We are all equal again, right?

[Dill]

(07-10-2023, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: ... were qualified black candidates getting into Yale law just fine BEFORE “condescending leftists” with “low opinions” of minorities created AA policies?

I don't know, where they?  I'm wouldn't be surprised if you already have the numbers are are waiting for a good "gotcha" post.  Maybe just post them upfront so it can actually be discussed?

Pretty hard to judge AA as "unfair" if you have no knowledge of before and after. 

I don't have law school numbers for the 60s-70s. Yale began AA as a formal policy in 1972. But in 1971, the law school had already set a goal of 10% acceptance for blacks. 12 were accepted in Thomas' class. It is not clear that ANY would have been accepted were there not "condescending leftist" students pushing for change from within. At least one law professor at that time was not guilty of "the soft bigotry of low expectations"--he told any who would listen (including black students) that NONE of the 12 Blacks admitted was qualified.

AA had, in a sense, begun informally when Yale accepted 14 black students to its undergraduate program in 1964,  the year the Civil Rights Act passed. In the class of 1970, 32 Black Americans graduated from a class of about 1,000 undergraduates.

Before that, it appears blacks were in single digits in medicine and law during the 50s--among thousands of white admissions. It appears some years NONE were admitted. Those who were apparently had connections to faculty. 

Chances Thomas could have gotten in without AA help are slimmest possible to none. Yet he could have been more qualified than many legacy white admissions. He also had financial help set aside for minorities. 

Creating greater minority access to higher ed =/= proof AA advocates think minorities lack natural ability or "agency"--especially when minorities have done the directing and heavy lifting. It's proof AA advocates then and now think the system unfairly discriminates against minorities who DO have natural ability and agency. And now we are headed back to pre-AA numbers.

(07-10-2023, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Why would people with a “low opinion” of minorities want to bring them into a top law school?

To assuage their "white guilt" and make them feel better about themselves.  I see this behavior all the time.

No "behavior" is described here.  So how are you "seeing" an internal mental state?  

You can't get there just by watching some people you don't like ("LEFTISTS!") help others.

Do you have testimony or confession from someone claiming to suffer from "white guilt" who "feels better" about it when helping minorities?  A large enough sample to generalize to a large group? Or perhaps you have no evidence of that sort, and your special sight has had some guidance from equally unfounded RW opinion about "the soft bigotry of low expectations"?  

Guilt often manifests itself in denial, as in the case of gay men who not only deny their sexuality, but make a show of persecuting gay men. If "white guilt" exists, why wouldn't it just as easily manifest itself as loud proclamations one is "not racist" and/or denial that racism is still a problem, and a defensive insistence that "Blacks can be racist too!"? At least that's a possibility considered by people who can actually define and measure the phenomenon. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0011000019878808

In any case, all people--whites and minorities--who help minorities gain access to higher ed, which they had never had before, should "feel better about themselves," shouldn't they? They are doing good. So why are they the villains in your personal civil rights history? Why do you impute to them the belief in minority inferiority traditionally held by those who oppose minority admissions and AA?

It's the people who block that access and badmouth people who do help who should not "feel better" about themselves. 

(07-10-2023, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You and your ilk keep bringing up legacy admissions like I've been defending them. I've literally stated, point blank, that legacy admissions are unfair and I'd be in favor of eliminating them.  Maybe actually read people's posts instead of just thinking about your next response?

Oh, you can have a low opinion of people in different ways.  Some are overt, like a klansman or black Israelite.  Some are more subtle, like leftists who think they have to save minorities because they lack natural ability or think ethnic minorities lack any agency.

Jeezus. Everyone knows you are for colorblind "fairness." It's where you pick your battles and the sides you choose that are the issue--how your actions define "fairness" to support actual inequality. 

I and my ilk keep bringing up legacy admissions because a majority of the population, white and minority, think of AA as qualified whites being bumped by unqualified Blacks and Latinos. The real bumping goes the other way though, as unqualified whites bump qualified minorities in hundreds of U.S. universities, and especially the top tier ones which produce government and corporate leadership. 

The concern of minority groups still actually fighting for equal access is that the rollback of AA means even MORE admissions for whites, while leaving untouched the mechanism which admits more "unqualified" whites to Harvard and UNC than total number of Black and Hispanic students.  

The people who created and directed Students for Fairness in Admissions were well aware of AA history and legacy admissions. Their own research revealed very precise numbers of hundreds of unqualified whites accepted to Harvard--yet that is not the focus of their suit. Why, if this was ever really about "fairness" and not protecting white privilege? Oh wait . . . how can they be protecting whites if they shifted tactics from Fisher and got an Asian plaintiff . . . ? How can a Muslim ban be a Muslim ban if it doesn't mention "Muslims"?