The new US Commission on Civil Rights report on AA in LS admissions

[Miss P]

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/AALSreport.pdf

Just putting it out there because I'm sure citations to it will be all the rage in these parts.  You can hear LDF's gloss here.


EDIT, pursuant to IrrX's instruction, for a terrible typo.

[Lindbergh]

"AA actually hurts thost students it's supposed to help."

Interesting.

[Miss P]

"AA actually hurts thost students it's supposed to help."

Interesting.

So you read the press release?  The idea of my posting the report was that people could discuss its content intelligently instead of trading in slogans.  Thanks.

[Lindbergh]

"AA actually hurts thost students it's supposed to help."

Interesting.

So you read the press release?  The idea of my posting the report was that people could discuss its content intelligently instead of trading in slogans.  Thanks.

I listened to the clip you included, and that's what the NPR lady said. 

I later read the release, which is more inconclusive in its findings.

[Miss P]

I listened to the clip you included, and that's what the NPR lady said. 

I later read the release, which is more inconclusive in its findings.

You know, Lindbergh, you're very demanding of others in terms of the quality of their reasoning and evidence.  I expect you to at least read the executive summary of a report before posting your commentary on it.

[Lindbergh]

I listened to the clip you included, and that's what the NPR lady said. 

I later read the release, which is more inconclusive in its findings.

You know, Lindbergh, you're very demanding of others in terms of the quality of their reasoning and evidence.  I expect you to at least read the executive summary of a report before posting your commentary on it.

Your expectations are excessive and irrelevant. I don't think it's unreasonable to post a response after listening to the audio link, especially since the report itself wouldn't download initially. 

I'm also not that demanding.  All I've ever asked for is an explanation of how being a URM, per se, impacts academic achievement when educational opportunity is controlled for such that further admissions discrimination is justified.

That said, my initial post still stands after reviewing the report.  The main response from Lempert is that a mismatch exists, but that it's due to poor K-12 education, and should be rectified by (in part) more preferences.  The first point is irrelevant to Sanders' findings, and the second is simply illogical.  The report overall appears to generally accept the legitimacy of Sanders' points, but seeks further study. 

 

[Miss P]

You didn't post a response; you parroted a line from the introduction to a radio program.

The report is largely uncritical of Sander (no second S), it's true.  I happen to believe this is political given the makeup of the commission and the testimony on the record refuting his claims.  Nonetheless, you're right, my expectations are irrelevant.  Carry on.

You really should read some of the responses to Sander, the copious research on the impact of racial segregation in public schools and other community-wide disadvantages some URMs face (regardless of individual household wealth and income), and something about stereotype threat beyond that one Amy Wax column.  I, for one, will take you more seriously after that.  I don't find the repetition of the same hackneyed phrases about "fairness" and "merit" very interesting.

You also may want to consider that there are reasons for diversifying law school classrooms beyond the individual concerns of each applicant.  (Among those Grutter considered was Michigan's desire to have enough members of different minority groups that no conscientious member of the class would be able to develop stereotypes about those groups.  To this end, admitting a very diverse group of black students -- African American, from elsewhere in the African diaspora, African; rich, poor, middle class -- makes perfect sense.)

[bruinbro]

I think that the data should be made available for statistical analysis. It seems like it would be in both sides' interest to know if there are problems with the current system.

I found the response from the NAACP kind of surprising. If they believe the current system is not comprehensive enough then knowing the system is flawed fits in with that.

Good point. Having data is preferable to guessing or conjecture. A statistical analysis might very well confirm that AA is working better than its detractors claim.

[UNAS]

This is frustrating I am about to go to Love or Ibiza

Holla

[Lindbergh]

You didn't post a response; you parroted a line from the introduction to a radio program.

No, I parroted a line from the introduction to the radio program you posted, and then I said it was interesting.  That was my response. 

The report is largely uncritical of Sander (no second S), it's true.  I happen to believe this is political given the makeup of the commission and the testimony on the record refuting his claims. 

Well, we know that AA itself isn't political in nature, so it makes sense that someone highlighting the flaws in a system of offically sanctioned racial discrimination must be some partisan hack.  Especially since he married a black woman, and has a black kid.  And when a commission acknowledges the obvious validity of his points, that must also be political.

Nonetheless, you're right, my expectations are irrelevant.

Glad you recognize that.

You really should read some of the responses to Sander, the copious research on the impact of racial segregation in public schools and other community-wide disadvantages some URMs face (regardless of individual household wealth and income), and something about stereotype threat beyond that one Amy Wax column. 

My position on this board has always been that admissions should control for eductaional opportunity generally, not just income.  As for "stereotype threat", in my own experience (and that of my siblings), that has simply never been an issue, so I find it difficult to take seriously.

I, for one, will take you more seriously after that. 

I guess if that were at all a concern to me, I'd care.  I suspect most people take issues of fairness, justice, and equity seriously even when you're not on board.

I don't find the repetition of the same hackneyed phrases about "fairness" and "merit" very interesting.

I understand.  The concepts of fairness and merit really aren't very interesting to a certain subset of the american left.

You also may want to consider that there are reasons for diversifying law school classrooms beyond the individual concerns of each applicant.  (Among those Grutter considered was Michigan's desire to have enough members of different minority groups that no conscientious member of the class would be able to develop stereotypes about those groups. 

Sure, and admitting minorities with significantly lower credentials won't reinforce negative stereotypes.

To this end, admitting a very diverse group of black students -- African American, from elsewhere in the African diaspora, African; rich, poor, middle class -- makes perfect sense.)

To the same end, admitting people baed on their objective abilities would probably make even more sense.