Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Tick
Looks like Trump is no anomaly. Racism is as American as apple pie. Even the highest court in the land is not immune to racist rhetoric. We seem to be teetering on the edge of something wicked. To quote William Faulkner "the past is never dead. it's not even past." It's scary really. My fervent hope is that people's eyes will open and this will be the beginning of truth and healing. But then that's always my fervent hope and it hasn't come to fruition yet. But since I'm quoting how about a little Dickinson “Hope” is the thing with feathers - That perches in the soul - And sings the tune without the words - And never stops - at all -
|
I saw this today and did some digging. When one looks at it out of context, it sounds like something it may not be.
Scalia was speaking to the academic theory of "mismatch" which both sides filed briefs on. While the briefs were not the central argument of the cases, they are relevant.
Questioning legal arguments and briefs is part of the process of making your case.
“I don’t think,” Mr. Scalia said, “it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.” He was addressing Gregory G. Garre, the lawyer defending the University of Texas at Austin’s affirmative action policy, which supplements the automatic admission of top-ranking students from all high schools across the state with the use of race as one factor in a “holistic” approach to admissions.
In asking such a pointed question, Mr. Scalia was stepping into a long debate over what has been called the mismatch theory of college admissions.
The proponents of the “mismatch effect” say that large allowances based on a student’s race are harmful to those who receive them, that they learn less than they would if they attended a college more closely matched to their level of academic preparation, receive lower grades, become academically discouraged and socially segregated. Critics say that the “mismatch” research is based on flawed assumptions that cannot be validated by other researchers, and that the evidence is more likely to show that all students, regardless of race, benefit from enrolling at the most challenging college that will accept them.
Stuart Taylor Jr., a Princeton graduate, lawyer and writer who co-wrote the 2012 book “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It,” said Mr. Scalia’s lack of eloquence had made what he said sound worse than it was.
In the current case, Mr. Taylor is counsel on an amicus brief propounding the mismatch theory, on behalf of his co-author on that book, Richard Sander, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, law school. “Students who are admitted with far lower grades and test scores and other indicia of academic capability are almost certain to do badly academically, and we think, and this is more debatable, that they’re also likely to do worse in their careers and other departments of life than they would if they were getting good grades at some less prestigious school,” Mr. Taylor said.
He said the idea was not to reduce the number of black students going to college, but to admit them to schools where they would be more likely to succeed. “Martin Luther King didn’t go to a fancy college,” he said. “Thurgood Marshall didn’t go to a fancy college. Colin Powell didn’t go to a fancy college.”
Oren Sellstrom, one of the lawyers on a brief attacking the mismatch theory, said that “there is a vast body of social science evidence that shows exactly the opposite of what the mismatch theory purports to show, that actually minority students who benefit from affirmative action get higher grades at the institutions they attend, leave school at lower rates than others, and are generally more satisfied in higher education, and that attendance at a selective institution is associated with higher earnings and higher college completion rates.”
Mr. Sellstrom called the mismatch theory “paternalistic,” and said that the concern Mr. Scalia’s remarks raised for him was that, “At root he does not believe that students of color belong at elite institutions. I hope that’s not the case, but the tenor of the remarks certainly suggests that that is underlying his thinking.”
The article.