So racial discrimination is okay now?

Or...how the UW diversity officers are making fools of themselves and of their students.




Ann Althouse posted this morning about the a report written up by the Center for Equal Opportunity alleging discriminatory practices in the admittance of whites and asians to the university (undergrad and law).  


Here are the numbers from the CEO report (obtained via an open records request to the UW admissions office):


By SAT and class rank:
• African Americans favored over whites 576-to-1
• Hispanics favored over whites 504-to-1
• Black SAT score 150 points lower than whites and Asians
• Latino SAT score 100 points lower than whites and Asians

By ACT and class rank: 
• Black favored over whites 1330-to-1 
• Hispanics favored over whites 1494-to-1

Chance of admission for grades and LSAT scores at the median for that race/ethnic group 
• Out-of-state Black: 7 out 10 chance 
• Out-of-state Hispanic: 1 out of 3 chance

• In-state Asian:1 out of 6 chance 
• In-state white: 1 out of 10 chance


Frankly, to anyone who pays attention, this shouldn't be surprising.  What makes this story interesting is the university's reaction.


The provost issued a campus-wide notice last night about something that "involves a threat to our diversity efforts" and called an emergency meeting so that the campus could react "as a community".  Since the report from CEO was not released until midnight, this means that the 'provost of diversity and climate' Damon Williams and the dean of students Lori Berquam put forth a call to arms to more than 150 students there without even having the full information of what the reports said.


According to this morning's report in the Badger Herald, students are already active making signs and preparing to protest Roger Clegg 's (the president of CEO) arrival in Madison.  Protestors, apparently tired of taking up space in the capitol rotunda, have set up shop at the DoubleTree Inn where Clegg is holding a press conference at 11am. And this is where I'm confused.  What are they protesting, exactly?  


Of course, they're protesting in support of Affirmative Action policies held by UW admissions. During the meeting yesterday, Williams organized a student rally "to express their solidarity and pride in UW and a sense of togetherness."  Do they have pride in the fact that their university actively practices racial discrimination?  Williams said: "I want students to be able to be in power; to say this is who we are, this is what we value."  Are you sure you don't want to think a bit more before you say that racial discrimination against whites is "who we are" and "what we value"?  


What this really brings home is the double-standard hypocrisy of academia.  No one here, except Roger Clegg, has any interest in addressing the actual published report.  No one has any interest is discussing the numbers and debating explanations.  There is simply a knee-jerk reaction that the "aggressive, right-wing" CEO has absolutely nothing to say other than garbage and should be shouted out of town.  That's how debate works in academia.  What kind of example is Mr. Williams setting for these students?  And what kind of education are they getting that the students' first reaction is not "this is interesting, but there are plenty of valid reasons why these numbers are so", but is rather "this is an assault upon who we are and we must destroy anyone who would criticize us"?


 And this is where I get really frustrated. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance.  What troubles the "provost of diversity" is that Clegg is daring to point out that UW is claiming that discrimination on the ground of certain races is perfectly acceptable. "Diversity" obviously means "not too many whites and asians" and "everyone who agrees with affirmative action".  


Honestly, I would have less of a problem if Damon Williams would simply be honest. State it outright: "We're sure that if we held even standards for everyone getting into UW, there would be significantly fewer blacks and hispanics.  In modern days, a 'diverse' campus is necessary in order to gain federal financial support, and in academia diverse = blacks and hispanics on campus.  Therefore, we make it harder for Wisconsin students who have the unfortunate luck to have white skin to get in, while we make it easier for out-of-state dark skinned students to come to our school.  This way, we make sure to match whatever diversity quota has been set for us by some nameless bureaucrat. Don't blame the playa, blame the game." Of course, that doesn't work...namely because of that lovely law I mentioned in the previous paragraph.  Therefore, Mr. Williams and his ilk have to contort their arguments into something that doesn't sound like they're in favor of racial discrimination.


In this instance, so far, they're failing.  


Or, Williams could make the historical argument: "Blacks and Hispanics have suffered decades of sufferance under white people (and Asians?) in America.  It's only fair that we do everything we can to make sure that as many black and hispanic students that want to get the opportunity to come to UW and study. If that means that some worthy Wisconsin white students can't come here, it's their own fault for being born with the wrong color skin. Now they know how it feels."  


Because this is basically how people read the affirmative action argument.  It doesn't sound pretty, it certainly doesn't sound politically correct, and it doesn't sound fair.  But that's not the point.  "Fair" only applies to massive racial groups: "blacks", "Asians", "Hispanics", "Whites".  The individual kid who worked his butt off for his ACT scores and to graduate with an appropriate GPA to gain admittance to his state school, but was rejected in favor of an out-of-state kid with fewer qualifications won't be at the protest at the DoubleTree Inn today.  


Or, maybe there's a financial aspect.  UW makes a much larger profit off of out-of-state students (who have a much higher tuition level) than in-state students.  Perhaps Williams' argument could have gone like this: "With the downturn in the economy, UW depends upon out-of-state students to help fund the university.  Therefore, the admissions standards are adjusted according to our budgetary needs.  Additionally, students from out of state bring a varying perspectives toward life in Wisconsin, and can be counted on to increase the diversity of our campus [so that I can keep my $150,000 salary]."  (Maybe that last part was silent.)


And this is why academia is dying.  This is why Glenn Reynolds is forever talking about the "bursting of the academic bubble."  UW pays Damon Williams $150,000 to do what, exactly?  Talk about diversity?  He clearly doesn't do that very well, since he can't even honestly talk about what diversity means, or why discrimination is or isn't happening on UW's campus. He is, however, apparently very good as riling up a bunch of students to shout down a campus visitor who has honest complaints about the admissions process. Rather than being taught to think, assess, evaluate, debate, and conclude, these students are learning how to make signs and insult people. 


But, hey, they're doing it as a community.

Excerpt for the Day/This is the best thing I've read in a while

From Da Tech Guy:

"When I look at Perry the remarkable thing about him is how unremarkable he is. Anytime in the last 100 years his background and beliefs would be decidedly uncontroversial. In large swaths of the country where the traditional culture exists he is just another pol (with a good record on jobs).

The problem is in that parallel secular culture where so many of the left live, these views are totally alien and moreover the entertainment & news media that informs them (drawn primarily from that secular culture) alternates between mocking religious Americans as ignorant fools or painting them as murderous inbred fanatics.

It’s reached the point where the left fears the United States return to an imaginary past that only exists in their minds, bearing no resemblance to that time that still exists in living memory.

To them prior to Abington School District v. Schempp, the US lived in a Christian Theocracy where Jews and Gays are slaughtered and all culture was repressed. They are able to look at Pat Robinson and see Bin Ladenwhile at the same time can look at Major Malik Nadal Hassan and see nothing. They look at the era before the sixties and see only segregation and repression while still calling the architects of that era “The Greatest Generation” without blinking an eye."

You should definitely go and read the whole thing here.  

Excerpt for the day - May 8

"The most telling phrase in that article was ‘they’, which was used again and again, always in quote marks, to refer to ordinary Americans. Because much of the ‘uncomfortable feeling’ over the killing of bin Laden is really an ‘uncomfortable feeling’ with, if not outright disgust for, ‘them’, the people who make up America, and for the ideals of modern America itself...


It is extraordinary, and revealing, how quickly the expression of concern about the use of American force in Pakistan became an expression of values superiority over the American people. The modern chattering classes are so utterly removed from the mass of the population, so profoundly disconnected from ‘ordinary people’ and their ‘ordinary thoughts’, that they effectively see happy Americans as a more alien and unusual thing than Osama bin Laden. Where OBL wins their empathy, American jocks receive only their bile...


No, the now widespread ‘uncomfortable feeling’ with the shooting of bin Laden is really an expression of moral reluctance, even of moral cowardice, a desire to avoid taking any decisive action or expressing any firm emotion that might have some blowback consequences for us over here. It is the politics of risk aversion rather than the politics of anti-imperialism, the same degraded sentiment that fuelled the narcissistic ‘Not in my name’ response to the Iraq War in 2003."


- Brendan O'Neill @ Spiked

Zombie lays down some knowledge

"Most Hispanics are about 70-75% Spanish heritage, and 25-30% Native American.

Problem is “Spanish” means European which means “white.” So they have to pretend that their majority ethnicity component doesn’t exist; and the “Aztlan” types in the US act like the Europeans in North America are interlopers against whom they are opposed; problem is, they are the interlopers themselves. They are the descendants of the European conquerors, no less so than the “Anglos” north of the border.

But that fact doesn’t match the narrative, so is swept under the rug.

There are many other problems with their story, such as the fact that California and most of the Southwest were only part of Mexico for a brief 25 years (1821-46), while having been part of Spain for several centuries beforehand, and then an independent nation for a short time, and afterward part of the United States for 162 years.

Prior to the arrival of the Spaniards, Alta California was very sparsely populated, and the natives here had no knowledge of nor any interaction with the Aztecs or any other Mexican native tribes. So why these people who claim partial descent from Aztecs should have ownership rights to a bit of territory their ancestors never controlled or even heard of, and which was part of Mexico for just a tiny handful of years since 1492 — well, nobody knows."

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/comment/76962/

Excerpt for the day - May 7

"Senator Obama opposed tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, preventive detention, Predator-drone attacks, the Iraq War, wiretaps, and intercepts — before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to embracing targeted assassinations, new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation — this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family. The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama’s radical transformation is the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left. In Animal Farm and 1984 fashion, the world we knew in 2006 has simply been airbrushed away."


-VDH @ NRO

Jobs are the means, not the ends in themselves

For today's excerpt for the day: 

Russ Roberts, from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and John Papola just released the sequel to their Keynes/Hayek economic rap video (yes, seriously).  

"You see slack in some sectors as a “general glut”

But some sectors are healthy, and some in a rut
So spending’s not free – that’s the heart of the matter
too much is wasted as cronies get fatter.

The economy’s not a car, there’s no engine to stall
no expert can fix it, there’s no “it” at all.
The economy’s us, we don’t need a mechanic
Put away the wrenches, the economy’s organic"

Check out more at econstories.tv

Arghhhhh!

Congress should consider cutting multibillion-dollar subsidies to oil companies amid rising concern over skyrocketing gas prices, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Monday.


Is this not basic economics?  I mean, I'm a history major, I'm not exactly an expert in this and I simply cannot see the logic in a conclusion like this.  The worry is that gas prices are too high.  So, the conclusion is to make gas more expensive?  Really?  That's what we're going for here?  


Let me elucidate how this works in my brain.  Gas is expensive for numerous, numerous reasons, not the least of which are as follows:


1) tornado and storm damage to refineries, which are the link between oil drilling and the gas you put in your motor; the US already has a dearth of oil refineries, largely due to federal regulation limitations, which limit how much oil is produced even more than drilling regulations might
2) the war in Libya (oh, sorry, what are we calling it now?), during which the oilfields of the Libya are being set aflame
3) a stop on new oil drilling in the Gulf, as per our President's executive order


I could probably keep going, but that's the low-hanging fruit.  Now, oil companies in the US have huge upfront costs involved in locating and obtaining oil from sources.  Much like medical research, it can take years and cost millions to find successful wells.  The price of gas is reflected in the combination of all these factors: to cover overhead, to account for refining costs, to cover any shortages, etc.  Oil companies receive so-called "tax breaks" just like any other company, in order to balance out how these costs and prices interact  for the company and the consumer.  


Now, lifting "tax breaks" for oil companies is going to do at least two things.  It's going to force smaller companies that rely on tax breaks in order to break even during development years out of business.  The larger companies, the ones that get all the bad press like Exxon and Conoco can absorb the increased costs that are going to accompany the removal of "tax breaks".  But what that will do is increase their overhead costs.  And in order to compensate, those costs are going to come down the pipeline as increased price-per-barrel.  The companies are built to make a profit.  They are not charitable institutions.  If they don't make a profit, they go under and hundreds of thousands of more people are out of work.  Therefore, if they lose their present profit margin to an increased tax bill, they will shift costs elsewhere, a.k.a. to the consumer.  


So Boehner's big plan here is apparently to (1) force smaller businesses out of business, and (2) increase the price of gas at the pump.  I'm confused as to how exactly this is supposed to help the consumer. 


But of course, it obviously isn't meant to the help the consumer.  The system is built so that the blame gets placed on the corporation, not the government official who forced increased tax prices through stupid legislation.  It's all part of the "Narrative" that big bad oil companies are out to squeeze you for every bit you're worth, and the nice government man is HERE TO HELP.  


I'm so frustrated that Boehner is the one stepping in this.  I know I should have know better, but I still stupidly expected the GOP leadership to stay away from the same populist bullshit.  Will Collier offers this nice explanation of rising gas prices related to drilling rules, but we've got to be better than beating our heads against this same damn wall.