Scalia makes racist comment/others deny it was racist

[Skeptic Ginger]

Scalia today in the affirmative action hearing:

Mother Jones:
Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at "Slower" Colleges

LA Times op ed:
No, Scalia's comment about 'less-advanced' schools wasn't racist

Essentially Scalia put his foot in his mouth assuming affirmative action used to keep student populations racially balanced means the students who score a point for being black are going to do worse than the student who didn't need that point for race.

But that's not what the research shows. College admission procedures are not perfect measures of how well students will do. Thousands of students who would do well don't get in and thousands that get in don't do well.

But rather than look at the evidence of how students do that got in because they had points for their race, he made a racist assumption that the reason a black didn't do as well on the admission requirements was because the student was inferior. They aren't inferior, they have fewer advantages earlier on in their lives.


The LA Times op ed suggests because Scalia didn't say 'all blacks' his comment wasn't racist.

 

[Cain]

Or maybe he's just looking out for the best interests of the blacks.

 

[WildCat]

But that's not what the research shows.

Link to the research?

 

[ThunderChunky]

But that's not what the research shows. College admission procedures are not perfect measures of how well students will do. Thousands of students who would do well don't get in and thousands that get in don't do well.

Do you have actual statistical evidence that underrepresented minorities perform just as well as whites and asians?

 

[Trebuchet]

Or maybe he's just looking out for the best interests of the blacks.

Probably lets them use his bathroom, too.

 

[theprestige]

Do affirmative action admission standards at top universities set up some students for failure, when they have been let down by their primary education system due to racial disparities in education, and have not been adequately prepared to succeed at university level?

Is the above question worth asking? Is it racist to ask the question?

 

[The Big Dog]

Scalia today in the affirmative action hearing:

Mother Jones:
Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at "Slower" Colleges

LA Times op ed:
No, Scalia's comment about 'less-advanced' schools wasn't racist

Essentially Scalia put his foot in his mouth assuming affirmative action used to keep student populations racially balanced means the students who score a point for being black are going to do worse than the student who didn't need that point for race.

But that's not what the research shows. College admission procedures are not perfect measures of how well students will do. Thousands of students who would do well don't get in and thousands that get in don't do well.

But rather than look at the evidence of how students do that got in because they had points for their race, he made a racist assumption that the reason a black didn't do as well on the admission requirements was because the student was inferior. They aren't inferior, they have fewer advantages earlier on in their lives.


The LA Times op ed suggests because Scalia didn't say 'all blacks' his comment wasn't racist.

Scalia was framing a question regarding arguments that were outlined in a brief that was actually before the Court, to which the advocate clearly responded and made a salient point. that is what happens all the time at Oral Argument.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Nothing to see here , but the usual race baiters trying to stir up outrage because someone mentioned black people.

Here is an even more dishonest characterization of Scala's remarks than Skeptic Ginger's link in the OP. I love how the put the designed-to-offend phrase in the headline as if it were a direct quote from Scala. Yet people are lining up to get offended because "racism!!!11!!".

 

[Mumbles]

It's not so much that Scalia's being a racist - although this is a typical talking point among racists, and the truth is that the woman who brought this lawsuit wouldn't have gotten into UT anyway.

(and isn't it interesting how any black person who got into a college must have gotten in because of race, yet a black, unarmed person who is beaten or shot by a cop or random idiot can't possibly be due to his or her race?)

The major problem, here, is the enormously shyky evidence that Scalia's relying on - as Vox shows here. As for the idea that black kids interested in STEM fields not facing discrimination - as a black guy with an MSEE, allow me to say HAHAHAHAHA!

 

[The Big Dog]

(and isn't it interesting how any black person who got into a college must have gotten in because of race, yet a black, unarmed person who is beaten or shot by a cop or random idiot can't possibly be due to his or her race?)

whoa, that is some next level straw manning.... Yikes....

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Affirmative Action (based on race and not socioeconomic status) is itself an acknowledgement of the intellectual inferiority it seeks to offset.

The Affirmative Action Hoax (An interesting video)

It's not so much that Scalia's being a racist - although this is a typical talking point among racists, and the truth is that the woman who brought this lawsuit wouldn't have gotten into UT anyway.

(and isn't it interesting how any black person who got into a college must have gotten in because of race, yet a black, unarmed person who is beaten or shot by a cop or random idiot can't possibly be due to his or her race?)
The major problem, here, is the enormously shyky evidence that Scalia's relying on - as Vox shows here. As for the idea that black kids interested in STEM fields not facing discrimination - as a black guy with an MSEE, allow me to say HAHAHAHAHA!

It's entirely consistent, actually.

In both cases there is something about blacks as a group which makes it more likely.

In the first case, there are many government sanctioned programs in place to see to it that the black person gets a school position or job position or contract, so suspecting that exactly that has happened is 100% reasonable and based on the reality of the situation.

In the second case, blacks have demonstrated patterns of behavior and criminality which make the far better explanation for them ending up in situations that they behaved in a way which caused it, rather than it being some whim on the part of the shooter based on what... a personal aesthetic preference re: skin color?

 

[shuize]

Nothing to see here , but the usual race baiters trying to stir up outrage because someone mentioned black people.

Here is an even more dishonest characterization of Scala's remarks than Skeptic Ginger's link in the OP. I love how the put the designed-to-offend phrase in the headline as if it were a direct quote from Scala. Yet people are lining up to get offended because "racism!!!11!!".

I've seen that sort of dishonest characterization in several places already. In fact, as soon as I read about the case, I predicted this sort of ignorant response. Of course, the headlines and actual statement are completely different.

Not that one can expect the race-baiters to address the issue honestly, but since the state university is admittedly discriminating based on race, it is incumbent on the university to prove a "compelling interest" in doing so. If there is any other way to address the problem, then the discrimation is unconstitutional. Thus, questions related to whether Texas' 10 percent plan achieves "diversity" without the additional racial discrimation the university calls for, whether the minority students the university claims to be helping might achieve better academic results at other universities, etc. are perfectly valid.

As noted above, Scalia was referring to an amicus brief which suggested as much and those crying "Racism!" in this instance either haven't read the actual quote, don't know anything about appellate argument, or both.

 

[shuize]

Do affirmative action admission standards at top universities set up some students for failure, when they have been let down by their primary education system due to racial disparities in education, and have not been adequately prepared to succeed at university level?

Is the above question worth asking? Is it racist to ask the question?

Not only is the question worth asking, I'd say it's one of the dispositive issues in the case.

As posted above, the burden is on the state to prove a "compelling interest" in the racial discrimination it claims is necessary. If there are alternative ways to achieve "diversity" without resorting to racial discrimination, or if the students the university claims to be helping through the use of racial discrimation aren't really being helped, the university's program is arguably unconstitutional.

 

[Fudbucker]

Scalia today in the affirmative action hearing:

Mother Jones:
Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at "Slower" Colleges

LA Times op ed:
No, Scalia's comment about 'less-advanced' schools wasn't racist

Essentially Scalia put his foot in his mouth assuming affirmative action used to keep student populations racially balanced means the students who score a point for being black are going to do worse than the student who didn't need that point for race.

But that's not what the research shows. College admission procedures are not perfect measures of how well students will do. Thousands of students who would do well don't get in and thousands that get in don't do well.

But rather than look at the evidence of how students do that got in because they had points for their race, he made a racist assumption that the reason a black didn't do as well on the admission requirements was because the student was inferior. They aren't inferior, they have fewer advantages earlier on in their lives.


The LA Times op ed suggests because Scalia didn't say 'all blacks' his comment wasn't racist.

And therein lies the problem: getting "points" for being a certain race.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

And therein lies the problem: getting "points" for being a certain race.

Another thing worth pointing out here is that what you've just described (accurately, btw) is literally identical to other students being punished for being a specific race (white.)

There is no logical refutation of that.

If you grant everyone who isn't white points for their race, this is identical to targeting whites and having an explicitly anti-white policy, which we do.

 

[Fudbucker]

Another thing worth pointing out here is that what you've just described (accurately, btw) is literally identical to other students being punished for being a specific race (white.)

There is no logical refutation of that.

If you grant everyone who isn't white points for their race, this is identical to targeting whites and having an explicitly anti-white policy, which we do.

I think blacks have a much harder time of it than whites, on the average. The playing field is not level. My problem with affirmative action is twofold:

1. It perpetuates the meme that blacks need a "hand-out". You'll never end racism by giving certain races "points".
2. Suppose you have a black kid who grew up in Beverly Hills and a white kid from South Central L.A. How is it fair to penalize the white kid just for being white? Climbing out of poverty is hard, no matter what race you are.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I think blacks have a much harder time of it than whites, on the average.

This seems almost impossible to deny.

My problem with affirmative action is twofold:

1. It perpetuates the meme that blacks need a "hand-out". You'll never end racism by giving certain races "points".
2. Suppose you have a black kid who grew up in Beverly Hills and a white kid from South Central L.A. How is it fair to penalize the white kid just for being white? Climbing out of poverty is hard, no matter what race you are.

Agreed on both counts.

To me, the most interesting part of your post was the statement the playing field is not level. I agree, for certain definitions of "playing field". Warren Buffett often talks about the "ovarian lottery" highlighting the different socioeconomic situations within which many of us arrive. Definitely a thorny issue, with no easy solution in sight. I personally think a lot of the attempts at solutions are doomed to make the situation worse.

 

[eeyore1954]

Scalia makes non racist comment/others insist it was racist.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

This seems almost impossible to deny.



Agreed on both counts.

To me, the most interesting part of your post was the statement the playing field is not level. I agree, for certain definitions of "playing field". Warren Buffett often talks about the "ovarian lottery" highlighting the different socioeconomic situations within which many of us arrive. Definitely a thorny issue, with no easy solution in sight. I personally think a lot of the attempts at solutions are doomed to make the situation worse.

Certainly a valid concept.

Of course, it goes far beyond just what your mother and father's socioeconomic status is as you grow in her womb.

It goes far beyond where they live, whether they went to college, etc.

Everyone acknowledges that a very important part of the "ovarian lottery" is genetic in nature. At this point, we have definitive science indicating that a whole bunch of things which are going to impact your life outcomes are heritable. Some of them HIGHLY heritable, and we're just getting started regarding our understanding of this stuff because our access to the genome is still a pretty new thing. So much yet to discover, especially given the fact that most things seem to involve multiple genes working in concert with regard to any given trait... epigenetics... etc.

Intelligence certainly is a trait which has a huge impact on life outcomes... particularly with regard to academic and career potential.

"Most researchers believe that heritability of intelligence is between 60 percent and 80 percent."

Wait... so, if intelligence is heritable (it is, highly so), and mood/temperament of a person is highly influenced by heritable traits (it is) and there are even studies now showing academic performance to be highly heritable (or rather, many traits involved in it are highly heritable) and if all genetic traits cluster at different means for different racial groups (they do, such as height, skin color, literally anything and everything under biological influence does cluster around a mean for genetic groups which themselves are by definition clusters of traits) then ... uh oh.

 

[Brainster]

There is abundant evidence that whites graduate college at far higher rates than blacks, despite initial enrollment rates that are fairly similar.

Of students who entered college in 2005, the most recent data available, 62 percent of whites got a degree within six years, versus 40 percent of blacks and 51 percent of Hispanics