Scalia: Good Schools May Be Too Hard For Blacks

[finehoe]

What was the answer?  I hear the angst regarding the question... was there an answer? 

Again, what question?

[BridgeTroll]

Enjoy your outrage... 

[finehoe]

Scalia Comments Shine Light on U.S. Institutional Racism

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's reprehensible suggestion that affirmative action harms blacks by offering opportunities that transcend their intellectual talents and abilities exemplifies the crisis of institutional racism at the heart of American democracy.

That a sitting Supreme Court justice could feel emboldened enough to articulate the kind of boldfaced belief in white supremacy thought to have ended with formal racial segregation illustrates the contours of the nation's New Jim Crow, a system that justifies the dearth of African-American bodies in predominantly white spaces by questioning whether they truly belong there in the first place.

Scalia made the suggestion this week during oral arguments for Fisher v. University of Texas. After admitting to not being "impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer" African Americans, Scalia went further: "Maybe it ought to have fewer. I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible."

http://www.newsweek.com/scalia-comments-shine-light-us-institutional-racism-403823

[finehoe]

"There are those who say..."

Isn't that the point of the Socratic method of adversarial hearings in front of an en banc court? To ask probing questions and get to see how the attorneys respond to those difficult questions.

So what was the question he was asking?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

So is there a nice way to say, "Yes you meet our minimum thresholds and you'll probably struggle with the curriculum, but because of your race, we're going to give you a shot anyhow."?

t did not respond to our 2013
request). In 2006, UNC Chapel Hill
assigned an academic index to all students,
based on such factors as test scores and
high school grades. For black applicants
with an academic index between 3.1 and
3.2, the admissions rate was 100% -- that
is, all 66 black applicants in this academic
index range were admitted. However, for
white students in this academic range, the
admissions rate was only 42%, and for
Asians it was 43%

University of Oregon admitted 100% of all
black applicants with an index above 600.
In contrast, white applicants with an index
between 600 and 649 were admitted at a
rate of 2.4%

University of
Arizona's School of Law, we find that the
school admitted 100% of black applicants
with academic index scores above 700, in
the 2007 admissions cycle, but only 10% of
white applicants in the index range from
700 to 749.

[Adam White]

So is there a nice way to say, "Yes you meet our minimum thresholds and you'll probably struggle with the curriculum, but because of your race, we're going to give you a shot anyhow."?

Why would you even need to say it in the first place?

[PeeJayEss]

He is asking a probing question based on the merits and the mismatch theory, like it or not it has to be probed and does hold merit in this case. Whether or not you or I subscribe to this theory is not important to the over arching discussion of Scalia's line of reasoning or questioning. He is considering an Amicus brief based on the mis-match theory and posed a question based on this brief. he would do the court and eventual legal precedence a disservice by holding his tongue because he may earn the scorn of the NYT or other left leaning media organizations.  As to other arguments based on the courts make up the reverse is true for the more liberal justices who would dismiss the mis-match theory and the Amicus brief because it doesn't fit the current narrative of race relations in the US as of 2015. So in essence the entire court is corrupted and to single out a specific justice because they don't agree with "YOU" is just as bad as an arch conservative singling out a more liberal justice.

You can argue mismatch theory without bringing up the race of the student in question. Proponents of mismatch theory focus on GPA and test scores rather than race. Scalia is bastardizing the theory by making it all about race. If there is some correlation between race and application strength, that points to some kind of systemic disenfranchisement (or you can insert your own super-racist theory), which if anything, should be an argument for more proactive affirmative action.

Also, mismatch theory should be called mismatch hypothesis, because there is basically no evidence that people placed in schools above their score level end up with worse outcomes than similar students at worse schools. It's a somewhat interesting idea, but there is no evidentiary basis for it. As such, I don't think it should get any air time in a Supreme Court proceeding. If an argument is made based on 'mismatch,' then it would basically have to take away any prerogative the school has to admit students as it sees fit. That means no relaxing academic standards for athletes, etc. That would get some people up in arms.

University of Oregon admitted 100% of all
black applicants with an index above 600.
In contrast, white applicants with an index
between 600 and 649 were admitted at a
rate of 2.4%

University of
Arizona's School of Law, we find that the
school admitted 100% of black applicants
with academic index scores above 700, in
the 2007 admissions cycle, but only 10% of
white applicants in the index range from
700 to 749.

These two statistics are incomplete, or purposefully misleading. Actually, they're incomplete either way, they just might also be purposefully misleading. I'd wager purposefully misleading, as the omissions could only serve to exaggerate the admittance difference.

[finehoe]

Finehoe, he was using a supplemental brief (briefs filed by third parties in favor or against a party once the case reaches appellate courts) and one of the main arguments had to do with the extremely high rate of drop outs in African-American students once they reach universities. The African-American dropout rate is much higher overall but having worked at a large research university at one point, there is always a real worry about the level of attrition among minority students which is even higher at the large research universities.

Why should this even matter to a justice who professes to be an originalist?  By his own writings and speeches, Scalia says that interpretation of the Constitution should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be.  His only be concern (according to him) should be 'does the Constitution allow the affirmative action admissions policy of UT.'  Dropout rates and attrition statistics are irrelevant to the constitutional question.

Again, according to his own self-professed views, he isn't there to judge if a law has good, bad or unintended consequences, but only to judge if it is permitted by the Constitution.

[FlaBoy]

What would you say makes Scalia a legal titan.  A thousand apologies if the question wasn't clear enough.

Any Supreme Court Justice who has written hundreds of opinions in the span of his or her tenure is immediately in a very limited class of legal scholars. Scalia has also written some of the most influential decisions of the past quarter century. From issues concerning second amendment, disparate impact discrimination, commerce clause (including drug use), Tenth Amendment revitalization, religious freedom, he has written the current law of the land. He has also been the stalwart of conservatism in the Court since he was appointed and may be the most influential conservative justice of the latter 20th century with Rehnquist. He is also a brilliant writer and has written some of the more poignant decisions of the last quarter century. A quarter century, hundreds of majority decisions penned, and his status as a conservative icon in the Courts make him a legal titan.

[finehoe]

...he has written the current law of the land.

Like I said, judicial activism.  Ironic, isn't it?

[FlaBoy]

Finehoe, he was using a supplemental brief (briefs filed by third parties in favor or against a party once the case reaches appellate courts) and one of the main arguments had to do with the extremely high rate of drop outs in African-American students once they reach universities. The African-American dropout rate is much higher overall but having worked at a large research university at one point, there is always a real worry about the level of attrition among minority students which is even higher at the large research universities.

Why should this even matter to a justice who professes to be an originalist?  By his own writings and speeches, Scalia says that interpretation of the Constitution should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be.  His only be concern (according to him) should be 'does the Constitution allow the affirmative action admissions policy of UT.'  Dropout rates and attrition statistics are irrelevant to the constitutional question.

Again, according to his own self-professed views, he isn't there to judge if a law has good, bad or unintended consequences, but only to judge if it is permitted by the Constitution.

That is an oversimplification of Scalia's stance as an originalist. It is probably more in line with Clarence Thomas. Scalia is a big believer in Stare Decisis. He also believes in grey area for issues with no express language in the Constitution. Even in issues concerning gun rights or drug use, he also has a tendency to focus on order and what is necessary for governance. He is the one that said that the Constitution gives every person the right to own a gun if they wish, but has the power to regulate gun ownership in anything over and above that finite right. He simply attempts to look at history as a guide and not simply look at issues with chronological snobbery of the present age, but so do most of the justices when seeking a reason to find a certain way, just with not quite the same precise nature.

[dp8541]

So I suppose we should understand that you don't have any clue why justice Scalia  is described as a legal Titan within conservative circles?  Much less why you yourself describe him as such?

What would qualify one to be considered a "legal titan" in your eyes?  Or are you simply implying about the rights view of him?

[PeeJayEss]

I'm pretty sure in order to be legally considered a Titan you would have to provide substantive proof that you are the child or grandchild of Gaia and Uranus.

[dp8541]

When comparing to other supreme court justices, I would agree that only conservatives would consider him a "titan" of the supreme court.  I was reading the thread that he was being refereed to as a titan of the legal field, which is hard to argue against.

[FlaBoy]

Not even in the top 1000

Agree to disagree