Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at "Slower" Colleges

[pixy0stix]

I think he shoved his whole foot into his mouth.

[Deleted]

Dec 9, 2015 16:37:31 GMT -5 1234FIF! said:

I know this is a leftist source but still thought this was worth a post and discussion.

One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.

Someone please find this brief because I'm sure he's warping whatever it said.

[ijack]

WTF?

[downtoearth]

Dec 9, 2015 16:54:35 GMT -5 @notquiteblushing said:

Dec 9, 2015 16:37:31 GMT -5 1234FIF! said:

I know this is a leftist source but still thought this was worth a post and discussion.

One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.

Someone please find this brief because I'm sure he's warping whatever it said.

I found this CNN reference to the same information: www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/scalia-black-scientists-scotus/index.html

I'm looking at Scotusblog, but can't find a link to the brief as of yet.

The CNN article closes with this...

Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network and a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, defended Scalia, saying he wasn't implying black students are inferior.

"What Justice Scalia is referring to is the 'mismatch theory' popularized by Stuart Taylor and Richard Sander in their book," she said. "The idea is that if a student is admitted to a school they are not academically prepared for then they will not perform up to their own potential. This is a theory -- contested of course -- but I don't want people to get the idea that it means that all black students are not as smart as white students, or even that they are not as well prepared across the board."

Scalia was apparently referencing a brief filed by Sander.

"Students with an interest in science who are admitted to a very competitive school via a large preference tend to drop out of the sciences at a much higher rate than do otherwise similar students who attend somewhat less competitive programs," the brief said. "Competition mismatch appears to be a major factor in the low rate at which African-American students become scientists, despite high levels of interest in the sciences."

[ESF]

We started talking about this here.

pandce.proboards.com/thread/498748/reminder-why-vote-counts

You all know I really fucking hate that man. But in his defense here, the transcript indicates that he's quoting from or describing a brief filed by someone and asking a question about that brief. I don't read it to suggest he's saying what's in it is true or that those are his thoughts.

[cookiemdough]

This topic always makes my ass twitch. It is up there with mandatory minimum prison sentences.

[epphd]

OH MY GOD. What an absolute slice assholery that man is. I don't give a shit what some theory in a book said - is that how he would treat his own child? What he is saying is "don't give a (black) person an opportunity to step up to their full potential, keep them in a comfortable cushion of mediocrity." It is so fucking insulting - I can't even fathom it. Vile.

And this?

"Students with an interest in science who are admitted to a very competitive school via a large preference tend to drop out of the sciences at a much higher rate than do otherwise similar students who attend somewhat less competitive programs,"

Has far less to do with ability than it does with psychology, economics and racism. Speak with any first generation college student who struggles with feeling "other", or inferior -who has been TOLD not to try, they'll never succeed; or who has experienced that expectation first hand; or who can't afford books or who works two jobs to do so...

MISMATCH MY ASS.

I am appalled. Absolutely appalled.

[epphd]

Adding also(privilege admission): I listened to an NPR segment today on this case and affirmative action was framed in the larger discussion on reparation/reconciliation. They basically assert that as close as we've ever come to it is affirmative action, and that dismantling it speaks to our willingness to account for own history. They also interviewed a young woman who spoke on affirmative action as a means to increase "diversity" and she seemed to suggest that this ethos sort of waters down the reparations-related impact that AA might have. Anyway it was interesting and not a nuance I'd thought about.

[Michelle]

Dec 9, 2015 18:15:41 GMT -5 @246baje said:

Hmph. Somehow my black ass graduated from the graduate school at UT Austin with a 4.0, a MS and a PhD. So that asshole can kiss it.

I bet you weren't in the 25% pool of candidates they were assessing with outcomes like that. :-) Unless you weren't a stellar performer in HS. You sort of strike me as someone who has always done well academically though.

[ESF]

Dec 9, 2015 18:46:16 GMT -5 epphd said:

OH MY GOD. What an absolute slice assholery that man is. I don't give a shit what some theory in a book said - is that how he would treat his own child? What he is saying is "don't give a (black) person an opportunity to step up to their full potential, keep them in a comfortable cushion of mediocrity." It is so fucking insulting - I can't even fathom it. Vile.

And this?

"Students with an interest in science who are admitted to a very competitive school via a large preference tend to drop out of the sciences at a much higher rate than do otherwise similar students who attend somewhat less competitive programs,"

Has far less to do with ability than it does with psychology, economics and racism. Speak with any first generation college student who struggles with feeling "other", or inferior -who has been TOLD not to try, they'll never succeed; or who has experienced that expectation first hand; or who can't afford books or who works two jobs to do so...

MISMATCH MY ASS.

I am appalled. Absolutely appalled.

It's not clear to me if you think what is in your block quote was said by Scalia.  But to clarify, it was not. It was written in a brief, most likely not by one of the parties to the case, but an interested third party.


And to everyone who is very angry by what this article suggested Scalia said, did you click on my link above?  

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 9, 2015 19:09:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

Dec 9, 2015 18:46:16 GMT -5 epphd said:

OH MY GOD. What an absolute slice assholery that man is. I don't give a shit what some theory in a book said - is that how he would treat his own child? What he is saying is "don't give a (black) person an opportunity to step up to their full potential, keep them in a comfortable cushion of mediocrity." It is so fucking insulting - I can't even fathom it. Vile.

And this?

Has far less to do with ability than it does with psychology, economics and racism. Speak with any first generation college student who struggles with feeling "other", or inferior -who has been TOLD not to try, they'll never succeed; or who has experienced that expectation first hand; or who can't afford books or who works two jobs to do so...

MISMATCH MY ASS.

I am appalled. Absolutely appalled.

It's not clear to me if you think what is in your block quote was said by Scalia.  But to clarify, it was not. It was written in a brief, most likely not by one of the parties to the case, but an interested third party.


And to everyone who is very angry by what this article suggested Scalia said, did you click on my link above?  

Quoting because this needs to be repeated in this thread.

[epphd]

Dec 9, 2015 19:09:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

Dec 9, 2015 18:46:16 GMT -5 epphd said:

OH MY GOD. What an absolute slice assholery that man is. I don't give a shit what some theory in a book said - is that how he would treat his own child? What he is saying is "don't give a (black) person an opportunity to step up to their full potential, keep them in a comfortable cushion of mediocrity." It is so fucking insulting - I can't even fathom it. Vile.

And this?

Has far less to do with ability than it does with psychology, economics and racism. Speak with any first generation college student who struggles with feeling "other", or inferior -who has been TOLD not to try, they'll never succeed; or who has experienced that expectation first hand; or who can't afford books or who works two jobs to do so...

MISMATCH MY ASS.

I am appalled. Absolutely appalled.

It's not clear to me if you think what is in your block quote was said by Scalia.  But to clarify, it was not. It was written in a brief, most likely not by one of the parties to the case, but an interested third party.


And to everyone who is very angry by what this article suggested Scalia said, did you click on my link above?  

I did - and I understand that "he" didn't say it - he said "Some people say" it. That's small comfort - it wasn't like he said "some people say this and it's despicable." He said "some people say it and... well they say it and here is a reference."

It would be like me saying saying "Some people call him a racist chucklefuck" then having someone say "well that's not what she implied. Yes I did.

Unless there is more to the transcript, I'm still going with gross.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 9, 2015 20:30:34 GMT -5 @246baje said:

Dec 9, 2015 19:09:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

It's not clear to me if you think what is in your block quote was said by Scalia.  But to clarify, it was not. It was written in a brief, most likely not by one of the parties to the case, but an interested third party.


And to everyone who is very angry by what this article suggested Scalia said, did you click on my link above?  

Why is he quoting it? Everything else in the transcript (I haven't gotten to this specific quote) suggests that he's against affirmative action so why is he quoting this if not to support his position?

I don't know. Maybe he really truly believes it. Maybe he's just trying to throw the lawyer off his game. Maybe he just likes to hear himself talk. But you really can't read much into what questions a justice asks during oral argument.

[ESF]

Dec 9, 2015 20:30:34 GMT -5 @246baje said:

Dec 9, 2015 19:09:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

It's not clear to me if you think what is in your block quote was said by Scalia.  But to clarify, it was not. It was written in a brief, most likely not by one of the parties to the case, but an interested third party.


And to everyone who is very angry by what this article suggested Scalia said, did you click on my link above?  

Why is he quoting it? Everything else in the transcript (I haven't gotten to this specific quote) suggests that he's against affirmative action so why is he quoting this if not to support his position?

When I'm in court, judges often take quotes from the other side, and press me about it. Then they take quotes from my briefs, and press the other side about those. That's just how it works. Often they do it not because they agree with what's written but because they want to see if there's other reasons why they shouldn't agree, better reasons than their own. They do it to be thorough, to ensure that all sides get their day in court, and to make clear everything that they considered in issuing their opinion to leave a good record for future lawyers, judges, and justices to use in determining how to use an opinion and what it truly means.  This kind of thing is what good judges and justices should be doing.

I think Scalia is a douchebag. Honestly, it would not surprise *if* he did think these things. But this is not evidence of his thoughts. Not in the slightest.  And using this as a reason to dislike him just hurts the cause in demonstrating how terrible he is.

I guarantee you, you could find examples of every single SCOTUS judge quoting and paraphrasing reprehensible statements in briefs to gather more information about those things to help them make very good decisions.

[epphd]

I will totally take your word on that. I did listen to NPR's legal correspondent on the way home and she (Nina Totenberg I think) read some of the dialogue preceding it. It did not sound at all like a rhetorical device but, again, I'll take your world for it. Not a legal scholar at all.

[cookiemdough]

Okay so can we look at commentary he made in the Michigan case as "evidence" of his thoughts? I get the distinction that you are trying to make here but given his views that he has expressed previously it seems a stretch that he pulled this information without a hint of biased attached to it.

[ESF]

Dec 9, 2015 22:37:59 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Okay so can we look at commentary he made in the Michigan case as "evidence" of his thoughts? I get the distinction that you are trying to make here but given his views that he has expressed previously it seems a stretch that he pulled this information without a hint of biased attached to it.

I hate him more than I can put into words. And I'm sure he'll vote to kill affirmative action and I won't be surprised if his opinion is loaded up with offensive crazy things.

All I'm saying is that the media is running wild with this thing, when it's nothing. There are actual facts and evidence that demonstrate the man is unhinged and a danger to democracy. This isn't one of them. And by pointing to it instead of actual facts, it just gives ammunition to the people who say liberals are out to get him.and it means we are talking about what's in this lunatic's head rather than the real problem, which is the likely outcome of a far right majority court.

[epphd]

Dec 9, 2015 23:27:45 GMT -5 ESF said:

Dec 9, 2015 22:37:59 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Okay so can we look at commentary he made in the Michigan case as "evidence" of his thoughts? I get the distinction that you are trying to make here but given his views that he has expressed previously it seems a stretch that he pulled this information without a hint of biased attached to it.

I hate him more than I can put into words. And I'm sure he'll vote to kill affirmative action and I won't be surprised if his opinion is loaded up with offensive crazy things.

All I'm saying is that the media is running wild with this thing, when it's nothing. There are actual facts and evidence that demonstrate the man is unhinged and a danger to democracy. This isn't one of them. And by pointing to it instead of actual facts, it just gives ammunition to the people who say liberals are out to get him.and it means we are talking about what's in this lunatic's head rather than the real problem, which is the likely outcome of a far right majority court.

I see what you are saying. Again, not in the know about this sort of thing at all - but from a lay person's perspective is it possible that the media running wild with this would shed light on other BSC he's said/espoused?

One thing I wish was in the article about was written about by Nina Totenberg/NPR:

Toward the end of the arguments, Scalia asked whether the university's admission of minority students was really beneficial to those students. "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school ... a slower-track school, where they do well," he said.

Garre shot back that the academic performance of minorities admitted under the affirmative action program at UT was higher than those admitted under the Ten Percent Plan. "Frankly," he added, "the solution to the problems with student body diversity is not to set up a system in which not only are minorities going to separate schools, they're going to inferior schools."

[ESF]

Dec 10, 2015 0:34:09 GMT -5 epphd said:

Dec 9, 2015 23:27:45 GMT -5 ESF said:

I hate him more than I can put into words. And I'm sure he'll vote to kill affirmative action and I won't be surprised if his opinion is loaded up with offensive crazy things.

All I'm saying is that the media is running wild with this thing, when it's nothing. There are actual facts and evidence that demonstrate the man is unhinged and a danger to democracy. This isn't one of them. And by pointing to it instead of actual facts, it just gives ammunition to the people who say liberals are out to get him.and it means we are talking about what's in this lunatic's head rather than the real problem, which is the likely outcome of a far right majority court.

I see what you are saying. Again, not in the know about this sort of thing at all - but from a lay person's perspective is it possible that the media running wild with this would shed light on other BSC he's said/espoused?

/quote]

Not really. Or at least, nothing I've seen so far has. It's all been a bit preaching to the choir, and cheap, poorly written, insta-articles, not anything meaningful.

[epphd]

ESF, is this op-ed trying to get at the same point you are? I've read it three times and I'm not sure I'm following, so maybe I'll to dense to get it or it's poorly crafted

www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-scalia-affirmativeaction-supremecourt-20151209-story.html

No, Scalia's comment about 'less-advanced' schools wasn't racist

Justice Antonin Scalia wasn't saying all blacks should attend inferior colleges. (Alex Wong / Getty Images)
Michael McGoughMichael McGoughContact Reporter

Wednesday’s oral argument in the Supreme Court over affirmative action at the University of Texas had barely concluded before the Internet lit up with “shock horror” reactions to something Justice Antonin Scalia said.

Mother Jones reported Scalia’s comments under this headline: “Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at ‘Slower’ Colleges. Yes, he really said that.”

No, he didn’t, if that headline implies that Scalia believes all black students belong at “slower” colleges.

Let’s look at what Scalia actually said.

He was addressing Gregory Garre, a lawyer for the University of Texas, who was defending the university’s policy of counting race as one factor in a “holistic” review of applicants (which also includes factors such as extracurricular activities, socioeconomic background and “hardships overcome”).

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well,” Scalia told Garre.

This is the “mismatch” theory, which holds that some minority students admitted to highly competitive universities fare worse there academically than they would have at less selective institutions. The argument is propounded in a book titled “Mismatch” by Richard H. Sander, a UCLA law professor, and the journalist Stuart Taylor Jr. (Their view is summarized here.) Sander also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas case.

To put it mildly, the mismatch theory is controversial. In his excellent book “For Discrimination” (a defense of affirmative action), Harvard Law School professor Randall Kennedy approvingly cites academics who say that the theory underestimates the advantages minority applicants receive from attending highly competitive schools even if they earn lower grades than their classmates. (Michael Kinsley made the same point in a characteristically pithy op-ed column.)

What isn’t controversial – even among supporters of racial preferences – is that there would be fewer minority students at top-tier institutions if admissions programs didn’t treat race as what the Supreme Court has called a “plus" factor. In other words, black students often come to such campuses with lower SAT scores and grades than their white classmates.

In an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal timed to coincide with Wednesday’s argument, Gregory Fenves, the president of the University of Texas at Austin, made the point explicitly: “Experience shows what will happen if the Supreme Court rules against us. Student diversity will plummet, especially among African Americans.”

The L.A. Times made the same point in our editorial urging the court to rule for the university: “For the foreseeable future, especially at highly competitive universities, meaningful racial diversity will require some consideration of race in the admissions process.”

Why? Because, for a host of reasons including a legacy of racial discrimination and unequal schools, many (not all) black and Latino applicants don’t have the same academic preparation as other, more privileged applicants to the most selective public and private universities.

Far from being racist, that proposition is an acknowledgment of racial inequality -- and it's central to the argument for racial preferences. Those preferences wouldn’t be necessary if applicants from all racial and ethnic groups possessed exactly the same paper credentials.

It’s silly for advocates of affirmative action to dissemble about this. And it’s equally silly to suggest that Scalia was being racist when he clumsily invoked the mismatch theory.

See, I agree with the bolded - but I don't follow how Scalia wasn't subtly espousing the mismatch theory - or at least bringing it up. I can hardly believe he was teeing up a response from Garre because he actually believes there is a compelling reason FOR AA (e.g. the fact that students admitted under it excel).

ETA (because I'm evidently fired up about this case): Abigail Fisher is a damn piece of work. LOL that UT "flatly denied that less qualified black students were admitted to UT. It has said that Fisher's grades and standardized test scores were sufficiently low that she would not have been admitted under any circumstances." God I'd be mortified to be her.

[ESF]

Dec 10, 2015 0:39:19 GMT -5 epphd said:

ESF, is this op-ed trying to get at the same point you are? I've read it three times and I'm not sure I'm following, so maybe I'll to dense to get it or it's poorly crafted

www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-scalia-affirmativeaction-supremecourt-20151209-story.html

No, Scalia's comment about 'less-advanced' schools wasn't racist

Justice Antonin Scalia wasn't saying all blacks should attend inferior colleges. (Alex Wong / Getty Images)
Michael McGoughMichael McGoughContact Reporter

Wednesday’s oral argument in the Supreme Court over affirmative action at the University of Texas had barely concluded before the Internet lit up with “shock horror” reactions to something Justice Antonin Scalia said.

Mother Jones reported Scalia’s comments under this headline: “Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at ‘Slower’ Colleges. Yes, he really said that.”

No, he didn’t, if that headline implies that Scalia believes all black students belong at “slower” colleges.

Let’s look at what Scalia actually said.

He was addressing Gregory Garre, a lawyer for the University of Texas, who was defending the university’s policy of counting race as one factor in a “holistic” review of applicants (which also includes factors such as extracurricular activities, socioeconomic background and “hardships overcome”).

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well,” Scalia told Garre.

This is the “mismatch” theory, which holds that some minority students admitted to highly competitive universities fare worse there academically than they would have at less selective institutions. The argument is propounded in a book titled “Mismatch” by Richard H. Sander, a UCLA law professor, and the journalist Stuart Taylor Jr. (Their view is summarized here.) Sander also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas case.

To put it mildly, the mismatch theory is controversial. In his excellent book “For Discrimination” (a defense of affirmative action), Harvard Law School professor Randall Kennedy approvingly cites academics who say that the theory underestimates the advantages minority applicants receive from attending highly competitive schools even if they earn lower grades than their classmates. (Michael Kinsley made the same point in a characteristically pithy op-ed column.)

What isn’t controversial – even among supporters of racial preferences – is that there would be fewer minority students at top-tier institutions if admissions programs didn’t treat race as what the Supreme Court has called a “plus" factor. In other words, black students often come to such campuses with lower SAT scores and grades than their white classmates.

In an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal timed to coincide with Wednesday’s argument, Gregory Fenves, the president of the University of Texas at Austin, made the point explicitly: “Experience shows what will happen if the Supreme Court rules against us. Student diversity will plummet, especially among African Americans.”

The L.A. Times made the same point in our editorial urging the court to rule for the university: “For the foreseeable future, especially at highly competitive universities, meaningful racial diversity will require some consideration of race in the admissions process.”

Why? Because, for a host of reasons including a legacy of racial discrimination and unequal schools, many (not all) black and Latino applicants don’t have the same academic preparation as other, more privileged applicants to the most selective public and private universities.

Far from being racist, that proposition is an acknowledgment of racial inequality -- and it's central to the argument for racial preferences. Those preferences wouldn’t be necessary if applicants from all racial and ethnic groups possessed exactly the same paper credentials.

It’s silly for advocates of affirmative action to dissemble about this. And it’s equally silly to suggest that Scalia was being racist when he clumsily invoked the mismatch theory.

See, I agree with the bolded - but I don't follow how Scalia wasn't subtly espousing the mismatch theory - or at least bringing it up. I can hardly believe he was teeing up a response from Garre because he actually believes there is a compelling reason FOR AA (e.g. the fact that students admitted under it excel).

ETA (because I'm evidently fired up about this case): Abigail Fisher is a damn piece of work. LOL that UT "flatly denied that less qualified black students were admitted to UT. It has said that Fisher's grades and standardized test scores were sufficiently low that she would not have been admitted under any circumstances." God I'd be mortified to be her.

No, not exactly. I wasn't trying to predict what was in his head. My point was simply that its clear from the transcript that he's just asking a question about words someone write on paper, not sharing his own views on the subject.

It's certainly possible to read into what he's saying as meaning more than that. To do so, however, you have to bring to the table a lot of knowledge about him, and then make an inference about what might be in his head. That's fine, but call it that. The articles are reporting it not as evidence of what *might* be in his head, And people are the saying "I can't believe he said that." I'm just pointing out that those statements are imprecise because statement simply is not an actual, objective, verifiable fact about his beliefs.

Personally, I do not construe a question about a controversial statement in and of itself evidence that a person believes those thoughts. Nor do I think anyone should. A question like this is routine enough to have come from anyone on the bench. I don't like the theory he was asking about, but judges should be asking questions about the issues before them, as repulsive as they may be. That's what being impartial means.

Scalia is an asshole, but this is just not evidence of that. That's all.

[NitaX]

Dec 9, 2015 20:35:10 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Dec 9, 2015 20:30:34 GMT -5 @246baje said:

Why is he quoting it? Everything else in the transcript (I haven't gotten to this specific quote) suggests that he's against affirmative action so why is he quoting this if not to support his position?

I don't know. Maybe he really truly believes it. Maybe he's just trying to throw the lawyer off his game. Maybe he just likes to hear himself talk. But you really can't read much into what questions a justice asks during oral argument.

I'm going with this because it's Scalia.