Everyone knows, including his adversaries, that whatever supposed transgressions, if indeed there were, were minor but a great pretext for ignoring the scholarship of Dr. Fryer.
If his findings were to become standard knowledge, the current edifice of anti-racism/dei, etc would liquefy. Think of the political, funding, and career consequences.
As is becoming my habit, I posted on YouTube as well...
The title of this video is so powerful, "Affirmative Action GUARANTEES Black Underperformance." Preference is a racist affront to the dignity and potential of those who receive it. The real tragedy is that so many who should be pissed-off with affirmative action and the unassailable results, celebrate it as a "victory" for Black people. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said in another post, either you think Black and Latino students can compete--on fully meritocratic bases--or you think they are inferior, period. Why they might be less prepared is irrelevant. Treating them like they will never measure up has no long-term positive outcome. None. Full stop.
Continuing here, in addition to my comments on YouTube, let me add this. Now, one might argue, as does another poster here, that the outcome we seek is not actual meritocratic evaluation, but membership in a network of "graduates from elite universities," that is provided simply by attending said university--regardless of one's performance therein. I admit that I am not unsympathetic to this premise. I think there is a bit of "old boy's network" going on. However, what about the (oft-cited) performance of Asian students, against those same ostensibly meritocratic rubrics? Do we think they do not want to enjoy the same membership in the so-called Old Boy's Network? Or do they actually do BOTH, i.e., perform better using the meritocratic rubrics and thereby earn admission to the elite circles? Again, unless we are admitting or positing that Black and Latino prospective students will NEVER be able to compete, contra Asians, we have no basis to continue the acceptance of preferential--and lower--standards for one group versus another.
Interestingly, the Opportunity Insights study released yesterday (see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html) shows the huge advantage given to rich people in selective admissions, even in a world of race-conscious admissions. Among other things, this suggests most of minority beneficiaries of race conscious admissions are already well-off. (Probably not a big surprise to your listeners!)
More interestingly, the same study shows this (admission to an elite college) has little effect on one's annual earnings, but a big effect on entry in certain occupations, e.g. grad school or working for prestigious firms. I suspect these are occupations where networking is a bigger part of success than objective meritocratic measures-- relative to otherwise similar occupations- some contemporary version of the "Old Boy Network."
I posit that we are looking in the wrong place when we look at college admissions rather than how people are selected for these occupations. Of course looking admissions is easier (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect). But imagine a world where entry into these jobs didn't effectively require an Ivy League degree: (i) people would cease to care nearly as much who Harvard admitted; (ii) Harvard might focus more on *education* in an attempt to keep its elite status; and (iii) these firms and graduate programs might actually produce a better product too.
Garry Trudeau once drew a very funny Doonesbury comic strip about the academic success of Asian students. Here is the transcript:
Jennifer: National Merit Scholar! How do you do it, Kim?
Kim: I don't know. I guess I just study.
Jennifer: No way. I tried that once. You've got some edge.
Kim: Edge? Like what, Jennifer?
Jennifer: Some genetic edge. Getting good grades is a racial characteristic, isn't it? An Asian thing?
Kim: You won't tell everyone, will you?
Jennifer: I knew it! You guys are some sort of superrace, aren't you?
Kim: We mean you no harm. We seek only computers for our young!
The whole thing is a joke. Hunter Biden is an idiot. And a Yale grad. And a millionaire. None of his accomplishments are due to any merit whatsoever.
Everyone knows, including his adversaries, that whatever supposed transgressions, if indeed there were, were minor but a great pretext for ignoring the scholarship of Dr. Fryer.
If his findings were to become standard knowledge, the current edifice of anti-racism/dei, etc would liquefy. Think of the political, funding, and career consequences.
As is becoming my habit, I posted on YouTube as well...
The title of this video is so powerful, "Affirmative Action GUARANTEES Black Underperformance." Preference is a racist affront to the dignity and potential of those who receive it. The real tragedy is that so many who should be pissed-off with affirmative action and the unassailable results, celebrate it as a "victory" for Black people. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said in another post, either you think Black and Latino students can compete--on fully meritocratic bases--or you think they are inferior, period. Why they might be less prepared is irrelevant. Treating them like they will never measure up has no long-term positive outcome. None. Full stop.
Continuing here, in addition to my comments on YouTube, let me add this. Now, one might argue, as does another poster here, that the outcome we seek is not actual meritocratic evaluation, but membership in a network of "graduates from elite universities," that is provided simply by attending said university--regardless of one's performance therein. I admit that I am not unsympathetic to this premise. I think there is a bit of "old boy's network" going on. However, what about the (oft-cited) performance of Asian students, against those same ostensibly meritocratic rubrics? Do we think they do not want to enjoy the same membership in the so-called Old Boy's Network? Or do they actually do BOTH, i.e., perform better using the meritocratic rubrics and thereby earn admission to the elite circles? Again, unless we are admitting or positing that Black and Latino prospective students will NEVER be able to compete, contra Asians, we have no basis to continue the acceptance of preferential--and lower--standards for one group versus another.
Interestingly, the Opportunity Insights study released yesterday (see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html) shows the huge advantage given to rich people in selective admissions, even in a world of race-conscious admissions. Among other things, this suggests most of minority beneficiaries of race conscious admissions are already well-off. (Probably not a big surprise to your listeners!)
More interestingly, the same study shows this (admission to an elite college) has little effect on one's annual earnings, but a big effect on entry in certain occupations, e.g. grad school or working for prestigious firms. I suspect these are occupations where networking is a bigger part of success than objective meritocratic measures-- relative to otherwise similar occupations- some contemporary version of the "Old Boy Network."
I posit that we are looking in the wrong place when we look at college admissions rather than how people are selected for these occupations. Of course looking admissions is easier (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect). But imagine a world where entry into these jobs didn't effectively require an Ivy League degree: (i) people would cease to care nearly as much who Harvard admitted; (ii) Harvard might focus more on *education* in an attempt to keep its elite status; and (iii) these firms and graduate programs might actually produce a better product too.