Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the legal and policy issues presented by the racial preference cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which were recently argued before the Supreme Court. I’ve contributed my small share,
Yes. I suggest this goes a step further in several directions.
First, as our woke friends are fond of reminding us, we all have unconscious biases. The point of addressing actual unconscious bias is that it is unconscious; your brain does the pattern recognition and inferences regardless of your will. No matter how progressively-minded, or even "woke" you are, this "lower the standard for group X" will tend to produce an unconscious bias. The way to get rid of them is to train your brain to ignore race except where directly relevant -- as was the wisdom for decades -- not to focus on it.
Second, the underlying mathematical principle here is made explicit in the Harvard case. Lowering the standard for race X necessarily means that the mathematical average for that group MUST be lower. Not just as a perception, but a measured outcome There are only two mathematical exceptions to this:
(a) There are a statistically equal number of high performers to offset the lower performers. But, this would mean with the standards set equal that race X would score higher on average than other races.
(b) There are zero people from race X in the gap between the normal standard and the lower standard to pull down the average. If that is the case, then the lowering of the standard serves adds the negative perception (including unconscious bias) for no useful outcome purpose.
In the Harvard case (and similar ones), this is more explicit. Suppose the uniform standard to get into Harvard is an SAT of 1200. The problem from the woke perspective has been that this has resulted in too few black and Hispanic, and "too many" of Asian and Jewish background -- based on raw population. Indeed, it would be more fortunate if there were statistical representation by general population as an indicator of quality and fairness of primary and secondary education (and quell any statistical issues around genetic claims).
But, if we raise the required SAT for Asian students to get in, say to 1300, and lower it for black students to get in, say 1100, we create a worse problem. Now we've removed all of the lower scoring Asians from class (C, D, F) which artificially raises the academic average of Asians. Conversely, we've replaced them with black students who will tend to score worse in class grades than the Asians they replaced because of the lower SAT (1100-1200 vs 1200-1300), which would artificially lower the average scores for black students.
Of course we could continue the game of "whack-a-mole" by hiding the resulting problem. We could hide student scores. Or, we could force professors to grade based on race to get them statistically equal. But that doesn't solve the problem. The professors would know, the university would know, and other students would be able to see the difference via class participation, study groups, which students are struggling, and so forth. And future employers would notice.
What they've done is trade off the number of students of different races for artificially creating or exaggerating statistical differences in apparent intelligence and performance between races. They've made the stereotyping worse, and provide measurable but illegitimate "proof" of differences in intelligence between races by removing low-scorers of one race and adding even lower-scorers of another.
If you want to help black and Hispanic students, you can't do it by cheating the merit system. The better way to address inequities of education is to provide better education at lower grades, or adding specialized tutoring and educational services to help raise the merit of people you want to help. Whether offering such services by race instead of individual needs is another point of debate I won't bring up here, other than to point to this: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/dire-warnings-part-4-engineering
In response to comments about affirmative action - White men who did not meet Harvard's standards have gotten into Harvard for decades. I would bet that the white men who objected to affirmative action are the same white men that never objected to Harvard letting in legacy students, athletics not meeting the standards, and just rich kids whose daddy paid big bucks to get their kids in. The first time some white men objected to Harvard's admission standards was when Black kids got in. So yes, it is directly related to affirmative action.
In response to comments about stop emphasizing Harvard, although I agree our culture has an unhealthy fixation on elite educational institutions, there are some very successful Black men, Geoffrey Canada and Richard Buery to name two, who attended elite institutions and used those connections (networks) to raise millions for their nonprofits that help thousands of young people. I agree we should focus far more on vocational education, but given the current domination of the capitalist system, I would like to see more students of color in elite institutions.
Thank you, Dennis, for your essay. I found it an insightful read.
For those who may not have seen this, IQ Squared posted a recent debate on this topic, though focused on the harm/benefit specifically to Asian Americans. I think FAIR-minded people may also find it a valuable listen.
I find it interesting that singers, athletes and others can compete on a level field and excel in particular areas. Maybe it is based on desire and the need to put in the work to be the best you can be.
Harvard and Yale and the others will always have their rules for the rich. Rich is pretty much color blind. Why else would people of color (no not just Blacks, but others as well) when they become affluent quickly move into the gated white neighborhoods? See the rich like other rich people and have a distaste for the poor regardless of color. So, if you have money and connections, your admission is likely guaranteed no matter what. Think a famous athlete can't get their kid into any school they want? Please!
As for just the exclusive white entrance, I find that just an easy way to say racism is still rampant and avoid hard discussions. How about athletics? You think a white football player gets a scholarship easier, you are wrong. See the shoe is on the other foot for sports. You must be better to get that scholarship or even scouted for a scholarship.
So, let's get back to the real issue. Rampantly poor inner-city schools that the corrupt politicians like to keep as it helps keep their voting bloc. Teachers' unions oppose school vouchers to allow kids to escape because they like their benefits and pay and don't really want standards and competition. You start correcting all of this and you can avoid the unfair admissions standards that bars people with capabilities and who have worked hard admission simply because they are white or Asian. One discrimination policy normally leads to another.
How about Pel Grants or school loans. You are better off being broke than having worked to get ahead. The government loan process says you take the loans as your child doesn't qualify. So, you bust your ass to get ahead, and the government says, take loans as you need to foot the bill.
How about working towards equality in schools below college. Ah, but that means making the corrupt city governments accountable and we know that is also discrimination. See performance isn't a standard, what we want is a standard based on what we think or feel. Otherwise, the social justice liberals would just walk in circles and scream at the sky.
There will be no winners in the decision that comes. Only those who will win are those who make money off hatred and stirring the racial pot to profit themselves.
The reason I am on the FAIR list is so I can read crap like this. There is nothing fair about Harvard's admission policy. It is common knowledge that legacy students get into Harvard regardless of grades. Athletics get into Harvard regardless of grades. So does anyone else whose daddy buys their way in. Until you eliminate all the ways rich white people get their kids into Harvard, don't tell me you have a problem with affirmative action.
So just to be clear, you are advocating the punishing of Asian and poor white students in order to privilege students of colour, on the basis that rich and athletic kids get unfair acceptances !
You are punishing the wrong people - they have nothing to do with it and don't IN ANY WAY benefit from it. Muddled, uncritical thinking.
Why don't we try something novel like opening avenues for advancement that don't require a supposed elite education? Then it won't make a damned bit of difference if you got into Harvard or not. I don't see Harvard producing the many HVAC professionals, electricians, plumbers, or others we need to thrive and succeed in this country. Why not try something like not turning a bachelor's degree into a paid high school diploma, which is pretty much what it is now. So long as college is considered the only route to respectability and/or success, we'll be saddled with this problem and the various elite enclaves who dwell within it. And racial preferences for admission only help perpetuate the problem.
Agree completely. Higher ed isn't going to produce HVAC technicians, electricians, or the others needed to keep buildings running (or build them, for that matter). The bachelor's degree is nothing more than an overpriced high school diploma these days.
Bogus. If a white doctor is seen as a reputable professional, no one wonders about his class rank. The degree is seen as adequate. Both viewing the black doctor as better qualified because he was not expected to get a seat, and the reverse you describe are fundamentally racist. We need to rely on statistics and assume that any student graduating has mastered the material. The statistics prove black disadvantage in multiple ways, which should be addressed by ensuring greater opportunity accordingly. It's not an even playing field, because of the history of racism, and that's the issue.
Although it has nothing to do with the substance of Dennis Saffran's very good piece, I can't resist also relating my first encounter with the concept of race. It's perhaps interesting that I remember it so clearly.
I. too, must have been about five. One day, our housekeeper was excitedly telling my parents about some depredation that had occurred in the neighborhood, noting, rather ominously, that it had been committed by a "colored man."
Her tone told me that one had best be wary of these "colored men." But how to stay on one's guard when one had no idea what a "colored man" was?
Being a child, my imagination was quick to provide an answer to this dilemma. I pictured a large figure, threatening and unshaven. He was as white as all the people in my immediate environment. But he was wearing a hideously loud sports shirt. And he was scary.
Yes. I suggest this goes a step further in several directions.
First, as our woke friends are fond of reminding us, we all have unconscious biases. The point of addressing actual unconscious bias is that it is unconscious; your brain does the pattern recognition and inferences regardless of your will. No matter how progressively-minded, or even "woke" you are, this "lower the standard for group X" will tend to produce an unconscious bias. The way to get rid of them is to train your brain to ignore race except where directly relevant -- as was the wisdom for decades -- not to focus on it.
Second, the underlying mathematical principle here is made explicit in the Harvard case. Lowering the standard for race X necessarily means that the mathematical average for that group MUST be lower. Not just as a perception, but a measured outcome There are only two mathematical exceptions to this:
(a) There are a statistically equal number of high performers to offset the lower performers. But, this would mean with the standards set equal that race X would score higher on average than other races.
(b) There are zero people from race X in the gap between the normal standard and the lower standard to pull down the average. If that is the case, then the lowering of the standard serves adds the negative perception (including unconscious bias) for no useful outcome purpose.
In the Harvard case (and similar ones), this is more explicit. Suppose the uniform standard to get into Harvard is an SAT of 1200. The problem from the woke perspective has been that this has resulted in too few black and Hispanic, and "too many" of Asian and Jewish background -- based on raw population. Indeed, it would be more fortunate if there were statistical representation by general population as an indicator of quality and fairness of primary and secondary education (and quell any statistical issues around genetic claims).
But, if we raise the required SAT for Asian students to get in, say to 1300, and lower it for black students to get in, say 1100, we create a worse problem. Now we've removed all of the lower scoring Asians from class (C, D, F) which artificially raises the academic average of Asians. Conversely, we've replaced them with black students who will tend to score worse in class grades than the Asians they replaced because of the lower SAT (1100-1200 vs 1200-1300), which would artificially lower the average scores for black students.
Of course we could continue the game of "whack-a-mole" by hiding the resulting problem. We could hide student scores. Or, we could force professors to grade based on race to get them statistically equal. But that doesn't solve the problem. The professors would know, the university would know, and other students would be able to see the difference via class participation, study groups, which students are struggling, and so forth. And future employers would notice.
What they've done is trade off the number of students of different races for artificially creating or exaggerating statistical differences in apparent intelligence and performance between races. They've made the stereotyping worse, and provide measurable but illegitimate "proof" of differences in intelligence between races by removing low-scorers of one race and adding even lower-scorers of another.
If you want to help black and Hispanic students, you can't do it by cheating the merit system. The better way to address inequities of education is to provide better education at lower grades, or adding specialized tutoring and educational services to help raise the merit of people you want to help. Whether offering such services by race instead of individual needs is another point of debate I won't bring up here, other than to point to this: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/dire-warnings-part-4-engineering
In response to comments about affirmative action - White men who did not meet Harvard's standards have gotten into Harvard for decades. I would bet that the white men who objected to affirmative action are the same white men that never objected to Harvard letting in legacy students, athletics not meeting the standards, and just rich kids whose daddy paid big bucks to get their kids in. The first time some white men objected to Harvard's admission standards was when Black kids got in. So yes, it is directly related to affirmative action.
In response to comments about stop emphasizing Harvard, although I agree our culture has an unhealthy fixation on elite educational institutions, there are some very successful Black men, Geoffrey Canada and Richard Buery to name two, who attended elite institutions and used those connections (networks) to raise millions for their nonprofits that help thousands of young people. I agree we should focus far more on vocational education, but given the current domination of the capitalist system, I would like to see more students of color in elite institutions.
🔥🔥🔥🙌🙌
Thank you, Dennis, for your essay. I found it an insightful read.
For those who may not have seen this, IQ Squared posted a recent debate on this topic, though focused on the harm/benefit specifically to Asian Americans. I think FAIR-minded people may also find it a valuable listen.
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debate/is-affirmative-action-unfair-to-asian-americans/?mc_cid=fd70699ece&mc_eid=7d1688b58f#/
🔥👍
I find it interesting that singers, athletes and others can compete on a level field and excel in particular areas. Maybe it is based on desire and the need to put in the work to be the best you can be.
Harvard and Yale and the others will always have their rules for the rich. Rich is pretty much color blind. Why else would people of color (no not just Blacks, but others as well) when they become affluent quickly move into the gated white neighborhoods? See the rich like other rich people and have a distaste for the poor regardless of color. So, if you have money and connections, your admission is likely guaranteed no matter what. Think a famous athlete can't get their kid into any school they want? Please!
As for just the exclusive white entrance, I find that just an easy way to say racism is still rampant and avoid hard discussions. How about athletics? You think a white football player gets a scholarship easier, you are wrong. See the shoe is on the other foot for sports. You must be better to get that scholarship or even scouted for a scholarship.
So, let's get back to the real issue. Rampantly poor inner-city schools that the corrupt politicians like to keep as it helps keep their voting bloc. Teachers' unions oppose school vouchers to allow kids to escape because they like their benefits and pay and don't really want standards and competition. You start correcting all of this and you can avoid the unfair admissions standards that bars people with capabilities and who have worked hard admission simply because they are white or Asian. One discrimination policy normally leads to another.
How about Pel Grants or school loans. You are better off being broke than having worked to get ahead. The government loan process says you take the loans as your child doesn't qualify. So, you bust your ass to get ahead, and the government says, take loans as you need to foot the bill.
How about working towards equality in schools below college. Ah, but that means making the corrupt city governments accountable and we know that is also discrimination. See performance isn't a standard, what we want is a standard based on what we think or feel. Otherwise, the social justice liberals would just walk in circles and scream at the sky.
There will be no winners in the decision that comes. Only those who will win are those who make money off hatred and stirring the racial pot to profit themselves.
Exactly: Rich is colorblind.
The reason I am on the FAIR list is so I can read crap like this. There is nothing fair about Harvard's admission policy. It is common knowledge that legacy students get into Harvard regardless of grades. Athletics get into Harvard regardless of grades. So does anyone else whose daddy buys their way in. Until you eliminate all the ways rich white people get their kids into Harvard, don't tell me you have a problem with affirmative action.
Professor Lynne Weikart
So just to be clear, you are advocating the punishing of Asian and poor white students in order to privilege students of colour, on the basis that rich and athletic kids get unfair acceptances !
You are punishing the wrong people - they have nothing to do with it and don't IN ANY WAY benefit from it. Muddled, uncritical thinking.
You are talking about completely different issues.
We are dealing here with the issue of race based preferences.
There are great debates to be had on the other issues you referenced, but I don't feel it contributes directly to this issue.
Why don't we try something novel like opening avenues for advancement that don't require a supposed elite education? Then it won't make a damned bit of difference if you got into Harvard or not. I don't see Harvard producing the many HVAC professionals, electricians, plumbers, or others we need to thrive and succeed in this country. Why not try something like not turning a bachelor's degree into a paid high school diploma, which is pretty much what it is now. So long as college is considered the only route to respectability and/or success, we'll be saddled with this problem and the various elite enclaves who dwell within it. And racial preferences for admission only help perpetuate the problem.
Eliminate legacy admissions and aff action. A twofer in the quest for meritocracy . Or is that now a verboten notion?
Rich black kids get into Harvard and other schools as well.
Agree completely. Higher ed isn't going to produce HVAC technicians, electricians, or the others needed to keep buildings running (or build them, for that matter). The bachelor's degree is nothing more than an overpriced high school diploma these days.
Bogus. If a white doctor is seen as a reputable professional, no one wonders about his class rank. The degree is seen as adequate. Both viewing the black doctor as better qualified because he was not expected to get a seat, and the reverse you describe are fundamentally racist. We need to rely on statistics and assume that any student graduating has mastered the material. The statistics prove black disadvantage in multiple ways, which should be addressed by ensuring greater opportunity accordingly. It's not an even playing field, because of the history of racism, and that's the issue.
Although it has nothing to do with the substance of Dennis Saffran's very good piece, I can't resist also relating my first encounter with the concept of race. It's perhaps interesting that I remember it so clearly.
I. too, must have been about five. One day, our housekeeper was excitedly telling my parents about some depredation that had occurred in the neighborhood, noting, rather ominously, that it had been committed by a "colored man."
Her tone told me that one had best be wary of these "colored men." But how to stay on one's guard when one had no idea what a "colored man" was?
Being a child, my imagination was quick to provide an answer to this dilemma. I pictured a large figure, threatening and unshaven. He was as white as all the people in my immediate environment. But he was wearing a hideously loud sports shirt. And he was scary.
Yep. Absolutely. 🔥🙌
Yes. Beautifully said 🔥🔥🔥🔥