It strikes me as just slightly odd that Post reporter Theola Labbé-DeBose, like Michelle Obama a Princeton grad, could write an entire mini-essay on "Michelle, meritocracy and me" - about the special difficulties faced by black Americans trying navigate the overclass, and her worry that "no amount of pedigree and personal polish will let us entirely escape suspicion, mistrust and jealousy" - without even mentioning affirmative action, let alone pondering its impact on the elite African-American experience. "I've given a lot of thought to the intersection of race, education and meritocracy," she writes, "based on both my personal experience and my job covering schools for The Post." Maybe she should think a little harder.
« Obama and the Evangelicals, Cont. | Main | The Road To Serfdom? »
The Elephant In The Room
21 Jul 2008 09:58 am
Comments (89)
In addition, maybe conservatives should think a little harder about their monomaniacal, facts-be-damned insistence on viewing all race-related issues through the prism of affirmative action.
From a non-Ivy Leaguer/Midwesterner it is tiring to see the extent to which you, and others here at The Atlantic, illustrate a near complete ignorance of the experiences of people that didn't go to private schools and Ivy League schools.
AA has a significant impact on the way african-americans in elite education institutions are viewed. At law schools, for instance, african-americans can get into schools with 10 points lower LSAT scores than would be required for non african-americans. This seems to be at least a partial explanation for why half of African-American law students finish in the bottom 10% of their law school class.
Similarly, if Labbe-Debose is curious about why people are 'jealous' of her as an African-American woman, she might consider the affirmative action programs in education and diversity programs in the working world that often give African-Americans better opportunities. I don't think AA is necessarily a bad thing, but there are few good things that do not come with tradeoffs, and she would do well to acknowledge that.
"without even mentioning affirmative action, let alone pondering its impact on the elite African-American experience."
What exactly are you saying here Ross? This is a rather vague statement. Are you suggesting that elite African Americans are profoundly shaped by affirmative action? Are you saying that Michelle Obama only got into Princeton because of AA? Please, don't mince your words here, we are all familiar with the "welfare duchess" incident. Remember, the internet is completely anonymous, so you are free to be as racist as you really want.
I have to question whether Ross read the article. First, the mini-essay isn't about "black Americans" having difficulty navigating Ivy League schools -- it's about the writer's difficulty navigating Princeton -- an experience she and Michelle Obama share. And, if the writer did not have self-doubt stemming from affirmative action, isn't that a good thing?
I'm with Elvis on this one...
"From a non-Ivy Leaguer/Midwesterner it is tiring to see the extent to which you, and others here at The Atlantic, illustrate a near complete ignorance of the experiences of people that didn't go to private schools and Ivy League schools."
That's all well and good, ben, but he was commenting on an article specifically about navigating the elite overclass.....
rab,
thanks! I was having trouble comprehending that with my sub-par education!
I wasn't necessarily referencing this specific post, but more as to how this post fits in with the general assumptions he seems to make about how people got to Harvard and how HE got to Harvard and who exactly those people that did not go to Harvard are.
It's amazing how Douthat can read this "entire mini-essay" and came away with ONLY one thought: but she didn't talk about affirmative action! yes, she should have mentioned it. And Ross Gregory Douthat, wunderkind author of a memoir entitled "Privilege", should have something more to add to the conversation about the elite African-American experience than this worthless post.
let me follow my own advice. Race-based affirmative action often means that some black ( or hispanic) people at universities got there over more qualified applicants. in some cases, the blacks don't really deserve to be there. that's all true. But this doesn't apply to super-elite institutions like Harvard or Princeton. i don't know if this is news to Douthat, but there are enough smart talented young black people in the United States to fill the ivy league several times over. if you get into one of those schools, you are qualified to go there, period (with some caveats involving legacy apps and sports, but not race). Race-based affirmative action per se has very little to do with Harvard student demographics (ethnic/gender/geographic/cultural diversity, of course, does. But that's not the same thing).
so it's not clear to me why Ross Gregory Douthat thinks affirmative action is the "elephant in the room." Maybe the dog in the corner or something. What's really the case is that racists would like it to be the elephant in the room even though it's not. Even legitimate grievances are grossly distorted by these racists into wild fantasies about how the white race is being oppressed by previously servile minorities. most of the black and hispanic people in college--especially at elite schools--earned their way there on their own merit. those who think otherwise--especially at elite schools--are sadly mistaken.
"But this doesn't apply to super-elite institutions like Harvard or Princeton. i don't know if this is news to Douthat, but there are enough smart talented young black people in the United States to fill the ivy league several times over. if you get into one of those schools, you are qualified to go there, period (with some caveats involving legacy apps and sports, but not race)."
The writer either never attended an ivy-league caliber school, or is being disingenuous.
It is well known that Harvard law review has a racial quota. When I was there, the review considered implementing a gender-based quota. It was rejected by the female editors.
Everyone knew why -- they didn't want their law review editorships to be appraised in light of the existence of a quota.
veritas,
Raft's point is about undergraduates, I think. I haven't seen those statistics, so I don't know; does the SAT profile for African-Americans at Harvard and Princeton mirror the profile of incoming asian and white students? If his point is about graduate institutions, such as law school, then it is patently false. I am surprised a quota would be necessary on the Harvard law review for females; at my t-10 there certainly is no need for a female quota.
rab: "AA has a significant impact on the way african-americans in elite education institutions are viewed. At law schools, for instance, african-americans can get into schools with 10 points lower LSAT scores than would be required for non african-americans."
there is no one who gets into harvard law school who is not qualified to go to harvard law school. in fact, there are many thousands of people who are qualified to go to harvard law school that fail to get into harvard law school. furthermore, there are many millions of people who want to go to harvard law school that fail to get into harvard law school. That's just the fact of the matter.
of course, it is to be expected that status-hungry elites would view affirmative action for other people (not themselves, of course) as "unfair." It's perhaps unfair in the sense that life in general is unfair, but even status-hungry elites are human. they have a right to feel that way. OTOH, if they want to make the general assumption that their fellow black students don't deserve to be where they are, then that's delusion.
Veritas is right. My elite but non-Ivy law school used affirmative action for admission to the school and to the law review. It made whites like me wonder: even granting that affirmative action is necessary at the college level, why is it necessary again (to get into law school) and again again (to get on law review)? Shouldn't the training wheels come off at some point?
If you're a white at an elite school who thinks affirmative action is a good idea in theory, stuff like this puts you in a tough spot: you don't want to reinforce sterotypes or have Moe call you "execrable." But your lying eyes tell you that a group of people appears to have been promoted by fiat to a position they would not have achieved on the merits. (Why else did black population at Berkeley plummet after affirmative action was banned? And why is the same thing happening at Michigan?).
veritas: "It is well known that Harvard law review has a racial quota."
yes, it does. so what? are you making the claim that those editors selected through this quota are not qualified to serve on the law review or that they do not deserve to be there? if not, then i don't really see the point.
we might question why the law review has such a quota. we might also question why many selective undergraduate universities nowadays are instituting affirmative action programs for men because the women are so much more well-qualified applicants. few people want to go to a school that is 80% female and 20% male. similarly, nobody wants a law review without black people. That's just how it is.
Personally, i think the important thing is to have students who are well-qualified and capable of performing at the level they're supposed to be performing at. Finding enough students like this is not a problem for selective institutions like Harvard Law School or Princeton University. Beyond this minimum threshold standard, these institutions can feel free to engineer the student body however they want to.
"there is no one who gets into harvard law school who is not qualified to go to harvard law school. in fact, there are many thousands of people who are qualified to go to harvard law school that fail to get into harvard law school."
raft, you are just playing word games with the phrase 'qualified'. The point is that the african-american students are admitted with significantly lower test scores. They would not be considered 'qualified' if they were not African-American.
raft-
Your 'promoted by fiat' comment is precisely the kind of myopia I'm talking about. Is race really the only inheritance that has a say in someone's admission? I'm no huge fan of affirmative action per se, but it has its uses considering some of the other metrics these institutions deem important.
Joe Magarac writes: "If you're a white at an elite school who thinks affirmative action is a good idea in theory, stuff like this puts you in a tough spot: you don't want to reinforce sterotypes or have Moe call you "execrable." But your lying eyes tell you that a group of people appears to have been promoted by fiat to a position they would not have achieved on the merits."
As a graduate of an Ivy League school I do recall that there were some black students who felt somewhat conflicted about their AA status. There were also plenty of athletes and legacies who felt the same way, but they weren't subject to second-guessing by nitwits the way the AA students were.
There may be conservatives out there who are just as concerned about Dumbya Bush's "training wheels" riding into Yale and Harvard Business School ahead of "better qualified" students as they are about Michelle Obama's possible boost, and I could respect such an opinion. But Ross's post here does not earn that sort of respect.
It remains execrable.
There were also plenty of athletes and legacies who felt the same way, but they weren't subject to second-guessing by nitwits the way the AA students were.
A very good point.
I love it when MLJ, beacon of civility, describes others as execrable
Fall 1970
George W. applies to University of Texas Law School and is rejected.
1973-1975
George W. attends Harvard Business School
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ZOMG!!!
Although I have to admit the legacies point was valid.
raft - the point is that the editors who are selected by racial quota aren't as talented as those selected for talent.
The gap for undergraduates is even more vast.
The result is that those of us in the real world know, when contemplating hiring someone, that AA graduates of elite schools are in general not as smart as non-AA grads. I suppose the same is true for the scholarship football, basketball and hockey players at D-I schools; no one thinks they have the same brains as the regular students. You could even say the same thing for hockey players generally - indeed, if Harvard didn't lower its standard signficantly for hockey players, it couldn't field a team.
Now of course any AA beneficiary can remove this taint by performing at a very high level. But if they were doing so well, they wouldn't continue to need AA to get into law school, and once they are in law school, to get onto the law review, and once they are on the review, to get a job at a law firm, and once they are at a law firm, to make partner.
As somebody up thread said, when do the training wheels come off?
Can't speak for all colleges, of course--can't even speak for all elite NE colleges. That said, at my undergrad school athletes and legacies were subjected to TONS more "second-guessing by nitwits" than minority students were. It was totally routine to deride the qualifications of athletes and legacies (especially, of course, those poor fools who played 'helmet sports'). The treatment of minority students simply wasn't comparable--although I am more than willing to believe that people had such thoughts in their heads, the point is that they remained there and were never expressed as publicly.
Also, given that the first defense of affirmative action supporters is often some variation of "we lower the standards for athletes and legacies and you don't mind that, you racist hypocrite", it's hard to argue that those students who benefited from current admissions policy are blissfully unaware of the advantages they got.
Can't speak for all colleges, of course--can't even speak for all elite NE colleges. That said, at my undergrad school athletes and legacies were subjected to TONS more "second-guessing by nitwits" than minority students were. It was totally routine to deride the qualifications of athletes and legacies (especially, of course, those poor fools who played 'helmet sports'). The treatment of minority students simply wasn't comparable--although I am more than willing to believe that people had such thoughts in their heads, the point is that they remained there and were never expressed as publicly.
Also, given that the first defense of affirmative action supporters is often some variation of "we lower the standards for athletes and legacies and you don't mind that, you racist hypocrite", it's hard to argue that those students who benefited from current admissions policy are blissfully unaware of the advantages they got.
Sorry about that, I'm not a plagiarist I just use other people's computers without making sure that boxes aren't autofilled.
Sorry about that, I'm not a plagiarist I just use other people's computers without checking that Autofill isn't filling in boxes for me.
Raft - I thought the point of my anecdote was clear enough, but I'll give it another shot. The female editors rejected a gender-based quota because they believed that its existence would diminish their accomplishments in the eyes of others. They did not want to provide others any grounds for thinking that they did not succeed on their own wings but rather because of their gender. Their thinking was decisively shaped by their own and others' experience with affirmative action at Harvard and other, similar schools.
The pernicious effect of AA is that it diminishes everyone's accomplishments and experiences. If you might have been a beneficiary of AA, everyone will -- and at a status-crazy place like Harvard, you bet they will -- question whether you got in on your merits or another's favor.
If you're not a beneficiary, you resent those who did benefit and the fact that someone more deserving, and more whose presence would have been more enriching, was rejected primarly because of race. As one African American fellow student told me, no black man ever got smarter just because he sat next to a white guy. I think that's true across the spectrum.
Finally, the presence of those who got in primarily because of AA -- and you can tell in plenty of cases -- has another bad effect. It gives birth to a B-league curriculum designed to support and coddle those who are not quite ready for the big leagues. The biggest gut class at Harvard Law was Randell Kennedy's Race and Law (or whatever). You could get a whopping five credits -- the same as you would get for the toughest classes, such as fed courts -- for writing an essay like "what I think about AA." Now that I review others' law school transcripts, I am amazed at how easy it is to get through Harvard and most other elite law schools without learning any law.
rab writes: "I love it when MLJ, beacon of civility, describes others as execrable"
I described a post as execrable, not "others." One would think the reading ability necessary to see that distinction would be a prerequisite for joining this sort of discussion, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
One might also think civility would be a requirement and be similarly ill-informed.
Bill or Evan or someone writes: "That said, at my undergrad school athletes and legacies were subjected to TONS more "second-guessing by nitwits" than minority students were. It was totally routine to deride the qualifications of athletes and legacies (especially, of course, those poor fools who played 'helmet sports'). The treatment of minority students simply wasn't comparable--although I am more than willing to believe that people had such thoughts in their heads, the point is that they remained there and were never expressed as publicly."
Given the post we're discussing and some of the posts responding to it I would say that times have changed.
If you look at the undergraduate major of Michelle Obama, sociology and African-American studies, it makes the discussion of Affirmative Action even more necessary. If women like Michelle Obama majored in chemical engineering, mathematics, or physics and she completed her degrees no one would think twice about affirmative action. The degrees are their own weed outs.
However, the degrees awarded to AA admits makes the program even more suspect. When the University of Texas had to comly with top 10% program, the program failed to add any minority students to the college of natural sciences or to the college of engineering. What the program did was add students to hyphenated studies programs.
Also, people do not care about revenue sport athletes because the fail at such a high rate. Who cares if michiga admitted a wide receiver with a 900 SAT. He is more than likely never going to graduate.
"Finally, the presence of those who got in primarily because of AA -- and you can tell in plenty of cases..."
I haven't found this to be true. Not with the African-American students at law school, nor with any of the Harvard, presumably-AA admits I have worked with outside of law school. A person can not have the test scores for Harvard law and still be very bright, and I find these types of assertions about academic standards falling and obvious misfits overblown. Certainly, statistically these students do not perform as well academically, which is what one would expect, but I haven't noticed a stark difference that's evident from day-to-day academic and work-related interactions.
veritas writes: "Finally, the presence of those who got in primarily because of AA -- and you can tell in plenty of cases -- has another bad effect. It gives birth to a B-league curriculum designed to support and coddle those who are not quite ready for the big leagues. The biggest gut class at Harvard Law was Randell Kennedy's Race and Law (or whatever). You could get a whopping five credits -- the same as you would get for the toughest classes, such as fed courts -- for writing an essay like "what I think about AA." Now that I review others' law school transcripts, I am amazed at how easy it is to get through Harvard and most other elite law schools without learning any law."
Why would this amaze you? We have a president who went to Harvard Business School and apparently learned nothing about economics.
The notion that AA is responsible for gut classes in the Ivies is at best poorly informed and at worst an absurd lie. It has long been notoriously hard to flunk out of an Ivy League school. Classes with nicknames like Rocks For Jocks and Clapping For Credit didn't come into existence due to AA.
rab writes: "I haven't found this to be true. Not with the African-American students at law school, nor with any of the Harvard, presumably-AA admits I have worked with outside of law school. A person can not have the test scores for Harvard law and still be very bright, and I find these types of assertions about academic standards falling and obvious misfits overblown."
Of course they are.
I would also suggest that anyone who thinks a 10% difference on the LSATs is a reliable determinant of who will be a better attorney in "the real world" hasn't spent much time in that real world.
"The notion that AA is responsible for gut classes in the Ivies is at best poorly informed and at worst an absurd lie. It has long been notoriously hard to flunk out of an Ivy League school. Classes with nicknames like Rocks For Jocks and Clapping For Credit didn't come into existence due to AA."
Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase and make my point more clearly.
AA, and its animating ideology, are responsible for an at best B-league curriculum of gender-, class-, and race-based programs.
There may always have been, and always will be, rocks for jocks. But now we also have revolutionary studies for the country club set.
And the difference is that while rocks for jocks made not pretense of being anything other than what it was, revolutionary studies for the horsey set have a broad based animus toward, and corrosive effect on, any notion of merit or quality (other than their own, of course). They would swallow up the rest of the curriculum if they could.
Thus, while universities have not sold their souls by admitting jocks and legacies, they very well might do so through AA.
Can anyone answer this question for me: Since Ivy League schools don't have athletic scholarships, do they have "rocks for jocks"? I was under the impression that the Ivies had true "student athletes" and not NFL club teams or NBA pre-draft training camps. Anyone?
veritas again: "And the difference is that while rocks for jocks made not pretense of being anything other than what it was, revolutionary studies for the horsey set have a broad based animus toward, and corrosive effect on, any notion of merit or quality (other than their own, of course). They would swallow up the rest of the curriculum if they could.
Thus, while universities have not sold their souls by admitting jocks and legacies, they very well might do so through AA."
Ooh. Scary.
What "souls" are we talking about here? These well-heeled academies were NEVER the golden groves of academe some would like to pretend they were. Were their "souls" more pure when they were excluding Jews? How about when women were shunted off to "other" sites named Radcliffe or Pembroke and so forth?
The conservative hoohah over AA is certainly not motivated by a pure concern for merit. Never has been, never will be. Just as the Ivies never have and never will be reserved for kids with perfect or near-perfect SAT scores.
MoeLarryandJesus, I would suggest that anyone who thinks that there isn't a likely difference in legal ability between someone who gets a 170 LSAT score and someone who gets a 153 probably hasn't spent much time with the LSATs or with lawyers, in the real world or out.
Alex says: "MoeLarryandJesus, I would suggest that anyone who thinks that there isn't a likely difference in legal ability between someone who gets a 170 LSAT score and someone who gets a 153 probably hasn't spent much time with the LSATs or with lawyers, in the real world or out."
Ability? I'm talking about real life, chuckles. The world is filled with educated derelicts, and people who perform well in the classroom but not in actual practice. Standardized testing can only tell you so much.
I always tested well myself and I'm not especially impressed by it.
freddiemac wonders: "Since Ivy League schools don't have athletic scholarships, do they have "rocks for jocks"? I was under the impression that the Ivies had true "student athletes" and not NFL club teams or NBA pre-draft training camps."
They don't have athletic scholarships per se but the athletic departments do have varying amounts of sway with admissions. Ivy football isn't BCS caliber but it's better than you might think, and it's not unusual for a Ivy hockey team to be highly ranked.
Alex,
MoeLarryandJesus, I would suggest that anyone who thinks that there isn't a likely difference in legal ability between someone who gets a 170 LSAT score and someone who gets a 153 probably hasn't spent much time with the LSATs or with lawyers, in the real world or out.
That is so stupid and naive that it's almost endearing.
Here's an anecdote (or 2):
I had a 168 on my LSAT, my wife had 148, and she made partner by age 30. I, on the other hand, am no longer licensed to practice law. Same thing with my best friend at Colorado Law School and our law school class rankings. She was the 80th percentile on the LSAT and I was the 96th. She finished #5 and I finished about #105.
Some people are good at taking tests and that skill doesn't make us the super-geniuses you seem to think we are. Not in the fake world of academics and not in the real world. It just makes us good test takers.
"What "souls" are we talking about here? These well-heeled academies were NEVER the golden groves of academe some would like to pretend they were. Were their "souls" more pure when they were excluding Jews? How about when women were shunted off to "other" sites named Radcliffe or Pembroke and so forth?"
We're talking about even a pretense of objective scholarship, or just any kind of scholarship or learning. About some rudiments of a liberal arts education as opposed to political propagandizing and grievance mongering. A place whose standards are not so low or perverted that Barbie's Lesbian Playhouse crowds out Shakespeare.
And, while we're at it, allow me to shed a tear for all those poor oppressed rich white girls who were shunted to -- oh, the horror -- Radcliffe. Around that time, the while males in my neighborhood were shunted to tool and die factories and steel mills. A lot of good being white and male did them.
Face it, a lot of the conservative hoohah, as you would say, over AA is plain old anger and disgust at the hypocrisy of the liberal white elites. Being subjected to such patently silly arguments like this -- that the ethnic working class strivers should defer to the refined moral sensibilities of white liberal elites because of their own past sins and the horrors of those concentration camps known by the infamous names of Radcliffe and Pembroke -- only adds more flame to the fire.
Bill says that at his college, legacies and athletes were subject to more second-guessing about their fitness for academe than were minorities. Moe suggests that that may not be true any more - witness Ross's willingness to bring the subject up here.
I think Bill is on to something. At most elite schools, there is a lot of institutional pressure to affirm affirmative action as good. Berkeley and Michigan both fought to keep their policies in the face of widespread public opposition. All of this works to stifle public discussion of whether affirmative action is good or not, especially on campus. (Ross can raise the point here because he's not in school anymore).
I suspect white guilt also plays a role. It's one thing to question the intelligence of George W. Bush as a legacy admission, but something else again to question the intelligence of an affirmative action admission. The questioner may decide that it's fair game to target Bush - who has enjoyed advantages in life and is probably ripe for ribbing - but that going after the affirmative action admission (who may not have enjoyed such advantages and whose ancestors were likely persecuted) would seem like piling on.
rab: "raft, you are just playing word games with the phrase 'qualified'. The point is that the african-american students are admitted with significantly lower test scores."
yes, but that doesn't mean they are not QUALIFIED. You even agree with me in a later post: "A person can not have the test scores for Harvard law and still be very bright, and I find these types of assertions about academic standards falling and obvious misfits overblown."
It would be different if Harvard Law School was admitting people with 120 LSAT scores because they were black, or poor, or whatever. But they don't. affirmative action is, or at least was before the political backlash, a bigger issue with less prestigious institutions where the difference in quality between serious applicants is a lot wider. from the perspective of social policy, it frankly doesn't matter what particular places the super-elites end up. They care, but we shouldn't. I'll give you a good example. there was some asian guy a while back who sued harvard because he got a perfect score on the SAT and harvard still rejected him. The student thinks he was discriminated against because he was asian, and maybe he was. But guess where the guy goes to now? Princeton. spare me if i'm not crying tears over this injustice.
On the other hand, when we're talking about less talented students, it's a different story. Let's say i'm an admissions officer for a state college and i have to make the choice between two applicants, and i know that for either one it'll be a huge, unique opportunity to be admitted. one of the applicants is also clearly superior to the other. In that case I think it would be wrong not to admit the superior applicant, regardless of race or gender, because he's the one who deserves and needs it. in any case, i'm a much bigger fan of class-based affirmative action (almost always a great idea) than race-based AA.
veritas: "The pernicious effect of AA is that it diminishes everyone's accomplishments and experiences. If you might have been a beneficiary of AA, everyone will -- and at a status-crazy place like Harvard, you bet they will -- question whether you got in on your merits or another's favor."
Harvard or comparable instutitions can do whatever they want. in this case, what harvard wants is a student body that includes enough, but not too many, black people. I do not care. the only people who would are the small minority of super elites who even have a chance of getting themselves and/or their kids into harvard in the first place. If Clarence Thomas is going to put a 50% off sticker on his diploma, that's his own problem. i'm more concerned about the kind of people where going to college could mean the difference between a life of poverty and stepping up into the middle class.
Affirmative action at elite institutions is both irrelevant and grossly overblown. it's amazing how much the conversation about AA always centers around places like Harvard, which reveals two things: first, most of the players in the conversation are super-elites who went to places like Harvard and are obsessed with it. Second, racism. The blacks are going to harvard! The rough beast slouches towards bethlehem.
veritas replies: "Face it, a lot of the conservative hoohah, as you would say, over AA is plain old anger and disgust at the hypocrisy of the liberal white elites. Being subjected to such patently silly arguments like this -- that the ethnic working class strivers should defer to the refined moral sensibilities of white liberal elites because of their own past sins and the horrors of those concentration camps known by the infamous names of Radcliffe and Pembroke -- only adds more flame to the fire."
Um, what?
Of course all conservative hoohah is plain old anger, but this "liberal white elites" crap is just nonsense. The old money running the Ivies isn't especially "liberal," and the legacies I knew when I was in college tended to be a whole lot more conservative/Republican than I and the other "ethnic working class strivers."
On the subject of AA in particular, though, I think movement conservativism is completely dishonest. It's an emotional vote magnet like flag-burning or gay-bashing, and not something the movement takes really seriously. That's why you never hear a conservative complain that Clarence Thomas doesn't merit a seat on the Supreme Court. Ever.
"Around that time, the while males in my neighborhood were shunted to tool and die factories and steel mills. A lot of good being white and male did them."
Yeah, a white man just can't get ahead in this country.
Sheesh.
raft writes: "Affirmative action at elite institutions is both irrelevant and grossly overblown. it's amazing how much the conversation about AA always centers around places like Harvard, which reveals two things: first, most of the players in the conversation are super-elites who went to places like Harvard and are obsessed with it. Second, racism. The blacks are going to harvard! The rough beast slouches towards bethlehem."
Goodness gracious! You are correct, sir.
For my own part I don't suffer from any "white guilt." I'm a first generation Harpo-American and happy as a goddamn clam.
I agree with raft when he says that affirmative action at elite schools is irrelevant and overblown. But I disagree with him when he says that:
affirmative action is, or at least was before the political backlash, a bigger issue with less prestigious institutions where the difference in quality between serious applicants is a lot wider
This is wrong. There are no "state school admissions officers" at less prestigious schools who are making life-changing decisions over whom to admit. At less prestigious institutions, everyone gets in. That's why when Berkeley stopped using affirmative action, blacks started going to schools farther down the food chain.
Affirmative action is only an issue at elite schools because the admission process there is a zero-sum game. Getting into UT at Austin can be hard. Getting into UTEP isn't.
I'm not sure why the author thinks that the fact that political opponents are criticizing the Obamas is something that is happening because they are black. Did we Rethuglicans go easy on John Kerry and Theresa Heinz because they were white? Hillary and Bill went to all the right schools, and Hillary at least is as wasp-y as they come - I think we had a thing or two to say about her.
Politics ain't beanbag. The Obamas are impressive in a lot of ways, but I want a first couple I can make fun of, just like the Clintons and the Bushes.
That's untrue, Joe, at least in California. Both the UC and CSU systems (not just Berkeley) enforce admissions standards. Is it easier to get into CSU Stanislaus than it is Cal? Sure. But that doesn't mean you can just walk in.
A large percentage (up to one-third, and more at some campuses) of UC and CSU students are transfers from the California community college system. Students without the financial means or academics to get into UC/CSU, but who have the desire to attend college, are directed into the CCs for lower-division (and often remedial) work.
I think it a particularly appropriate form of class-based affirmative action that the UC and CSU systems are statutorily mandated to give community college transfer students first priority over all other intended transfer students.
Re: I always tested well myself and I'm not especially impressed by it.
Indeed. I always tested superlatively well, and I've no doubt that Moe thinks I'm a f---ing idiot. More seriously, I know a lot of people who are better academics than me, in spite of the fact that they might have lower test scores. To be a good researcher or academic requires many abilities, and the ability to score well on an intelligence or aptitude test is only one of them.
Don't go dissing the legacies guys. It makes McCain look bad.
Travis -
Are CSU Stanislaus's admissions policies subject to discretion? Their website suggests not; it looks like if you graduate high school with a C average you're in. If that's the case, then my point remains the same: that affirmative action policies are by definition only used at schools with more applicants than slots and are not an issue at middlebrow institutes of higher education.
But I'd never heard of CSU Stanislaus before, so I could be mistaken.
More people are the beneficiaries of legacy admission and "developmental" admissions (read: they gave us money) than race-based affirmative action, and receive a bigger boost than those who are the beneficiaries of race-based affirmative action. I persist in asking why conservatives have such interest in and animus for the latter and so little for the former.
That's because Clarence Thomas leaves no doubt that he belongs in the SCOTUS, Moe.
By the way, Jesus loves you.
I like how the high-scoring test takers dismiss it as though there's nothing to be said for scoring high on tests. That's very convenient for you. Of course, it it's self-evident, no need to post all the anecdotes, right? So many analogies, so little time.
That said, I, like Hector, am not as impressed with test scores as with academic rigor and the scholar's dedication. I just think it's funny to throw out LSAT or SAT scores.
What is the source for your claims, Freddie? Espanshade and Chung found elite schools give a smaller boost to legacies than they do to AA admits.
Jerome Karabell's the Chosen details the process in great depth.
Ask yourself what you know of the world. Remember that Harvard, to pick one example, has an endowment of $35 billion dollars-- and the attendant need to grow that endowment. Do you really think if someone donates their money, they can't get their children into a particular college?
People who work in colleges understand this. The reason people who work at universities support affirmative action isn't because they're lefties but because they understand that the system simply is not a meritocracy.
Does Karabel contradict Espanshade and Chung's claim about the amount of advantage given to legacy admissions and AA admissions? Their study is available on line. Perhaps you can tell us what's wrong with it.
If the reason people at universities support affirmative action because the system is not a meritocracy, why are those at universities without legacy admissions, like at most public universities, just as supportive of affirmative action?
I don't know how relevant this comment will be but I'd like to mention that there's a frenzy to the college admission process that didn't exist in earlier decades.
I graduated from high school in 1979 and applied to exactly 3 schools. Two Ivies and St John's College in Annapolis.
(Don't get excited, Hector, it's not a Catholic school.)
I don't think there are many "strivers" (thanks, veritas) these days who are applying to just 3 schools. Too much is at stake! This is do or die!
Yadda yadda yadda.
All these years later I often think I should have gone to St John's. It would have been more difficult financially, but what a great place.
Harvard, to pick one example, has an endowment of $35 billion dollars-- and the attendant need to grow that endowment....The reason people who work at universities support affirmative action isn't because they're lefties but because they understand that the system simply is not a meritocracy.
Posted by Freddie
Your reasoning breaks down in the lowest donation levels to prestigious universities are by the AA students. Not just because they tend to perform at lower levels than more talented white and Asian students, but also because many see their time not as race-based privilege they should be grateful for, but and an entitlement and as a further extension of their victimization and suffering.
Michelle Obama wrote of her Princeton time as yet another unfair life's challenge that she had to overcome the obstacles others set. After Harvard Law, she failed the Bar Exam twice while holding a prestigious high-paying entry postion at Sidley due to their minority AA program. Then after finally passing the Bar in Illinois, and Sidley was too hard..she dropped her law degree a few years later, for good, and became a well paid "diversity" executive with minimal responsibilities for the Daley Machine and U of Chicago.
While bitching not about alumni donations, but how unfair & onerous just repaying her student loans was.
raft - don't know if this is news to Douthat, but there are enough smart talented young black people in the United States to fill the ivy league several times over. if you get into one of those schools, you are qualified to go there, period
raft seems to think there is a basement level "minimum qualification" in most walks of life, which if met, means every "qualifier" is as good and as likely to succeed as the next "qualifier".
Not true, as rab notes, in that AA's fail out of Elite universities and graduate programs at a higher rate than anyone even if they are carried along by the AA version of "rocks for jocks", and if graduating, half the survivors are in the bottom 10% of their class.
The "everyone is qualified to be there if minimum quals are met" mindset breaks down even more once you get into human activities that are evaluated on objective instead of subjective grounds. Kuwait and Gabon may be "minimum qualified" in FIFA World Cup Play, but no way expected to do as well as Brazil or Italy, and in no way entitled to affirmative action in their Pool.
Racists..... most of the black and hispanic people in college--especially at elite schools--earned their way there on their own merit. those who think otherwise--especially at elite schools--are sadly mistaken.
Posted by raft
The rapid changeover of Berkeley to something resembling U of Hawaii and Michigan to something resembling U of North Dakota once affirmative action "bomus points" were dropped suggests most black students do not deserve to be there on their own merits.
Michelle Obama is obsessed with affirmative action -- she frequently brings up her low test scores and her feelings that people were putting her down. For example:
She was educated at the top public high school in Chicago, Whitney Young, which only accepted the highest scoring applicants on the entrance exam—within each race. Time reported in 1975:
"… the $30 million Whitney M. Young Jr. High School will open as a magnet in the fall with—among other things—an Olympic-sized swimming pool, a special center for the performing arts and a separate curriculum for medical studies. Whitney Young also has a strict admissions quota: 40% white, 40% black, 10% Latin, 5% other minorities and 5% at the discretion of the principal."
Michelle was overshadowed by her smart and athletic older brother Craig Robinson, who is now the head basketball coach at Brown University of the Ivy League. Newsweek's cover story on Mrs. Obama recounts:
"For Michelle, Craig's easy success was intimidating. 'She was disappointed in herself,' her mother tells NEWSWEEK. 'She used to have a little bit of trouble with tests …'"
Her poor performance on tests remains a sore point with Michelle, who brings it up in odd contexts, such as when discussing her husband's standing in the polls last November:
"You know, [I've] always been told by somebody that I’m not ready, that I can’t do something, my scores weren’t high enough."
Newsweek describes her career at Whitney Young:
"… but she was not at the top of her class. She didn't get the attention of the school's college counselors, who helped the brightest students find spots at prestigious universities. … Some of her teachers told her she didn't have the grades or test scores to make it to the Ivies. But she applied to Princeton and was accepted."
Not surprisingly, just as Thomas Sowell would have predicted, four years spent in over her head among white liberal elitists who see themselves as better than the rest of America because
(A) they loudly proclaim their belief in equality; and
(B) they have above average IQs
left Michelle Obama's sizable but fragile self-esteem in tatters. Suffering the self-consciousness common to the young, she felt that everybody was secretly putting her down for her intellectual shortcomings, and focused her anger on whites. Newsweek says:
"There weren't formal racial barriers and black students weren't officially excluded. But many of the white students couldn't hide that they regarded their African- American classmates as affirmative-action recipients who didn't really deserve to be there."
Ironically but inevitably, Princeton's diversity sensitivity programs just exacerbated Michelle's racial paranoia:
"Angela Acree, a close friend who attended Princeton with Michelle, says the university didn't help dispel that idea. Black and Hispanic students were invited to attend special classes a few weeks before the beginning of freshman semester, which the school said were intended to help kids who might need assistance adjusting to Princeton's campus. Acree couldn't see why. She had come from an East Coast prep school; Michelle had earned good grades in Chicago. "We weren't sure whether they thought we needed an extra start or they just said, 'Let's bring all the black kids together'."
Princeton racialized Michelle's consciousness. She majored in Sociology and minored in African-American Studies. Newsweek says:
"Michelle felt the [racial] tension acutely enough that she made it the subject of her senior sociology thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." The paper is now under lock and key … (Today, Michelle says, not quite convincingly, that she can't remember what was in her thesis.)"
Hilariously, the Princeton website where all her classmates' senior theses are made freely available for the edification of humanity until the end of time listed hers as being "Restricted until November 5, 2008," which just happens to be the day after the election.
Newsweek went on:
"Michelle wrote that Princeton "made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before." She wrote that she felt like a visitor on the supposedly open-minded campus. "Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton," she wrote, "it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.""
Earlier this year, the Obama campaign released her thesis. Here's a highlight, in which the potential First Lady explains how much she wants to be, well, "Black first:"
"These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant. This realization has presently, made my goals to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community more desirable."
Predictably, the same feelings of personal and thus racial inadequacy manifested themselves when she got into ultra-competitive Harvard Law School on another quota. The Newsweek reporter explains:
"At Harvard, she felt the same racial divide. … 'She recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and she was very comfortable with that,' [friend Verna] Williams recalls. Michelle recalls things differently. … Her aides say Michelle earned her way into Harvard on merit by distinguishing herself at Princeton."
When she graduated from HLS in 1988, she was hired by the high-paying Chicago corporate law firm Sidley Austin (which, perhaps not coincidentally, posts a 2,000-word statement describing their "Commitment to Diversity" on their website).
One problem remained: the Illinois bar exam. It appears that in 1988 she either failed it or was unready even to try it. She eventually passed and was admitted to the bar in May 1989, almost a year after graduation. (In contrast, her husband was admitted only a half year after graduating from Harvard Law School three years later).
There's nothing shameful about failing the bar exam. Hillary Clinton, for example, failed the Washington D.C. bar exam. According to blogger Half Sigma, 19 percent of applicants failed the July 1988 Illinois test. But, whiffing even once is not the kind of thing that is supposed to happen to Harvard Law School students. (Similarly, Hillary only told her Yale friends that she passed the Arkansas bar exam; she kept covered up until 2003 that she had failed the D.C. exam.)
Being admitted to the bar is public, so word of Michelle's no-show on the list of new lawyers likely spread among her old Harvard classmates in late 1988, leaving another wound upon her pride. If, however, she'd gone to the kind of law school where graduates frequently take a few tries to pass, she would have felt better about herself and less bitter at the white race.
After a few years at Sidley Austin, Mrs. Obama let her law license lapse and began working as go-between for Mayor Daley's Machine. She enjoyed the kind of vague but well-paid career made possible by affirmative action. The description on the candidate's website of what exactly she's been doing for the U. of Chicago Medical Center is eye-glazing but ultimately revealing: she's in the affirmative action racket:
"She also managed the business diversity program. Michelle has fostered the University of Chicago's relationship with the surrounding community and developed the diversity program, making them both integral parts of the Medical Center's mission."
The sad and ironic thing is that being the beneficiary of affirmative action has clearly caused Mrs. Obama a lot of emotional pain over the years, yet she can't resist the easy money that comes from luring other minorities into the same traps.
With great power comes great rewards. A couple of months after her husband was sworn in as U.S. Senator, Michelle's pay at the Medical Center was raised from $121,910 to $316,962.
A cynic might say that this rather resembles a $195,000 annual … uh, investment by a large private medical institution in the good will of a U.S. Senator and potential President who may well play the crucial role in deciding whether or not there will continue to be large private medical institutions.
Still, to say that would be to suggest that Michelle Obama on her own isn't worth $316,962, which, like any and all skepticism about the Obamas, would be racist. So, almost nobody in America is saying it.
The Daily Mail of London has taken a more jaundiced view:
"An acquaintance of Obama's family compares her with another political wife, another lawyer as it happens, with a keen interest in making money. "Michelle is very much like Cherie Blair [wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair]. She is a middle-class girl who has discovered that money is nice and doesn't see that as a contradiction with having radical beliefs," he said.
Chicago's veteran political consultant and pundit Joe Novak agrees, saying: "She [Michelle] is now motivated more by personal gain than by social consciousness. She saw her opportunities, and she took them." …
For links to all supporting documentation, see:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080225_michelle_obama.htm
chris ford: "After Harvard Law, [Michelle Obama] failed the Bar Exam twice while holding a prestigious high-paying entry postion at Sidley due to their minority AA program."
source please. that would be very interesting if true. But i want to see a reputable source.
"raft seems to think there is a basement level "minimum qualification" in most walks of life"
for elite schools like harvard, yes. it's not just me who seems to think so. Harvard does. this is exactly what they do--cull out the unacceptably weak people from their applicant pool, and then pick and choose from the remaining apps whoever they want by whatever standard they want.
The meritocracy comes in those first couple round, to become a serious candidate for admission. the second step is entirely arbitrary, an explicit social engineering project by Harvard to make its student body "desirable." they want a certain number of whites/blacks/hispanics/asians, a certain ratio of men to women, a certain socioeconomic distribution, a certain geographic distribution, etc. What is "objective" about the college admissions process to a place like harvard or princeton university? please explain.
"The rapid changeover of Berkeley to something resembling U of Hawaii and Michigan to something resembling U of North Dakota once affirmative action "bomus points" were dropped suggests most black students do not deserve to be there on their own merits."
what it means is that the government restricted berkeley from social engineering its student body in the way it wanted to. obviously, we should expect the number of black students to decline once race-based affirmative action is eliminated. otherwise that would mean the affirmative action program had been entirely useless in the first place. i agree that you can take affirmative action too far (whether it is race-based, class-based, or whatever). The common sense standard here should be a simple laugh test. If i take a look at a student's application and resume and I viscerally go, "how did THIS person ever make it into X institution?" then that is affirmative action gone too far. On the other hand, if I look at the resume and I think, "yeah, this person is well-qualified to go here," then that's fine, even though the person might have gotten a boost in the application process because he's a minority or poor or from Alaska, etc. I don't think the Berkeley and Michigan examples are particularly egregious, the latter perhaps being more so.
Steve Sailer: what documentation do you have that Michelle Obama failed the bar exam? also, do you have any documentation on michelle obama's grades at Harvard Law School and/or Princeton, and/or her scores on standardized tests like the SAT or the LSAT? i don't expect you to have this documentation, because (unfortunately) i don't think it's publicly available, but if you do I really would like to see it. If you don't have any of this documentation, then stop making stuff up and stop spouting off your deluded racial fantasies.
P.S. you could have just linked to your VDARE piece directly instead of reposting it in the thread three separate times. is that expecting too much? probably.
Steve Sailer writes: "Michelle was overshadowed by her smart and athletic older brother Craig Robinson, who is now the head basketball coach at Brown University of the Ivy League."
No, he isn't. This is typical of the sloppy and stupid Steve Sailer research method.
Craig Robinson may be smart and he may be athletic (no idea, really, since he is long past his days as a competitive athlete) but I can assure one and all that he is not now employed by Brown.
Steve Sailer is not a journalist and he isn't a scientist. He is a rabble rouser and a propagandist and a GOP hack.
MoeLarryAndJesus: Sailer's post is a direct copy & paste from his VDARE piece written on 02/25/08. At that time, Craig Robinson was indeed still the head basketball coach at Brown University. he has since moved on to become the head coach at Oregon State.
raft, I'm well aware of that. It's not the first time Sailer's sloppiness has made that error. But then I guess he doesn't care about accuracy when it comes to the "untermensch."
I'll repeat - Sailer is a GOP hack, not a journalist or a scientist.
It will get banned, but fuck it - there's a pattern now, where Ross posts something obviously racist, but without the balls to state that outright, then that racist cunt Sailer finishes the job for him, with his little acoyltes doing hit and run jobs.
It's gone past mere chance now.
What's frustrating is the fact that people who know nothing about the university-- indeed, have nothing but contempt for the university-- feel that they are qualified to make bald claims about how it operates. I mean, this.
why are those at universities without legacy admissions, like at most public universities
This is just laugh out loud funny. Ask a public university president (off the record) if students can get in through donating a lot of money. Go ahead, ask. Money has interpenetrated the system at every level. This idea that colleges and universities are not involved in a mad scramble to raise cash is just wrong. And everyone who works in the college system knows it; it's a matter of the most banal nature. The fact that people feel that they can wax on about the way the university really is because of one highly dubious study just goes to show how hard many people will work in order to arrive at the conclusion that black people are stupid and undeserving.
Raft - Speaking as a lawyer, it would be very unusual for Michelle Obama to graduate from HLS in May 1988 (I assume), start at Sidley in the fall of 88, then not take the bar exam until May 89.
The most likely (but definitely not certain) explanation is that she failed the bar on her first try. Even if true, however, that's not that big a deal -- many very successful laywers failed a bar exam.
In 1993, when I went to law school, most law students who accepted positions at big firms took a bar review course in the summer after graduating, took the bar exam near the end of the summer, then took a month to travel before starting their job. It's possible that Ms. Obama had something else going the summer before Sidley and didn't take a bar review course (or the bar) for another year, but it's unlikely -- generally, the firms want their lawyers to be licensed as lawyers as quickly as possible, for obvious reasons.
Freddie, I agree with you about the relative impact of affirmative action. Still, it's not surprising that it comes up in a discussion of why beneficiaries of affirmative action feel that they have a harder time at the elite colleges.
I would imagine that legacy admissions get lower grades relative to merit admissions as well. Legacy admissions don't really bother me, but if we were discussing an article by a legacy student about how hard things are for legacies, that would be one thing I would bring up.
(I should say that I don't mean to say that legacies are the same as affirmative action beneficiaries. Presumably, most legacies enjoy privilege and most aa beneficiaries experience racism, but in both cases, their admission route is one factor to consider in explaining their subsequent experience).
Reminds me of the scene in "Deuce Bigelow, European Gigolo," where Deuce (Rob Schneider) finds his friend T.J. Hicks (Eddie Griffin) by looking in the only Waffles and Chicken joint in Holland.
TJ: How'd you find me?
Deuce: It’s the only chicken and waffles place in Holland.
TJ: So a black man's gotta be at a chicken and waffles place? That's racist.
Deuce: But ... you _are_ here.
TJ: Yeah, but figuring it out is racist.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 19, 2008 7:28:42 PM
from marginalrevolution
"I should say that I don't mean to say that legacies are the same as affirmative action beneficiaries. Presumably, most legacies enjoy privilege and most aa beneficiaries experience racism, but in both cases, their admission route is one factor to consider in explaining their subsequent experience"
I am not sure I agree that 'most aa beneficiaries experience racism,' or at least I am not sure what type of racism is being described. Certainly being let in because of one's race is 'racist', but it's a benefit (if a mixed benefit a la Michelle Obama) rather than a hindrance. Also, very few AA beneficiaries are poor; they just aren't as qualified academically.
The people that benefit from AA disproportionately are those who are already well-off financially, and are able to get into a better school because of AA. That's why most people are far more sympathetic to socio-economic AA (which would more directly counter-act the legacy admissions) than race-based AA. What types of 'racism' do AA admits at Princeton face? They have every advantage in the world, and they generally coming from the upper middle class. That people (accurately) suspect that they are not as qualified is not racist;
"Maybe she should think a little harder."
Translation: "Maybe she should ask Ross or Steve Sailer to do her thinking for her."
Execrable.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 21, 2008 10:30 AM