Great article on the topic. Finally have someone I can cite/refer folks to with a lot of the twists and turns in both the history and complexity of the topic of AA. I’ve been spending too much time in and around Twitter and keep pausing, and then biting my tongue at the crazy takes on AA on all sides.
Not to “both sides” it, but the topic is extremely complicated and it’s hard to write a more complete take without dealing with both its complexities and how the term has both been valorized for doing much more than it’s actually doing (and adding to complacency that current policy is working well--and somehow believing that Harvard is doing a good job before of being a golden ladder for folks of slave ancestries as a reaction to the decision) or demonized with a fundamental misunderstanding of what it’s supposed to do (the point on legacy, Asian admissions, etc that you mention).
I mean it is a both sides thing! Asians are right to feel these white institutions have been blockading growing Asian enrollment. I think they are and it should be stopped. The only issue is the attacking Affirmative Action part which is way off but wide swaths of the country doesn't remember what AA was originally about!
Yup, totally. Just trying to avoid the useless rabbit hole of being accused of both-sidism without substance in the critique. I’m too used to public spaces now, lol.
I have tried not jumping into the conversations as much, but my usual shortcut is:
Honestly, I’d be more than ok if we replaced the current “Affirmative Action” system with just admitting descendants of slaves to redress past discrimination.
It’d both be more straightforward why we’re doing what we’re doing, versus taking in a ton of children of Nigerian doctors (not to say there’s no hardship there, but it isn’t what people are thinking of for “black” as a category in Harvard), and, ironically, was explicitly left off the table in the arguments for the Harvard and UNC case. They explicitly did not want to use that previously permissible reason in case law because then they’d have to deal with the redress part and they can’t with their stats (as you pointed out).
It’s just such an annoying issue to actually fully explain, which is why I’m glad you wrote this and took the time to go through it. I didn’t really think about it that way but you did put your finger on the pulse of a lot of the current conservative argument, especially to Asian Americans (and Hispanics—not a monolith, but still generally resonating with similar racially charged arguments) and the usefulness for them of twisting what AA is supposed to do.
I agree and I think admission weights should focus more on income than race, in part because poverty so clearly correlates with race. Poor Chinese American children of immigrant heritage that score highly deserve a chance to go to Harvard more than wealthy applicants. These institutions are hiding behind wealthy student's races rather than their income, which White, Black or Asian all skew well above what average people make.
I think it's a bit inaccurate how so much of Twitter referred to the military exemption in the decision as about recruiting poor PoC for cannon fodder (even if Justice KBJ did too). They were talking specifically about military _academy_ admissions, not general recruitment. Academies are where the officer corps comes from, the management and elites of the military (18% of active duty).
The exemption was still embarrassing for Roberts and his majority, but I'd chalk it up it more to the political instinct to not create annoyances for military top brass.
I really wish you would read just a little outside of your bubble. You'd be able to avoid piling onto strawmen and being able to consider other points of view would strengthen your own arguments. Too much of the time you're writing oversimplifies all of your intellectual opponents into the evil and the suckers, which is boring on top of usually being wrong.
"Under AA, Asian students eligible for top-tier universities still were admitted to equivalent-level top tier schools but were less likely to get their first choice over their second"
Anyways - if my local post office made an Asians-only line I would have a big problem with that and that wouldn't change if they could assure me the wait time was just a couple minutes longer.
Also - what does this stat mean: "Emerging minorities like Asian Americans — 96% of whom came or were born after the 1965 immigration act"? I assume you're saying that only 4% of Asian people can trace their family history back to before 1965? I wonder if you know what that stat looks like for Black Americans? I suspect it's far lower than you'd think, especially for college-aged kids.
(select Black as the census category and % Mothers Immigrant as the statistics)
From 2016-2021, 16% of new Black mothers in the US are immigrants and that share is growing, and it doesn't account for how many new Black mothers may be 2nd generation immigrants from families that arrived after 1965. It also doesn't account for how many of today's college kids are from mixed-race or interracially-adopted families. I'd guess that's another 10%, and growing quickly.
I'm all for critiques but I feel like yours are constantly things I've already discussed and you pick out snippets and hyperfocus on them when they're explained in the text. For example: "Also - what does this stat mean: "Emerging minorities like Asian Americans — 96% of whom came or were born after the 1965 immigration act"? I assume you're saying that only 4% of Asian people can trace their family history back to before 1965?"
Thats exactly what I'm saying, referenced in the title and numerous paragraphs, to illustrate with data how much the United States has changed since the passage of Affirmative Action in 1964 and how that re-characterizes much of the debate around it or even what it was for.
The article gives a lot of weight to the criticism Asian plaintiffs made and its clearly being understood by readers in various forums, social media and here. Whats the other side I need to listen to? What about the history of the Civil Rights Act and who opposed it that I went over are you disputing exactly? This topic is well documented. Moreover I give plenty of slack to opposing sides on issues of Asian discrimination. I even said it was occurring despite the lower court case finding it wasn't. If you read something contrary to your opinion it doesnt do you any good to simplify it. What more side do you want me to give? Whose side did I not acknowledge?
" I suspect it's far lower than you'd think, especially for college-aged kids."
Considering upwards of 80% of grad students in technical fields are foreign decent why does this matter? It doesnt inform anything about the general population. Yes Africans are the fastest growing minority in the U.S., I had a whole segment about how different Black Americans of slave ancestry vs immigrant ancestry are, did you miss it?
Hey you're right I'm coming off as nit-picky and overly critical which isn't what I intended.
I also did a very poor job of connecting two strands of thought, the first was very much a critique but the second was more of a question. I didn't understand the relevance of 96% of Asians tracing family history to post 1965 since every ethnic group is trending in that direction. And If AA is to encourage high-performing minorities or historically marginalized groups, what difference does it make if Asians have immigrated recently or not?
But as to my critique about info bubbles I really think you're missing some things here. Some of Harvard and UNC claims just don't don't stand up to scrutiny. Yes, they have quotas. They are informal quotas, but when you accept the same proportions of the census-designated ethnic groups year after year, with very little deviation in the proportions compared to what would be statistically expected and regardless of how those proportions change in you're applicant pools, then that's effectively a quota.
And the quotas do, in effect, make it harder to get in if you're Asian and easier if you're Black, at least for schools who went to trial and whose data can be analyzed. I wouldn't discount the wisdom of professional guidance counselors so easily either, I've known many people who were advised to "pass" for an ethnicity with a higher admission rate, ie half-Asian / half-whites applying as white, 1/4 Latino applying as Latino, etc.. This is one of the least controversial aspects of this debate and if it weren't true why would anyone even be fighting FOR affirmative action?
Aa far as sub-categories of Asian people go - just as Black descendants of slaves are not being served by the current version of "Affirmative Action", neither are various poorer and disadvantaged Asian or Middle Eastern ethnicities. Harvard et al hand-waved at this during the trial and sympathetic media accounts took them at their word and echoed these claims. But they presented no hard evidence that they look for these sorts of actually-disadvantaged backgrounds over census categories.
There is, however, hard evidence that they look for students from high SES backgrounds whenever possible to fill out their census quotas. Under such filters Nepalese and Laotian immigrants, Syrian and Somali refugees, etc.. are unlikely to get much consideration. The average UNC student comes from a household earning triple the median in NC (we can assume the disparity is larger at Harvard). So I personally think you're erring by echoing such claims without evidence.
I think these are good reads that explain what colleges have been doing, whether we want to call it "Affirmative Action" or "Diversity Targets" or whatever.
A good starting point, outside that bubble, is the actual SCOTUS opinion. Specifically, the discussion of the history from the 14th amendment through to the civil rights act. It is just far, far away from:
"So the conservative justices produced an ultimately useless ruling on Affirmative Action in college that sounded impactful to conservatives on paper — “Victory! Another provision of the Civil Rights Act destroyed!"
I discussed equality under the law in the reparations part where simply abolishing de-jure racism without repairing the damage merely perpetuated it de-facto.
Equality under the law: can be dismissed because racism.
Did I miss anything?
Fantastic constitutional argument there. I see you e really dig deep here to challenge your own assumptions. Thanks for the thoughtless rant acknowledging no serious legal or ethical questions or tradeoffs. Unsubscribe!
I think I see the fundamental misunderstanding here. You're stating "equality under the law" as the starting and the end place, as in the law itself cannot address de-facto racism and inequality by correcting for those inequalities because to do so is racist.
For many, equality under the law is the goal to be continually worked towards. Government has an obligation to address inequalities in society in order to give everyone an equal opportunity to pursue success and happiness. That sometimes means targeted action to address a specific ill.
When the government has tried things your way, there's good historical evidence that it doesn't do enough to move the needle on inequality. Should we be content with that?
Great article on the topic. Finally have someone I can cite/refer folks to with a lot of the twists and turns in both the history and complexity of the topic of AA. I’ve been spending too much time in and around Twitter and keep pausing, and then biting my tongue at the crazy takes on AA on all sides.
Not to “both sides” it, but the topic is extremely complicated and it’s hard to write a more complete take without dealing with both its complexities and how the term has both been valorized for doing much more than it’s actually doing (and adding to complacency that current policy is working well--and somehow believing that Harvard is doing a good job before of being a golden ladder for folks of slave ancestries as a reaction to the decision) or demonized with a fundamental misunderstanding of what it’s supposed to do (the point on legacy, Asian admissions, etc that you mention).
I mean it is a both sides thing! Asians are right to feel these white institutions have been blockading growing Asian enrollment. I think they are and it should be stopped. The only issue is the attacking Affirmative Action part which is way off but wide swaths of the country doesn't remember what AA was originally about!
Yup, totally. Just trying to avoid the useless rabbit hole of being accused of both-sidism without substance in the critique. I’m too used to public spaces now, lol.
I have tried not jumping into the conversations as much, but my usual shortcut is:
Honestly, I’d be more than ok if we replaced the current “Affirmative Action” system with just admitting descendants of slaves to redress past discrimination.
It’d both be more straightforward why we’re doing what we’re doing, versus taking in a ton of children of Nigerian doctors (not to say there’s no hardship there, but it isn’t what people are thinking of for “black” as a category in Harvard), and, ironically, was explicitly left off the table in the arguments for the Harvard and UNC case. They explicitly did not want to use that previously permissible reason in case law because then they’d have to deal with the redress part and they can’t with their stats (as you pointed out).
It’s just such an annoying issue to actually fully explain, which is why I’m glad you wrote this and took the time to go through it. I didn’t really think about it that way but you did put your finger on the pulse of a lot of the current conservative argument, especially to Asian Americans (and Hispanics—not a monolith, but still generally resonating with similar racially charged arguments) and the usefulness for them of twisting what AA is supposed to do.
I agree and I think admission weights should focus more on income than race, in part because poverty so clearly correlates with race. Poor Chinese American children of immigrant heritage that score highly deserve a chance to go to Harvard more than wealthy applicants. These institutions are hiding behind wealthy student's races rather than their income, which White, Black or Asian all skew well above what average people make.
Thanks, this is a great article.
FYI, "case in point" is the expression you meant, not "case and point".
I think it's a bit inaccurate how so much of Twitter referred to the military exemption in the decision as about recruiting poor PoC for cannon fodder (even if Justice KBJ did too). They were talking specifically about military _academy_ admissions, not general recruitment. Academies are where the officer corps comes from, the management and elites of the military (18% of active duty).
The exemption was still embarrassing for Roberts and his majority, but I'd chalk it up it more to the political instinct to not create annoyances for military top brass.
Fair point. Most enlisted dont go to the academy.
Few or no enlisted go to the academy. I think you're meaning most officers don't come from the academies.
Oh yeah, also a good point. Looks like 15% of all active duty commissioned officers in FY 2017, DoD-wide, came from a service academy. 21% of _newly_ commissioned officers. (https://www.cna.org/pop-rep/2017/appendixb/b_31.html and https://www.cna.org/pop-rep/2017/appendixb/b_30.html
I'd imagine academy graduates disproportionately staff the higher ranks of the officer corps, with connections and all, but I don't have data on that.
I really wish you would read just a little outside of your bubble. You'd be able to avoid piling onto strawmen and being able to consider other points of view would strengthen your own arguments. Too much of the time you're writing oversimplifies all of your intellectual opponents into the evil and the suckers, which is boring on top of usually being wrong.
"Under AA, Asian students eligible for top-tier universities still were admitted to equivalent-level top tier schools but were less likely to get their first choice over their second"
Anyways - if my local post office made an Asians-only line I would have a big problem with that and that wouldn't change if they could assure me the wait time was just a couple minutes longer.
Also - what does this stat mean: "Emerging minorities like Asian Americans — 96% of whom came or were born after the 1965 immigration act"? I assume you're saying that only 4% of Asian people can trace their family history back to before 1965? I wonder if you know what that stat looks like for Black Americans? I suspect it's far lower than you'd think, especially for college-aged kids.
Check out the stats from this page:
https://theusaindata.pythonanywhere.com/segregation.
(select Black as the census category and % Mothers Immigrant as the statistics)
From 2016-2021, 16% of new Black mothers in the US are immigrants and that share is growing, and it doesn't account for how many new Black mothers may be 2nd generation immigrants from families that arrived after 1965. It also doesn't account for how many of today's college kids are from mixed-race or interracially-adopted families. I'd guess that's another 10%, and growing quickly.
I'm all for critiques but I feel like yours are constantly things I've already discussed and you pick out snippets and hyperfocus on them when they're explained in the text. For example: "Also - what does this stat mean: "Emerging minorities like Asian Americans — 96% of whom came or were born after the 1965 immigration act"? I assume you're saying that only 4% of Asian people can trace their family history back to before 1965?"
Thats exactly what I'm saying, referenced in the title and numerous paragraphs, to illustrate with data how much the United States has changed since the passage of Affirmative Action in 1964 and how that re-characterizes much of the debate around it or even what it was for.
The article gives a lot of weight to the criticism Asian plaintiffs made and its clearly being understood by readers in various forums, social media and here. Whats the other side I need to listen to? What about the history of the Civil Rights Act and who opposed it that I went over are you disputing exactly? This topic is well documented. Moreover I give plenty of slack to opposing sides on issues of Asian discrimination. I even said it was occurring despite the lower court case finding it wasn't. If you read something contrary to your opinion it doesnt do you any good to simplify it. What more side do you want me to give? Whose side did I not acknowledge?
" I suspect it's far lower than you'd think, especially for college-aged kids."
Considering upwards of 80% of grad students in technical fields are foreign decent why does this matter? It doesnt inform anything about the general population. Yes Africans are the fastest growing minority in the U.S., I had a whole segment about how different Black Americans of slave ancestry vs immigrant ancestry are, did you miss it?
Hey you're right I'm coming off as nit-picky and overly critical which isn't what I intended.
I also did a very poor job of connecting two strands of thought, the first was very much a critique but the second was more of a question. I didn't understand the relevance of 96% of Asians tracing family history to post 1965 since every ethnic group is trending in that direction. And If AA is to encourage high-performing minorities or historically marginalized groups, what difference does it make if Asians have immigrated recently or not?
But as to my critique about info bubbles I really think you're missing some things here. Some of Harvard and UNC claims just don't don't stand up to scrutiny. Yes, they have quotas. They are informal quotas, but when you accept the same proportions of the census-designated ethnic groups year after year, with very little deviation in the proportions compared to what would be statistically expected and regardless of how those proportions change in you're applicant pools, then that's effectively a quota.
And the quotas do, in effect, make it harder to get in if you're Asian and easier if you're Black, at least for schools who went to trial and whose data can be analyzed. I wouldn't discount the wisdom of professional guidance counselors so easily either, I've known many people who were advised to "pass" for an ethnicity with a higher admission rate, ie half-Asian / half-whites applying as white, 1/4 Latino applying as Latino, etc.. This is one of the least controversial aspects of this debate and if it weren't true why would anyone even be fighting FOR affirmative action?
Aa far as sub-categories of Asian people go - just as Black descendants of slaves are not being served by the current version of "Affirmative Action", neither are various poorer and disadvantaged Asian or Middle Eastern ethnicities. Harvard et al hand-waved at this during the trial and sympathetic media accounts took them at their word and echoed these claims. But they presented no hard evidence that they look for these sorts of actually-disadvantaged backgrounds over census categories.
There is, however, hard evidence that they look for students from high SES backgrounds whenever possible to fill out their census quotas. Under such filters Nepalese and Laotian immigrants, Syrian and Somali refugees, etc.. are unlikely to get much consideration. The average UNC student comes from a household earning triple the median in NC (we can assume the disparity is larger at Harvard). So I personally think you're erring by echoing such claims without evidence.
I think these are good reads that explain what colleges have been doing, whether we want to call it "Affirmative Action" or "Diversity Targets" or whatever.
https://clarkecollegeinsight.substack.com/p/affirmative-action-is-probably-mostly
https://clarkecollegeinsight.substack.com/p/contra-yglesias-on-test-optional
https://clarkecollegeinsight.substack.com/p/ken-griffin-bought-his-kids-spots
A good starting point, outside that bubble, is the actual SCOTUS opinion. Specifically, the discussion of the history from the 14th amendment through to the civil rights act. It is just far, far away from:
"So the conservative justices produced an ultimately useless ruling on Affirmative Action in college that sounded impactful to conservatives on paper — “Victory! Another provision of the Civil Rights Act destroyed!"
Not even a word about equality under the law. Bad evil Republicans. Got it.
I discussed equality under the law in the reparations part where simply abolishing de-jure racism without repairing the damage merely perpetuated it de-facto.
Not paying reparations = racism.
Equality under the law: can be dismissed because racism.
Did I miss anything?
Fantastic constitutional argument there. I see you e really dig deep here to challenge your own assumptions. Thanks for the thoughtless rant acknowledging no serious legal or ethical questions or tradeoffs. Unsubscribe!
I think I see the fundamental misunderstanding here. You're stating "equality under the law" as the starting and the end place, as in the law itself cannot address de-facto racism and inequality by correcting for those inequalities because to do so is racist.
For many, equality under the law is the goal to be continually worked towards. Government has an obligation to address inequalities in society in order to give everyone an equal opportunity to pursue success and happiness. That sometimes means targeted action to address a specific ill.
When the government has tried things your way, there's good historical evidence that it doesn't do enough to move the needle on inequality. Should we be content with that?