-----Original Message-----
From: Paul and Bill from Ringside at the Reckoning <ringsideatthereckoning@substack.com>
To: add1dda@aol.com
mon, oct 10, 2022 9:44 p.m.

bad arguments for race-based discrimination in college admissions

The Washington Post collection  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

	Open in browser bad arguments for race-based discrimination in college admissions the washington post collection Paul Mirengoff Oct 11   ▷  Listen SAVE   the washington post is preparing the battlefield for the upcoming supreme court argument on racial preferences [N.S.: anti-White discrimination; you should never say "racial preferences," it diminishes the injustice] in college admissions and for the fracas that will ensue if the court strikes down or sharply limits the use of such preferences [sic]. the post does so in this article about race-based admissions at the university of north carolina at chapel hill. The opening two paragraphs of the article preview the nonsense that follows: founded to educate the enslaving elite of this southern state, allied for generations with the cause of white supremacy, roiled by racial tensions in recent years over the fate of a confederate monument and treatment of black faculty members, the university of north carolina at chapel hill has been thrust into an unlikely role in a legal clash that has reached the supreme court. it is making what could be the last stand for affirmative action in public university admissions. There is nothing "unlikely" about unc-chapel hill upholding racial discrimination. the university hasn't had anything to do with "enslavement" for more than a century and a half, nor with "white supremacy" for decades. It took down the "confederate monument" voluntarily, and yielded to the shrill demand of its black professors to award tenure to a colleague who didn't deserve it. the fact that unc-chapel hill has, for decades, voluntarily discriminated in favor of black applicants for admission explains why it's a likely target for litigation. it also demonstrates that the world the post and others invoke to justify such discrimination no longer exists. In its next paragraph, the post offers more misdirection: The gatekeepers of unc-chapel Hill consider race and ethnicity, among many factors, when they sift tens of thousands of applications a year to decide who will get in. citing the obvious fact that race and ethnicity are "among many factors" in admissions amounts to mindless repetition of an irrelevant liberal talking point. all that's missing from the script is the word "holistic," but don't worry, it appears twice in the post's article. of course, unc-chapel hill considers other factors besides race in its admissions decisions. but nearly all of these factors are exactly what you would expect a college committed to admitting first-rate students to consider — grades, test scores, extracurricular activities, and (if, the college is serious about its athletic teams) high-level prowess in sports. race is not like these other things. It has nothing to do with being a first-rate student. [Not according to blacks. As far as they're concerned, being black is a "qualification," indeed the most important qualification of all.] one factor most colleges consider that is not related to being a first-rate student is an applicant's familial relation to an alumni [alumnus] and/or big donor. Colleges see a connection between keeping donors happy and maintaining excellence. whatever one thinks about this practice, the law has nothing to say about it. by contrast, the constitution is deeply concerned with racial classifications. moreover, although the post informs us that, at harvard, the acceptance rate for "legacy students" is more than five times the regular rate, it doesn't ell [sic] us the extent to which legacy status offsets comparatively deficient grades and test scores. and it tells us nothing about the comparative advantage in admissions of being a "legacy student" versus being black. indeed, the post studiously avoids telling its readers how much weight universities like unc give to race in their admission decisions. is race just a minor consideration compared to the "many others" or does it go a long way towards overriding grades and test scores? the post doesn't want to say. however, we know from litigation that at top ivy league colleges, a black in the 60th percentile of applicants (evaluated by the criteria, other than race, the colleges use to rate applicants) has about the same likelihood of being admitted as an asian applicant in the 10th percentile and a White applicant in the 20th. are preferences for legacy students anywhere this pronounced? I doubt it. when my daughter was considering attending dartmouth (my alma mater), she asked the then-dean of admissions about preferences for sons and daughter of alums. he said the preference basically just washed out the disadvantages white students from eastern metropolitan areas face. and, again, whatever the magnitude of the preferences granted to legacy students, they provide no defense for the constitutionality of racial preferences [racial discrimination]. the post's article drifts from the irrelevant to the inane when it advances the view of some black students that their race should be considered in admissions "because race is a factor in peoples' everyday lives" and "there is never a time when race is not a factor for me." if race is always on a particular undergraduate's mind, it's her fault and the fault of the race-hustlers who strive endlessly to keep race in the forefront of peoples' consciousness. we can feel sorry for such undergraduates without granting them a racial preference [without racially discriminating on their behalf]. it simply doesn't follow from the fact that some blacks are obsessed with their racial identity that college admissions officers should be. I imagine that having only one arm or a badly scarred face might be a factor in someone's everyday life. that doesn't mean people with one arm or a scarred face should receive preferences when they apply to college. for that matter having brown skin and, say, being an immigrant from asia with a foreign accent might be a factor in someone's daily life. if so, that wouldn't justify [discriminating on their behalf] granting them preferential admission. And, in fact, these students are at the forefront of those whom colleges like unc-chapel and Harvard [discriminate against] disfavor in admissions. The author of the post's article, Nick Anderson, says he tried to find members of the group suing unc-chapel Hill to talk with. He couldn't. Gosh, I wonder why. Anderson didn't encounter this problem with black unc students and former students. here is what one of them said: [Andrew] Brennen recalled that a classmate made a statement one day implying that affirmative action makes it hard to know whether african american students at the university "deserve" to be there. "no fewer than six sets of eyes in the classroom turned to me to respond.". . ."I was speechless in the moment and felt like I failed to come to the proper defense of my fellow students of color." a major justification for race-based admissions presented in litigation and endorsed by courts is that black students provide a black point of view to White students (who somehow have managed not to encounter it during all those black history months and in woke u.s. history courses). if Brennan minded "six sets of eyes" turning to him to present that view, his quarrel is with the rationale for race-based preferences, not with the six students. Brennen reiterated that admissions officers should be able to take race into account. race played a major part in his experience here. he recalled witnessing White supremacist demonstrators on campus [no, he didn't], hearing a racial epithet directed at him one day downtown on Franklin Street [another lie], seeing the pulsating crowds on the night Silent Sam came down. so what? the fact that he had these handful of experiences at chapel hill provides no justification for admitting blacks with comparatively weak credentials. must elite colleges discriminate on the basis of race until the last White supremacist stops demonstrating and the last bigot stops using racial epithets? must asian-americans, many of whom probably have had racial epithets directed at them, be discriminated against until that time. must Whites who reject White supremacism and don't use racial epithets? The case for racial preferences in college admissions is collapsing under its own weight. This, it seems to me, is the main takeaway from the post's article.