Scalia makes racist comment/others deny it was racist

[sir drinks-a-lot]

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.

All of these studies confirm what we should have already suspected given our understanding of evolutionary process and the variations within humankind. When Buffett uses his lottery phrase, he seems to be restricting his usage to socioeconomics - but I agree there is also a genetic component of the lottery. I guess the is the popular notion of nature versus nurture.

I had a long discussion with a friend a while back where we tried to list and rank the factors that influenced one's likelihood of 'success' in today's world. It is an interesting topic to consider, although I wouldn't put intelligence near the top of the list.

I also agree with the "uh-oh" at the end of your post.

 

[Mumbles]

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?

Again, it doesn't matter much here - AA is simply not the issue in the accuser's case, due to her own mediocre achievements, grades, and test scores. She wouldn't have been admitted regardless, so she suffered no loss due to any AA policy. But in any case, the answer appears to be "no".

 

[Mumbles]

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".

This one is outright false. The "blacks need handouts" is another old racist myth that is still used even in cases where all evidence shows that it's actually white people who are favored (eg. hiring). It'll continue no matter what policies schools use for admissions, much like the idea that black people hate seeing one another achieve academically is still being uttered in the Obama presidency.

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.

Schools are free to adjust for poverty as well - and often do, although the elite universities tend to tip the scales in favor of the wealthy rather than the poor.

 

[Bob001]

.....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.
....

Without defending Scalia, some commentators are making the point that briefs making that argument were submitted to the court in the case. Scalia was basically asking the lawyer "Some people say this, what do you think about it?" If the lawyer had been well-prepared, he might have been able to say "It's wrong and here's why."

Seems like a broader question is this: UTexas apparently admits almost everyone who ranks in the top 10% of his high school class. But high schools vary enormously in quality and standards. Should a kid who works hard enough to place in the top 15% of a great school be turned away, while a kid who who barely scrapes into the top 10% of a crappy school get in? The question also involves issues of money and social class.

I've long felt that grades, SATS, class rank etc. should be secondary to a battery of standardized subject exams that would demonstrate what a kid actually learned (or should have learned) in high school. Everybody would understand the requirements, everybody would compete on an equal footing, and if a kid got a low score in a particular subject he could study harder, learn more and take the test again, or maybe he would use his scores to help identify the programs where he would be most likely to succeed. Standardized subject exams would help smooth the differences between school quality, family background etc.

 

[pharphis]

Summary and dissection of what Scalia said by our lord and savior Vernaculis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwOomGn2uU8

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So I've been looking into this given all the people claiming there is evidence Scalia was right and it turns out he was using bad research that claimed to find evidence of "mismatch". But this has been refuted.

No One Tell Justice Thomas: Affirmative Action 'Mismatch Theory' Debunked Again

Researchers vs. Clarence Thomas

The research -- by Michal Kurlaender of the University of California at Davis and Eric Grodsky of the University of Wisconsin at Madison -- is forthcoming in the journal Sociology of Education.
For their study, they examined a group of mismatch students who were identifiable because of some unusual circumstances facing the University of California in 2004. Facing budget cuts, the university had to turn away several thousand applicants it would have otherwise admitted, and it offered those students automatic transfer admission if they completed general education requirements at a community college. Then the budget situation improved a bit, and the students were admitted to UC after all -- creating a large group of potential "mismatch" students, since they had been judged to be not as worthy of admission as those who got in first.
The study found that these mismatch students did earn slightly lower grades than did the students who were admitted through the regular process. But the researchers then controlled for educational background. When comparing the mismatch students to those of similar educational backgrounds who were admitted regularly, the differences pretty much disappeared.

Why Justice Scalia thinks affirmative action hurts black students, and why he’s wrong

A 2013 study from two sociologists, Michal Kurlaender of the University of California Davis and Eric Grodsky from the University of Wisconsin, looked at an unusual situation at the University of California. Budget struggles led the university to admit fewer students than it had expected to, and it cut out students who were on the academic margins, weaker than other applicants. Then the budget situation improved, and so students were admitted after all. Those students who barely made the cut performed no worse than students from a similar educational background who were admitted through the normal admissions process.
A 2007 study of students whose SAT scores were lower than the average SAT score of other students at their college found those students were not less likely to drop out, although in some cases they earned lower grades.
Students from minority groups benefit more, in terms of lifetime earnings, from attending a selective college than their white peers, according to research from economists Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger.

And further rebuttal of the Mismatch hypothesis:

A 2012 paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that after California banned affirmative action, graduation rates went up for black and Latino students, and attributed part of the increase to a better academic fit between students and colleges.

But the paper didn't consider that graduation rates for these students were already on an upward trend. An analysis by Matthew Chingos, now a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, found that graduation rates grew less than they otherwise would have if the affirmative action ban had not passed. In other words, banning affirmative action ended up holding back minority students.

And then there is this hypocrisy:

Mismatch theory is always brought up in the context of affirmative action. But universities admit less academically qualified students for all kinds of reasons — because they're the children of alumni or donors, due to athletic or musical talent, and so on. There isn't nearly as much concern about how those students fare, and some research has found they're more likely to drop out than other students, including those admitted through race-based affirmative action.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Without defending Scalia, some commentators are making the point that briefs making that argument were submitted to the court in the case. Scalia was basically asking the lawyer "Some people say this, what do you think about it?" If the lawyer had been well-prepared, he might have been able to say "It's wrong and here's why."...

Yes, I've heard this Scalia apology but since the evidence was cited in a June 3013 case the SCOTUS heard and since Thomas cited the same claims and since the researchers at the time spoke up refuting the Mismatch claim, either Scalia could care less about the validity of the science or he wasn't paying attention in 2013 (highly unlikely). Given Scalia's long history of less than empathetic opinions, chances are pretty good that was his opinion.

 

[Brainster]

So I've been looking into this given all the people claiming there is evidence Scalia was right and it turns out he was using bad research that claimed to find evidence of "mismatch". But this has been refuted.

No One Tell Justice Thomas: Affirmative Action 'Mismatch Theory' Debunked Again

Researchers vs. Clarence Thomas

You've gotta love how the first citation notes that there was a (slight) difference in grades but that when educational background was "controlled for", it disappeared and the second says "performed no worse".

Think about this logically for a second. If the group of students who were initially wait-listed did no worse than the students who were admitted right off the bat, then what is the value of the university admissions committee?

 

[Bob001]

....
Think about this logically for a second. If the group of students who were initially wait-listed did no worse than the students who were admitted right off the bat, then what is the value of the university admissions committee?

That raises an important question. Admissions committees at elite colleges rank kids down to the third decimal place. Since almost all applicants are great students, admissions decisions come down to fairly arbitrary opinions about family backgrounds and extracurricular activities and "balance" and "diversity." A kid who who volunteers in a soup kitchen gets extra points; a kid who works at a fast-food to save money for school doesn't. A kid who plays piccolo in the school orchestra gets points; a kid who plays bass guitar in a bar band doesn't. Etc. I think a strong argument could be made that colleges should set a threshold of minimum grades and test scores that would indicate an applicant has the basic skills needed to succeed in college; then the class should be selected at random from that pool, pretty much without regard to anything else. It would also reduce some of the cachet associated with elite schools; a Harvard or Princeton degree would mean that, before anything else, the holder won a lottery, not that he was "better" than anybody else.

 

[Meed]

He wasn't referring to "blacks" as in "all black people", he was referring specifically to those black people who wouldn't have been admitted to the University if not for race being a factor. This seems pretty clear from the context. I'm in favor of affirmative action to some extent, but I don't think it's fair to call opposition to affirmative action "racist".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You've gotta love how the first citation notes that there was a (slight) difference in grades but that when educational background was "controlled for", it disappeared and the second says "performed no worse".

Think about this logically for a second. If the group of students who were initially wait-listed did no worse than the students who were admitted right off the bat, then what is the value of the university admissions committee?

So you think a slight difference in grades is a reason not to give someone previously disadvantaged a chance at a top notch school?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He wasn't referring to "blacks" as in "all black people", he was referring specifically to those black people who wouldn't have been admitted to the University if not for race being a factor. This seems pretty clear from the context. I'm in favor of affirmative action to some extent, but I don't think it's fair to call opposition to affirmative action "racist".

People often want to make racism an all or none phenomena, and that's not how it works.

Think of it as a continuum. When race merely influences your perception of a person, that's perhaps a lesser form of racism that studies show exist as an underlying current in most people in our culture.

Next you have people like Scalia that make false assumptions about people that the evidence refutes. They don't take the time or interest in correcting their false conclusions. Assuming affirmative action is somehow letting inferior people get ahead is a perfect example. In reality what it does is simply make up for earlier disadvantages. How is it fair for a student that had an easy time of it, had all sorts of advantages, to outrank a person that had a much harder time, and had many more hurdles to get over?

I'm all for giving the advantage based on economic circumstances rather than based on race. But generally there is a correlation.


Beyond perception and false beliefs about a person the continuum moves into what might be thought of as classic racism, actually disliking people based on their race.

 

[Meed]

People often want to make racism an all or none phenomena, and that's not how it works.

Think of it as a continuum. When race merely influences your perception of a person, that's perhaps a lesser form of racism that studies show exist as an underlying current in most people in our culture.

Agreed. But I think if you frame the discussion as "Was his comment racist or was it not racist?" (as per the thread title), you are sort of setting it up as an all or nothing thing. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I've become too used to the "witch hunt" atmosphere regarding people making statements perceived as bigoted lately. But granted, a lot of that is with respect to random people, quasi-celebrities and the like, and when it comes to a supreme court justice it does actually matter quite a bit whether they exhibit racist views or thought patterns.

I think being ignorant of the evidence, if that is in fact the case for him, isn't the necessarily the same as being racist. It *would be* a problem in its own right, of course.

Next you have people like Scalia that make false assumptions about people that the evidence refutes. They don't take the time or interest in correcting their false conclusions.

Fair enough.

 

[Mumbles]

Agreed. But I think if you frame the discussion as "Was his comment racist or was it not racist?" (as per the thread title), you are sort of setting it up as an all or nothing thing. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I've become too used to the "witch hunt" atmosphere regarding people making statements perceived as bigoted lately. But granted, a lot of that is with respect to random people, quasi-celebrities and the like, and when it comes to a supreme court justice it does actually matter quite a bit whether they exhibit racist views or thought patterns.

I think being ignorant of the evidence, if that is in fact the case for him, isn't the necessarily the same as being racist. It *would be* a problem in its own right, of course.

This is true as far as it goes, but Scalia's a known entity in the US, and this isn't his first time sticking his foot directly into his mouth. The last time I can recall was when he referred to sections of the Voting Rights Act as a "racial entitlement", despite it actually being a redress against exactly such an entitlement.

In other words, there's quite a pattern here.

 

[Fudbucker]

This one is outright false. The "blacks need handouts" is another old racist myth that is still used even in cases where all evidence shows that it's actually white people who are favored (eg. hiring). It'll continue no matter what policies schools use for admissions, much like the idea that black people hate seeing one another achieve academically is still being uttered in the Obama presidency.



Schools are free to adjust for poverty as well - and often do, although the elite universities tend to tip the scales in favor of the wealthy rather than the poor.

If blacks don't need help, then why do they get points for being black on college applications? You can't have it both ways: affirmative actions helps minorities get into college. That's the whole point of it: you get preferential treatment for being a certain race.

You can call it "points" or a "handout", makes no difference, and some people who don't get those racial points will resent those that do.

 

[Brainster]

People often want to make racism an all or none phenomena, and that's not how it works.

Think of it as a continuum. When race merely influences your perception of a person, that's perhaps a lesser form of racism that studies show exist as an underlying current in most people in our culture.

But isn't that exactly what universities are doing in the name of affirmative action and diversity? Letting race influence their perception of a person?

 

[Mumbles]

If blacks don't need help, then why do they get points for being black on college applications? You can't have it both ways: affirmative actions helps minorities get into college. That's the whole point of it: you get preferential treatment for being a certain race.

You can call it "points" or a "handout", makes no difference, and some people who don't get those racial points will resent those that do.

And the point that you missed is that many, and in my opinion most, such people would resent black people regardless of whether or not they received such "helP, "handouts", or whatever, as has been repeatedly shown throughout history - from linking "handouts" to black people despite, well, the vast majority of US history, to Obama being called the "Affirmative Action President", a claim that makes no sense whatsoever, to this very case, in which the plaintiff chose to ignore the white people with lower scores in this or that who were admitted over her, and who would almost certainly never have been admitted in any case, to the huffy response to "Black Lives Matter", which ignored the context which made the slogan relavent. Since these claims are nurtured regardless of what the reality is, it seems naive to claim that getting rid of AA would somehow make them lessen.

The fact that many beneficiaries of such programs (or of black-aimed scholarships, including myself) don't care much about some white person's resentments is potentially interesting, but it's not what your claim was rooted in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is true as far as it goes, but Scalia's a known entity in the US, and this isn't his first time sticking his foot directly into his mouth. The last time I can recall was when he referred to sections of the Voting Rights Act as a "racial entitlement", despite it actually being a redress against exactly such an entitlement.

In other words, there's quite a pattern here.

Exactly. Scalia is a known quantity and it's quite ugly.

Scalia’s raging hypocrisy: Encroaching senility, raging racism, or does he no longer give a f*ck? (Mods: title quoted exactly, not my doing.)

Something that has been obscured by the outcry over Scalia’s rhetoric is that this argument – that affirmative action is bad for its putative beneficiaries because it pushes them into settings where they will be less likely to excel – is, from a legal standpoint, completely irrelevant to the issue before the Supreme Court.

That is because the legal issue in the case is whether affirmative action programs such as that being employed by the University of Texas are unconstitutional, not whether they are a good idea. Right wing-critics of judicial activism, and most particularly Justice Scalia, love nothing more than to lecture liberals about this distinction....

That Justice Scalia can reconcile his supposed opposition to judicial activism and his supposed fidelity to originalist interpretation with his willingness to declare affirmative action programs unconstitutional is a nice illustration of the human mind’s ability to tolerate cognitive dissonance, and the human soul’s ability to tolerate rank hypocrisy.

Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality

Justice Scalia to a Congressman of Native American heritage: “Don't forget you belong to a conquered race.”
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/06/justice-scalia-and-racist-nature-federal-indian-law

Justice Scalia’s use of the word “race” places his comment in an obvious racial frame of reference. The idea of American Indians being “conquered” evokes the theme of inferiority (those deemed “conquered”), and superiority (the racial group said to have conquered “the race” treated as “inferior”). In other words, Justice Scalia’s comment was predicated on the idea of racial domination: “We are the victorious race and you are the inferior, ‘conquered race.’” In short, Justice Scalia’s comment was an open expression of racism and is accurately re-expressed in this manner: “Don't forget you belong to a dominated race.”
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...e-scalia-and-racist-nature-federal-indian-law

JUSTICE SCALIA: The Voting Rights Act Is A 'Racial Entitlement'

et cetera et cetera

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If blacks don't need help, then why do they get points for being black on college applications? You can't have it both ways: affirmative actions helps minorities get into college. That's the whole point of it: you get preferential treatment for being a certain race.

You can call it "points" or a "handout", makes no difference, and some people who don't get those racial points will resent those that do.

What is it about neutralizing a rigged system don't you get?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

And the point that you missed is that many, and in my opinion most, such people would resent black people regardless of whether or not they received such "helP, "handouts", or whatever, as has been repeatedly shown throughout history - from linking "handouts" to black people despite, well, the vast majority of US history, to Obama being called the "Affirmative Action President", a claim that makes no sense whatsoever, to this very case, in which the plaintiff chose to ignore the white people with lower scores in this or that who were admitted over her, and who would almost certainly never have been admitted in any case, to the huffy response to "Black Lives Matter", which ignored the context which made the slogan relavent. Since these claims are nurtured regardless of what the reality is, it seems naive to claim that getting rid of AA would somehow make them lessen.

The fact that many beneficiaries of such programs (or of black-aimed scholarships, including myself) don't care much about some white person's resentments is potentially interesting, but it's not what your claim was rooted in.

Of course it makes sense.

You don't think Obama benefited from Affirmative Action at all sorts of steps along the way as he rose to prominence? I'd be amazed if his race didn't help him get into every school he went to, including the prestigious school he went to in Hawaii as a young man.

His race sure as hell was a massive, enormous factor in gaining the traction he did within the democratic party and its voter base.

I was a huge fan of his from the time of his 2004 DNC speech, which is when most people, nationally, became aware of him. I then listened to Air America fawning over him in the years following that, talking about how he could be president in 2008, etc.

I was excited and I can tell you, me and a ton of other whites voted for Obama because of his race. We wanted to "be part of history" and he certainly got a much higher turnout and portion of the black vote than a white democrat would have gotten.

So if his entire career was peppered with "affirmative action moments" along the way (and a person would be a fool to doubt this) and if his election was heavily influenced by people wanting to see him elected due to his race, then I think it's fair to call him an "affirmative action president."

A lot of people on the right think that McCain was much more hesitant to go heavily negative with ads and did a lot more disavowing of people going after Obama than he would have against a white opponent. I think they have a point on that too.