How a great university fell into this robotic state

[NatMorton]

Really good article in today's WSJ penned by a former Harvard professor. Wish I could post the entire thing, but these few passages cover it:

Almost immediately after the Supreme Court announced its ruling for the plaintiffs in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, I received several emails about the decision. From Harvard’s president-elect, Claudine Gay, a message of shared grief: “Today is a hard day, and if you are feeling the gravity of that, I want you to know you’re not alone.” A personal message from a former student: “Today is a great day in the life of the country.” The difference was that the student was writing to someone he knew shared his opinion, while the president assumed that everyone shared hers. In that difference lies the corruption at the heart of higher education. Like many universities, Harvard has been striving for a uniformity of prestamped opinions that its incoming president assumes. But Students for Fair Admissions invites us to hope for a pause if not a turning point in that demand for uniformity.

As a professor at Harvard starting in 1993, I saw how a great university fell into this robotic state. From the mid-1990s to my retirement in 2014, I spoke out against what I insisted on calling “group preferences” whenever the subject was raised at faculty meetings. First among my many concerns was how the pursuit of diversity, engineered on the basis of race, subverted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That legislation, itself regrettably belated, had guaranteed freedom from “discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin,” even if such treatment was locally required by law. Brave Americans had fought hard to secure those individual rights, and social experiments in other countries had proved that an imposed equality of results impeded the advancement of their supposed beneficiaries.

I also objected on academic grounds that the goal of correcting for socioeconomic inequality was replacing the goal of intellectual inquiry, the search for truth and the pursuit of excellence. Had the school truly wanted to correct racial inequities it would have used its resources to improve the education of millions of underserved children. Instead, I argued, the university’s embrace of racial categories could only deepen and promote politics on behalf of existing grievances.

But the most immediate and consequential effect of engineered group diversity was to quash debate. When I questioned then-president Neil Rudenstine’s self-satisfied report on “diversity at Harvard” to the faculty of arts and sciences in 1996, he was roused to respond with “an uncharacteristic display of emotion,” as the next day’s issue of the student newspaper, the Crimson, described it. In her turn, his successor Drew Faust laughed off my proposal at another such faculty meeting that Harvard investigate the correlation between the introduction of imposed group diversity and the decline of diversity of opinion. These incidents did me no personal harm, and they would have been amusing had I not worried about the pusillanimity they encouraged. In what was meant as a warning to others, one of my professorial colleagues informed the Crimson that no one listens to Prof. Wisse.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvar...higher-ed-87dd642a?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s (paywall)

I couldn't agree more, and have posted on this same point elsewhere on DP. Affirmative Action programs, no matter how well intentioned, are only papering over a problem. They don't solve it, and in my opinion only make matters worse by drawing policy attention away from the causes of the black achievement gap in 2023: lousy urban public schools and the destruction of the black family unit.

 

[noonereal]

Really good article in today's WSJ penned by a former Harvard professor. Wish I could post the entire thing, but these few passages cover it:


Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvar...higher-ed-87dd642a?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s (paywall)

I couldn't agree more, and have posted on this same point elsewhere on DP. Affirmative Action programs, no matter how well intentioned, are only papering over a problem. They don't solve it, and in my opinion only make matters worse by drawing policy attention away from the causes of the black achievement gap in 2023: lousy urban public schools and the destruction of the black family unit.

The problem is that we live in a class system. This is not a color issue.
An inner city white faces the same obstacles as an inner city black.

 

[natman]

Like so many political schemes, instead of treating the root cause (that's too hard!), it tries to make the situation look better by gaming the system.

 

[dmpi]

It's a paradox. We want to celebrate diversity but the painful reality is that very diversity makes some people inherently smarter than others. Education is a wonderful tool but it has limits. We are wreaking it for the masses to try to save the few.

 

[JRTurner]

Was he as concerned about the legacy enrollments, I might have given him more thought. Those types never complain about the soft bigotry of low expectation when whites get in on something other than academic merit.

 

[JRTurner]

The problem is that we live in a class system. This is not a color issue.
An inner city white faces the same obstacles as an inner city black.

Except when it comes to issues of race.

 

[noonereal]

Except when it comes to issues of race.

What do you mean?

 

[JRTurner]

What do you mean?

Classism is classism.
Racism is racism.

 

[The Mark]

Really good article in today's WSJ penned by a former Harvard professor. Wish I could post the entire thing, but these few passages cover it:


Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvar...higher-ed-87dd642a?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s (paywall)

I couldn't agree more, and have posted on this same point elsewhere on DP. Affirmative Action programs, no matter how well intentioned, are only papering over a problem. They don't solve it, and in my opinion only make matters worse by drawing policy attention away from the causes of the black achievement gap in 2023: lousy urban public schools and the destruction of the black family unit.

I tend to think that Affirmative Action did some good, but I recently saw an argument that I find it hard to disagree with.

Affirmative Action tried to fix an issue after it had already happened, by adjusting the outcome.

It allowed untold amounts of bullshit to continue by not addressing the root cause, namely inequality of opportunity and resources, regardless of personal merit.

 

[JRTurner]

I tend to think that Affirmative Action did some good, but I recently saw an argument that I find it hard to disagree with.

Affirmative Action tried to fix an issue after it had already happened, by adjusting the outcome.

It allowed untold amounts of bullshit to continue by not addressing the root cause, namely inequality of opportunity and resources, regardless of personal merit.

Mostly because those with the power think the powerless are that way because they are of low moral character and are throwaway citizens with little to no value. AA was the only remedy allowed by those in power, and now even that has been ripped off like a used bandaid--and still the wound hasn't healed.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The problem is that we live in a class system. This is not a color issue.

But color and class are related.

An inner city white faces the same obstacles as an inner city black.

Nonsense.

Even an inner city white person, doesn't get followed around the store by suspicious people thinking they are going to steal something like even wealthy black people do.

If an inner city white person is cornered by police with a gun in his hand, he will probably survive. If a black person has an encounter with police, even an innocent one, the chances of being killed are much higher.

I agree that class is probably the main issue, but anyone who thinks black people and white people, even poor ones, are treated equally, is clueless.

 

[NatMorton]

I tend to think that Affirmative Action did some good, but I recently saw an argument that I find it hard to disagree with.

Maybe, and only a long, long time ago with overt cases of institutional racism. For all intents and purposes, that level of racism no longer exists.

Affirmative Action tried to fix an issue after it had already happened, by adjusting the outcome.

That's just it. It's not a fix. It's merely the appearance of one.

It allowed untold amounts of bullshit to continue by not addressing the root cause, namely inequality of opportunity and resources, regardless of personal merit.

Agreed, the root causes remain, and that's where our focus should be.

 

[NatMorton]

Mostly because those with the power think the powerless are that way because they are of low moral character and are throwaway citizens with little to no value. AA was the only remedy allowed by those in power, and now even that has been ripped off like a used bandaid--and still the wound hasn't healed.

Sometimes you have to let a wound breathe.

 

[noonereal]

Classism is classism.
Racism is racism.

AND WE attribute classism to racism reflexively.

 

[noonereal]

But color and class are related.

No they are not.

Nonsense.

Even an inner city white person, doesn't get followed around the store by suspicious people thinking they are going to steal something like even wealthy black people do.

If an inner city white person is cornered by police with a gun in his hand, he will probably survive. If a black person has an encounter with police, even an innocent one, the chances of being killed are much higher.

I agree that class is probably the main issue, but anyone who thinks black people and white people, even poor ones, are treated equally, is clueless

This part is utter nonsense.

 

[lwf]

I tend to think that Affirmative Action did some good, but I recently saw an argument that I find it hard to disagree with.

Affirmative Action tried to fix an issue after it had already happened, by adjusting the outcome.

It allowed untold amounts of bullshit to continue by not addressing the root cause, namely inequality of opportunity and resources, regardless of personal merit.

The thing it did best was to force racial and cultural integration on the country and create generations of white Americans who (by government mandate, sadly) were forced to go to the same schools and therefore to some degree grow up with people of minority races and cultures.

The steady evaporation of racial bigotry in America was due in large part to Affirmative Action preventing at least a good portion of the natural racial and cultural segregation that would have happened without it. Of course, it wasn't nearly enough to solve all of the social inequities and ills suffered by minority communities, and there is an argument that at some point it would have outlived its usefulness, but AA was valuable to this country for what it accomplished. I suspect there would be far more bigotry tolerated in this country today had minority integration not been artificially forced on schools for the past 60 years through Affirmative Action.

 

[NolanVoyd]

No they are not.

Of course they are.

This part is utter nonsense.

If you don't know that part is true, then you aren't paying attention.

 

[JRTurner]

AND WE attribute classism to racism reflexively.

Wow--you should stop doing that.

 

[BlueTex]

Really good article in today's WSJ penned by a former Harvard professor. Wish I could post the entire thing, but these few passages cover it:


Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvar...higher-ed-87dd642a?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s (paywall)

I couldn't agree more, and have posted on this same point elsewhere on DP. Affirmative Action programs, no matter how well intentioned, are only papering over a problem. They don't solve it, and in my opinion only make matters worse by drawing policy attention away from the causes of the black achievement gap in 2023: lousy urban public schools and the destruction of the black family unit.

Isn’t the author a former professor of one of those “worthless” degrees conservatives talk about so much?

Ruth Wisse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Visbek]

Really good article in today's WSJ penned by a former Harvard professor. Wish I could post the entire thing, but these few passages cover it...

I couldn't agree more, and have posted on this same point elsewhere on DP....

"Hey everyone, look! Someone said something negative about liberals! Therefore, I agree."

Y'know, I would take these complaints about mainstream/progressive groupthink more seriously if I were a total moron if we didn't see such behavior not only rampant among today's progressives, but about pretty much everyone going back decades. You seriously think that pressure to conform was invented by leftists five years ago? That's utterly hilarious.

Anyway. Wisse is a well-known neocon, who somehow didn't get fired from Harvard for her political views, despite her implication that Harvard has eradicated her viewpoint on campus. Hmmmmmm

Affirmative Action programs, no matter how well intentioned, are only papering over a problem. They don't solve it...

lol, what an absurd claim. That's like saying "giving someone CPR won't fix their heart disease, so stop giving them CPR!"

No one says that AA is going to single-handedly solve racism. It never claimed to have such a comprehensive effect on its own. It's trying to even the playing field for those who are subject to racial oppression, which reduces their ability to get a spot at one of the handful of élite colleges that can actually be selective about applicants. (About 90% of colleges and universities in the US, by the way, are not all that selective.)

....and in my opinion only make matters worse by drawing policy attention away from the causes of the black achievement gap in 2023: lousy urban public schools and the destruction of the black family unit.

Yes, because lousy suburban and rural schools do a great job.

(Oh, wait. I forgot. "Urban" is a dog whistle for "Black." Despite the fact that the largest group of urban residents are white, and there are significant Black populations in suburban and rural regions. Never mind...)

By the way, why is AA drawing "policy attention?" It's not because AA was in use, it's because conservatives keep trying to get rid of it. Hmmmmmm

By the way, I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that lousy "urban" (read: Black) schools and single parenthood are the results of racism and racial inequality (and poverty and other factors), rather than the cause of them...? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess "no" on that one.

 

[Visbek]

Isn’t the author a former professor of one of those “worthless” degrees conservatives talk about so much?

Any port in a storm.

 

[Napoleon]

No one says that AA is going to single-handedly solve racism. It never claimed to have such a comprehensive effect on its own.

One of the many problems with AA and one of the many reasons it was finally - and justly - killed is that it never claimed to have any positive effect. Nobody - not Harvard, not UNC - could articulate in oral arguments exactly what they were doing and what they were hoping to accomplish with race-conscious admissions and racist stereotyping. Harvard even denied that it was doing it at all. Indeed, as it turns out, affirmative action is just malicious racism for its own sake.

 

[BlueTex]

Any port in a storm.

In this case, a Canadian former comparative literature professor….

 

[reflechissez]

I tend to think that Affirmative Action did some good, but I recently saw an argument that I find it hard to disagree with.

Affirmative Action tried to fix an issue after it had already happened, by adjusting the outcome.

It allowed untold amounts of bullshit to continue by not addressing the root cause, namely inequality of opportunity and resources, regardless of personal merit.

What's your definition of AA?

 

[beefheart]

I have been through three lawyer/government presentations about affirmative action this week. Its pretty amazing what the angry rube doesn't know.