptitude or talent, but of these gifts combined with a capacity for plain old hard work.

Remember, here, that not all students take the SAT. Only kids who plan to apply to college take that test, so these are the scores of relatively bright children, the offspring almost by definition of parents who are relatively strongly committed to their child’s education.

Such individual and familial attributes do not function in a vacuum. Of course, it is difficult to achieve academically when one is immersed in a subculture that disdains academic achievement, and a lot easier to immerse oneself in studying when your subculture expects it and your peers are doing the same. But students and parents necessarily take their cues from the messages received from the wider educational environment.

“How hard do I need to work in order to be given an A?”

“How many A’s will my report card need to show in order to be admitted to the college of my choice?”

I have one kid (a stepson, so it’s not bragging) who was an extraordinary and ambitious academic achiever. In his freshman college dorm room, pinned to the wall above his desk, was a list of the best law schools in the country, and the LSAT scores and grades required to get into them. Want to know how hard my stepson worked as an undergrad?

As hard as he needed to. Which was incredibly freakin’ hard. (And yes, he got into all the best law schools.)

This study, published by the National Center for Education Statistics, provides a glimpse into why SAT scores might differ by race. It compares the sheer number of study hours put in by students (and checked by parents).

As it happens, my stepson is white and male. His parents, teachers, school counselors, the authors of the SAT prep books (and, later, LSAT prep books)  he worked his way through: Every source of feedback throughout his primary and secondary schooling offered the same message: “This is what you must do to get what you want.”

My Asian-American friends confirm that the anti-Asian bias in academia has been well-known for decades, and is accounted for by both students and parents when calibrating the level of effort required to achieve the desired end. The sources of feedback tell them, over and over, “This is the bar you have to clear.” So…they clear it.

Why aren’t black students (on average) studying as hard, or long? Why aren’t their parents pushing them to do so?

Perhaps the answer is exactly the same: Every source of feedback throughout their primary and secondary schooling are telling them: “This is how much you (or your child) must study in order to get what you want. This is the bar you have to clear.” So they clear that bar. If the bar was set higher, they would clear that one too. But the bar isn’t set higher. It’s set lower.

A Harvard dean of admissions, William Fitzsimmons, testifying before the Supreme Court, told the court that Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American, and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported.

Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men.

As it happens, my stepson is white and a bright young man. But it bears repeating that brightness isn’t enough: Hard work is what makes the difference. And the self-discipline and capacity for delayed gratification he exhibited were skills learned and practiced over many years.

It is essentially the same self-discipline exerted by a successful serious athlete. She forces herself out of bed at five every morning to put in three hours at the gym before school starts. She reduces social commitments to make time for team practices and tournaments. She learns to meet failure with renewed determination, rather than resignation.

If such an athlete belongs to a family that prizes athletic achievement, and to a subculture that rewards it, naturally the effort will require less of her own willpower. The “choice architecture” provided by her culture will make excellence not easy—it’s never easy—but easier.

What if that athlete (and her parents) get the message that an hour at the gym before school is plenty? Or that she can skip practice, or come in second or third at the meet, and still get all the acclaim and gold medals?

We are not talking, here, about someone who is “naturally lazy.” But no rational human being is going to work harder than she must in order to achieve what she desires.

Set the bar high—even unfairly high—and she will work harder in order to clear it.

I believe it is entirely possible that the answer to the perplexing question of why even bright, ambitious, middle-class black students (on average) underachieve and Asian and white students (like my stepson) over-achieve is simple. Affirmative action.

Affirmative action has altered the choice architecture within which students of all races and their parents make their individual and familial decisions.

Study or watch TV? Be content with a B+ or push for that A? Spend four hours grinding through yet another practice SAT, or go skiing with the family? Spend money on tutors, or spend money on a new car?

These aren’t easy choices to make—we’re talking about sacrifices most of us would find at least a bit painful. Asian families don’t push their kids to study more diligently because such parents get their jollies from exerting discipline, but because they’ve gotten the message transmitted by everybody, from Dean Fitzsimmons down to little Tong’s first-grade teacher: Want your kid to have the best chance in life? This is the bar your kid has to clear.

If and when the choice architecture gets altered (for instance, should SCOTUS end affirmative action), the short-term effect will certainly be a reduction in the number of blacks and an increase in Asians at Harvard.

But in the long run, I strongly suspect that we will see an increase in the academic achievement of bright black children of black parents who are strongly committed to their child’s education.

Since I do not believe that black people are damaged or defective, it wouldn’t surprise me if, within a decade or two, the percentage of black students scoring in the upper 1300s or higher on the SAT will have increased markedly, with concomitant improvements all the way down the scale.

I predict that black drop-out rates (another statistic Harvard, et al., would prefer we ignore) will decline, starting almost immediately, as fewer students will be admitted to college programs they have not (yet) developed the skills to manage.

In other words, the big winners from the end of Affirmative Action will be…black students. Well, the biggest winner of all will, of course, be all of us. We all benefit when young Americans, of any race, fully develop their intellectual gifts and capabilities.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 135 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    GrannyDude: It appears likely that the Supreme Court is going to declare affirmative action unconstitutional, on the grounds (essentially) that the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

    The original purpose of affirmative action, as stated by its proponents, was not quotas or other forms of discrimination. Rather, it was “affirmation action” to reach out to previously discriminated-against and disadvantaged groups to inform them that doors they assumed were closed were now open: If they had the qualifications they would be admitted and welcomed.

    Unfortunately, affirmative action quickly morphed into quotas and biased standards, as shown when unqualified students were admitted to top tier schools where they found it difficult to impossible to keep up with their better qualified classmates. (And, sadly, those less qualified students could have done well at lower-tier schools.) In the sixties, many liberals insisted that those students would quickly catch up and that such policies would eventually become unnecessary. The failure of such policies should have led liberals to reconsider their thinking and to embrace equal admissions standards for all. Instead, the left doubled down, hardening its support for lowered admissions standards while simultaneously demanding that courses be dumbed down, grading standards be lowered, and entire departments be created to accommodate students who wanted to get advanced degrees but who could not do real scholarship.

    • #31
  2. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    GrannyDude (View Comment):
    Well, okay. But some of us (ahem) don’t get the slightest bit bored when studying some subjects, and will do so for hours, years, decades without any external prompting or reward…while finding others inexpressibly tedious. 

    Some areas of study aren’t as difficult as others.

    • #32
  3. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    One is better off graduating from a good school than flunking out of an Ivy. Entrance figures are less important than graduation rates.

    • #33
  4. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Skyler (View Comment):

    GrannyDude (View Comment):
    Well, okay. But some of us (ahem) don’t get the slightest bit bored when studying some subjects, and will do so for hours, years, decades without any external prompting or reward…while finding others inexpressibly tedious.

    Some areas of study aren’t as difficult as others.

    That’s true. 

     

    • #34
  5. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Percival (View Comment):

    One is better off graduating from a good school than flunking out of an Ivy. Entrance figures are less important than graduation rates.

    Yes!  Much, much better off! 

     

    • #35
  6. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    The overall premise is (of course) sound:  if affirmative action ends in the context of academic institution entry standards, ambitious people seeking to achieve will pursue the established standards required for advancement, and if those established standards shift then so will that pursuit.

    If it ends, there will likely be a harm to that class of people who may find that themselves unprepared for and with little time to adjust to the upping of standards (i.e., “had they warned me I would have worked harder”), and unfortunately that possible harm will fall disproportionately on those who have been allowed previously to pursue their goals based on diminished standards.

    If it doesn’t end, then there will continue (as it has for several generations) a class of people harmed due to their achievement falling just shy of the gateway standards for their race while others have been allowed access with diminished standards for a different race. I will note that the otherwise excellent analysis affirmative action “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It” (Sander & Taylor) gives very little if not zero regard for this type of harm, repeating a dismissive line of “they have options.”

    As a nation we immediately created the second harm and the future potential for the first type of harm if these odious programs ever come to a halt. An additional harm to all of us, even if never personally affected by admission or denied access to a school program, is living with the lies, hypocrisy, and risk that attend altering standards based on race.

    I once shared a few drinks with a surgeon returning from extended tours during the Iraq war where he had been engaged in facial reconstructions for injured military members. We were about the same age, so his entry to dental school and later medical school, and the many advanced opportunities to hone his skills were all advanced with some influence of affirmative action within its first two decades. We discussed that and I was asking “when will this end – what is the limiting principle?” He didn’t know but unwilling to “pull up the ladder behind him” said “not yet.” I think that for him, having been a beneficiary in his youth it was too difficult to suggest that other young black people not have these adjusted opportunities. But as others have commented, “not yet” standing alone has no end point.

    • #36
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Brian Wyneken (View Comment):

    The overall premise is (of course) sound: if affirmative action ends in the context of academic institution entry standards, ambitious people seeking to achieve will pursue the established standards required for advancement, and if those established standards shift then so will that pursuit.

    If it ends, there will likely be a harm to that class of people who may find that themselves unprepared for and with little time to adjust to the upping of standards (i.e., “had they warned me I would have worked harder”), and unfortunately that possible harm will fall disproportionately on those who have been allowed previously to pursue their goals based on diminished standards.

    If it doesn’t end, then there will continue (as it has for several generations) a class of people harmed due to their achievement falling just shy of the gateway standards for their race while others have been allowed access with diminished standards for a different race. I will note that the otherwise excellent analysis affirmative action “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It” (Sander & Taylor) gives very little if not zero regard for this type of harm, repeating a dismissive line of “they have options.”

    As a nation we immediately created the second harm and the future potential for the first type of harm if these odious programs ever come to a halt. An additional harm to all of us, even if never personally affected by admission or denied access to a school program, is living with the lies, hypocrisy, and risk that attend altering standards based on race.

    I once shared a few drinks with a surgeon returning from extended tours during the Iraq war where he had been engaged in facial reconstructions for injured military members. We were about the same age, so his entry to dental school and later medical school, and the many advanced opportunities to hone his skills were all advanced with some influence of affirmative action within its first two decades. We discussed that and I was asking “when will this end – what is the limiting principle?” He didn’t know but unwilling to “pull up the ladder behind him” said “not yet.” I think that for him, having been a beneficiary in his youth it was too difficult to suggest that other young black people not have these adjusted opportunities. But as others have commented, “not yet” standing alone has no end point.

    The answer to ending things like mortgage-interest tax deductions also tends to be “not yet,” forever.

    • #37
  8. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    kedavis (View Comment):

     

    If it ends, there will likely be a harm to that class of people who may find that themselves unprepared for and with little time to adjust to the upping of standards (i.e., “had they warned me I would have worked harder”), and unfortunately that possible harm will fall disproportionately on those who have been allowed previously to pursue their goals based on diminished standards.

    That’s true. But (see comment #29) for most, the “harm” will be limited to stepping down one academic tier.  They, too, have options—good ones. 

    I think, by the way, that back in the beginning, when there was more actual racism impeding well-prepared black students,  affirmative action probably did clear away some of the obstacles. A black kid who applied to Harvard in 1975, say,  would not have grown up under the assumptions permitted by affirmative action, and his or her parents certainly would not have done so.  Educated, middle class black people who made their ways in the 1950s had to clear the high bar, and would transmit the skills for doing so to their offspring. Had the program been limited to five years,  it might have done some good while doing no real harm. But of course, it continued.  

    • #38
  9. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

     

    If it ends, there will likely be a harm to that class of people who may find that themselves unprepared for and with little time to adjust to the upping of standards (i.e., “had they warned me I would have worked harder”), and unfortunately that possible harm will fall disproportionately on those who have been allowed previously to pursue their goals based on diminished standards.

    That’s true. But (see comment #29) for most, the “harm” will be limited to stepping down one academic tier. They, too, have options—good ones.

    I think, by the way, that back in the beginning, when there was more actual racism impeding well-prepared black students, affirmative action probably did clear away some of the obstacles. A black kid who applied to Harvard in 1975, say, would not have grown up under the assumptions permitted by affirmative action, and his or her parents certainly would not have done so. Educated, middle class black people who made their ways in the 1950s had to clear the high bar, and would transmit the skills for doing so to their offspring. Had the program been limited to five years, it might have done some good while doing no real harm. But of course, it continued.

    My comment wasn’t an argument in favor of continuing affirmative action, but an acknowledgement that in any scenario of shifting standards there will be those who benefit and there will those who will find their earlier hopes disappointed.

    Academic admissions are “tiered” throughout the country, and racial factoring exists every level of that tier. The leftover options may be “good”, neutral, or bad. To judge these situations from afar, however, is something we should approach with caution. I have no precise knowledge about why a particular student A seeks an elite institution while a particular student B hopes to attend a less elite school near home. For either to be denied their desired admission on the basis of the color of their skin strikes me as fundamentally corrupt and evil. Ending state affirmation of affirmative action takes a large step to eradicate that wrong.

    The “Mismatch” theory while dismissive of the above, nonetheless runs parallel in arguing that it undermines any student to encourage/admit them into an academic tier for which they are not yet prepared. I believe that was just as true in 1968 as it is today. In addition, as Justice Thomas has oft repeated, the stigma attached to the possibility of affirmative action influence has long undermined due appreciation for legitimate black achievement. While certainly there have been many individuals whose success and attending prominence was jump-started by AA access to academic institutions, I believe actual achievement would have been more broadly spread throughout the culture had we never gone down this path . . . . which I think was the principal point of this OP.

    • #39
  10. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    kedavis (View Comment):
    The answer to ending things like mortgage-interest tax deductions also tends to be “not yet,” forever.

    Trump did that for me at least. The increase in the standard deduction more than made up for whatever mortgage interest deduction I had previously claimed.

    • #40
  11. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Brian Wyneken (View Comment):
    While certainly there have been many individuals whose success and attending prominence was jump-started by AA access to academic institutions, I believe actual achievement would have been more broadly spread throughout the culture had we never gone down this path . . . . which I think was the principal point of this OP.

    Yes!

    Wasn’t arguing, Brian, just expanding, FYI….

    • #41
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Brian Wyneken (View Comment):
    The “Mismatch” theory while dismissive of the above, nonetheless runs parallel in arguing that it undermines any student to encourage/admit them into an academic tier for which they are not yet prepared. I believe that was just as true in 1968 as it is today.

    Yes, but, in 1968 Harvard wouldn’t have admitted an unqualified student and the student likely would not have even applied.  These days, places like Harvard might actually seek out unqualified students just to make their numbers look better, and they don’t care that the student doesn’t do well and eventually “drops out.”  No skin off THEIR nose.

    • #42
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Instugator (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    The answer to ending things like mortgage-interest tax deductions also tends to be “not yet,” forever.

    Trump did that for me at least. The increase in the standard deduction more than made up for whatever mortgage interest deduction I had previously claimed.

    That’s true in many/most places, but places like the People’s Republics of California and New York, have much higher housing prices and property taxes etc, which is also what led to the much-more-unfair SALT (State And Local Tax) deductions that shifted those taxes to people living in less-expensive states.

    • #43
  14. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    California passed a ballot proposition [Proposition 209] in 1996 which ammended the State Constitution to prohibit all government instutions from considering sex, race, and ethnicity in hiring, contracts, or admission to colleges and universities.  Several attempts to recind it have failed.  

    • #44
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Brian Wyneken (View Comment):
    The “Mismatch” theory while dismissive of the above, nonetheless runs parallel in arguing that it undermines any student to encourage/admit them into an academic tier for which they are not yet prepared. I believe that was just as true in 1968 as it is today.

    Yes, but, in 1968 Harvard wouldn’t have admitted an unqualified student and the student likely would not have even applied. These days, places like Harvard might actually seek out unqualified students just to make their numbers look better, and they don’t care that the student doesn’t do well and eventually “drops out.” No skin off THEIR nose.

    And therein lies the problem. Harvard needs to care, or at least do a better job of faking it.

    • #45
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    California passed a ballot proposition [Proposition 209] in 1996 which ammended the State Constitution to prohibit all government instutions from considering sex, race, and ethnicity in hiring, contracts, or admission to colleges and universities. Several attempts to recind it have failed.

    So, what happens, the institutions just ignore it?

    • #46
  17. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    California passed a ballot proposition [Proposition 209] in 1996 which ammended the State Constitution to prohibit all government instutions from considering sex, race, and ethnicity in hiring, contracts, or admission to colleges and universities. Several attempts to recind it have failed.

    So, what happens, the institutions just ignore it?

    That’s where having a progressive governor and/or attorney general superceeds the Constitution.  

    • #47
  18. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Folks, this —via Powerline—is worth reading, for many reasons.    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/01/our-insane-racial-classifications.php

    That third paragraph suggests that the U.S. government could count all four of my children and both my step-children as “black/African American” thanks to their fathers’ families.  If this is true of our family, it is probably true of many American families—but they didn’t have 23&Me in 1977 (see below)so who knew?

    “Law professor David Bernstein is the author of Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America. Glenn Reynolds interviewed Bernstein at Glenn’s Substack site. You should read the whole thing; here are some excerpts:

    Americans typically make two primary errors about race. The first is that the racial classifications we use in common parlance–Black, White, Asian, Native American, Hispanic—are somehow natural and arose spontaneously. Very few of us realize that the US government codified them in 1977 in a formal federal law called Statistical Directive No. 15. Before that, almost no one called people of Spanish-speaking descent “Hispanics.” What we now call “Asian Americans” were nothing like a coherent group; Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino Americans had distinct cultures and significant history of inter-group conflict. Americans from India were typically classified as “white” or “other,” but a last-minute lobbying campaign resulted in them being added to the Asian American group.
    ***
    Contrary to popular belief, “Hispanic” includes Spaniards, but not Brazilians. The government defines indigenous people from Spanish-speaking countries as having Hispanic ethnicity, but thanks to lobbying from Native American tribes, are not “Indians” and have no racial box that fits them. Arab Americans, Iranians, Armenians, and other people from Western Asia are white, not Asian or Middle Eastern (there is no such official classification).

    People also assume incorrectly there is some sort of cut off, that you can’t claim “X” ancestry if, say, only your great-great-grandfather was “X.” But the Black/African American classification is defined as anyone with “origins in one of the black racial groups of Africa,” so the one-drop rule prevails. The Small Business Administration has concluded that a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors haven’t lived in a Spanish-speaking country for centuries can still claim Hispanic status.

    Ultimately, the classification scheme owes its existence to the history of slavery and Jim Crow:

    When the US government created our modern classification system in the 1970s, the country was still overwhelmingly black and white, about 81% white, 13% black. Around 5% were Hispanic, but the government traditionally considered this to be a “white” ethnic category. Given American history to that point, it’s not surprising that the bureaucrats who invented the system simply assumed that blacks and whites, respectively, would be pretty easy to identify, that they wouldn’t mix much, and that the division would likely be something close to permanent. Also, the statistics were meant primarily to be used for civil rights record-keeping. With “whites” not facing nearly as much discrimination as blacks, subdividing the white group was seen as unnecessary, though some experts advocated for doing so.

    Meanwhile, the bureaucracy failed to anticipate the massive immigration from Asia, Latin America, and Africa that would upset the classification scheme.”

    • #48
  19. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    The answer to ending things like mortgage-interest tax deductions also tends to be “not yet,” forever.

    Trump did that for me at least. The increase in the standard deduction more than made up for whatever mortgage interest deduction I had previously claimed.

    That’s true in many/most places, but places like the People’s Republics of California and New York, have much higher housing prices and property taxes etc, which is also what led to the much-more-unfair SALT (State And Local Tax) deductions that shifted those taxes to people living in less-expensive states.

    Trump fixed that too. Have the Dems repealed it yet?

    • #49
  20. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    GrannyDude (View Comment):
    With “whites” not facing nearly as much discrimination as blacks, subdividing the white group was seen as unnecessary, though some experts advocated for doing so.

    They make up for it by classifying some people as “white adjacent”

    • #50
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    “Law professor David Bernstein is the author of Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America. Glenn Reynolds interviewed Bernstein at Glenn’s Substack site. You should read the whole thing; here are some excerpts:

    Americans typically make two primary errors about race. The first is that the racial classifications we use in common parlance–Black, White, Asian, Native American, Hispanic—are somehow natural and arose spontaneously. Very few of us realize that the US government codified them in 1977 in a formal federal law called Statistical Directive No. 15. Before that, almost no one called people of Spanish-speaking descent “Hispanics.” What we now call “Asian Americans” were nothing like a coherent group; Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino Americans had distinct cultures and significant history of inter-group conflict. Americans from India were typically classified as “white” or “other,” but a last-minute lobbying campaign resulted in them being added to the Asian American group.
    ***
    Contrary to popular belief, “Hispanic” includes Spaniards, but not Brazilians. The government defines indigenous people from Spanish-speaking countries as having Hispanic ethnicity, but thanks to lobbying from Native American tribes, are not “Indians” and have no racial box that fits them. Arab Americans, Iranians, Armenians, and other people from Western Asia are white, not Asian or Middle Eastern (there is no such official classification).

    People also assume incorrectly there is some sort of cut off, that you can’t claim “X” ancestry if, say, only your great-great-grandfather was “X.” But the Black/African American classification is defined as anyone with “origins in one of the black racial groups of Africa,” so the one-drop rule prevails. The Small Business Administration has concluded that a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors haven’t lived in a Spanish-speaking country for centuries can still claim Hispanic status.

    Ultimately, the classification scheme owes its existence to the history of slavery and Jim Crow:

    When the US government created our modern classification system in the 1970s, the country was still overwhelmingly black and white, about 81% white, 13% black. Around 5% were Hispanic, but the government traditionally considered this to be a “white” ethnic category. Given American history to that point, it’s not surprising that the bureaucrats who invented the system simply assumed that blacks and whites, respectively, would be pretty easy to identify, that they wouldn’t mix much, and that the division would likely be something close to permanent. Also, the statistics were meant primarily to be used for civil rights record-keeping. With “whites” not facing nearly as much discrimination as blacks, subdividing the white group was seen as unnecessary, though some experts advocated for doing so.

    Meanwhile, the bureaucracy failed to anticipate the massive immigration from Asia, Latin America, and Africa that would upset the classification scheme.”

    How the government categorizes people has little if anything to do with how people interact in everyday life.

    • #51
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Instugator (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    The answer to ending things like mortgage-interest tax deductions also tends to be “not yet,” forever.

    Trump did that for me at least. The increase in the standard deduction more than made up for whatever mortgage interest deduction I had previously claimed.

    That’s true in many/most places, but places like the People’s Republics of California and New York, have much higher housing prices and property taxes etc, which is also what led to the much-more-unfair SALT (State And Local Tax) deductions that shifted those taxes to people living in less-expensive states.

    Trump fixed that too. Have the Dems repealed it yet?

    I think that was done by legislation, not by Executive Order, so it couldn’t just be undone the way so many other things have been: Keystone Pipeline, etc.

    • #52
  23. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    GrannyDude:

    The racist would say, “because black students are defective by nature.”

    The anti-racist would say, “because black students have been rendered defective by centuries of white and white-adjacent anti-black racism.”

    Both would agree that the defect is essentially permanent.

    Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that no one now reading these words is a racist.

    Please read the Bell Curve, and you might want to read this article by Rushton and Jensen from 2005.  They were two of the leading IQ researchers.

    There is a great deal of evidence for a biological basis for a difference in IQ distribution between whites and blacks.  That is not racist.  Nor is it well described by saying that black students are “defective.”

    Rather, they just have a lower IQ distribution, like some groups of people have a shorter height distribution.

    This is even reflected in brain size, as detailed in the paper by Rushton and Jensen.  Guess what?  On average, people with larger brains have higher IQ, even within races.  And it turns out that there’s a significant difference in brain size between whites and blacks (and a difference between whites and Orientals, too, with Orientals having larger brains).

    So, it turns out that the science demonstrates the thing that you dismiss as “racist.”

    This is the problem.  These facts have been known for a good 50-60 years, with additional evidence mounting, but anyone who points out the truth is condemned as a racist.

    So, let’s stop playing by the Woke playbook, please.

    • #53
  24. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Kate, your argument about hours of study is not necessarily correct, by the way.

    Think of a basketball analogy.  Guess what?  People who are good at basketball tend to play a lot of basketball, because they’re good at it.  Sure, playing makes them a bit better, but the big reason that Larry Bird played a lot more basketball than I did is that he was a better player.  No amount of practice would have turned me into a Larry Bird.

    So with grades, smart students may be studying more because this lets them get good grades, while, um, not-very-smart students less because it doesn’t help much, anyway.  This is even rational, as people who aren’t very bright can have other useful abilities, and might want to develop those, instead of working very hard to achieve mediocre grades anyway.

    Charles Murray has been very solid in tracking the research on IQ issues.  No one has discovered any way to successfully boost IQ in a way that lasts.  People have been trying to do so for decades.  All attempts fail.

    It really appears that IQ is strongly genetic, on an individual basis, with the heritability estimate in adulthood in the 70-80% range.

    Almost no one likes these facts.  The Leftists are upset because, you know, Inequality.  People who think of themselves as Conservatives don’t like it because it means that hard work doesn’t necessarily help very much, at least in this area.

    • #54
  25. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    On the main point in the OP, I do have a prediction for what will be done if SCOTUS outlaws race preferences in college admissions.

    The colleges and universities will continue to use them, in disguise, just as they’ve done in California where such preferences were outlawed.  It’s pretty easy to come up with alternative criteria that have a “disparate impact” in the way that one wants — in this case, to give preference to black students.  For example, you can give preference to poor students; or give preference to fatherless students; or give preference to certain geographic regions.

    • #55
  26. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    GrannyDude: A Harvard dean of admissions, William Fitzsimmons, testifying before the Supreme Court, told the court that Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American, and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported.

    1100 combined?  And that’s after the change to the scale, which inflated the scores compared to the tests that we took in the 1970s and 1980s.

    I got a 1180 on the SAT, combined verbal and math, around 1980.  When I was in 8th grade.

    Hey, if I’d been black or Indian, I coulda been Doogie Howser!

    • #56
  27. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Jerry, I’m not sure I was really arguing about I.Q..  

    Students, of whatever color,  who apply to Harvard are self-selected for reasonably high intelligence, motivation, talent and, for all I know, personal charm.

    My strong suspicion is that if the IQs of incoming freshmen were tested, the vast majority would test average-high, even if some would test very high. Nobody would test average-low.

    Having known plenty of Harvard and other Ivy-League grads, I’m willing to go on record saying that most are, to put it mildly, not geniuses. But they are, in general, normal-bright. 

    We know that SAT scores—which, unlike IQ tests, really are used to sort college applicants—can be improved by deliberate study, with or without tutoring. Heck, scores improve just by repeated test taking—my math score went up by 100 points the second time I took the test, making me (ahem) apparently average in math rather than truly lousy.

    A normal-bright kid with a reasonably decent secondary education will certainly do passably well on the SAT: I never studied for it, for instance,  or thought about it at all until test day. I did well—especially on the wordy bits. But I would have done better if I’d studied for it, the way my stepson did.   

    So, why didn’t I study? 

    A few reasons. One is that, while I was normal-bright (and a passionate autodidact)  I wasn’t a particularly disciplined school-student. I tended to get by on natural talent.

    Another reason is that my parents were not the sort that emphasized, let alone insisted upon, my spending hours with a workbook and a pencil when I’d rather be doing something else. Especially since the “something else” I wanted to do was, say, memorize the entire balcony scene from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.  I had the sort of parents who thought that was wayyyyy cooler and more important than whatever they were teaching me in school, and certainly thought it more worthwhile than slogging through an SAT prep book. 

    But the third reason—that I’ve only just thought about!—is that I was, in effect, a legacy kid. My parents went to college. That meant I would go to college. Dad went to Yale and so, as night follows day, my siblings went to Yale. (I was the black sheep and went to Georgetown).

    I don’t mean this was explicitly said, it was just understood, by everyone. In other words, my siblings and I were reared under the original Affirmative Action program, the one that put a thumb on the scale for children of alumni.  That doesn’t mean that I could flunk out of high school, or score a zero on the SATs, but it did mean that, as a normal-bright kid, I (or perhaps more importantly, my parents) could be more relaxed about my academic record. We didn’t have to fret too much about a hundred points the SAT, or a few mediocre grades.

    This, by the way, is no longer true, probably even for legacy kids. We came of age in far less competitive times; Nowadays, neither I nor my siblings (underachievers, by present standards) would’ve had a prayer of being accepted to Yale nowadays, something we’ve admitted to one another more than once. 

    At least, not without…”upping our game!”

    If they’d understood that there was no thumb on the scale, surely my parents would’ve taken more care choosing our secondary schools and paid far more (or…some?) attention to our study habits and grades. (Maybe they’d have hired  a tutor for their innumerate daughter rather than airily declaring “well, she’s just not a math person?”)  

    Were we—normal-bright parents with normal-bright kids—capable of making such adjustments?  Of course we were. Had the bar been raised, my parents would’ve made sure their children cleared it.

    I believe it is possible that normal-bright black kids reared by normal-bright, successful parents are, thanks to Affirmative Action,  receiving signals —most subtle, a few explicit—that are very similar to the ones legacy-kids received back in our day.  The results are similar. So: Raise the bar, and they’ll clear it.

    • #57
  28. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    ” It’s pretty easy to come up with alternative criteria that have a “disparate impact” in the way that one wants — in this case, to give preference to black students. “

    Yup. Or….! Colleges could, in the name of “equity,’ begin to eliminate any and all criteria, make the whole thing wholly subjective, in which case…a degree from Harvard would mean nothing at all.

    And guess what? Apparently, there is a move afoot among Woke Capitalists to prevent a job applicant with a college degree from naming the school that conferred it in his resume. Because, you know, not everybody has the “privilege” of attending a good school, so of course something must be done about that…

    Hilarious.

    https://nypost.com/2023/01/16/how-the-wokeness-it-pushes-could-destroy-higher-ed/

    • #58
  29. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    And guess what? Apparently, there is a move afoot among Woke Capitalists to prevent a job applicant with a college degree from naming the school that conferred it in his resume. Because, you know, not everybody has the “privilege” of attending a good school, so of course something must be done about that…

    Hilarious.

    Without having thought about it too deeply, I think I might actually be in favor of that.

     

    • #59
  30. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Kate, I think that Ivy grads typically are geniuses.  Maybe they don’t seem that smart to you.

    I can find current data.  For Harvard, the 25th and 75th percentile SAT scores are 1460 and 1580, respectively.  A combined SAT of 1450-1500 is around the 96th to 98th percentile, so even the 25th percentile student at Harvard is a borderline genius.

    The average at Harvard is 1520, which is above the 98th percentile.  “Genius” is usually defined as the top 2% or top 2.5%, so the average Harvard student qualifies.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.