Tag: Affirmative Action

Member Post

 

The Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas affirmative action policy (i.e., the “Sorry Whitey, your better grades don’t count” rule), and who the deciding vote was should shock precisely no one at this point. The vote was 4-3, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion. Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

So Glenn Beck wrote something about the recent meet-up between Facebook and Conservatives. According to Beck, the Conservatives basically wanted affirmative action for their group with diversity training, and some Conservative leaders demanded (in Beck’s view) that Facebook hire more Mormons, because 2% of the country is Mormon while also taking 6 months of the employees’ time for […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

Like a good classical liberal, the idea of hiring someone based on race, sex , or creed turns my stomach. But it is a persistent directive from the elite in our society to weep when group X is under-represented in field Y. We shake our heads that field Y is so biased (unconsciously or otherwise). […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Why Yale Students Aren’t Ideologically Diverse

 

Screen Shot 2016-02-10 at 8.54.07 AMThe New York Post has been giving Ed Boland a lot of press recently in advance of his soon-to-be-released book, The Battle for Room 314. The promotion began with an article headlined with typical Post subtlety, “My Year of Terror and Abuse Teaching at a NYC High School.” Reporter Maureen Callahan introduces her subject:

In 2008, Ed Boland, a well-off New Yorker who had spent 20 years as an executive at a nonprofit, had a midlife epiphany: He should leave his white-glove world, the galas at the Waldorf and drinks at the Yale Club, and go work with the city’s neediest children.

As I read the foregoing, another headline sprang to mind: Teacher Bludgeoned by Reality. But let’s hear Mr. Boland’s story:

Member Post

 

  Dear Academy Awards – It’s become clear that burdens of acting and filmmaking have an inordinate impact on minorities and women.  Given your unique position in Hollywood, I call on you to institute neither quotas nor set-asides but simply this: when it’s close, the Oscar should go to the minority. In the case of two […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Mismatch Theory: Why a Movie Should Be Made about Prof. Richard Sander (Part 3)

 

This post is the third in a series on Prof. Richard Sander and the reaction to his Mismatch theory. You can read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 4 of this series at the links.

51ba5ZH-x8L._SX308_BO1,204,203,200_As I noted in Part 2 of this series, a slew of pro-affirmative-action law scholars wrote critiques of Sander’s work on Mismatch, the theory that if students are less prepared for a particular level of instruction—which occurs almost by design with affirmative action—then, not only do they make worse grades than their peers, they actually learn less than they would have learned if they had attended a less challenging school. All of these critiques, I believe, realized that the first and second regularities that Sander documented were solid. None even attempted to show contradictory data that could overturn them.

Mismatch Theory: Why a Movie Should Be Made about Prof. Richard Sander (Part 2)

 

This post is the second in a series on Prof. Richard Sander and the reaction to his Mismatch theory. You can read Part 1, Part 3, and Part 4 of this series at the links.

51ba5ZH-x8L._SX308_BO1,204,203,200_As I noted in Part 1, Sander noticed an overlap with what economist Thomas Sowell called the “mismatch” effect. If students are less prepared for a particular level of instruction—which occurs almost by design with affirmative action—then, not only do they make worse grades than their peers, they actually learn less than they would have learned if they had attended a less challenging school.

Distortion in Service of Progressivism Is No Vice

 

640px-Antonin_Scalia_2010It’s as fascinating as it is frustrating to watch the media spin a story to suit its preferred narrative. For this week’s example, look no further than the controversy surrounding oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, the latest affirmative action case to reach the Supreme Court of the United States.

An MSNBC reporter named Irin Carmon — who also co-authored a laudatory biography of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg entitled The Notorious RBG — seized on a question raised by Justice Antonin Scalia during oral arguments. The question dealt with the assertion (raised by one of the briefs) that promising students from poor or minority schools would generally be better served by attending good-but-non-prestigious colleges than elite schools through affirmative action. In other words, these students face a more daunting adjustment than either they or the colleges realize, which unnecessarily dooms them to failure at prestigious schools when they would likely have prospered at other schools. There has been legitimate research into this idea that dates back over a decade.

That context was absent from a tweet Carmon sent out, and the response via social media has been sadly predictable:

Tim Groseclose on Fox and Friends

 

This weekend, Ricochet’s own Tim Groseclose appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss the controversy over the selection of Jane Fonda as one of UCLA’s commencement speakers and the ongoing scandal regarding the university’s attempt to get around California’s prohibitions on affirmative action in higher education (the subject of his most recent book, Cheating: An Insider’s Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA). Take a look:

 

Cheating: An Insider’s Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA

 

shutterstock_120009895As the Ricochet editors have been kind enough to note, my new book — the title of which is the headline of this post — was released earlier this week. In it, I describe some of the things I witnessed as a member of UCLA’s faculty oversight committee on admissions — and I also blow the whistle on some illegal activity. Specifically, the fact that UCLA, in violation of California’s Proposition 209, is granting racial preferences to African-Americans and discriminating against Asians.

On Wednesday, Larry Elder devoted two segments of his radio show to the book and an interview with me. Larry wrote the forward for the book and also discussed it in his most recent column:

… [P]erhaps more interesting than the data and statistical analyses is Groseclose’s documentation of the suspicious ways that UCLA faculty and senior officials reacted when he asked for the data. They seemed to know that UCLA was breaking the law, and they resorted to desperate measures to prevent Groseclose and others from seeing the proof. Once Groseclose began to press them, he says, their responses became more and more fanciful. For instance, they claimed that “privacy” was the reason they couldn’t give him the data. But then Groseclose suggested that they redact all names and personal identifiers from the applications. They still refused. Further, if they were so concerned with privacy, why did they give the data to the “independent researcher”?

Tim Groseclose on Fox & Friends

 

CheatingYesterday, we told you that Ricochet contributor Tim Groseclose just released a new book: Cheating: An Insider’s Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLAchronicling the university’s efforts to keep him from investigating whether it was attempting to circumvent California’s ban on affirmative action in college admissions. 

Today, we provide you with footage from one of the stops on Professor Groseclose’s media tour. Here’s his appearance from Fox & Friends this morning to promote the book:

Tim Groseclose Blows the Whistle on UCLA

 

A year and a half ago, UCLA professor  and Ricochet contributor Tim Groseclose told our members that he was convinced that the university was circumventing California’s Proposition 209, a state ballot initiative that prohibits the use of race in university admissions. In that post, he explained how he had been systematically denied access to admissions data that he had hoped to study (despite being a member of the admissions oversight committee — from which he resigned over the dispute) and how the university had steadfastly spun the issue despite mounting evidence that it was violating state law.

During the intervening time, Professor Groseclose has been at work on a book chronicling the scandal, Cheating: An Insider’s Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA, which has just been released. Ricochet members should pick up a copy (via the link, which runs through Ricochet’s Amazon portal and throws us some change) and tune in to Fox & Friends tomorrow at 7:45 AM Eastern, when Tim will be appearing to promote the book. 

Distinguishing Between Law and Politics on Affirmative Action

 

In my latest weekly column for Defining Ideas at the Hoover Institution, I look at last week’s Supreme Court ruling in the Michigan affirmative action case, Schuette v. BAMN. My view: that the legal considerations and the policy considerations raise very different issues. As I write:

As a constitutional matter, I think that Justice Kennedy made the right call [to uphold the voter-approved ban on affirmative action]. It is too much to say that the Equal Protection Clause instructs states on how to organize their internal governance structures. The questions of electoral motive really have to be put to one side, lest every electoral decision be subject to scrutiny for some hidden electoral bias. The decisions made at one time have to be reversible at some later time, by whatever means the state chooses to do so, including the referendum.

A Signatory Explains His Position on Same-Sex Marriage … Sort of — Richard Epstein

 

I am one of the people who chose to sign on to the statement (which I did not draft) that carries with it the title “Freedom to Marry, Freedom To Dissent: Why We Must Have Both.” I have received some questions as to why I chose to participate. Here are the basic points.

I think that the efforts to drive people like Brendan Eich from his professional employment via a blizzard of pious statements about the need for universal tolerance, some from Mozilla itself, are themselves representative of a peculiar form of intolerance, which treats this issue as one on which there can be no debate. This effort to drown out disagreement may be legal, but that is beside the point for issues of social discourse. It would have been intolerable for individuals who opposed same-sex marriage to try to silence their opposition in this fashion, and the principle remains the same in the reverse.

Member Post

 

Alternate-Side Parking is a semi-regular, once or twice a week, podcast. Each episode lasts approximately as long as it takes for me to find a new alternate-side parking space in my neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York, plus however long I feel like sitting in the driver’s seat. In today’s special driving-home-from-my-softball-game episode, I drive home […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Half a Win on Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling — John Yoo

 

Most conservatives were probably happy with the news of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Schuette v. BAMN, which upheld Michigan’s state constitutional ban on affirmative action. The plurality opinion, however, should curb their enthusiasm.

Written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the plurality treated the case not as one about a color-blind Constitution, but as a political process issue. They essentially reduced the question to whether Michigan was within its rights to enact the ban through a ballot initiative. They found that it was — but suggested that a state could also legitimately use the exact same process to reach the opposite outcome.