I also hope that academic institutions realize that Michigan lost one of the cases and that the Court said they can't be too "ham-fisted" (too quote both Sandy's op-ed and my earlier op-ed) in how much of a factor race and ethnicity are allowed to be. My hunch is that institutions won't award points, but they'll still find less transparent ways to get the specific numbers they want.
SDG Robert Sheridan wrote: >This nausea inducing business of calculating the worthiness of people for >inclusion and exclusion based on presumed racial or ethnic background may >have a certain amount of unfortunate history to back it up, as to many >groups, but why should we, in recognition of that, pretend it represents >'Equal protection under law?' > >Discussion of this group and that for singling-out overlooks a couple of >significant developments that tends to make group-bias irrelevant, or >should. > >The first is that enough generations have passed that a good many >descendants of immigrants view themselves, and are viewed by others, simply >as American, not Italian-American, Irish-American, German-American, etc. >Same goes for blacks, Jews, Chinese, Korean, Cablinasian, etc., or should. > >The second is that the lines between groups have been deteriorating at an >increasingly greater pace over the past six or seven decades since my >Irish-Catholic father married my Polish-Jewish mother, giving me a sort of >skewed-perspective on such matters. > >It is hugely annoying to think that ordinary American young men and women >like Grutter and Gratz are singled out for exclusion by race, just as it is >hugely annoying to reflect that blacks have been singled out for all the >grief visited on them over the not decades but centuries in North America. > >I can understand what the Court felt the country needed to do to rectify, >to the extent it could, its bad history, but I tend to think of it as equal >protection suspended for the next quarter century in recognition that it >isn't really equal protection, after which one may hope the current idea >has become irrelevant to the way we get along together much better. > >What gives me hope is that I attended two graduations over the past month, >sat in the audience for four to five hours at each, at U.C. Berkeley and >M.I.T., where literally thousands graduated at each. I was struck by the >diversity around me, which I don't for a moment believe is attributable all >to affirmative action. I don't think these kids want to hear they were >singled out by race or ethnicity. I think they want to be respected for >their merit, as they certainly were based on what I witnessed. > > >Robert Sheridan >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >SFLS > >> [Original Message] >> From: Barksdale, Yvette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 7/3/2003 8:01:37 AM >> Subject: Re: Puzzles re: Grutter and Korematsu - hispanics and >segregatedschools >> >> Not to belabor this thread too much (actually its probably too late for >that), but one more comment: >> >> David Bernstein writes: >> >> I appreciate Yvette's inclusive definition of diversity, but if >everyone is eligible for AA, then AA has no purpose. If only some groups >are eligible for AA, there must be a coherent rationale for why those >groups, as a class, are eligible, but others aren't. >> __________________________________________ >> >> I agree with you that the affirmative action case is stronger for some >groups than for others because of remedial considerations which vary based >upon the substantiality of the present effects of past/present >discrimination. However, this does not preclude diversity itself as a >sufficient basis for affirmative action, at least in university admissions. >> >> THis is because "affirmative action" , if broadly defined as considering >personal background information, is actually the norm, not the exceptionin >university admissions decisions. Once a school gets beyond the automatic >admits - those whose accomplishments are so sterling the university chases >them, rather than the other way around, admissions officers always give >boosts for personal background factors which add to the intellectual, >economic, cultural, artistic and other diversity of the school. This is >especially true at highly competitive schools with hordes of applicants for >a few slots. >> >> The anti- race-based afirmative action argument has always been that race >and ethnicity, uniquely, have to be constitutionally irrelevant background >factors as a matter of principle (gender diversity gets in because of >intermediate scrutiny). But, I think the real question is why should race >and ethnic background be the only biographical factor excluded from >admissions decisions, given its large significance in our society. Viewed >in this light, looking at racial and ethnic diversity simply fleshes out >the applicant's "personal story." >> >> I agree with you though, that, as a matter of fact, not all ethnic >backgrounds necessarily add to the diversity of the university, >particularly backgrounds which are not underrepresented, or have little >significance in shaping an applicant's biography. But, I think the schools >can be trusted to make that judgment (what kind of diversity do we want?) >absent some evidence that "diversity" is simply a cover for a bald racial >or ethnic preference (as in, "I like people of Scottish descent, and so I >am going to give them the edge regardless"). And, remember, the Court >requires the school to make these admissions judgments on an >individualized, rather than category-wide, basis. >> >> yb >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Bernstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tue 7/1/2003 6:16 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: >> Subject: Re: Puzzles re: Grutter and Korematsu - hispanics >and segregated schools >> >> In a message dated 7/1/2003 5:37:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> > Are your premises here that: >> > >> > 1) except for isolated and impoverished pockets, Asians and Latinos are >no >> > longer discriminated against in our society because of their race or >ethnicity >> > - shown by a) society's current repudiation of the overt and explicit >> > race-based exclusion and oppression of the past (No Chinese need >apply), and b)the >> > economic, residential and social integration of these groups within the >> > society. (asians and latino living in racially integrated suburbs.) >> > >> Answer: No, I simply pointed out that the discrimination faced by Latinos >> (esp. Mexicans) and Asians 100 years ago is of a very different magnitude >than >> the discrimination they face today, and this is especially relevant >because a >> large majority of Asians and Latino families in the U.S. have arrived >since >> 1965, and thus are not descended from those who suffered from the >discrimination >> of 100 years ago, so the arguments in favor of preferences for these >groups >> based on what happened 100 years ago are less strong than they may at >first >> appear. By contrast, a large majority African American families were >here 100 >> years ago and beyond. This suggests that both for diversity (because the >groups >> have very different tenures and experiences in the US) and remedial >purposes >> that it's foolish to lump all "minorities" into one group, as all of the >Grutter >> opinions do (any comments on Justice Thomas's absolute insistence that all >> "minorities" must be treated exactly alike for diversity purposes?). >> >> >> > 2) the only justification for affirmative action is remedying past or >> > present discrimination - and that the value of racial and ethnic >inclusion or >> > "diversity" is not a legitmate goal unless it is a remedy for such past >or >> > present discrimination. >> > >> Answer: Diversity may be a legitimate goal, especially for university >> admissions, but I can't figure out why a child of Argentine immigrants of >Italian or >> German descent (who in no sense, I think, is a "racial minority"), is >> presumptively more diverse than a child of Greek or Arab immigrants, or >an Amish or >> Seventh Day Adventist believer, etc. For that matter, I don't see any >recent to >> believe that the hypothetical Argentine American has presumptively faced >more >> discrimination than the other examples. I do think that by far the >strongest >> constitutional case for AA is not the diversity rationale, but the >remedial >> rationale, and primarily as applied to specified groups that have suffered >> grevious discrimination and isolation. >> I appreciate Yvette's inclusive definition of diversity, but if everyone >is >> eligible for AA, then AA has no purpose. If only some groups are >eligible for >> AA, there must be a coherent rationale for why those groups, as a class, >are >> eligible, but others aren't. > -------------------------------------- Scott Gerber Law College Ohio Northern University Ada, OH 45810 419-772-2219 http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/gerber/
