Part of what made Students for Fair Admissions’ case before the Supreme Court so compelling was the data. It was very hard to look at the numbers and not conclude that discrimination was involved in Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s admissions practices. This week on The Glenn Show, John and I are joined by the man behind that data, Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono. I feel like we’ve been talking about this case for a long time, but Peter signed onto the project back in
Glenn you made the same argument I have been making about legacy admissions. You either have a market-based system of admissions or a socialized system. While I understand the arguments regarding the unfairness of legacies, those arguing against it are arguing for a socialized system. These are the same people that argued against a different socialized system (affirmative action) who are now arguing that admissions should be socialized according to their standards.
The fact is we live in a capitalist, market-based system which means those who provide services in the market need to be able to run their business according to what is good for their business. Sure, the scales should not be tipped too far in one direction. But the institution has their own needs and I don't understand the argument that its customers should determine the methodology they use for admissions, if that method works against their interest.
By the way, I am someone who supports some method of affirmative action. Our universities and workplaces need to reflect the nation's population. I saw John's debate with Randall Kennedy and I'm with Randall on this one. The problem is, and you address this in the episode, the attempt to make the correlation a perfect one obliterates the concept of merit and ends up being discriminatory. I suspect had Harvard merely doubled the number of minorities they admitted rather than increasing it by a factor of 5x, the lawsuit wouldn't have been brought. What did them in is they are ideologues who insisted on socializing the process (adjusting the shares to make the groups equal).
I hadn't really thought about it, but this whole notion that affirmative action is implied to be and is understood to be merely a tiebreaker is how a lot of political communication works. This claim is rarely if ever made directly, so it's not really a lie. But for those of us that grew up inculcated in the prevailing culture, it's really quite a shock to learn how extreme it actually is.
As a designer making products people use It's recommended to know the trends. So Universities and business just follow the trend ... result was the prolonged use of AA and DEI with mush in the head and meaningless blather to justify it. No valid justification was needed because 'following the trend" is what needs to be done to sell producrs. And when a trend becomes a religion it's hard to see that the trend may in fact be harmful.
The speaker didn't state that the reason why DEI doesn't work is because racism petsists. He questioned whether it fails because racism is not a major factor in hindering productivity by individuals of any ethnicity. And you could see he lacked the boldness to state the obvious - that as every person is an individual, teaching people to not be racist against groups of people INSTEAD of teaching people to relate to every person as an individual is idiotic, stupid, doesn't work, is a waste of time and in fact petpetuates racism.
DEI programs and personel should be eliminated. Every student should learn and every employee should be given a memo to not be color blind, appreciate all cultures and ethnicities we have in the USA and interact with and judge each person as an individual by their character not the charcteristics of their ethnicity. And get to work.
As a white person I have to come to terms with, that while I drew the white lottery ticket I am, based on demographic averages, one standard deviation below average Ashkenazi Jews in intelligence. While I may argue about the justice of that, its denial will not further my cause. Nonetheless, the ‘I’ of me is all about identity. My “lived experience”, as redundant as that terminology sounds, requires me to see the world in terms of myself as a white non-Jewish person. As such, and not being Asian my chances of having gone to Harvard would be slim to none. There was that thing about my grades in high school, and then the SAT, but looking at the demographics, its clear it was never a level playing field and should be addressed by Congress and the courts. Those numbers are created by government functionaries and they can do something about them. Justice demands no less.
I can only hope that my children will have greater opportunity. It begins with awareness and we are teaching them the power of identity in obtaining social justice. This is a transgenerational movement that will not rest until all are parodied.
The Noble laureates are actually space aliens pretending to be Jewish.
Racial disparities in a Eurocentric society are to be expected and accepted as givens, based on the premise of population differences due to contrasting cultural and environmental factors. Race is real but its defining aspects are impermanent within a mixed race breeding population. Between the genetic mixing of characteristics and cultural influences on their development, racial characteristics blur, become a matter of degree, loose utility as generalizations. People may find their places with less regard of other’s expectations. Integration is a process through time. People doing with each other what they do best—comingling. The law does not prohibit discrimination, but discrimination based on certain defined characteristics including that of race. That’s about as far as law can go without violating its mandate, without infringing on personal rights in general. Structural integration of the races will happen with time and proximity and the consequent weakening of what were formerly seen as useful generalizations.
Let everyone seek a place available to one of their talents. Talent would include measures of intelligence and their correlation with success in specific avenues of inquiry or practice. That blacks, on average, score lower than the overall mean on standardized measurements of intelligence, says nothing about the individual, but of the group, comparatively fewer qualified to become doctors or to run large corporations, and diminishingly small numbers advised to a theoretical physics path. Happiness begins with acceptance of the world as it is, which does not preclude the possibility of improvement, but improvement grounded in real possibility. IQ does not speak to the irreducible quality of being human.
The reason for disproportionate fewer numbers of blacks in positions correlating to higher levels of intelligence and socioeconomic status needs no further explanation than the double bell curve. Other factors may be at play but in themselves may reflect the fundamental logic of Richard Herrnstein’s famous syllogism from his Atlantic article of 1973:
· If differences in mental ability are inherited, and
· If success requires those abilities, and
· If earnings and prestige depend upon success,
· Then social standing (which reflects earnings and prestige) will be based to some extent on inherited differences among people.
‘g’, that which IQ tests attempt to measure, is an elusive concept, but that it correlates strongly to socioeconomic outcomes in a Eurocentric world is incontrovertible. Given the importance of mental ability, as measured by IQ (a measure dismissed out of hand by progressive orthodoxy, but well established among psychometricians and the great majority of biogenetic researchers), and its high correlation with socioeconomic success, the story of race in America may be graphically represented by two overlapping bell curves. The normal distribution of a given variable, taken from a sufficiently large sample, as illustrated in a bell curve graph, will be numerically greatest at its numerical mean (average). The same number of values will lie to the right and to the left of the mean in smoothly diminishing numbers. 68.3% of the sample will lie within one standard deviation (SD) to the right and one standard deviation to the left of the mean. 95% of the sample will lie within two standard deviations from the mean, and three standard deviations will capture 97.5% of the sample. The analytical strength of this statistical ratio is that it is constant through all normal distributions. The mean IQ score for white Americans is approximately 100, that of black Americans 85, or approximately one standard deviation below that mark. This statistical difference has several consequential effects. If one were to superimpose the graph of black IQ distribution onto a graph of white IQ distribution, the large area of overlap reemphasizes the necessity of seeing individuals specifically, rather than as members of a group defined by generalizations that may statistically apply to that group, but are of limited applicability to its individual members. The converse, however, precludes the assumption of group equality in terms of the chosen metric. At the point at which the graph lines intersect, those points to the left will be disproportionately, relative to population, represented by blacks, those to the right disproportionally by whites. Because of the rightward shift of the white population norm and the numerical minority (13.6% of the American population) of blacks, the availability of blacks to fill upper echelon jobs, or elite university admissions, corresponding to IQ requirements of, say one standard deviation above the general population norm and beyond, becomes diminishingly small. (Harvard, other considerations aside, is considering applicants from three standard deviations from the norm, or around the 97.5 percentile.) In the other direction the disproportionate concentration of blacks at one standard deviation below the norm of the white population may be expected to correlate with disproportionate representation in lower socioeconomic positions as well as to increasingly disproportionate representation by measurements of poverty and associated sociological maladies. Employers or institutions seeking to meet aggressive diversity goals in filling higher echelons may have trouble finding qualified black applicants. They certainly exist but will, in terms of the general population, be underrepresented. There are one eighth as many blacks as whites, but the degree that they are disproportionately underrepresented in the higher ranges of the IQ distribution makes the difference much greater in terms of individuals available to fill positions correlating to the right half of the scale. [1]
Underproportioned representation of backs in higher socioeconomic positions is consistently pointed to as de facto evidence of systematic or institutional racism. Racism cannot be dismissed as a partial or even significant part of the explanation, but it is not a complete or necessarily the most important factor in the creation of the data underlying the statistic. Nor can the outcome be taken as evidence of systemic or institutional racism. We know that America has a long history of racism, beginning with attitudes that permitted the ideology of slavery, and that elements of those attitudes have persisted to the present, but anecdotal and statistical evidence exits to argue that those attitudes have not remained constant, but rather have diminished over time, to the point that one may question the degree to which racism remains systematic or institutional, or how, or to what extent, that phenomenon might be quantified. However, the importance of racism’s historical inertia cannot be discounted when considering the black person’s inertial reality.
The recognition of population differences raises questions relating to policy. Is justice, or fairness, best served by the denial that meaningful differences exist between individuals, or better by policies supportive of individuals finding meaningful roles tailored to their potentials, especially as related to policy in the area of public education and occupational preparation. Presuming the absence of material want, i.e., a reasonable degree of economic security, meaning is perhaps a higher human goal, in terms of personal realization, than material gain or even comparative status. Above all, people seek a place within society in which they enjoy dignity and are respected for their roles as individual humans, as ends to themselves. Personal fulfillment entails doing meaningful work well. Accomplishment of that goal implies an alignment of the task to one’s talents. Relative status having been defined, one sets about feathering one’s nest. We all come to our own pons asinorum, that point at which our intellectual capacity does not measure up to the complexity of the problem at hand, beyond which we cannot progress. One may become imbittered by that fact, or look around to see what other work needs doing.
A string may be pushed from here to yonder without it getting longer.
The efforts of elite universities to be more inclusive might best focus on socioeconomic, rather than racial metrics and on the importance of insuring that admissions be based on merit, complex as that definition might be, and that the natural barriers to advancement and interclass cooperation not be artificially overburdened by adherence to fatuous concepts or maintained by misguided philanthropy.
Another powerful episode. I really like how they are continuing this Affirmative action conversation. And I agree with Peter 's statement concerning racism being alive. But it's now used to try and place people like Justice Thomas and Roland Fryer into a box. As I have said many times. It reminds me of grade school. Unless you think like me, "you iz not really black."
There are whites in power who feud with each other, but they need enough blacks on their side to achieve certain agendas, or goals. That is the world we live in. And it seems that this has been going on for many generations.
I welcome my fellow subscribers to agree or disagree.
Love your talks Glen. In the architectural Profession women took the affirmative action hire meant for POC. Few women studied architecture but now women flooded into coveted teaching positions in Architectural Programs, some with no body of work and no ability to produce design work. Feminist Profs reported and complained about our "toxic masculinity" and " male bullying" by making students work during studio time and also in developing a professional level of skills. We have "talkitecture: theory before practice. Look at the Impact on out cities and landscapes. Fail.
Very probing insights! With data it is actually possible to know for real if a policy is counterproductive, like DEI. Prof. Roland Fryer and others who have used data to shine a light into the darkness are persecuted by those who wish the truth remain obscured. But the truth cannot be hidden for long.
I have no problems with interracial relationships per se. I've done some swirling myself with different flavors, but not with white female supremacists who were involved in white racist/supremacist organizations or movements like the John Birch Society. I wasn't that desperate to blindly lust after white flesh, especially those who despised my existence as a black man. My daughter-in-law, an educator, is white and hasn't been involved with white racist/supremacist organizations. Plus, Ginny supported overthrowing the government to keep your illustrious leader (*great white hope*) in power. You're afraid to talk about this awkward relationship between Clarence and Ginny which is significant. Moreover, a colorblind society is a white supremacist ruse to distract from seriously addressing the historical maldistribution of massive generational wealth and power to whites based on 240 years of slavery and 100 years of brutal Jim Crow. Blacks were brought here to enrich whites, not for their individuality or humanity. Blacks lost 3 centuries of opportunity in participating in free market capitalism. 2% black group wealth is ineffective in competing ing in this system with the white dominant society. I'm not an apologist or appeaser like John McWhorter who's trying to get his books out of the black sections of bookstores and libraries to the white section. Let's cut through the bullshit on preserving white dominance and power. Lol!
Great show today. Coincidental to my post of today. Starts here continues on my site. In response: Larry Summers, Washington Post column, July 1, 2023, and The Free Press, Bari Weiss interview, July 22, 2023
Ditch elite athletics? Rather, run it like a noble club, I say. Say yes to anyone who can learn the art of sailing and proper use of knife and fork while holding up one’s end of an intelligent conversation. Harvard has a history, with Yale and Princeton and several others of carrying the old boy tradition as a legacy and I’m thinking that’s not a bad thing. Private colleges and universities play by different rules than public institutions, having stronger claim to sovereignty. And sovereignty is core to the idea of a university. Harvard was home to Emerson, Thoreau, Pierce, James and Holmes. The axis of America’s intellectual gravity ran through there, still echoes through the halls. They’re over the walls, they’d say, and not in jest. Holmes wounded on three occasions, left on the field for dead.
Label phobia is the new pandemic. Among the standard labels by which one may be classified as irredeemable, to be cast into the fiery pit, whether racist, sexist, or homophobic ableist—that of elitism is amongst the most dreaded. Its all about the common man. Bottom rail on top now. But its not a lottery. It may be that anyone can be president, but that should not be the case. Society brings its leaders forth from a pool established to meet its enterprisal needs. Its not about fairness. And justice is observance of the rules. Proudly wear the elite label. Much depends on these few stout fellows pulling on their oars. It is by exclusivity that excellence is distilled. May the motto be Amplectere Excellentia.
That the University might produce the Renaissance man (inclusive use of pronouns throughout) presumes recognition and cultivation of the facets of one’s character, not remiss of all the things that make a person complete in the art of being human. While SAT scores hould be given considerable weight, they are no final arbiter of merit. Question is what qualities and in what combination will best compliment the University’s evolving concept of itself, as a complex fabric of interlocking relationships. For that concept to have meaning it must be based on a tactility transcendent of statistics or of generalized formulations insuring mediocrity. Elite education has two functions, to provide students with the means to integration within the social fabric, and to bring forward the new elite.
Too often rules designed to guard against abuse insure no one to get their proper due. Statistical perspectives may ignore the unique features of an individual or discount a different way of seeing problems. Broad, non-standardized assessments, based on personal essays and interviews, may be subject to the biases of the interviewer. But while the question of who should be admitted may not be guaranteed a proper answer, truth may oft be best approached on foot. Statistical tools can provide bias free metrics of basic academic preparedness and capacity, raw measurements of intelligence, but say little as to the moral system by which information is to be ordered and prioritized. Personal essays, interviews and background reviews bring the subjective into play, relying on the disinterested intellectual integrity of the evaluator, assumes a culture wherein such is the default case. Rules are helpful up to the point of transgressing justice at which point some flexibility may be appropriate. Moral growth requires an understanding of moral complexity, of moral ambiguity. Tailoring one’s life to pre-made boxes can be all consuming. Higher education stands in danger of producing well-spoken empty suits.
The university admissions policy will necessarily reflect its vision of itself and applicants will be considered in light of its own replication; it will seek out those who reflect its complexities and traditions. The elite university will serve the elite community upon which the health of the larger community is highly dependent.
The extent to which the private university has become, through the fulsome expansion of programs beyond its formerly cloistered environs, an institution dependent on public financing has weakened the hand of those who would see the university as an island of tranquility in a restless sea, as both a repository of wisdom and an engine of discovery, as a bastion of tradition within protected space, not from what may offend but from external distraction from interests, from political direction or popular causes. The degree to which an institution is independent is that extent to which it can rely upon its own resources, is to the extent that it can act on its own authority, shape its programs to reflect its vision of its self and its place in the larger world. Might a smaller university reliant upon tuition and its own endowment better preserve that sovereignty? Might better guard the flame of truth?
The emphasis would seem to be on creating a marketable brand, rather than on the knowledge-centric mission of the organization. Essential to that mission is the reality of the fabric of the university and how people and ideas fit into relational patterns in accordance with the ethos of the institution. A great institution is both excellent and unique, intolerant of anything less than excellent, and jealous of its own special nature, reflective of tradition and intent.
Hardship Olympics, Glen Loury podcast: Loury and McWhorter are correct to point out the degree to which admissions has come to focus on victimhood rather than excellence. The mission of the university is the pursuit of academic excellence. It may be argued that diversity contributes to the realization of broad societal goals relating to societal excellence. But these are not academic excellence, which is the mission of the school, but rather represent social engineering goals imposed upon the institution according to extralegal mandates with the amorphous goal of ‘social justice’, which everyone is for but which escapes definitive formulation, has a lot of moving parts, is an unsettled branch of study. The university is amiss in thinking of itself as having a ‘higher’ purpose than that of its narrow mandate as a repository of wisdom and an engine of discovery
The athletic traditions of colleges and universities play often outsized roles in the formation of the image of the institution, and not coincidentally, may constitute a major source of revenue, coaches often paid more than college presidents. As we see amateur athletics professionalized, and integrated into the emergent phenomenon of gambling ubiquity, one may be forgiven for having lost track of the current logic behind college sports. Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eaton, someone said.
Dropping some of those elite sports that few in Kansas play would send a powerful virtue message and free up funds for games more supportive of the bottom line and constitute a move in the direction of dispelling any remaining vestiges of the institution as something special, or as having undue respect for traditions that profited from the slave trade. The cathartic realization of the privileged that, far from special, they are as common as dirt, can atone for having thought themselves as special, give a leg up, as they take a step down.
But really, how much does the upkeep of the boathouse really cost. And if he can keep up, academically, we’d really like to have him on our team. Might one not put in a word with Dean Picklewort over sherry this afternoon? And didn’t the Ivies invent football? Before the Romans made it gladiatorial the Greeks pursued a wreath of laurel.
As to legacy, did Kermit get a leg up as grandson of Theodore? Or John Quincy on the strength of his father’s sojourn at the font of wisdom on his way to creating a new order? Pre SAT so hard to say. Was a time coming from a good family counted for something, might be presumed to have good manners, have an established sense of propriety. Accept then that the elite bastion of learning will resemble a club, where much of the argument may happen behind closed doors. As many arguments should and might more quickly be resolved.
Diversity, in terms of college admissions, might be enhanced by recognition of the difference between public and private schools, the later properly having much more leeway than the former in the design of their product. The public institution is first responsible to the common welfare of its citizens. The private institution’s mandate is first to its own self-formulated mission. If Harvard wants to be a club, or should choose to have its student body made up of athletically endowed decedents of endowers, so be it. Prospective students not attracted to that club might choose another school thereby promoting innovation and diversity in institutional offerings. There does not come immediately to mind a reason that private schools should be directed in their admission programs by public policy, unless on the teat of the public dole. ... continued on my newsletter
It seems to me that the diversity sought by most universities is literally only skin deep. Universities want to be able to fill their mailings with photographs of their campus communities that look like Benetton ads. So long as there is a diversity of skin tones, they feel they have done their duty. What most universities do not seem to be interested in is intellectual diversities. In fact, the prevailing college cultures today seem to be stridently against people who think differently and/or have different opinions. The only thing more offensive than having an unpopular opinion is to be caught speaking the truth about the effects of affirmative action. I am disgusted by the actions of the Georgetown University Law Center toward Sandra A. Sellers. All she did was ask for advice on how to help her Black students do better in her class. Archie Bunker, she was not. The only possible reason that could justify her firing was if she was unique among the faculty in having Black students do, on average, more poorly than other students. But in order to defend her, they would have had to reveal she was not unique. But the last thing they wanted to do was admit that. It was far less painful to not renew her contract. Universities should never be in the business of hiding the truth.
Couldn't legacy admissions be a way for the beneficiaries of affirmative action to lock in the benefits for future generations? All those minority students (except the Asian ones) would see their children reap the "legacy" status of the previous standards.
Very few people can lay claim to the promotion of his race than Justice Thomas ( my words, likely not his). Why is his man the subject of such scorn, particularly from white intellectuals? If one cannot see his brilliance, then I’m sorry you’re an moron!
Glenn you made the same argument I have been making about legacy admissions. You either have a market-based system of admissions or a socialized system. While I understand the arguments regarding the unfairness of legacies, those arguing against it are arguing for a socialized system. These are the same people that argued against a different socialized system (affirmative action) who are now arguing that admissions should be socialized according to their standards.
The fact is we live in a capitalist, market-based system which means those who provide services in the market need to be able to run their business according to what is good for their business. Sure, the scales should not be tipped too far in one direction. But the institution has their own needs and I don't understand the argument that its customers should determine the methodology they use for admissions, if that method works against their interest.
By the way, I am someone who supports some method of affirmative action. Our universities and workplaces need to reflect the nation's population. I saw John's debate with Randall Kennedy and I'm with Randall on this one. The problem is, and you address this in the episode, the attempt to make the correlation a perfect one obliterates the concept of merit and ends up being discriminatory. I suspect had Harvard merely doubled the number of minorities they admitted rather than increasing it by a factor of 5x, the lawsuit wouldn't have been brought. What did them in is they are ideologues who insisted on socializing the process (adjusting the shares to make the groups equal).
I hadn't really thought about it, but this whole notion that affirmative action is implied to be and is understood to be merely a tiebreaker is how a lot of political communication works. This claim is rarely if ever made directly, so it's not really a lie. But for those of us that grew up inculcated in the prevailing culture, it's really quite a shock to learn how extreme it actually is.
As a designer making products people use It's recommended to know the trends. So Universities and business just follow the trend ... result was the prolonged use of AA and DEI with mush in the head and meaningless blather to justify it. No valid justification was needed because 'following the trend" is what needs to be done to sell producrs. And when a trend becomes a religion it's hard to see that the trend may in fact be harmful.
The speaker didn't state that the reason why DEI doesn't work is because racism petsists. He questioned whether it fails because racism is not a major factor in hindering productivity by individuals of any ethnicity. And you could see he lacked the boldness to state the obvious - that as every person is an individual, teaching people to not be racist against groups of people INSTEAD of teaching people to relate to every person as an individual is idiotic, stupid, doesn't work, is a waste of time and in fact petpetuates racism.
DEI programs and personel should be eliminated. Every student should learn and every employee should be given a memo to not be color blind, appreciate all cultures and ethnicities we have in the USA and interact with and judge each person as an individual by their character not the charcteristics of their ethnicity. And get to work.
Amplectere Excellentia--
As a white person I have to come to terms with, that while I drew the white lottery ticket I am, based on demographic averages, one standard deviation below average Ashkenazi Jews in intelligence. While I may argue about the justice of that, its denial will not further my cause. Nonetheless, the ‘I’ of me is all about identity. My “lived experience”, as redundant as that terminology sounds, requires me to see the world in terms of myself as a white non-Jewish person. As such, and not being Asian my chances of having gone to Harvard would be slim to none. There was that thing about my grades in high school, and then the SAT, but looking at the demographics, its clear it was never a level playing field and should be addressed by Congress and the courts. Those numbers are created by government functionaries and they can do something about them. Justice demands no less.
I can only hope that my children will have greater opportunity. It begins with awareness and we are teaching them the power of identity in obtaining social justice. This is a transgenerational movement that will not rest until all are parodied.
The Noble laureates are actually space aliens pretending to be Jewish.
Racial disparities in a Eurocentric society are to be expected and accepted as givens, based on the premise of population differences due to contrasting cultural and environmental factors. Race is real but its defining aspects are impermanent within a mixed race breeding population. Between the genetic mixing of characteristics and cultural influences on their development, racial characteristics blur, become a matter of degree, loose utility as generalizations. People may find their places with less regard of other’s expectations. Integration is a process through time. People doing with each other what they do best—comingling. The law does not prohibit discrimination, but discrimination based on certain defined characteristics including that of race. That’s about as far as law can go without violating its mandate, without infringing on personal rights in general. Structural integration of the races will happen with time and proximity and the consequent weakening of what were formerly seen as useful generalizations.
Let everyone seek a place available to one of their talents. Talent would include measures of intelligence and their correlation with success in specific avenues of inquiry or practice. That blacks, on average, score lower than the overall mean on standardized measurements of intelligence, says nothing about the individual, but of the group, comparatively fewer qualified to become doctors or to run large corporations, and diminishingly small numbers advised to a theoretical physics path. Happiness begins with acceptance of the world as it is, which does not preclude the possibility of improvement, but improvement grounded in real possibility. IQ does not speak to the irreducible quality of being human.
The reason for disproportionate fewer numbers of blacks in positions correlating to higher levels of intelligence and socioeconomic status needs no further explanation than the double bell curve. Other factors may be at play but in themselves may reflect the fundamental logic of Richard Herrnstein’s famous syllogism from his Atlantic article of 1973:
· If differences in mental ability are inherited, and
· If success requires those abilities, and
· If earnings and prestige depend upon success,
· Then social standing (which reflects earnings and prestige) will be based to some extent on inherited differences among people.
‘g’, that which IQ tests attempt to measure, is an elusive concept, but that it correlates strongly to socioeconomic outcomes in a Eurocentric world is incontrovertible. Given the importance of mental ability, as measured by IQ (a measure dismissed out of hand by progressive orthodoxy, but well established among psychometricians and the great majority of biogenetic researchers), and its high correlation with socioeconomic success, the story of race in America may be graphically represented by two overlapping bell curves. The normal distribution of a given variable, taken from a sufficiently large sample, as illustrated in a bell curve graph, will be numerically greatest at its numerical mean (average). The same number of values will lie to the right and to the left of the mean in smoothly diminishing numbers. 68.3% of the sample will lie within one standard deviation (SD) to the right and one standard deviation to the left of the mean. 95% of the sample will lie within two standard deviations from the mean, and three standard deviations will capture 97.5% of the sample. The analytical strength of this statistical ratio is that it is constant through all normal distributions. The mean IQ score for white Americans is approximately 100, that of black Americans 85, or approximately one standard deviation below that mark. This statistical difference has several consequential effects. If one were to superimpose the graph of black IQ distribution onto a graph of white IQ distribution, the large area of overlap reemphasizes the necessity of seeing individuals specifically, rather than as members of a group defined by generalizations that may statistically apply to that group, but are of limited applicability to its individual members. The converse, however, precludes the assumption of group equality in terms of the chosen metric. At the point at which the graph lines intersect, those points to the left will be disproportionately, relative to population, represented by blacks, those to the right disproportionally by whites. Because of the rightward shift of the white population norm and the numerical minority (13.6% of the American population) of blacks, the availability of blacks to fill upper echelon jobs, or elite university admissions, corresponding to IQ requirements of, say one standard deviation above the general population norm and beyond, becomes diminishingly small. (Harvard, other considerations aside, is considering applicants from three standard deviations from the norm, or around the 97.5 percentile.) In the other direction the disproportionate concentration of blacks at one standard deviation below the norm of the white population may be expected to correlate with disproportionate representation in lower socioeconomic positions as well as to increasingly disproportionate representation by measurements of poverty and associated sociological maladies. Employers or institutions seeking to meet aggressive diversity goals in filling higher echelons may have trouble finding qualified black applicants. They certainly exist but will, in terms of the general population, be underrepresented. There are one eighth as many blacks as whites, but the degree that they are disproportionately underrepresented in the higher ranges of the IQ distribution makes the difference much greater in terms of individuals available to fill positions correlating to the right half of the scale. [1]
Underproportioned representation of backs in higher socioeconomic positions is consistently pointed to as de facto evidence of systematic or institutional racism. Racism cannot be dismissed as a partial or even significant part of the explanation, but it is not a complete or necessarily the most important factor in the creation of the data underlying the statistic. Nor can the outcome be taken as evidence of systemic or institutional racism. We know that America has a long history of racism, beginning with attitudes that permitted the ideology of slavery, and that elements of those attitudes have persisted to the present, but anecdotal and statistical evidence exits to argue that those attitudes have not remained constant, but rather have diminished over time, to the point that one may question the degree to which racism remains systematic or institutional, or how, or to what extent, that phenomenon might be quantified. However, the importance of racism’s historical inertia cannot be discounted when considering the black person’s inertial reality.
The recognition of population differences raises questions relating to policy. Is justice, or fairness, best served by the denial that meaningful differences exist between individuals, or better by policies supportive of individuals finding meaningful roles tailored to their potentials, especially as related to policy in the area of public education and occupational preparation. Presuming the absence of material want, i.e., a reasonable degree of economic security, meaning is perhaps a higher human goal, in terms of personal realization, than material gain or even comparative status. Above all, people seek a place within society in which they enjoy dignity and are respected for their roles as individual humans, as ends to themselves. Personal fulfillment entails doing meaningful work well. Accomplishment of that goal implies an alignment of the task to one’s talents. Relative status having been defined, one sets about feathering one’s nest. We all come to our own pons asinorum, that point at which our intellectual capacity does not measure up to the complexity of the problem at hand, beyond which we cannot progress. One may become imbittered by that fact, or look around to see what other work needs doing.
A string may be pushed from here to yonder without it getting longer.
The efforts of elite universities to be more inclusive might best focus on socioeconomic, rather than racial metrics and on the importance of insuring that admissions be based on merit, complex as that definition might be, and that the natural barriers to advancement and interclass cooperation not be artificially overburdened by adherence to fatuous concepts or maintained by misguided philanthropy.
Another powerful episode. I really like how they are continuing this Affirmative action conversation. And I agree with Peter 's statement concerning racism being alive. But it's now used to try and place people like Justice Thomas and Roland Fryer into a box. As I have said many times. It reminds me of grade school. Unless you think like me, "you iz not really black."
There are whites in power who feud with each other, but they need enough blacks on their side to achieve certain agendas, or goals. That is the world we live in. And it seems that this has been going on for many generations.
I welcome my fellow subscribers to agree or disagree.
Love your talks Glen. In the architectural Profession women took the affirmative action hire meant for POC. Few women studied architecture but now women flooded into coveted teaching positions in Architectural Programs, some with no body of work and no ability to produce design work. Feminist Profs reported and complained about our "toxic masculinity" and " male bullying" by making students work during studio time and also in developing a professional level of skills. We have "talkitecture: theory before practice. Look at the Impact on out cities and landscapes. Fail.
Great conversation! Loved this one.
Very probing insights! With data it is actually possible to know for real if a policy is counterproductive, like DEI. Prof. Roland Fryer and others who have used data to shine a light into the darkness are persecuted by those who wish the truth remain obscured. But the truth cannot be hidden for long.
Thank you for this
I have no problems with interracial relationships per se. I've done some swirling myself with different flavors, but not with white female supremacists who were involved in white racist/supremacist organizations or movements like the John Birch Society. I wasn't that desperate to blindly lust after white flesh, especially those who despised my existence as a black man. My daughter-in-law, an educator, is white and hasn't been involved with white racist/supremacist organizations. Plus, Ginny supported overthrowing the government to keep your illustrious leader (*great white hope*) in power. You're afraid to talk about this awkward relationship between Clarence and Ginny which is significant. Moreover, a colorblind society is a white supremacist ruse to distract from seriously addressing the historical maldistribution of massive generational wealth and power to whites based on 240 years of slavery and 100 years of brutal Jim Crow. Blacks were brought here to enrich whites, not for their individuality or humanity. Blacks lost 3 centuries of opportunity in participating in free market capitalism. 2% black group wealth is ineffective in competing ing in this system with the white dominant society. I'm not an apologist or appeaser like John McWhorter who's trying to get his books out of the black sections of bookstores and libraries to the white section. Let's cut through the bullshit on preserving white dominance and power. Lol!
Great show today. Coincidental to my post of today. Starts here continues on my site. In response: Larry Summers, Washington Post column, July 1, 2023, and The Free Press, Bari Weiss interview, July 22, 2023
Ditch elite athletics? Rather, run it like a noble club, I say. Say yes to anyone who can learn the art of sailing and proper use of knife and fork while holding up one’s end of an intelligent conversation. Harvard has a history, with Yale and Princeton and several others of carrying the old boy tradition as a legacy and I’m thinking that’s not a bad thing. Private colleges and universities play by different rules than public institutions, having stronger claim to sovereignty. And sovereignty is core to the idea of a university. Harvard was home to Emerson, Thoreau, Pierce, James and Holmes. The axis of America’s intellectual gravity ran through there, still echoes through the halls. They’re over the walls, they’d say, and not in jest. Holmes wounded on three occasions, left on the field for dead.
Label phobia is the new pandemic. Among the standard labels by which one may be classified as irredeemable, to be cast into the fiery pit, whether racist, sexist, or homophobic ableist—that of elitism is amongst the most dreaded. Its all about the common man. Bottom rail on top now. But its not a lottery. It may be that anyone can be president, but that should not be the case. Society brings its leaders forth from a pool established to meet its enterprisal needs. Its not about fairness. And justice is observance of the rules. Proudly wear the elite label. Much depends on these few stout fellows pulling on their oars. It is by exclusivity that excellence is distilled. May the motto be Amplectere Excellentia.
That the University might produce the Renaissance man (inclusive use of pronouns throughout) presumes recognition and cultivation of the facets of one’s character, not remiss of all the things that make a person complete in the art of being human. While SAT scores hould be given considerable weight, they are no final arbiter of merit. Question is what qualities and in what combination will best compliment the University’s evolving concept of itself, as a complex fabric of interlocking relationships. For that concept to have meaning it must be based on a tactility transcendent of statistics or of generalized formulations insuring mediocrity. Elite education has two functions, to provide students with the means to integration within the social fabric, and to bring forward the new elite.
Too often rules designed to guard against abuse insure no one to get their proper due. Statistical perspectives may ignore the unique features of an individual or discount a different way of seeing problems. Broad, non-standardized assessments, based on personal essays and interviews, may be subject to the biases of the interviewer. But while the question of who should be admitted may not be guaranteed a proper answer, truth may oft be best approached on foot. Statistical tools can provide bias free metrics of basic academic preparedness and capacity, raw measurements of intelligence, but say little as to the moral system by which information is to be ordered and prioritized. Personal essays, interviews and background reviews bring the subjective into play, relying on the disinterested intellectual integrity of the evaluator, assumes a culture wherein such is the default case. Rules are helpful up to the point of transgressing justice at which point some flexibility may be appropriate. Moral growth requires an understanding of moral complexity, of moral ambiguity. Tailoring one’s life to pre-made boxes can be all consuming. Higher education stands in danger of producing well-spoken empty suits.
The university admissions policy will necessarily reflect its vision of itself and applicants will be considered in light of its own replication; it will seek out those who reflect its complexities and traditions. The elite university will serve the elite community upon which the health of the larger community is highly dependent.
The extent to which the private university has become, through the fulsome expansion of programs beyond its formerly cloistered environs, an institution dependent on public financing has weakened the hand of those who would see the university as an island of tranquility in a restless sea, as both a repository of wisdom and an engine of discovery, as a bastion of tradition within protected space, not from what may offend but from external distraction from interests, from political direction or popular causes. The degree to which an institution is independent is that extent to which it can rely upon its own resources, is to the extent that it can act on its own authority, shape its programs to reflect its vision of its self and its place in the larger world. Might a smaller university reliant upon tuition and its own endowment better preserve that sovereignty? Might better guard the flame of truth?
The emphasis would seem to be on creating a marketable brand, rather than on the knowledge-centric mission of the organization. Essential to that mission is the reality of the fabric of the university and how people and ideas fit into relational patterns in accordance with the ethos of the institution. A great institution is both excellent and unique, intolerant of anything less than excellent, and jealous of its own special nature, reflective of tradition and intent.
Hardship Olympics, Glen Loury podcast: Loury and McWhorter are correct to point out the degree to which admissions has come to focus on victimhood rather than excellence. The mission of the university is the pursuit of academic excellence. It may be argued that diversity contributes to the realization of broad societal goals relating to societal excellence. But these are not academic excellence, which is the mission of the school, but rather represent social engineering goals imposed upon the institution according to extralegal mandates with the amorphous goal of ‘social justice’, which everyone is for but which escapes definitive formulation, has a lot of moving parts, is an unsettled branch of study. The university is amiss in thinking of itself as having a ‘higher’ purpose than that of its narrow mandate as a repository of wisdom and an engine of discovery
The athletic traditions of colleges and universities play often outsized roles in the formation of the image of the institution, and not coincidentally, may constitute a major source of revenue, coaches often paid more than college presidents. As we see amateur athletics professionalized, and integrated into the emergent phenomenon of gambling ubiquity, one may be forgiven for having lost track of the current logic behind college sports. Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eaton, someone said.
Dropping some of those elite sports that few in Kansas play would send a powerful virtue message and free up funds for games more supportive of the bottom line and constitute a move in the direction of dispelling any remaining vestiges of the institution as something special, or as having undue respect for traditions that profited from the slave trade. The cathartic realization of the privileged that, far from special, they are as common as dirt, can atone for having thought themselves as special, give a leg up, as they take a step down.
But really, how much does the upkeep of the boathouse really cost. And if he can keep up, academically, we’d really like to have him on our team. Might one not put in a word with Dean Picklewort over sherry this afternoon? And didn’t the Ivies invent football? Before the Romans made it gladiatorial the Greeks pursued a wreath of laurel.
As to legacy, did Kermit get a leg up as grandson of Theodore? Or John Quincy on the strength of his father’s sojourn at the font of wisdom on his way to creating a new order? Pre SAT so hard to say. Was a time coming from a good family counted for something, might be presumed to have good manners, have an established sense of propriety. Accept then that the elite bastion of learning will resemble a club, where much of the argument may happen behind closed doors. As many arguments should and might more quickly be resolved.
Diversity, in terms of college admissions, might be enhanced by recognition of the difference between public and private schools, the later properly having much more leeway than the former in the design of their product. The public institution is first responsible to the common welfare of its citizens. The private institution’s mandate is first to its own self-formulated mission. If Harvard wants to be a club, or should choose to have its student body made up of athletically endowed decedents of endowers, so be it. Prospective students not attracted to that club might choose another school thereby promoting innovation and diversity in institutional offerings. There does not come immediately to mind a reason that private schools should be directed in their admission programs by public policy, unless on the teat of the public dole. ... continued on my newsletter
Remind me , who was Senate Judiciary Chairman at his SCOTUS confirmation hearings?
It seems to me that the diversity sought by most universities is literally only skin deep. Universities want to be able to fill their mailings with photographs of their campus communities that look like Benetton ads. So long as there is a diversity of skin tones, they feel they have done their duty. What most universities do not seem to be interested in is intellectual diversities. In fact, the prevailing college cultures today seem to be stridently against people who think differently and/or have different opinions. The only thing more offensive than having an unpopular opinion is to be caught speaking the truth about the effects of affirmative action. I am disgusted by the actions of the Georgetown University Law Center toward Sandra A. Sellers. All she did was ask for advice on how to help her Black students do better in her class. Archie Bunker, she was not. The only possible reason that could justify her firing was if she was unique among the faculty in having Black students do, on average, more poorly than other students. But in order to defend her, they would have had to reveal she was not unique. But the last thing they wanted to do was admit that. It was far less painful to not renew her contract. Universities should never be in the business of hiding the truth.
Couldn't legacy admissions be a way for the beneficiaries of affirmative action to lock in the benefits for future generations? All those minority students (except the Asian ones) would see their children reap the "legacy" status of the previous standards.
Very few people can lay claim to the promotion of his race than Justice Thomas ( my words, likely not his). Why is his man the subject of such scorn, particularly from white intellectuals? If one cannot see his brilliance, then I’m sorry you’re an moron!