UW-Madison students and staff support racial discrimination
Oct 23rd, 2011 by Unamused
Racial discrimination isn’t simply wrong, suggests University of Wisconsin-Madison law professor Ann Althouse in a recent blog post, it’s actually a rather complex issue — that is, provided you’re discriminating against white people.
To illustrate her arguably blatantly racist belief, Althouse provides a clip she edited from an October 17 hearing before the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities, in which
Louis Molepske, a Democratic member of the Wisconsin Assembly, questions Roger Clegg, president of Center for Equal Opportunity, which has released a study that supposedly [my emphasis] shows that the University of Wisconsin has engaged in serious race discrimination in its admission process for the undergrad program and the law school.
Curiously, although her thesis is that “serious race discrimination” isn’t necessarily a bad thing, Althouse is unwilling to grant that the study unearthed any. In fact, in two studies on UW-Madison (one of them on the law school, to which Althouse belongs), the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) found that
[t]he odds ratio favoring African Americans and Hispanics over whites was 576-to-1 and 504-to-1, respectively, using the SAT and class rank while controlling for other factors. Thus, the median composite SAT score for black admittees was 150 points lower than for whites and Asians, and the Latino median SAT score was 100 points lower. Using the ACT, the odds ratios climbed to 1330-to-1 and 1494-to-1, respectively, for African Americans and Hispanics over whites.
For law school admissions, the racial discrimination found was also severe, with the weight given to ethnicity much greater than given to, for example, Wisconsin residency. Thus, an out-of-state black applicant with grades and LSAT scores at the median for that group would have had a 7 out 10 chance of admission and an out-of-state Hispanic a 1 out of 3 chance—but an in-state Asian with those grades and scores had a 1 out of 6 chance and an in-state white only a 1 out of 10 chance.
CEO chairman Linda Chavez noted: “This is the most severe undergraduate admissions discrimination that CEO has ever found in the dozens of studies it has published over the last 15 years.” Chavez also noted: “The studies show that literally hundreds of students applying as undergrads or to the law school are rejected in favor of students with lower test scores and grades, and the reason is that they have the wrong skin color or their parents came from the wrong countries.”
“We think that kind of discrimination [racial] is wrong,” Clegg notes in the clip.
Gee, what’s the harm in it? Molepske wants to know. “We got a lot of white people in Wisconsin.” Maybe there’s a benefit (Althouse’s term) to refusing admission to qualified whites (and Asians) in favor of less qualified, and in some cases decidedly unqualified blacks and Hispanics.
In response, Clegg reiterates his original (apparently controversial) position: racial discrimination is wrong. “It’s just as simple as that.”
Molepske just doesn’t get it — or is Clegg the problem here?
“Here’s the thing”
Althouse thinks so, and she’s keen to defend anti-white (and, to a lesser extent, anti-Asian) discrimination. “Here’s the thing,” she explains.
The University’s policies align with the Supreme Court’s case law, which permits race discrimination narrowly tailored to serve the goal of classroom diversity.
In other words, racial discrimination is fine, because the Supreme Court says so — as long as it targets whites and benefits blacks and Hispanics. That, after all, is what “diversity” is all about.
Now might be a good time to reflect that the Civil Rights Movement was about equality before the law, not special privileges, and that it succeeded in large part because it appealed to fairness.
“Clegg performs moral clarity,” writes Althouse. (The scoundrel!)
He says race discrimination is “wrong” and “bad.” That’s something he just knows, quite aside from the CEO’s study.
Thus Althouse puts herself in the curious position of having to deny that racial discrimination is “wrong” or “bad” (does she even grant that it has a moral dimension?) because that sort of thinking jeopardizes the handouts for underqualified blacks and Hispanics (in the form of undeserved admissions, adjustments to “standardized” test scores, and so on), who simply must be incorporated into each and every classroom — from grade school to grad school — lest our country’s precious diversity reserves run low.
After all, racial diversity is a strength. Somehow. Contrary to all the available evidence.
Althouse just wants the University of Wisconsin to be free, you see — free to “design and implement its own [suitably anti-white] admissions policy.”
At UW-Madison, anti-white is all right
Althouse’s attempt to make racial discrimination out to be “rather complex,” as long as it benefits racial minorities, is fairly typical of the response by University of Wisconsin staff and students to the findings of the Center for Equal Opportunity.
To at least one member of the student government, the very notion of anti-white discrimination is “crazy” — notwithstanding statistical evidence to the contrary (madison.com, Sept. 13).
“Are we going to get sued for not having enough white people at our school? How crazy is that?” posed David Vines, who is a representative on the Student Services Finance Committee of the Associated Students of Madison, which is UW-Madison’s student government.
Other students see the findings of the reports as an attack on the university.
Vines says student leaders are preparing a Tuesday rally at 6 p.m. on Bascom Hill to protest the CEO’s policies.
A joint statement sent to the Cap Times by UW-Madison students Sarah Mathews, Noah Whitford, Damon Terrell, Martin Feehan and Vines reads: “The Center for Equal Opportunity has launched an attack on the University of Wisconsin-Madison with the goal of dividing our campus community. As Badgers we stand together in support of the integrity of our student body and the institution that unites us.”
Actually, they stand together in support of systemic anti-white discrimination and one of the many institutions that enforces it.
According to Damon Williams, the university’s vice provost for diversity, anyone who supports equal rights for white people is trying to deny black people their civil rights.
“These organizations have as their mission to systematically dial back the gains from the Civil Rights era,” Damon Williams… told a group of student leaders Monday night at the Red Gym in a segment recorded by WKOW.com.
As you might expect from his title, Williams is black (see his picture in the Badger Herald). Given that the career of this “vice provost for diversity” depends on the need for more “diversity” (meaning, simply, fewer white people), it is not surprising that he would deflect attention from the proven systemic anti-white discrimination at work at UW-Madison with a spurious accusation of anti-black racism (evidently the only kind he cares about) on the part of the studies’ authors.
In other unsurprising news, some minority students took the studies personally (Wisconsin State Journal, Sept. 14).
“I took it as a slap in the face and an insult, almost presuming that none of us worked hard and just got here because of the color of our skin,” Mia McKinney, a UW-Madison senior from Racine and a member of PEOPLE, a program to encourage minorities to apply to the school, said of the study. “I think that’s a huge presumption and assumption.”
Yes, Ms. McKinney, your fanciful (not to say colorful) interpretation of the Center for Equal Opportunity’s findings — as a personal insult to visible minorities — certainly would be a huge presumption and/or assumption.
The worst was yet to come from students at UW-Madison. Egged on by professional diversity-mongers, they rioted and shut down Clegg’s press conference (Wisconsin State Journal, Sept. 14).
Clegg introduced the study at an 11 a.m. news conference Tuesday [Sept. 13] at the DoubleTree hotel, 525 W. Johnson St. He was immediately peppered with questions from students and faculty members questioning the analysis.
After about 45 minutes, more than 100 students and others stormed into the room, chanting “power to the people!” and “more than our scores!” to a steady drumbeat. Clegg packed up his briefcase and left. Students took over the microphone and began to share personal stories about the value of diversity.
Police arrived on the scene to monitor the crowd. Three DoubleTree employees reported getting pushed or knocked down in the melee, but no one was seriously injured and there were no arrests. DoubleTree reported no property damage but criticized the protesters, calling them a “mob” in a press release.
W. Lee Hanson, UW-Madison professor emeritus of economics, is more forthright in his article, “From the inside, protesters were ‘mob'” (madison.com, Sept. 21).
The chanting and yelling coming from the lobby made it impossible for Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity to continue responding to questions, effectively shutting down the press conference. After protesters overcame hotel staff trying to prevent their entry to the press conference room, they surged in and surrounded me and Clegg. We headed for the exit only to find protesters blocking it.
After hotel staff cleared the way, we came into the lobby. Instructed to go to the elevator, we were followed by chanting protesters. Several tried to enter the elevator after us but were blocked by hotel staff. The protesters tried to prevent the doors from closing, but finally the hotel staff members pushed the protesters back so the elevator doors could close.
To describe the protesters as having “broken decorum” is a gross and misleading understatement. To describe their actions as “well-intentioned” is at odds with what should have been obvious to anyone in the lobby. The best single-word description of the protesters is they were a “mob” and acted like a “mob.”
Damon Williams (the black vice provost for diversity) actually encouraged the students to take action against Clegg (Badger Herald, Sept. 13).
Williams stressed the need for students to mobilize, and the students present did not seem to need any convincing.
“Don’t wait for us to show the way,” Williams said to students, who were already assembling poster board to make signs against the CEO president’s report and visit.
And why not? After all, according to Williams, reporting on anti-white discrimination at colleges and universities is tantamount to “systematically dialing back the gains from the Civil Rights era.”
Suppose Williams is right. Suppose the Center for Equal Opportunity is trying to turn back the clock. Isn’t that proof that the “civil rights” movement has gone too far? If the “gains from the Civil Rights era” include systemic anti-white discrimination in college admissions, I suggest we start dialing them back right now.
The worst of them all
“We believe in what we’re doing. We believe it to our toes,” said Williams (Badger Herald, Sept. 13). I’m sure he does — even when reality contradicts his ideology.
In this respect, perhaps the biggest ass of all is Sara Goldrick-Rab (yes, she’s Jewish — I can only sigh), UW-Madison associate professor of education policy studies and sociology. In an unbearably snide blog post, “Dissecting the So-Called ‘Research’ Report: Preliminary Thoughts” (duly reprinted, in part, by madison.com), she offers “some stuff you gotta know”:
In Wisconsin 2.5% of Blacks are in prison. That rate is 8 times higher than it is for Whites.
Well, that certainly justifies discriminating against whites to put more blacks in universities. Wait… huh?
The truth (the enemy of every ideology) is that the average black person is much more criminal than the average white person, in Wisconsin (where they are 20 times as likely to commit murder, 6.9 times as likely to commit forcible rape, 39 times as likely to commit robbery, and 6.9 times as likely to commit aggravated assault) and everywhere else in America. It’s just one example of race differences in behavioral traits.
Just 65% of Blacks earn a high school diploma on time in Wisconsin, compared to 95% of Whites.
Glad she brought that up: for another example of race differences in a behavioral trait, the average black person is considerably less intelligent than the average white person. That’s why, in the absence of affirmative action, there are so few blacks enrolled in universities: because so few deserve to be.
There’s no white racist conspiracy to fight. There’s only human biodiversity, and you can’t beat that on anything less than a geological timescale.
But for some reason, it outrages the Center for Equal Opportunity that in 2007-2008, Blacks made up 2.6% of the student body admitted to UW-Madison— while 85.5% of those incoming classes were white.
Could it be because the Center for Equal Opportunity proved, in their studies — I’m sorry, their “so-called ‘research’ report,” about which she is supposed to be offering her thoughts (albeit “preliminary” ones) — that given the academic qualifications of those blacks, there are in fact too many of them, and too few whites? And that this demonstrates the existence of systemic racial discrimination in the admissions process at UW-Madison? Could this be the source of the outrage? I know it’s only anti-white discrimination, but surely she can see how someone might be upset about it.
It is common to use distort facts with percentages. So if the 72% admissions rate for Blacks at UW-Madison compared to 59% admissions rate for Whites really upsets you, consider this. The applicant pools in those years included 33,337 White students, just 923 Black students and just 1,212 Hispanics. The admissions pool included 20,249 White students, and just 1,723 Blacks and Hispanics put together. Seriously, who is at a disadvantage in this race to the top?
It is actually Goldrick-Rab who distorts facts here, in a particularly (and, for a college professor, astonishingly) dim-witted way. If her numbers are accurate, there are 33 times as many white students as blacks — but there are 36 times as many white applicants as blacks. Blacks are more likely to be admitted than whites, even before accounting for qualifications. (Or are rates a racist trick as well, like percentages?)
If blacks are not applying to UW-Madison as much as Professor Goldrick-Rab would like, it is hardly the CEO’s fault. Nor does the blame rest with Roger Clegg if blacks are applying with lower SAT scores than whites, which they in fact are. (Note that SAT scores are a proxy for intelligence, and black children from the highest-income and most-educated families are outscored by white children from the lowest-income and least-educated families.)
The Badger Herald (Sept. 13) doesn’t seem to know what to make of Goldrick-Rab’s pronouncements that “the use of percentages of students versus actual numbers is an inherent problem with the way Clegg’s data is presented” and that “Percentages conceal the actual nature of the numbers… which show white students as the clear majority.” How using percentages to reveal trends that “actual” numbers do not constitutes “concealment,” never mind an “inherent problem,” is not clear.
Goldrick-Rab concludes with the sort of mindless, knee-jerk sarcasm (and implicit anti-intellectualism) one might expect from a freshman student not performing particularly well in her introductory science classes.
Have you EVER walked around UW-Madison’s campus and thought “Something must be wrong. There’s just wayyy too many Brown people are here.” Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Because a statistical analysis (and, more generally, the scientific method itself) shows that whites, not blacks or Hispanics, are subject to severe discrimination in admissions, and because this contradicts Goldrick-Rab’s liberal ideology, she is finally forced to discard statistics (and science) altogether. Her pro-minority (not to say anti-white) ideology is that much more important than reality — or equality under the law.
Links: why affirmative action is wrong
These are copied from my post Reddit overloaded by common sense; Gawker cries racism” (Oct. 3). See also “End affirmative action now” (Feb. 5).
- “How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others” (July 2010) by Russell K. Nieli of Minding the Campus
- “A Chronicle of Capitulation” (August 2002) by John Harrison Sims (a review of Hugh Davis Graham’s “Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America”)
- “End affirmative action” (December 2010) and “Fifty Years of Affirmative Action Is Enough” (February 2011) by Roger Clegg
- “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege” (July 2010) by James Webb (just ignore where it says “America still owes a debt to its black citizens”)
- “The End of Affirmative Action: Society Calls for a Change” (spring 2001) by Diane Nagel
- “End Affirmative Action to Avoid White Backlash” (August 2010) by Erik Hayden
- “Affirmative action’s time is up” (August 2010) by Gregory Rodriguez
- “Racism is Not the Problem” (June 1999) by Dinesh D’Souza