Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Democrats are not getting the memo. They are rubbing their hands with glee even though the majority of Americans agree they shouldn't be discriminating against Asian Americans, who [shock and awe] are not "one" group. Harvard has always had quotas for certain groups and it always will. It's been women, or Jews, or Asians. They look for work arounds, like the word "diversity" in Powell's opinion in the Bakke decision 45 years ago. That one word which now means the opposite of what it meant opened the door to sneak in DEI at every level from kindergarten to grad school as a "positive." They claimed to end quotas and affirmative action with "diversity." Then among themselves they agreed to not look at cello or violin accomplishments or nerdy computer hobbies so they could eliminate students with immigrant parents who work for Google in favor of one who produced hip hop videos with a millionaire dad.

 
I'd give you a good link, except this crazy AI Chat-gpt keeps trying to write my argument. So this will remain an opinion, mine and thousands of others.

Tip:  Save anything you have in print.  It is lost forever on the internet, especially with the AI and as we librarians say, To the victor belong the archives.

A week to celebrate, or not?

Churches across the nation should have been celebrating today for the First Amendment victories this past week. But that probably didn't happen because so many congregations have members who only listen to MSNBC, CNN and NPR lie to the nation. The rest have jaded members (like me) who already know that it's a game of whack a mole with the colleges and universities. Their massive DEI bureaucracies for racism in academe won't give up and the "shop for a judge" political hacks will continue to sue the little baker and candlestick maker who doesn't have the resources to fight back.

Freedom of religion (establishment and free exercise) is first among the Firsts. Without it, nothing else matters, and the founders knew it.

 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In 21st century America the bureaucracy just gets a non-government agency to deprive people of their Constitutional rights.

Happy July 4.

Biden v. Nebraska (22-506)
The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers. I won't need to pay off someone's student loans.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (20-1199)
The admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Asians being discriminated against; end of affirmative action supposedly.

GERALD E. GROFF, PETITIONER v. LOUIS DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL
Mr. Groff, a Christian, not required to work on Sunday.

CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENIS ET AL. (21-476)
Lorie Smith, graphic artist, Christian, does not need to serve same sex couples in wedding celebration.

There are protected classes at Ohio State

Although Ohio State University claims “The university recruits and selects the most qualified individuals for open positions” when you read who is “protected” by the policies of affirmative action and equal opportunity, you see that isn’t true.

“Ohio State does not discriminate on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity or expression, genetic information, HIV/AIDS status, military status, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or protected veteran status, or any other bases under the law, in its education program or activity, which includes employment.

In addition, the university complies with Executive Order 2019-05D, which prohibits any Ohio State employee from discriminating against any other employee or applicant on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, gender identity or expression, national origin (ancestry), military status (past, present or future), disability, age (40 years or older), status as a parent during pregnancy and immediately after the birth of a child, status as a parent of a young child, status as a foster parent, genetic information, or sexual orientation, as those terms are defined in Ohio law, federal law, and previous Executive Orders, in making any of the following employment-related decisions:

a. Hiring b. Layoff c. Termination d. Transfer e. Promotion f. Demotion g. Rate of Compensation h. Eligibility for In-Service Training Programs

Then we get into a long list of definitions which includes:

Discrimination (disparate treatment and disparate impact) occurs when an adverse action is taken under university authority against a university community member in an educational program or activity and the action is based upon one’s s protected class status. Disparate treatment occurs when one suffers less favorable treatment than others because of their protected class status. Disparate impact occurs when a university policy or practice, although neutral on its face, adversely impacts persons in a protected class.

There is no recourse under university rules if a healthy, white male is not selected for the job even if he is the most qualified, or if he is on the job and experiencing harassment, bullying, unequal assignments, hate speech, unwanted sexual advancements, cyber threats, political discrimination, etc. He’s not protected. But a transfemale lesbian with Asian heritage could file for discrimination for exactly the same workplace experiences.  Actually, the rules are not for the workplace—they include off campus and virtual spaces.

And yes, the pregnancy policy uses the words, “status as a parent during pregnancy” rather than “pregnant woman,” because we all know that in the 21st century men can be mothers too.

This hiring/enrollment policy is not new, but it is regularly revised (I’m quoting from a draft revision) to keep up with evolving identity politics and social injustices.  When I was responsible for hiring a paraprofessional assistant back in the early 1990s, I was first required to interview candidates which common sense would disqualify in the “real” world of business.  I remember the ex-convict who wanted a grounds keeping, outdoor job, but had worked as a student staff in one of the libraries 20 years before so he was sent by personnel and I had to interview him.  Or a candidate who was in a wheelchair and would not be able to shelve books higher than her head or get her wheelchair through the of book shelves aisles.

Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity and Non-Discrimination/Harassment policy (osu.edu)

Elizabeth Warren’s family lore

Even the MSM are commenting (gently) on Warren's claim to native ancestry, and her suggestion that she was given no advantage. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt--that she was just sharing family lore and in the mid-80s was completely unaware that minorities were in demand by colleges, HR, companies and honoraries. But the departments in those companies and colleges certainly knew it because they made those rules. And seeing those magic words on a registration or application certainly would have at least moved her up on the list assuming all else was equal.

I worked at Ohio State in the 80s and 90s and chatted with departmental faculty who were beating the bushes to find minorities (that's 1/32 to qualify and it's self-described) so they could be in good standing with university administration. And of course, the bigger and wealthier schools could offer the better financial package, and high school graduates were lured to an environment that guaranteed struggle and failure, whereas they might have succeeded in a different school. Minority women were a 2-fer and at interview time nearing graduation their dance cards would be full, while men languished hoping for even one interview. Of course, now 25-years later we pile category on category--first woman, first openly gay woman, first transwoman, first black transwoman, etc. A blonde, blue eyed, wealthy, privileged white woman is going to be disposable.

Architect fired by Columbus Board of Education

There's a story in the Columbus Dispatch today about the firing of an architect on a $26 million middle school renovation by the Columbus Board of Education. First the public was told there were design problems with the historic details, now that the architect has been fired. I always note articles about architects since my husband is one, and has been an associate, a partner, and a sole practitioner with his own firm since 1994. The minute I read the architect's name, I guessed the problem was affirmative action. If you are to get state or local government jobs, you have to have a female or minority firm partner with you. Apparently, the real reason he was fired had originally been covered up, so now the story is appearing. And you have to work your way almost to the end before you find out, not why he was fired, but why he was hired.

"Asked why Udeagbala's company was leading a project it wasn't qualified to complete it, Acock [architect on the oversight committee that selected him] said after the meeting that it was partly because of the district's desire to help a local black architect. . . The district's "local economically disadvantaged enterprise" program, known as LEDE, seeks to help socially and economically disadvantaged people participate in district contracts, "including African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, women and others," the policy says. Because of federal case law, the program sets only race- and gender-neutral goals for participation."

What a crock of BS! It wasn't "partly" the reason, it was the reason. You can't get a government job in the building industry if you don't partner with a minority firm, and the minority firms in turn in order to get work, partner with more experienced, non-minority firms. When I was the veterinary medicine librarian at OSU I went outside the university maintenance office (civil service) to hire a private firm painter for my library, but the bidder had to have a minority partner who did the work. He was awful, couldn't get the paint color right, and the partnering firm eventually sent in a replacement. In this case reported in the Dispatch, from the names Udeagbala partnered with, at least 2 other firms (both minority) backed out after finding out he wasn't qualified. This program of "affirmative action" on government jobs has actually hurt minorities and women. He might have become a good architect if he'd stayed in the trenches fighting the battles daily until he was ready and said no to the government.

Choosing an architect by the color of his skin or ethnicity for a building that has to withstand earth tremors, hurricanes, tornadoes, wild temperature fluctuations, snow loads, all environmental rules for health and safety, plus the complexity of renovation of a building on the historic register, is not a safe plan for the children or the staff of that school. Either he/she is qualified to do a job or he isn't. Don't put safety and design at risk to meet social goals.

Choosing a president by the color of his skin is even more dangerous--but for the whole nation, not just Columbus school children.

Do what I say, not what I do--Democrats

According to a 2008 article at American Thinker by Randall Hoven, lawyers and law firms are heavy donors to the Democratic party, with 76% of all donations to Democrats, the same percentage as Hollywood. (BTW, this is a paltry number compared to Democrats in the library profession.)

American Thinker Blog: Lawyers and the Democrats

So why, if they are so liberal and progressive, are law firms doing such a poor job of recruiting African Americans into their profession, even with affirmative action?

According to a completely unrelated article by James Lindgren in the Journal of Contemporary Legal issues, Vol. 17, 2008, "In 1960, 2.0% of male lawyers and judges ages 36-45 were African Americans. After several decades of affirmative action, in 2000 the proportion in the same age group has grown only modestly to 2.8% of male lawyers. Since the 1980 Census (when most African-American lawyers ages 31-65 would have graduated from law school before the era of affirmative action in law school admissions), the changes for African-American men have been even less impressive in employment by private firms and companies: from 1.8% of males in 1980 to 2.1% in 2000."

The Private and Public Employment of African-American Lawyers, 1960-2000 by James Lindgren :: SSRN

And in yet another unrelated statistic from the census, the anecdotal evidence that blacks are losing out in self-employment apparently isn't true either. Without affirmative action, they haven't done that much worse than the lawyers. Self-employed blacks have gone from 3.6% to 4.1% since 1960, compared to 11.1% to 11.4% for whites. It is down for both groups over the last 100 years.

4220

How social theory has hurt minorities and women

Forget Anita Hill for the moment. What Clarence Thomas has done with his memoir (My Grandfather's Son) is remind Americans that many of the laws and regulations put in place to help minorities, especially blacks, most with good intentions but poorly thought out and burdened by useless guilt, have actually held them back. Now we're in a huge mess because careers, reputations, and entire organizations are built on government regulations, affirmative action and keeping the civil rights pot stirred (like the Jena 6 story, or crack cocaine sentencing).

Even Eugene Robinson, an associate editor of the Washington Post (Oct. 10), updates what Thomas said about liberals putting blacks in a box (although Robinson seems not to have read the book and calls Thomas pugnacious for recording in terrifying detail what was common to many blacks in the 1950s through the 1980s, even if it isn't today) -- "editors, reporters, columnists and tv producers keep only 2 phone numbers on speed-dial for use whenever any news breaks concerning a black person."

He noted, for instance, that it made no sense to bus poor black children to the schools of poor white children where they would get an equally poor education. Another social experiment: Thomas believes that racial preferences actually hurt black kids and place their achievements in doubt even when they excell. That claim really brought out the accusations of "pulling up the ladder" after he got in.

Now there is some research by Richard Sander of UCLA that says the same thing, but you can be sure it will be quashed or it will be called racist. There are people fighting for their livelihoods to say nothing of their legacy.

"The schools involved are dozens of law schools in California and elsewhere, and the program is the system of affirmative action that enables hundreds of minority law students to attend more elite institutions than their credentials alone would allow. Data from across the country suggest to some researchers that when law students attend schools where their credentials (including LSAT scores and college grades) are much lower than the median at the school, they actually learn less, are less likely to graduate and are nearly twice as likely to fail the bar exam than they would have been had they gone to less elite schools. This is known as the "mismatch effect." Not to shock you senseless, but I was an A student at the University of Illinois--at Harvard I probably wouldn't have made it. That definitely would have been a "mismatch."

The problem as Sander sees it, isn't that black students can't make it in law school, but that because of preferences, they aren't attending the right school.

"In general, research shows that 50% of black law students end up in the bottom 10th of their class, and that they are more than twice as likely to drop out as white students. Only one in three black students who start law school graduate and pass the bar on their first attempt; most never become lawyers. How much of this might be attributable to the mismatch effect of affirmative action is still a matter of debate, but the problem cries out for attention."

Good luck getting funding to research that! I heard an interview with Don Dutton on Mike McConnell (700 am radio) this morning--haven't researched it myself--saying domestic violence tougher laws are actually hurting women, especially black women, because if men are hauled off to jail on a first complaint, women are less likely to summon police and after the required anger management (for just the man) instead of couples counseling, the man is more likely to just kill her the next time. I haven't looked into this, but a brief google search brings up only feminist hyped websites and hysteria about how many women are killed every so many seconds, so the unintended consequences of stiffer penalties at the first cry for help wouldn't surprise me.

Another example of failed social theory mention on McConnell's show is the crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing story. Supposedly, it's racist to treat the two drug criminals differently. When it became obvious that crack cocaine was a serious problem in the black community in the mid-1980s, the Congressional Black Caucus lobbied for harsher penalties and got it. It was primarily black on black violence. So now there is a huge discrepancy, some say by race, but studies show it is amount sold, prior history, and weapons used that cause the stiffer penalties, not the type of drug. City Journal

Oh, and it's now called IPV, Intimate Partner Violence, at least in Canada, I suppose so gays and lesbians can be included. Sounds like a feminine hygiene product.

3453 Leaving race behind

Amitai Etzioni doesn't like it when people ask his race, even when the U.S. government asks. He discovered that if he marked a box labeled "other" that he was simply assigned to a racial category. He writes in "Leaving race behind" American Scholar, Spring 2006:

"Treating people differently according to their race is as un-American as a hereditary aristocracy, and as American as slavery. . . The national ideal says that all Americans should be able to compete as equals, whatever their background. . . Since the onset of the civil rights movement we have ensconced in law many claims based on race: requirements that a given proportion of public subsidies, loans, job training, educational assistance, and admission slots at choice colleges be set aside for people of color. . . There must be a better way to deal with past and current injustice. And the rapid changes in American demographics call for a reexamination of the place of race in America."

Etzioni notes that Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the U.S. and their population growth, both legal and illegal continues at an explosive pace. In 2003-2005, one of every two people added to America's population was Hispanic, but they may be members of many ethnic and racial groups. Race is biology, but ethnicity is geographic and cultural. By the third generation, 30% of Hispanics and 40% of Asians in the U.S. have married outside their racial or ethnic group. Will the government continue to offer their children special benefits?

Who needs help from the government? In my extended family we have on the one hand well-off, well-educated African American and Hispanic relatives who are married and living a stable, comfortable life style, and on the other, dirt poor, living-on-the-edge, poorly educated white relatives, "shacking up" as we used to say even before we knew poverty and marriage were related. Do you give reparations to the black family (whose ancestors were never part of U.S. slavery)? Do the Hispanics (who don't speak a word of Spanish) get a special deal for a job? Do you just give more money in welfare to the poor family, but no special incentive or slot for college because a middle-class black child got it?

One thing Etzioni doesn't touch on is the race careers--politicians, journalists, social workers and academics whose livihood depends on keeping us a divided nation. A black professor is suing because he didn't get tenure and he's claiming racial bias. But he's also doing stem cell research--adult stem cell, and doesn't believe in embryonic stem cell. Could be something else at work that has nothing to do with race. Did you see the article in the NYT about the woes of the highly educated, wealthy black people who can't find good nannies? Like most of the race-based articles, it was terribly anecdotal, but apparently some east European nannies have actually made a choice of whom they want to work for, and so have some black Americans and Caribbean women. I personally think the only color that matters here is green, and to get a good nanny in NYC you probably have to at least pay $40,000 a year with benefits.

Technorati: affirmative action, Racial Issues