ACT, barack obama, Charles Murray, diversity, Edward Blum, Joanne Jacobs, joe biden, Judge Loretta Biggs, NCTE, Prof. Gordon Klein, race-based admissions, remedial high school, SAT, Supreme Court, systemic racism, UNC, woeness
Among the essential components of terminal wokeness is the certainty that all white people are racist, all Black people cannot possibly succeed on their own and merit is evil and must be abolished. All of these insane, destructive beliefs have long come together in academia, which is desperate to live in that manufactured reality, as Newsmax.com reports:
A federal judge has ruled North Carolina’s flagship public university can continue to consider race as a factor in its undergraduate admissions, rebuffing a conservative group’s argument that affirmative action disadvantages white and Asian students.
U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs ruled late Monday, the University of North Carolina has shown it has a compelling reason to pursue a diverse student body and has demonstrated that measurable benefits come from that goal.
‘In sum, the court concludes that UNC has met its burden in demonstrating that it has a genuine and compelling interest in achieving the educational benefits of diversity,’ Biggs wrote.
Biggs is—I’m sure this is a coincidence—Black, and was nominated by Barack Obama, which is surely also a coincidence.
Students for Fair Admissions sued UNC in 2014, arguing using race and ethnicity as a factor in college admissions violates the equal protection cause of the Constitution and federal civil rights law. The group contended UNC had gone too far in using race as a factor in admissions and had thus ‘intentionally discriminated against certain of [its] members on the basis of their race, color, or ethnicity.’
The group’s president, Edward Blum, told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday that it would appeal by day’s end to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His group already appealed a denial in a similar lawsuit against Harvard University. Blum said he hopes both cases get bundled together so the Supreme Court rules simultaneously on private and public universities.
‘Shame on Harvard, shame on UNC, and shame on all universities who take federal funds from considering race as an element,’ said Blum, who has long sought to rid college admissions of race-based admissions policies.
Unfortunately, such people are incapable of feeling shame.
UNC countered in court its admission practices are legally and constitutionally permissible and that race-neutral alternatives would not enable it to achieve its diversity goals. Of roughly 20,000 undergraduate UNC students this fall 2021 semester, approximately 56% are white, nearly 13% Asian, about 10% Hispanic, and 8.5% Black, the university said.
Because nothing is more important than diversity…
‘This decision makes clear the university’s holistic admissions approach is lawful,’ said an emailed statement from Beth Keith, a spokesperson for the university. ‘We evaluate each student in a deliberate and thoughtful way, appreciating individual strengths, talents, and contributions to a vibrant campus community where students from all backgrounds can excel and thrive.’
They deliberately and thoughtfully ensure skin color matters most. And do race-based admission actually produce a “vibrant campus community where students from all backgrounds can excel and thrive”? Read on:
Judge Biggs wrote that she applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s University of Texas precedent, which established schools may consider race in admissions in ways narrowly tailored to promote diversity.
She noted that UNC ‘offered a principled and reasoned explanation,’ supported by research, for its pursuit of a diverse student body, citing a 2005 report by a UNC task force that its academic goals depend on ‘a critical mass’ of students from underrepresented groups.
‘The university has presented substantial evidence demonstrating its good faith in pursuing the educational benefits that flow from diversity,’ the judge concluded.
And how, exactly, could “academic goals depend on ‘a critical mass’ of students from underrepresented groups”? And how could “educational benefits…flow from diversity”?
It was Barack Obama who federalized the student loan industry, the better to convince everyone they should be in college. Whether they were actually capable of doing college level study, actually needed or wanted a college degree, or could ever possibly pay back student loans was beside the point. Colleges were and are admitting anyone with a solvent checkbook and/or student loans, and have established remedial high schools on their campuses for the students who can’t read, write or do math. Of course, those classes produce no college credit, but they do produce full tuition revenues.
And what of merit? What of the idea that college really isn’t for everyone, it shouldn’t be for everyone, and merit—actual academic potential and ability–should and must play a primary role, not only in determining who should teach at colleges, but who should be admitted? It’s an issue I addressed in College: Certificate Of Attendance:
Charles Murray, the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute is a prolific writer on education issues. One of his most interesting works (PDF available here), written in 2009, is entitled Intelligence and Education. Murray referred to a survey that found high school guidance counselors encouraged 90% of high school students to attend college. It is not surprising, therefore, to discover:
‘For 40 years, American leaders have been unwilling to discuss the underlying differences in academic ability that children bring to the classroom. Over the same period, federal policy, backed by billions of taxpayer dollars in loans and grants, has aggressively encouraged more and more students to try to obtain a college education. As a result, about half of all high-school graduates now enroll in four-year colleges, despite the ample evidence that just a small minority of American students — about 10-15% — have the academic ability to do well in college.’
Using his own research and that of others, Murray came to an interesting conclusion about what is necessary for genuine success in college: an IQ of at least 115. He wrote:
‘There is no inconsistency between Kobrin’s results and a 115 mean IQ among white college graduates. The students who make salient points in classroom discussions, who write well-researched term papers, and whose final exams demonstrate that they understood the material are usually well into the upper half of the distribution of academic ability among those who go to college. In other words, they are somewhere in the top 15% of the population — and usually in the top 10%.’
How can we be sure Murray is right, and is not just a systemically racist hater? We can believe our own lyin’ eyes rather than government and race hustlers. As I noted, colleges admit pretty much anyone, particularly if they’re of the right race, gender, or indeterminate gender, because diversity is now the entire point of college rather than producing graduate capable, intelligent and useful in a functioning representative republic. To that end, we have remedial high schools on campus, which for students needing such assistance, add at least two years to a four year degree.
Colleges are also doing away with any pre-admission testing—ACT, SAT—which have the unfortunate tendency to reveal far too many of their minority admissions have little or no academic aptitude. Because such “students” are profoundly incapable of doing college level work, colleges are, more and more, dumbing down, entirely eliminating grades, or so grossly inflating them as to make them meaningless. In essence, many colleges are giving minority students credit for no work. And many colleges no longer so much as pretend that Black students are capable of doing college level work.
Take the case of Prof. Gordon Klein at UCLA, reported by Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:
But of all the cases, the attack on Prof. Gordon Klein at UCLA’s Anderson Business School was perhaps the most insane – truly other-worldly.
Prof. Klein’s alleged offense was that he insisted on treating black students equally. He refused a request by a white student to allow black students preferential treatment on final exams. Because such a racial preference would violate UCLA’s anti-discrimination policies (and maybe even the law), Klein refused. Students then launched a defamatory campaign against Prof. Klein, and the cowards who run UCLA’s Anderson School capitulated, denouncing and suspending Klein. He eventually was reinstated — because he did absolutely nothing wrong — but not before his reputation and career were severely damaged.
By all means, take the link, which has many links to similar cases around the nation. This is apparently the vibrancy” of which UNC is so enamored. This is apparently how colleges vindicate their confidence in race-based admissions. Prof. Klein is suing UCLA. And did you know, gentle readers, the English language is racist, as I noted in English is Raaaacist!
During my English teaching career, I was a member of the National Council of Teachers of English, but not for long. It became apparent that rather than upholding professionalism and rational standards, the NCTE was just another leftist organization, which was sprinting as far left as possible. The organization has, somehow, managed to survive without my financial support. They continue, as JoanneJacobs.com reports, their headlong rush to intellectual oblivion:
‘In the name of ‘linguistic justice,’ college writing instructors have agreed that teachers should ‘stop using academic language and standard English as the accepted communicative norm,’ writes Matthew Stewart, associate professor of humanities and rhetoric at Boston University, on the Martin Center blog.
The executive committee of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, the largest and most important association of college-level writing teachers, has approved “demands” by six professors, writes Stewart. CCCC is closely associated with the National Council of Teachers of English, an even larger group predominantly made up of middle and high school teachers.
The CCCC statement, written in academic/woke English with a ‘cain’t’ here and a ‘respeck’ there, includes:
Teachers (must) develop and teach Black Linguistic Consciousness that works to decolonize the mind (and/or) language, unlearn white supremacy, and unravel anti-Black linguistic racism!’
Uh-huh. Telling students ‘shit’ and ‘fuck’ are not every part of speech, nor are they acceptable in college-level writing, is ‘anti-Black linguistic racism.’ So, apparently, is requiring correct spelling and grammar.
‘. . . teachers STOP telling Black students that they have to ‘learn standard English to be successful because that’s just the way it is in the real world.’ No, that’s not just the way it is; that’s anti-Black linguistic racism.’
And just how good are “diversity and inclusion” mandates at producing academic competency? Not so good, as Breitbart.com explains:
A new analysis of student test-score data found school districts with administrators hired to head ‘diversity and inclusion’ programs are not only not shrinking achievement gaps, but may actually be serving to expand them.
‘If [Chief Diversity Officers] CDOs are not accomplishing their stated goals, what is accomplished by creating these positions?’ asked Jay Greene, Ph.D. and James Paul, authors of the report published at the Heritage Foundation on Tuesday.
Hmmm. Who could possibly have anticipated that not requiring college level academic performance would expand academic achievement gaps? Certainly not college administrators, D/S/C professors—most of them—D/S/C politicians and race hustlers in general.
Final Thoughts: Race based admissions are a tacit admission college administrators and fellow traveler do not believe Black students are smart and capable enough to succeed on their own merits. Rather than helping them improve their abilities, they require less of them, and in so doing, discriminate against far better prepared and capable white and Asian students who have no doubt their skin color will count for nothing in life, nor should it.
I’m not suggesting people who don’t have high SAT scores should never attend college. I know many people who, later in life, obtained honest degrees through dogged determination and hard work. They are all better people for the effort, God bless them each and every one. I am suggesting honest academics are capable of telling to a high degree of accuracy when people are going to fail, and fail miserably at college. Being functionally illiterate, for example, might be a good indicator.
What good do we do for any student who drops out of college with massive college debt, no degree, no skills, and no means to pay back that debt? Joe Biden may think money is free, but somebody is going to have to cough up that debt, and it will be, of course, taxpayers in general. We’re subsidizing failure. What have we done for the all-important self-esteem and racial identification of dropouts? What does that say about the people intent on admitting people they know cannot possibly succeed in college? What does that say about federal judges who are not judges who happen to be Black, but Black judges?
And if we are intent on eliminating merit, what does that say about the chances of survival of Western Civilization?