All the top colleges -- Harvard, Yale, etc. -- submitted amicus brief at SFFA vs. Harvard predicting with absolute certainty that without explicit racial favoritism (and its necessary discrimination against meritorious non-black students -- which is the basis of the SFFA lawsuit and which this conversation doesn't mention), black admission rate would drop to minuscule numbers. This is did not happen. Either these schools lied then, or they cheated now.
There was exaggeration in the amicus briefs, no doubt, but the preponderance of evidence is that top colleges are cheating now, using "race essays" (tell us about your oppression) and racial proxies (which Yale essentially admitted using). So stay tuned -- there'll be a lot more litigation to come, now on cheating. And don't forget that racial favoritism for any race under any excuse ("inclusion") necessarily means racial discrimination against another race -- not a good thing for America.
A couple notes and additions. Firstly, the professor I was thinking of was Nell Painter. What I cannot forget about that day was how many young undergrad black students came to her expecting that she would be a guide to their revolution - that by dint of her thorough study of American history (She was working on her Sojourner Truth book at the time), that she had a plan that would discipline them into soldiers of liberation. She said no. You have to think your own way forward, and this rather surprised them. They thought that she was something entirely other than who she was. Perhaps they thought all black female professors were some variant of Angela Davis with an inner city gripe.
Secondly, what I wanted to say about AA in the 80s was that it was a political compromise made by the generation before me. It was the treaty signed by parties in the last war, but I was fighting a different battle. I mentioned 'hardball integration' because I saw that there were remnants of a separate but equal attitude on campus. IE we're going to study Africa, and you all can study Europe, and we're going to 'get' what there is to get from 'our' history, what they presumed only white people could get from studying 'their ancestors'. So it wasn't really history as much as it was ancestor worship, which they logically assumed everybody white [supremacist] was doing with the curriculum.
Thirdly on Affirmative Action, it became 'diversity' when it established itself as tokenism, which I perceived the very moment it desired racial representation in graduate school and professional certification (law, medical schools) according to 'non-quota' quotas.. Then that kicked off the AA poster children on every university recruitment brochure. By then, the precedence was established for separate but equal as well as the multicultural requirement of racial representation. Which of course necessitated Asians to become 'honorary whites' and a hodload of other crap concepts.
All the top colleges -- Harvard, Yale, etc. -- submitted amicus brief at SFFA vs. Harvard predicting with absolute certainty that without explicit racial favoritism (and its necessary discrimination against meritorious non-black students -- which is the basis of the SFFA lawsuit and which this conversation doesn't mention), black admission rate would drop to minuscule numbers. This is did not happen. Either these schools lied then, or they cheated now.
There was exaggeration in the amicus briefs, no doubt, but the preponderance of evidence is that top colleges are cheating now, using "race essays" (tell us about your oppression) and racial proxies (which Yale essentially admitted using). So stay tuned -- there'll be a lot more litigation to come, now on cheating. And don't forget that racial favoritism for any race under any excuse ("inclusion") necessarily means racial discrimination against another race -- not a good thing for America.
I await the rest of the story.
A couple notes and additions. Firstly, the professor I was thinking of was Nell Painter. What I cannot forget about that day was how many young undergrad black students came to her expecting that she would be a guide to their revolution - that by dint of her thorough study of American history (She was working on her Sojourner Truth book at the time), that she had a plan that would discipline them into soldiers of liberation. She said no. You have to think your own way forward, and this rather surprised them. They thought that she was something entirely other than who she was. Perhaps they thought all black female professors were some variant of Angela Davis with an inner city gripe.
Secondly, what I wanted to say about AA in the 80s was that it was a political compromise made by the generation before me. It was the treaty signed by parties in the last war, but I was fighting a different battle. I mentioned 'hardball integration' because I saw that there were remnants of a separate but equal attitude on campus. IE we're going to study Africa, and you all can study Europe, and we're going to 'get' what there is to get from 'our' history, what they presumed only white people could get from studying 'their ancestors'. So it wasn't really history as much as it was ancestor worship, which they logically assumed everybody white [supremacist] was doing with the curriculum.
Thirdly on Affirmative Action, it became 'diversity' when it established itself as tokenism, which I perceived the very moment it desired racial representation in graduate school and professional certification (law, medical schools) according to 'non-quota' quotas.. Then that kicked off the AA poster children on every university recruitment brochure. By then, the precedence was established for separate but equal as well as the multicultural requirement of racial representation. Which of course necessitated Asians to become 'honorary whites' and a hodload of other crap concepts.
Is this just a pendulum swing?