Justice Scalia Thinks Black Students Belong In 'Slower-Track' Schools

[THE_DEVIL]

WASHINGTON -- Do black students matter to Justice Antonin Scalia?

During oral arguments on Wednesday in Fisher v. University of Texas, a contentious affirmative action case, the conservative justice seemed to call their abilities into question.

"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," Scalia said, "as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well."

Scalia was engaging former U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre, who is now representing the University of Texas at Austin as the school defends its ongoing consideration of race as one of many factors in its admissions program.

Pointing to a brief the court received before oral arguments, Scalia noted "most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas."

Garre tried to interject, but the justice continued. "They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that ... they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them," Scalia said.

Again, Garre tried to respond as Scalia added that he was "just not impressed" by arguments that UT Austin suffers from lower minority enrollment. "I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible," the justice said.

By then, Garre's time at the podium was almost up, but he closed his rebuttal to the justice by emphasizing the importance of diversity on campus.

"Frankly, I don't think the solution to the problems with student body diversity can be to set up a system in which not only are minorities going to separate schools, they're going to inferior schools," Garre said. "I think what experience shows -- at Texas, California and Michigan -- is that now is not the time and this is not the case to roll back student body diversity in America."

A decision in Fisher v. University of Texas is expected by the end of June.

 

[Kenneth Griffin]

GOP BAU

 

[Titanhawk2]

So when you ask that African-Americans get affirmative action to succeed (not just get in, but succeed), why would the retort not be, "What's the alternative for African-Americans"? I can't believe the proponent here was advocating for slow kids or another minority, or was Scalia way off in assuming they were advocating only for African-Americans?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I find it ironic that dems will condemn this (and rightly so), yet be in favor of affirmative action.

 

[The Tradition]

I find it ironic that dems will condemn this (and rightly so), yet be in favor of affirmative action.

This.

 

[hawkland14]

This.

Don't worry about the Devil responding to this question because he never will.

 

[lucas80]

People usually let what they believe slip out once or twice. I wonder what Justice Quota thought of his best buddy Scalia's comments?

 

[22*43*51]

I thought all public schools were "slowing down" to meet the lowest common denominator anyway.

 

[UNIowaHawk]

I am not interpreting it has his belief-- the first words of the quote are "There are those who contend..."

Either way, I don't think racism should be used in any way to determine eligibility at schools even if intent is good.

 

[naturalmwa]

I am not interpreting it has his belief-- the first words of the quote are "There are those who contend..."

Either way, I don't think racism should be used in any way to determine eligibility at schools even if intent is good.

Why? What if you want to make sure your school represents the people of the world and think it important for your students to spend 4 years interacting in a diverse setting? Grades have never been the only admission factor. In fact by using legacy as an admission standard, whites have been getting affirmative action for years.

I would probably agree public schools like Texas in this case shouldn't have the freedom to socially engineer their student body. But that also argues for taking out all the extra admission criteria and simply admitting anyone who meets the grade and test scores.

 

[dgordo]

The best part of this case is that the plaintiff still can't prove she was discriminated against.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I find it ironic that dems will condemn this (and rightly so), yet be in favor of affirmative action.

I'm missing it, help me out.

I presume "this" is Scalia's (alleged) comments that blacks should often go to "slower track" schools in order to succeed.

If that is the "this", why would that alter someone's belief in affirmative action?

 

[UNIowaHawk]

Why? What if you want to make sure your school represents the people of the world and think it important for your students to spend 4 years interacting in a diverse setting? Grades have never been the only admission factor. In fact by using legacy as an admission standard, whites have been getting affirmative action for years.

I would probably agree public schools like Texas in this case shouldn't have the freedom to socially engineer their student body. But that also argues for taking out all the extra admission criteria and simply admitting anyone who meets the grade and test scores.

Grades and test scores shouldn't be the only criteria, and they aren't. Student involvement and extracurricular activities should and do get taken into consideration. Being born black or white never should for anything.

 

[theIowaHawk]

The best part of this case is that the plaintiff still can't prove she was discriminated against.

I'm curious about this as well, but maybe for different reasons.

If you are not "guaranteed in" and are "competing" with everyone, how do you determine which criteria left you out? I presume the simplest answer is that you can determine who got in, in this case black(s).

The question then, as it has been since AA started, is whether using race as one "consideration" is acceptable under equal protection. UT's stance is that greater diversity is very important and necessary. The question is basically whether diversity is, in fact, important or necessary. If not it pretty clearly fails equal protection.

 

[UNIowaHawk]

The best part of this case is that the plaintiff still can't prove she was discriminated against.

Not sure on Texas, but some schools allow people in based on a mathematical algorithm where you get so many points for different things. If she knows she got 17 and didn't get in and a black person got in with 18, but we know they got 2 points just for being black then she knows.

 

[naturalmwa]

Grades and test scores shouldn't be the only criteria, and they aren't. Student involvement and extracurricular activities should and do get taken into consideration. Being born black or white never should for anything.

I know the reality, I'm suggesting that public schools should not be allowed to social engineer for any reason. Simply take anyone who passes the entrance exams. Run them like a utility, admission standards done by computer. Private schools should be able to social engineer with race or extra curricular or other.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Grades and test scores shouldn't be the only criteria, and they aren't. Student involvement and extracurricular activities should and do get taken into consideration. Being born black or white never should for anything.

Shall I presume this is a stance of "race doesn't tell the story, life circumstances do"?

If you follow this, which is obviously true on a micro level, how do you do your admissions? Are you having staff review all 32,000+ applications every year and delve into background and socioeconomic status, neighborhood statistics, difficult upbringings? Is that cost effective across the board? Is that what would be "narrowly tailored"?

If, statistically, or anthropologically one race is more likely for something, such as what "diversity" probably entails, shouldn't it be considered a good indicator?

Usually the loudest argument is that "diversity" either isn't real or is entirely unimportant. Academics routinely disagree with this, as do I.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Not sure on Texas, but some schools allow people in based on a mathematical algorithm where you get so many points for different things. If she knows she got 17 and didn't get in and a black person got in with 18, but we know they got 2 points just for being black then she knows.

You are a bit behind on your affirmative action laws.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I know the reality, I'm suggesting that public schools should not be allowed to social engineer for any reason. Simply take anyone who passes the entrance exams. Run them like a utility, admission standards done by computer. Private schools should be able to social engineer with race or extra curricular or other.

Why do you think public schools, or government in general, shouldn't be able to social-engineer? Isn't that part of government, to get people to do "good" and avoid doing "bad"? Our entire criminal justice system is social engineering, hell much of our schools are too. DARE? Character Counts?

Is it bad to socially engineer? The entire principle of AA is to do so, to "rise up" the minority groups through enhanced participation. It worked spectacular with women and Title IX. You can always argue it is no longer necessary, but looking back I think people (now) would be hard-pressed to say it wasn't necessary, or that it didn't work for the betterment of society.

One could think of the question this way: A person is being educated regardless. A person is being left out of that specific education. Which one is "better" for society in general? Another white, middle class male? Or a black, lower class, female (or gay, or Indian, or whatever?)

I don't know the answer to that, but certainly I can understand the theory that it can be better to improve the status of the latter in order to improve the future generations of the same/similar group.

I see little wrong with social engineering ... unless my "side" isn't in control of the engineering. We are all in the same boat on the second part.

 

[dgordo]

Not sure on Texas, but some schools allow people in based on a mathematical algorithm where you get so many points for different things. If she knows she got 17 and didn't get in and a black person got in with 18, but we know they got 2 points just for being black then she knows.

"Throughout her now seven-year campaign to make the school pay for not letting her in, Fisher has never been able to produce any evidence that the school tossed her application to make room for a less qualified minority applicant. That’s because, as UT Austin has maintained throughout this ordeal, Fisher was never getting in to their school. Fisher’s GPA and SAT scores weren’t high enough, and she didn’t have enough external accomplishments to convince the school to give her a shot otherwise. As Pro Publica explained at the time:

It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.

Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university that year."

 

[naturalmwa]

Why do you think public schools, or government in general, shouldn't be able to social-engineer? Isn't that part of government, to get people to do "good" and avoid doing "bad"? Our entire criminal justice system is social engineering, hell much of our schools are too. DARE? Character Counts?

Is it bad to socially engineer? The entire principle of AA is to do so, to "rise up" the minority groups through enhanced participation. It worked spectacular with women and Title IX. You can always argue it is no longer necessary, but looking back I think people (now) would be hard-pressed to say it wasn't necessary, or that it didn't work for the betterment of society.

One could think of the question this way: A person is being educated regardless. A person is being left out of that specific education. Which one is "better" for society in general? Another white, middle class male? Or a black, lower class, female (or gay, or Indian, or whatever?)

I don't know the answer to that, but certainly I can understand the theory that it can be better to improve the status of the latter in order to improve the future generations of the same/similar group.

I see little wrong with social engineering ... unless my "side" isn't in control of the engineering. We are all in the same boat on the second part.

For me it all comes down to the public nature of the institution. I prefer my public institutions treat me like a number. If I want their service, I get it. If I have the qualifying test score and pay the fee, I should get serviced. I think that's the mission of public education. Frankly I'd like to see the qualifying test scores and grade requirement be dropped too. Take anyone who shows up and see if they can pass the class.

 

[UNIowaHawk]

You are a bit behind on your affirmative action laws.

Do explain? You don't think the point system exists and certain races/ethnicities get points just because of their race/ethnicity?

 

[naturalmwa]

Do explain? You don't think the point system exists and certain races/ethnicities get points just because of their race/ethnicity?

Didn't Michigan have a system like that that went up to SCOTUS? What happened there?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

"Throughout her now seven-year campaign to make the school pay for not letting her in, Fisher has never been able to produce any evidence that the school tossed her application to make room for a less qualified minority applicant. That’s because, as UT Austin has maintained throughout this ordeal, Fisher was never getting in to their school. Fisher’s GPA and SAT scores weren’t high enough, and she didn’t have enough external accomplishments to convince the school to give her a shot otherwise. As Pro Publica explained at the time:

It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.

Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university that year."

Who is bankrolling this stupidity? Follow the money.

 

[The Tradition]

I'm missing it, help me out.

I presume "this" is Scalia's (alleged) comments that blacks should often go to "slower track" schools in order to succeed.

If that is the "this", why would that alter someone's belief in affirmative action?

Putting someone in a school who doesn't belong there is the wrong thing to do, whether it's because the school will be too challenging, or not challenging enough.

 

[dgordo]

Who is bankrolling this stupidity? Follow the money.

Of course, its a conservative think tank, specially a "scholar" there name Edward Blum.

As someone else put it better than I could, he thought he had his Oliver Brown but he really has an unqualified applicant.

 

[dgordo]

Putting someone in a school who doesn't belong there is the wrong thing to do, whether it's because the school will be too challenging, or not challenging enough.

Agreed, fortunately texas realized the plaintiff was unqualified and rejected her.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Putting someone in a school who doesn't belong there is the wrong thing to do, whether it's because the school will be too challenging, or not challenging enough.

Wait, this is the "irony"? How is that even close to irony? Your saying that blacks shouldn't get a "consideration" on race because they "don't belong there". That is ridiculous.

I've never looked in to UTA's criteria, but I'm sure race doesn't boost a 1.5 GPA to admission. It is boosting otherwise eligible and competing students .... unless you have something that shows otherwise?

 

[theIowaHawk]

If I want their service, I get it. If I have the qualifying test score and pay the fee, I should get serviced. I think that's the mission of public education.

I see this as very different from not wanting social engineering, you are simply advocating opening up the process to a lot more people, including those of minority status. I think this would be good of a public university to do in a situation where the school is free, or relatively free. Allowing everyone to show up and pay $10k to "see if they can pass" is not a good idea.

 

[theIowaHawk]

"Throughout her now seven-year campaign to make the school pay for not letting her in, Fisher has never been able to produce any evidence that the school tossed her application to make room for a less qualified minority applicant. That’s because, as UT Austin has maintained throughout this ordeal, Fisher was never getting in to their school. Fisher’s GPA and SAT scores weren’t high enough, and she didn’t have enough external accomplishments to convince the school to give her a shot otherwise. As Pro Publica explained at the time:

It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.

Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university that year."

I get this from the obvious standpoint: A person suing should have a claim.

But, in general, nobody cares about Fisher and never has, this is solely about AA, and shouldn't people be able to challenge AA?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Wait, this is the "irony"? How is that even close to irony? Your saying that blacks shouldn't get a "consideration" on race because they "don't belong there". That is ridiculous.

I've never looked in to UTA's criteria, but I'm sure race doesn't boost a 1.5 GPA to admission. It is boosting otherwise eligible and competing students .... unless you have something that shows otherwise?

The irony is that by supporting affirmative action laws, you're basically saying that certain minorities aren't capable of making it on their own merit, so they need help from the government. It's no different than what Scalia said.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Do explain? You don't think the point system exists and certain races/ethnicities get points just because of their race/ethnicity?

Gratz found a system like yours to be essentially a quota system, and therefore unconstitutional, although that case was about a 20-point boost. Maybe I've held the wrong belief about the current state of AA and awards of, say, 2 points are ok. I'm not in admissions so I don't know.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

WASHINGTON -- Do black students matter to Justice Antonin Scalia?

During oral arguments on Wednesday in Fisher v. University of Texas, a contentious affirmative action case, the conservative justice seemed to call their abilities into question.

"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," Scalia said, "as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well."

Scalia was engaging former U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre, who is now representing the University of Texas at Austin as the school defends its ongoing consideration of race as one of many factors in its admissions program.

Pointing to a brief the court received before oral arguments, Scalia noted "most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas."

Garre tried to interject, but the justice continued. "They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that ... they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them," Scalia said.

Again, Garre tried to respond as Scalia added that he was "just not impressed" by arguments that UT Austin suffers from lower minority enrollment. "I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible," the justice said.

By then, Garre's time at the podium was almost up, but he closed his rebuttal to the justice by emphasizing the importance of diversity on campus.

"Frankly, I don't think the solution to the problems with student body diversity can be to set up a system in which not only are minorities going to separate schools, they're going to inferior schools," Garre said. "I think what experience shows -- at Texas, California and Michigan -- is that now is not the time and this is not the case to roll back student body diversity in America."

A decision in Fisher v. University of Texas is expected by the end of June.

Actually, both side are in agreement here, and Scalia is right. Both side agree that these kids are coming from disadvantaged backgrounds and that they are really struggling when they attend colleges that are really above their skillset. Because of diversity objectives, these kids are getting into programs where they really don't belong. Statistics seem to support this, that kids who are promoted for some criteria like race, sex, or finances, rather than for judging their skillsets, these kids are being set up to fail at higher rates. What the conservative side of the argument is saying is that these kids need to be sent to schools where they can be successful, while the liberal argument is that we need to have diversity and just throw these kids into the deep end and see if they survive. The goal is to set these kids up for success, and this is not the goal of diversity.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Oh boy, Clarence is probably making him sleep on the couch tonight. No chocolate love for the Scalia this week.

 

[theIowaHawk]

The irony is that by supporting affirmative action laws, you're basically saying that certain minorities aren't capable of making it on their own merit, so they need help from the government. It's no different than what Scalia said.

First, that is not AT ALL what Scalia said, and second, it is a recognition that they "can't make it on their own merit", which is why the boost may be necessary. If they "could" make it on their own merit the numbers would more closely reflect the population, which it doesn't in the slightest.

That isn't irony in any form, it is an acknowledgment and understanding of a broken system, one that society continuously furthers largely via inherent segregation.

It is your presumption at the beginning that is misguided. It isn't that Black person A is a 2.5 student and now in UTA is struggling and failing after AA got him in. It is that Black person B has been held back by institutional barriers, such as the majority-black school that he attended that had little funding and little college-prep.

The idea, the theory, is that there are minorities who are just as intelligent as their majority counterparts but are not able to display such due to institutional drawbacks. The opposite side usually argues that, if they are in fact so intelligent, they will simply get amazing grades and test scores and get in anyways...therefore those who don't do it on their "own merit" aren't qualified anyways.

This ignores one glaring conclusion that many studies have shown: Good aptitude test scores are often the result of proper teaching towards the aptitude test ... not the person's intelligence nor inherent aptitude. Therefore those in a school like, say, West Des Moines Valley, who have much more funding available (not to mention outside sources available due to class/income/whatever based on living in that district) are going to score higher than, say, Des Moines North, with less of all of that.

So if theory 1 above is true, is it better to give the boost or simply repeat the cycle through more generations?

And yes, I just realized I cited two Des Moines schools to a Florida guy with no idea.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Actually, both side are in agreement here, and Scalia is right. Both side agree that these kids are coming from disadvantaged backgrounds and that they are really struggling when they attend colleges that are really above their skillset. Because of diversity objectives, these kids are getting into programs where they really don't belong. Statistics seem to support this, that kids who are promoted for some criteria like race, sex, or finances, rather than for judging their skillsets, these kids are being set up to fail at higher rates. What the conservative side of the argument is saying is that these kids need to be sent to schools where they can be successful, while the liberal argument is that we need to have diversity and just throw these kids into the deep end and see if they survive. The goal is to set these kids up for success, and this is not the goal of diversity.

Yeah, no, both sides are not in agreement on that. Nice bullshit characterization of UTA's case. Feel free to cite those statistics that have been agreed upon that support it.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

If you can't break the problem down to it's most basic level, then you're never going to understand what I was saying. So...carry on.

 

[naturalmwa]

I see this as very different from not wanting social engineering, you are simply advocating opening up the process to a lot more people, including those of minority status. I think this would be good of a public university to do in a situation where the school is free, or relatively free. Allowing everyone to show up and pay $10k to "see if they can pass" is not a good idea.

We disagree. I think opening it to all is an excellent idea. Let people bet on themselves.

 

[theIowaHawk]

We disagree. I think opening it to all is an excellent idea. Let people bet on themselves.

People with little/no money to begin with, getting loans at high rates (6.8%?) from the government, who then requires them to pay it back.

Sounds like you are a big University of Phoenix fan - let them all in as long as they qualify for loans.

I'm on board with your plan, contingent on there being funding in some from to solve the above.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If you can't break the problem down to it's most basic level, then you're never going to understand what I was saying. So...carry on.

I did, quite succinctly. You claim it is irony ... necessitating the belief that AA proponents DO think they can get in on their own merit. It can't be irony when that is the foundation of AA.

Your problem is believing that the "merit" thing is somehow fair across the board, and not specifically unfair for certain minority groups.

I presume your "most basic level" is just that it is unfair to consider anything but merit. That is simplistic and short-sighted, for many of the reasons I already posted.