Mike Adams, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, has informed his students that his longtime opposition to affirmative action was wrong, that the University of Michigan's lawyers have convinced him that public universities must abandon strict and uniform standards because of their "compelling interest in diversity," and that, to demonstrate his newfound commitment to replacing meritocratic ideals with social engineering, he has devised a new and improved affirmative action grading policy.

In an open letter to his students published by Agape Press, Adams writes that:

I have decided to abandon my long-standing opposition to affirmative action after listening to the oral arguments in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case challenging admissions policies at the University of Michigan.Ý While listening to these recorded arguments,ÝI learned that public universities have a ''compelling interest in diversity'' which supersedes simplistic notions of reverse discrimination.Ý Now, because my views have changed, I am forced to alter my classroom grading policies.

ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ Students in my classes will continue to have their final grades based principally on test performance.Ý Students will also continue to have a portion of their grade determined by class participation and/or a final paper depending on the class in which they are enrolled (please consult your course syllabus if you are one of my students).

ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ After I compute final averages, I will then implement the new aspect of the grading process which is modeled after existing affirmative action policies at the university.Ý Specifically, I will be computing a class average which I will then compare to the individual performance of all white males enrolled in my classes.Ý All white males who exceed the class average will have points deducted and added to the final averages of women and minorities.Ý A student need not have ever engaged in discrimination in order to have points deducted.Ý Nor must a student have ever been a victim of discrimination in order to receive additional points.

ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ I expect that my new policy will be well received by some, and poorly received by others.Ý For those in the latter category, please contact Human Resources for further elaboration on the concept of affirmative action.Ý You may also contact the Office of Campus Diversity for additional guidance.

ÝÝÝÝÝ ÝI understand that many of you may consider my new position to be unprincipled. Please understand, however, that the university has long abandoned antiquated principles of ''fairness'' in favor of identity politics.Ý Also understand that my job as a university professor is to prepare you for the real world.

ÝÝÝÝÝÝ After all, no one promised that life would always be fair.

Professor Adams is known as something of a provocateur, and he has been in the politically incorrect spotlight before, most memorably during the fall of 2001. On September 15, 2001, Adams received an email that a UNCW undergraduate had addressed to all UNCW students and faculty. The email argued that the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself, and quoted the "World Socialist Website" in order to claim that "The American ruling elite, in its insolence and cynicism, acts as if it can carry out its violent enterprises around the world without creating the political conditions for violent acts of retribution." The email closed by inviting recipients to forward it in the interest of "open, unbiased, democratic discussion." Adams wrote a short reply to the student (scroll down), and forwarded her email along as she had herself encouraged recipients to do. Some of the people who got the email from Adams wrote stinging replies to her--at which point she decided that she was not so interested in "open, unbiased, democratic discussion after all." She accused Adams of intimidation, defamation, and false representation (in writing, to the university's general counsel), and she demanded that she be allowed to see his email records so that she could sue him for libel. The University capitulated, and agreed to her outrageous demand that it examine Professor Adams' private emails for evidence to support her claims. UNCW officials only backed down after FIRE got involved and national embarassment ensued.

There will be those at UNCW who consider Adams' letter to be outside the bounds of academic freedom: they will say it is racist and sexist, that it creates a hostile environment for his students, that it may in itself constitute a form of harassment. But the odds that they will be able to convince a UNCW administrator to act on their claims are long indeed. UNCW officials have been burned before for trying to punish Adams for engaging in fair, if politically incorrect, expression. They won't get near the FIRE again.

Ridicule and satire may be two of the more effective weapons against the nonsense of "higher" education. Let's keep piling it on. Nothing an academic hates more than to hear his "ideas" made fun of. (Excuse the preposition at the end of the last sentence.) And let's do all we can to protect those mavericks on the front lines.

Back when I taught high school Latin (thank you, Jesus, for deliverance!) I occasionally quashed teenage relativism and 'what I feel is important' by giving a short answer and multiple choice Roman Civilization quiz and then grading it randomly -- some correct answers marked wrong, some wrong one right, some simply not graded. My defense was 'well, that's how I felt about your answer'. It usually helped. I never got a parent protest because I regraded the tests afterwards.

Is he tenured?

I realize Adams will not actually implement his new grading system but I do wish he would. The results would be like watching a train wreck.

Erin, has written below about grade inflation. What Adams proposes is a focused grade deflation. I would guess he has a significant nummber of white students in his class that support affirmative action who would be horrified if confronted with a grading system that might actually impose a 'cost' for that support. Lip service is easy. Paying a price separates the men from the boys doesn't it?

As an aside, I am not inalterably opposed to affirmative action. I would broaden affirmative action beyond its purely race-based focus and turn instead to to a blend of socio-economic factors. In other words, I would favor a system that takes an individualized look at an applicant's circumstances rather than a scoring system based solely on immutable characteristics.

In other words, I would favor a system that acknowledges that a white coal-miner's daughter from West Virginia or the son of Russian immigrants in Brooklyn might be as worthy of affirmative action as the similarly situated (as far as SAT/GPA is concerned) prep-school attending child of an upper middle class African American family living in the suburbs of Connecticut.

Ivan

Charles,

Thanks for the preposition comment. It brought to mind Churchill's (perhaps apocryphal) response to someone reminding him of that rule: "That is the type of arrent pedantry up with which I shall not put." Anyone that causes me to have a Churchill 'moment' deserves a thank you.

I also agree that satire and ridicule are far more effective tools than anger and vitriol.

This is what I call the Reagan/Buchanan dichotomy. The two shared many political views (not all). I have long felt that Reagan's immense popularity was driven in part by his lack of public viciousness. He could look at Mondale in the eye and say in a gently mocking tone, "there you go again." Buchanan on the other hand could not and can not but help being a vicious little petty bully. Reagan's approach, like Adam's, was effective and had more of a persuasive effect than Buchanon's could ever be.

But I digress. . . .

That was an awesome post. Well constructed, interesting, and thorough. I don't have my thoughts put together well enough at the moment to leave meaningful comments about the subject at hand, but wanted to express my thanks for your writing.

Thank for your support everyone! Yes, I do have tenure!

Mike Adams

I think the proposed grading scheme may have actually happened to me in a different form.

I was an undergrad at a liberal arts college back east in the '80's. I was a chemistry major, and since I like jazz, I took an elective in my junior or senior year on African-American music. It was taught by an African-American tenured non-PhD who was most noted as a jazz musician; I suspect he taught a lot of performance-related music- jazz ensembles, private lessons, etc.

The class was freeform and I don't remember learning a single thing, whereas I have specific recollections of other electives I took. I do, however, remember the assignments, which were to attend four musical performances and write an essay on each (although the classroom provided no basis on which to evaluate, appreciate or interpret the music), and a final class presentation.

I never received a grade on any of the work I turned in. I got a B. In the class of 30-40 students, the professor obviously maintained a strong rapport with the African-Americans in the class. I suspect that many of them may have parlayed that relationship into a more impressive grade.

This is pure speculation, but in the absence of any evidence to justify my grade, I became suspicious. In the end, I just took my B and shut up.

Thank You, Sir!

Mr. Adams, you are my new hero in academia.

The answer to bad speech is indeed better speech.

1. A reactionary white guy 'criminologist.' How novel.

2. What does it tell you about your commenting-readership if they have to ask if an "associate professor" has tenure?

3. Professor Adams, if you're so starved for attention, preach your message in Creekwood and Jervay where it'll do some good.

"What does it tell you about your commenting-readership if they have to ask if an 'associate professor' has tenure?"

It probably tells him that Erin has a readership outside academia.

Good one, Laura! Battling a sneer with deadpan honesty (and obvious truth). And rejecting the implied superiority of Professor... umm... what was the name?

Dear Laura, thank you for rising early in the morning to defend my honor - which as Groucho used to say is more than I ever did.

I am not of academia and I am sorry that I did not frame my post with the wit and substance of the student who castigated me. [Just a guess on my part but the juvenile tone, the failure to respond to substance, and its pseudo-testosterone laden sneering bears the hallmarks of the 18-year old white male wannabe desparately attempting to establish his 'man-of-the-people' bones. Been there, done that as the saying goes. Son, no one buys that act.]

A few quick points of my own.

1. I always thought "couple" meant two not three? Is this different in academia?

2. "Reactionary white guy criminologist." Is this the quality of writing I might aspire to if I leave my current low-level position [?] and take a job in academia?

3. The young lad's post does lend support to comments I made below on the K-12 curriculum issue. I noted a trend toward teaching students what to think rather than how to think. Someone who has been taught how to think could no doubt defend affirmative action and craft a thought-out response to Profesor Adam's modest proposal.

Someone who has not been taught how to think can do no better than the perjorative laced post in question. It's cotton candy, all fluff.

Try again son. Here is a hint: Respond to substance. Here is another hint: Read Adams column, parse them, and respond to the comments. Take your time, this item should remain here for a few days. If you do better I won't mark you down for the first draft.

Laura--this precisely the point. If your audience isn't academics, shouldn't you try to represent academia as it is to them, rather than pandering to their basest wishes, resentments, and fears about it?

Justin--"Couple_of_points" will do fine, though I should remind careful readers that it's not a binding description of the comments.

stolypin--Is there any place you can buy "pseudo-testostorone" legally? Does it give the same bulk-enhancing boost without the hairy back and attendant rage?

I saw a license plate that read "Been there, done that," once. But I digress. Don't want to move into n-tuple territory.

The phrase you quote is lapidary, and I believe it was originally coined by JKG--though it does pale beside his immortal "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy, that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

What we talk about when we talk about pedantry: hyphens, apostrophes.

Now, grandpa, if there were a logical equivalence between Adams's proposal (please don't profane Swift this way) and affirmative action, there would be something to discuss. As is, sadly, it is just an attention-gathering stunt.

I'd encourage all of you to learn more about what happened in Wilmington, NC in November of 1898. History is what hurts.

Stolypin,

I must confess that I thought Laura's response to be appropriately classy (and I did waffle over whether even to soften it by compliment).

That said, I was skeptical about your analysis of CoP's age, inasmuch as I wouldn't be surprised to hear certain professors interact similarly. I'd say now, however, that you were correct. The easy rolling in factoids and thesaural enhancements give it away (and I imagine CoP was embarrassed once, by somebody equally haughty, for not being so brilliant as to know the titles that correspond to tenure).

But to my purpose in writing: I advise ignoring him/her/it. There's no possible advantage to be gained by responding, and perhaps pomposity will learn its lesson when the only sound is the echo within its head.

Couple_of_points:

It appears to me that Erin's earnest wish is to present academia as it really is. I'm sure she's doing her best to do so without distorting anything to confuse us outsiders. The fact that she links to articles from various sources, authored by various people, gives us some assurance that she's not making this stuff up out of whole cloth. I guess your perception of academia differs from what she offers here. Vive la difference.

By the way - my sixteen-year-old is perched on my chair reading this thread. Justin's comment about the thesaural enhancements in c_o_p's second post jibes with hers: "He's taking etymology. These are all etymology words." For what it's worth.

I've already begun assembling a claque (it took me a long time rooting around in Roget's to find that one) here, I can see. Though there wasn't anything addressing the actual comments I made, I do admire the call to ostrich-ism and the pointless speculation about my age, however.

If anyone's interested in discussing Adams's "proposal," I would very much like to hear how one can justify the equation of grading and college admissions. If these things were in any way similar, Adams would have a point--albeit an embarrassingly crass one. As they do not, I have to stand by my earlier statement that it was designed to attract favorable attention from the Bennett-style campus commie-watchers, as indeed it has.

Couple_of_Points

I think I'm over my head here, but I'll risk making a fool of myself.

Could you please explain to me why the logic of affirmative action for admissions should not be applied to the apportioning of grades? Am I wrong? Where is the fallacy in "extending the logic"?

Thanks,

Loren

Them commies do bear watching.

There's a natural progression of AA from admissions to grades, if you consider the lower graduation rate of protected minorities. Here's an article about graduation rates at University of Michigan; the writer questions whether they might indicate that AA in admissions isn't so wonderful after all. It's a question I've seen elsewhere too.

http://www.freep.com/money/business/walsh25_20030225.htm

I think the connection between affirmative action and grades is this: inflate the grades of minority students in order to give them a higher GPA that will in turn aid them in graduate school admissions and job placement.

To give a more generalized statement to that connection: grade inflation tied to race and affirmative action both work against awards based on merit.

Loren, good question.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a substantive answer. The typical m.o. in these cases is to attack the messenger and not the message. This obviates the need for serious response and is designed to put the messenger on the defensive. Once you make someone say: I am not a racist, I am not a sexist, or I am not homophobe you manage to shift the focus away from content and you assume, or can claim, the moral high ground.

So far this is all you have gotten back that might be responsive to your question as to why there is no equivalence:

Because Adams is a reactionary white guy 'criminologist.'

Because Adams is “starved for attention”.

Because there is no “logical equivalence between Adams's proposal . . . and affirmative action.” (Translation: It isn’t because “I” said so.)

Because it is just an attention-gathering stunt.

Because there is a history of race riots and lynching in Wilmington, NC. (The one item had the germ of a point and could have been developed to better effect. A pity it wasn't.)

Because no one has addressed the above listed "becauses" (such as they are); and

Because the proposal was designed to attract favorable attention from the Bennett-style campus commie-watchers.

This last point, roughly translated, means that only a commie-bashing fascist could have second thoughts about affirmative action. Mind you, left unaddressed is the thought that affirmative action based on socio-economic class may very well be a far more radical concept than affirmative action based solely on race. That point will never be acknowledged because it runs counter to the political fault lines constructed around race in America.

If one were to ask a student in Adams class for an honest answer you might get: Because this has an impact on ME! It could lower my GPA and hurt my chances of getting into grad school.

In essence pillorying Adams for his attack on affirmative action provides these students with, to paraphrase Galbraith, a superior moral justification for their selfishness

Loren--it's debatable whether disingenuousness scored points for Socrates, but I'd suggest that it's not a particularly effective rhetorical gambit on an inflammatory blog. YMMV.

College admissions and the work that a student does to earn a grade in a class once he or she has been admitted are two distinct things. Now, if the same conditions applied to all college applicants as do all college students in a given classroom, then there might be room for a loose analogy, although it would still be an especially crass one. I see no reason to suspect that this is the case, and I will discuss why in a bit more detail below.

If graduation rates for minorities are lower at a given campus, does this mean that minorities are academically inferior? No. Does it mean that they were undeserving of admission to the university in the first place? No. It suggests that all people who are financially disadvantaged have more difficulty completing a college degree, for what I hope are obvious reasons. If I were writing for almost any audience but this one, I wouldn't have to mention that African-Americans and most Hispanics are poorer on average than Caucasoids such as yourselves, and they also have to deal with the latent and (too often) manifest racism that permeates all of our social institutions, including most certainly our universities.

BerkeleySurvivor--universities have never been meritocracies and never will be. There's a simple reason: our educational system is not equipped to judge educational merit, and it never can be. There are no objective measures of a student's academic potential, and it's highly doubtful there could be even on an entirely homogenous Martian colony (talk about your right-wing libertarian fantasies). I shouldn't have to mention that the only group of academics more consistently reactionary than criminologists are psychometricians (neoclassical economists are a distant third).

And stolypin--I certainly support AA based on class. I doubt very much that Adams does. For it is an unfortunate fact that AA based on class would not be noticeably different in its effect than the AA we have now. Yes, there are poor ignorant whites, and yes, they are educationally disadvantaged. Does their Cletus-like nature affect their ability to attain a better life in the same way as would a different skin-color? No, most especially not in the South, most especially not in Southeastern NC, where race relations have improved far less than you might assume in the hundred years since one of the worst incidents of racial violence in post-Civil War history.

I invite anyone who knows anything of the city in which Adams teaches to consider the differences in opportunity available to a white child raised in Landfall versus those of an African-American child raised in Creekwood.

If I were a student in Adams's class, I would welcome his policy as an insightful self-criticism and hope that it does indeed acquire the attention it deserves.

To Couple_of_points:

I'm sorry, but your last post could actually be read as an argument *for* AA in grading, rather than any kind of explanation of how the logic behind AA *doesn't* extend into grading.

Note the trick of CoP's offering naught but sneers and ad hominem until rebuffed and then crying that the substance of his argument (which had not, as yet, been provided) had not been addressed. Well, let's look at that substance, such as it is:

it's debatable whether disingenuousness scored points for Socrates
— Mind pointing out what you thought was disingenuous? I don't see it (unless, of course, you have the added information that comes with being psychic).

College admissions and the work that a student does to earn a grade in a class once he or she has been admitted are two distinct things.
— Yes, and so are class, race, and college admissions. The question is whether they interact or relate in some meaningful way.

Now, if the same conditions applied to all college applicants as do all college students in a given classroom, then there might be room for a loose analogy, although it would still be an especially crass one.
— And which conditions apply to the applicant that do not apply to the student? Differences of wealth? Differences of race? Even you've said that racism "certainly" permeates our universities. (And you love that word-o'-the-arrogant, "crass," don'cha?)

I see no reason to suspect that this is the case, and I will discuss why in a bit more detail below.
— No, you don't.

If graduation rates for minorities are lower at a given campus... It suggests that all people who are financially disadvantaged have more difficulty completing a college degree, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
— Then why are your compatriots so vehemently against shifting the emphasis away from race? What's a better measure of wealth: wealth or skin color?

they also have to deal with the latent and (too often) manifest racism that permeates all of our social institutions, including most certainly our universities.
— This is dogma (which certainly has no necessary implications for its truth); prove it.

our educational system is not equipped to judge educational merit, and it never can be. There are no objective measures of a student's academic potential
— Let me get this straight: educators cannot judge the achievements of their students, and administrators cannot judge how effectively teachers convey knowledge to their students? "No objective measures"? How about being able to add and subtract, or to learn how to read and write over the course of 12 years of public schooling? (I pick these purely for the reason that they seem pretty objective measures to me, so I wonder where the line might exist.)

I shouldn't have to mention that the only group of academics more consistently reactionary than criminologists are psychometricians (neoclassical economists are a distant third).
— You're right: you shouldn't have mentioned it. It adds nothing to your "argument" and puts you in a less than attractive light.

Does their Cletus-like nature affect their ability to attain a better life in the same way as would a different skin-color? No, most especially not in the South, most especially not in Southeastern NC
— Putting aside the bigotry evident in this paragraph, I'd ask that you prove your assumption — you know, given this peculiar audience of "Caucasoids" 'n' all.

Professor Adams pretends to alter his classroom grading policies in mock support of the admissions policies at the University of Michigan that are currently the subject of two separate but related lawsuits: Gratz v. Bollinger (undergraduate admissions) and Grutter v. Bollinger (law school admissions). In describing his new grading system, Professor Adams explains that "all white males who exceed the the class average will have points deducted and added to the final averages of women and minorities." We are to understand by this that the admissions policies at the University of Michigan work to the disadvantage of white males and to the advantage both of minorities and of women.

If Professor Adams means to express his support for the plaintiffs by satirizing the admissions policies against which they have filed suit, he should take a closer look at the plaintiffs. Jennifer Gratz, one of two plaintiffs in Gratz v. Bollinger, and Barbara Grutter, one of three plaintiffs in Grutter v. Bollinger, are both of them white women. They allege that they were denied admission to the University of Michigan on the basis of what they argue is the discriminatory policy of affirmative action. Whatever one wants to make of their claim, whether or not one agrees with these plaintiffs that the university's AA policies worked to their disadvantage, there can be no disputing the fact that the AA policies did not work to their advantage. As white women, they did not belong to a relevant AA category. To repeat: the University of Michigan's AA admissions policies do not apply to "women," though they do of course apply to those women who come under the relevant minority categories.

Why, then, does Professor Adams choose to represent this issue as one of "white males" against "minorities and women"? And where, I would also ask, do legacy students and varsity athletes come in under his new grading scheme?

Couple:

"There are no objective measures of a student's academic potential ..."

Seems to me you have (in only 10 words!) confused measuring "potential" and "accomplishment" as if they were completely unrelated, while dodging the crucial question of whether or not some combination of such measures might be predictive, while conflating being able to predict the "performance of a few individual members of a group" with being able to predict the "performance of the group as a whole!"

Whew!

Loren

Fitz--only if you fail to acknowledge that race-relations on campus, while bad, are better than they are in the country at large. On average, this is true; and it is true because of the legacy of what folks like much of this site's readership like to call "pc" and hyperventilate about how its eroding your privilege.

Justin--first of all, the post of Loren's I was responded started off with the "I'm just a simple person, but what do you think about this devastating point" routine--clichÈ for two millenia and counting.

Of course race and class interact in both the admissions process and grading. The question is whether they should. If the policy is to try to alleviate inequitable conditions in educational opportunity by considering these factors in the admissions process, then the answer is "yes." No one would argue, except as a stunt, that grading in the classroom should be subject to race- or class-based preferences. Faculty and the administration of universities should both continue to make their educational environments as hospitable as possible to those who come from historically marginalized backgrounds. I have to wonder how someone could object to this, but I've learned never to underestimate the extent of white middle-class resentment.

My "compatriots" are not opposed to any such shift. As I've pointed out, class-based AA would not be noticeably different than the current system, without whole-scale change in the socioeconomic structure of the U.S.--an always to be hoped for, but improbable, occurrence.

The only way I could "prove" to you what racism is like is to have you talk to someone who's experienced it. Find an African-American or two (if you can) at your local higher-ed institution, and talk to them about it.

You have the curious idea that "reactionary" is some sort of slur. It's a quite accurate label of a certain type of political position that's habitually hostile to any form of social progressivism. I doubt that many of the people who hold these beliefs would regard it as an insult. If they do, it's probably because they have deluded themselves in the manner that Galbraith described.

There are no objective measures of academic achievement sufficient enough to be able to base college admissions decisions entirely upon them. Yes, a student can either read or write or cannot; but students of the latter variety, contrary to myth, are not going to be admitted into a university under any circumstances. The SAT, in particular, measures to a very precise extent the level of test-specific preparation a student has had, which level is strongly correlated to the wealth of their high school (or private academy, as the case may be).

Calling poor white trash "Cletus-like" is bigoted? Please. Look at the audience at a NASCAR event. These people need all the AA they can get (but it's still a stretch to think that they have to face the same prejudices that African-Americans or Hispanics from similarly impoverished environments do).

Loren--potential and accomplishment are completely unrelated. Neither can be objectively measured, though it's certainly easier--with appropriate filters--to approximate the latter.

couple_of_points - you sound so familiar. Talk of Socrates...feelings of superiority...using words that no normal human being uses in everday language. Hmmmmmmmmm...........you wouldn't happen to have a slight personal grudge against the good professor would you?????

CoP,

only if you fail to acknowledge that race-relations on campus, while bad, are better than they are in the country at large.
— Prove this assertion. By way of anecdote: when I was in college, I was also a dock worker unloading commercial fishing boats. I remember being struck — to a theory-changing degree — by how dramatically better race relations were among the workers than the academics. But even ceding your statement for the sake of argument, you've discarded, along with grading, any affirmative action that comes post-bachelor, including graduate school and academic employment on campus.

If the policy is to try to alleviate inequitable conditions in educational opportunity by considering these factors in the admissions process, then the answer is "yes."
— You've merely restated the conclusion that we all knew that you held. Why is race the most efficient means to redress inequalities? The primary cause of inequality, in our current society, is not race, but geography and economics. And, more broadly, what justifies the creation of "inequitable conditions" for the purpose of answering "inequitable conditions"? Taking all factors into account, race-based preferences harm most those whites who've had the least opportunity and help most those blacks who've had the most.

Faculty and the administration of universities should both continue to make their educational environments as hospitable as possible to those who come from historically marginalized backgrounds.
— Here's how I object to this: shouldn't faculty and administration make their campuses as hospitable as possible to all students equally?

My "compatriots" are not opposed to any such shift. As I've pointed out, class-based AA would not be noticeably different than the current system
— So you keep asserting, but I've yet to see a university shift to a class-based system. If it were so sure to bring about an equivalent demographic, one would think that it would be tried in such places as California, where race-based affirmative action is illegal, rather than some vague, intangible assessment of "adversity." Talk about disingenuous.

The only way I could "prove" to you what racism is like is to have you talk to someone who's experienced it. Find an African-American or two (if you can) at your local higher-ed institution, and talk to them about it.
— I have, and frankly, it has seemed to me generally unfounded (e.g., stopped while sprinting through back streets, shouting in the middle of the night) or otherwise explicable (e.g., a suburban CVS having only caucasian-colored Band-Aids because there's no economic justification for stocking up on others).

You have the curious idea that "reactionary" is some sort of slur.
— Again, talk about disingenuous: do you mean to suggest that you have not used it as a slur? Please (as you might say). At any rate, my complaint was that it is a point unrelated to the point to which it was appended.

There are no objective measures of academic achievement sufficient enough to be able to base college admissions decisions entirely upon them.
— Well, now you've changed your statement. Let me refresh your memory: "There are no objective measures of a student's academic potential." Why don't we address whether objective measures exist and what they might be before we discuss how many and which are sufficient for college admissions.

Calling poor white trash "Cletus-like" is bigoted? Please. Look at the audience at a NASCAR event.
— This is a good way to discredit yourself. "Trash"? Man (or woman) of the people, aren't you? Again: bigot.

potential and accomplishment are completely unrelated.
— Huh? Then why attempt to measure potential at all? But that's the point, I suppose: we can't measure potential, so we might as well offer college slots on the basis of skin color. Perhaps it would be more equitable, then, if universities simply accepted every third candidate.

Neither can be objectively measured
— But you just said that there are objective measures... albeit not wholly sufficient ones.

Krysten--yes, I'm part of the worldwide cabal that is conspiring against Prof. O'Connor. In addition to the identifying tattoo, we can also be recognized by a public mention of Plato.

JonKatz--it does not suprise me that race relations are better between exploited workers than they are at universities and public educational systems whose express purpose (esp. the latter) is to distort the solidarity of one's senses by instatiating imaginary relations (we live in a classless society) to real things (Suzy's daddy is a wage-slave to Peter's). The verb "to prove" is not appropriate for the type of discussion we are having here; there are no moral phenomena--only moral interpretations of phenomena, of which some are better than others, true.

Race-based preferences do not harm white students, any more than extending preferences to poor whites would hinder the educational opportunities available to middle-class ones. We should not equate the consideration of race- and class-based factors in college admissions with inequitable treatment. This is only inequitable if you think that educational accomplishment and potential are things that we have the ability to measure from school performance, test scores, and extracurricular activities. Consider again the different high schools that the Landfall child and Creekwood child attend, even if they are both called by the name "New Hanover High" (or Hoggard, as the case may be).

Your objection to the "hospitable" remark is not different in principle from what I said. Making a university more hospitable for minorities is the same as making it more hospitable for everyone.

I wholeheartedly support class-based AA, and I believe that it would lead to results not noticeably different than our current system, including in California. If there are AA proponents who actually disagree with this, as opposed to strawpeople, I would be surprised.

I'll just say that the comments you report are not indicative of the conditions faced by many African-American students in this nation's universities, and I know directly that they are not representative of African-Americans' experiences at UNCW (where Professor Adams teaches, in case we've forgotten).

I fail to see what's irrelevant about pointing out that the psychometrics industry is heavily involved in right-wing public policy debates, considering that they are the most vocal proponents of "objective" student measurement.

By "sufficient," I mean credible, which does not contradict my earlier statement. Sure, we could measure a student's potential based upon a phrenological examination (roughly as valuable as the SAT), but what's the point?

Poor white trash is a perfectly acceptable phrase for the Cletus-like among us. I myself have been called by this phrase, and if you had an old pickup on cinderblocks in your front yard, you might be too.

Stochastic admissions would also be a workable proposal. It's well-known that a better predictor of a student's ultimate achievement is not where she went to school, but where she applied to school. How many poor Hispanics are encouraged by their teachers to apply to Duke instead of UNCW? If a student thinks they are good enough, they will become so.

Aha! There's the wellspring of socialist gobbledegook and strawman arguments! (Who said we live in a classless society?) I'm truly sorry for your perception of reality and will pray for your eventual recovery.

The verb "to prove" is not appropriate for the type of discussion we are having here; there are no moral phenomena
— A comparison of "race relations" ought to be quantifiable to some degree, I'd say, particularly since your assertion was one of better/worse. At any rate, it isn't a question of "moral phenomena," but of real, tangible social phenomena.

Race-based preferences do not harm white students, any more than extending preferences to poor whites would hinder the educational opportunities available to middle-class ones.
— Huh? I said that race-based preferences harm the whites most in need of help. In response, you've said that helping them would hinder those not in the most need of help. If your premise is that socioeconomic advantage embellishes apparent accomplishments then class-based admissions adjustments would, presumably, help to even those out. Race-based preferences manifestly do not.

This is only inequitable if you think that educational accomplishment and potential are things that we have the ability to measure from school performance, test scores, and extracurricular activities.
— I hardly know how to respond since it is apparently your contention that assessments of accomplishment and potential are impossible and therefore no more relevant to college admissions than eye color. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that you're pulling my leg. Either that, or you're dipping into the Lethe of extreme relativism, in which case I, again, am sorry for the ideological fog in which you would necessarily live.

If there are AA proponents who actually disagree with this, as opposed to strawpeople, I would be surprised.
— Then, again, why haven't proponents of affirmative action shifted their presentation to the more palatable judgment on class? Indeed, Eliot Spitzer, to pick the first person that Google brought up, apparently believes that socioeconomics is already considered. If that's the case, and if the end result is equivalent, then what's the need for the financial and social cost of fighting for the race component specifically?

I'll just say that the comments you report are not indicative of the conditions faced by many African-American students in this nation's universities, and I know directly that they are not representative of African-Americans' experiences at UNCW
— OK, so you've got empirical evidence to one effect, and I've got it to another. How do we objectively reconcile the two for the purposes of public policy?

By "sufficient," I mean credible, which does not contradict my earlier statement.
— Ha! Nice try! "Get ready to wriggle/Wriggle your eyes and wriggle your prose." (Sorry, my daughter loves that show... although perhaps such a refined academic as yourself won't get the reference.)

It's well-known that a better predictor of a student's ultimate achievement is not where she went to school, but where she applied to school.
— Well, gee, Cletus, how does that help, say, Harvard decide between two applicants, considering that they both would have had to apply there?

If a student thinks they are good enough, they will become so.
— I hope you're not implying that the development of multiple-personality disorder is a prerequisite to becoming "good enough." If not, then as a matter of idealism, I agree with you on this count, but I'm not sure how a system that institutionalizes a scale of "'good enough' enough" will help pre-college students. And if thinking they are "good enough" is retroactive to their past admission to a university, then either they oughtn't need affirmative action beyond undergrad admissions or the premise comes into question.

This has been fun, CoP, but I think you've got broader issues to address before we can come to agreement on something as specific as college admissions.

Wow, quite a discussion here! I'm sorry to have come in so late.

A couple of points for "Couple of Points":

No one would argue, except as a stunt, that grading in the classroom should be subject to race- or class-based preferences. Faculty and the administration of universities should both continue to make their educational environments as hospitable as possible to those who come from historically marginalized backgrounds. I have to wonder how someone could object to this, but I've learned never to underestimate the extent of white middle-class resentment.

Well, do you support race-based affirmative action in graduate and professional-school admissions? Because I can't see any functional difference between race-norming undergraduate grades and tweaking graduate-school admissions formulae so as to get the right mix. Except, of course, that one would be done by the student's undergraduate institution, the other by the prospective graduate institution. But if the practice is pervasive, I don't see why it should matter where it happens in the pipeline.

And about "class-based" AA: I have never met an AA advocate who was not vehemently opposed to this idea. Obviously CoP's experience is different.

The objections boil down to these:

(1) Contra CoP, class-based preferences would not produce substantially the same racial mix a typical school has now; they would in most cases increase the proportion of white and (especially) Asian-American students. (They would also tilt the white/Asian-American proportion even further toward the Asian-American side than it already is.)

(2) Class-based preferences would not favor the "underrepresented-minority" students most likely to succeed in college — that is, the already-privileged ones, those whose parents are educated, who live comfortably and went to good schools. It would favor the actually disadvantaged, who are less likely to succeed than the advantaged (surprised, anyone?), and therefore will make the underrepresented minorities look bad.

In other words, there are a lot of people less interested in "disadvantage" or "diversity" than in constructing a student body with the right "visual profile," if you will, and all maximally set up to succeed before they're even admitted. The less actual diversity — of background, of experience, of income — the better.

Well, while I was off having Easter, you folks have been busy. Maybe it isn't kind to jump on C_o_P but I'm not feeling kind right now.

"Faculty and the administration of universities should both continue to make their educational environments as hospitable as possible to those who come from historically marginalized backgrounds. I have to wonder how someone could object to this."

Let me explain it to you. A person can come from a historically marginalized background and do very well for himself and his children. Those children now do not need any special favors. If you say that they do, and you cite an incident that occurred more than 100 years ago to prove that they do, when does it ever end? (And why aren't we extending AA to the descendents of immigrants from the Irish potato famine era?) I believe that it is patronizing and harmful to continually tell a group of people that they can't make it without your help. I think that instead of helping them overcome their "historically marginalized background", it encourages them to think of themselves and their children as intrinsically inferior and permanently disadvantaged. And I base this on conversations that I have had with many real-life black Americans, though not in academia.

The use of cliched terms such as "exploited workers" and "wage-slaves" enlightens the complaint of commie-watching. You meant it, didn't you.

One more thing. My parents grew up "poor white". They were and are not trash. "Poor white trash" is a racist term that implies a profound lack of morals, culture, and value as human beings. It is an ugly, offensive term, and your use of it speaks volumes about your own classism.

My God, Shelby Steel, John McWhorter, Ward Connelly and Thomas Sowell have for years discussed that AA is indeed patronizing. CoP, expand your reading list!

Laura--Let me give you some background on my take on this situation. I grew up notably poor in rural NC. I'm white, male, and straight. I applied to exactly two colleges, one of which is the one Professor Adams graces, the other of which is Chapel Hill. My SAT scores and grades were high, and I was involved in a wide variety of athletics and extracurricular activities. I thought that there was no way in heaven that I wouldn't be admitted to Chapel Hill, and I just applied to UNCW for a safety. As it turned out, I was placed on the waiting list at UNC-CH. I knew of African-American classmates with SAT scores several hundred points lower and considerably lower GPAs who were admitted.

I was, for a period of time, upset and resentful about this. I believe I understood had misplaced my resentment was when I recalled the campaign ads Senator Helms had run showing the white hands crumpling up a job-rejection letter and realized that I had been thinking of this issue from entirely the wrong perspective. The rural high school I attended and the rural community I lived in were entirely different places for me than they were for my African American classmates. I personally witnessed insidiously racist attitudes on the part of the teaching staff--some of which were unconscious, some of which weren't. Whatever extra benefit that would be derived from a Chapel Hill degree (and academic prestige is often overrated as a means of determining future success) was surely more needed for them than for me. I'm a member of one of the most privileged groups of people in human history. At one point, the President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority leader were all of my exact same demographic (well, not all as poor, but all Southern white male Baptists).

The idea that I (or you) could legitimately consider "poor white trash" to be racist is risible, frankly.

Michelle--I support class-based extensions to AA, which will not significantly change its effects on either undergraduate or graduate admissions. The key question about the AA debate is: who's upset about it, and why? The ideological right-wing has always been, as they are about any measure that serves to equalize opportunity. They don't approve of government-funded student loans, either.

Poor Asians, whites, African-Americans, and Hispanics are all less likely to succeed in higher education because of a lack of resources, but some of these groups have to overcome far more racial prejudice than others along the way. I fail to see how this is a controversial point, or how any observer not blinded by self-interest could claim that racial prejudice is a thing of the past.

To clarify my point: Jules Huxtable, son of prosperous African American physicians, and Booth Warrington, white son of equally prosperous lawyers are to be distinguished on the basis of race for the purposes of college admissions only ceteris paribus. Huxtable would not be favored over white Appalachian dirt-farmer Cletus McGee, and indeed is not in the vast majority of cases.

JonKatz--I stand by my earlier assertion that poor whites are not hurt by race-based preferences. If a poor white has to go to law school at Washington-St. Louis because a less-poor African American took his place at Michigan, it is not optimal (though much less significant than is often argued--remember ambition is the best predictor of success) for the poor white; but it is better for the society as a whole. Again, if we did not live in a country with a long history of appalling racism, circumstances would be different.

An even better solution to the problem is open admission at most universities and random admission at the selective ones. From what I know of the college admissions process, I do believe that it is effectively random at a good deal of selective universities to begin with; and publicizing this policy would help to alleviate the white-resentment (the white mythology?) so effectively manipulated by right-wing ideologues.

Well, I'm done with this conversation (truly I am). You've stated your case, CoP, and I think most people will take it for what it is. Furthermore, you've obviously found the Zen of prostration to the Other.

However, one slip on your part is too precious not to note:

poor whites are not hurt by race-based preferences. If a poor white has to go to law school at Washington-St. Louis because a less-poor African American took his place at Michigan, it is not optimal (though much less significant than is often argued--remember ambition is the best predictor of success) for the poor white; but it is better for the society as a whole.

— Yes, yes, of course it's true that you've stated, first, that poor whites are not hurt and then, second, that the hurt (i.e., the downgrade to what is less "optimal") is actually a tradeoff for the sake of society (without explanation of or argument for that supposed benefit). But that's not what interests me here.

What is worthy of note is that, toward arguing for race-based preferences, you put forward that place of education doesn't matter all that much anyway. In short: since those prestigious slots are not worth much, anyway, — merely a token — we might as well give them to the blacks to make them feel better.

CoP: Thanks very much for the courteous reply.

I would never claim that "racial prejudice is a thing of the past." But I fail to see why, say, first- or second-generation Latin American immigrants ought to be given preferences while first- or second-generation Asian immigrants (who also suffer from racism) should not. I understand that many Asian immigrants over the last few decades are disproportionately well-educated; but that's the sort of variable that a race-neutral preference could easily take into account. I doubt there'd be much opposition to a boost for students neither of whose parents had been to college.

You know, I like your lottery-admission-at-top-colleges idea (I've floated that myself in a debate or two), but you'll find that hardly anyone else does. Why, it would degrade the quality of the student body! Why it should do so, when the people saying this have just finished saying that grades and test scores are completely meaningless, I don't know.

JK--One final point: I've been educated at both regional, teaching-oriented universities and research institutions, and it's unquestionably true that the teachers at the former are much better at what they do (teaching, primarily) than faculty at the latter, who are hired and promoted because of their ability to conduct suitable research (and radically indoctrinate the children of the ruling class--don't forget your audience). Teachers who teach twice as much get much better at it, as you might expect.

Thus, the issue of "prestige" is more complicated than it might appear. It is not directly correlated to optimum educational value. To the extent that it is, the benefit should be conferred to those who have had to overcome the most to receive it; and laziness is not as steep of hill as racism. Or poverty.

Sorry I didn't check the site earlier to make my comments, which may have long since past their appropraite time:

What's a psychometrician? I feel like it's some sort of insult, especially when it's coupled with the assumption that I harbor right-wing, libertarian (Martian?) fantasies.

Also, COP, could you predict more about who I am? What's my race? What's my gender? Sexual orientation? Rich or poor? Do I have a religion? If so, what is it? Am I married? Do I have children? How old am I? Do I like dogs or cats? Am I racist? Am I as smart as you?

At last we all can sleep good at night, comforatble in the fact that there really is one "good" staight white male out there. I'd just about given up any hope for the moral redemption of Caucasoids.

These "reactionary" statements always make me laugh. Couple-of-Point, do you have any idea in hell what this word means?

Or is it just your general all-purpose insult for anybody who disagrees with you?

C-O-P:
I'll take the bait. I was a graduate student in the History department at UNCW from 1996-1998 and was a teaching assistant as well. I enjoyed my time there and have much personal and professional respect for my former instructors. I also lived in Wilmington for 5 years, vacation there annually and have many friends still there.

Re 1898 and 1970: race riots. Wilmington has a checked race history. Not very surprising, if revolting to be sure. Please name a Southern city of any mass that has no fur on it viz these issues. I can't. I cant name a Northern city that has an untrammeled record of assimilation. Slavery and the attendant segregation are number one and two on any list of blots on our national history. Precisely what the hell these memes are doing kicking around this thread is beyond me.

Creekwood and Jervay are garden variety slums...much nicer than there northern and western urban counterparts, though rife with the same morass of sociological and personal failure. Landafall is an embarressingly regimented gated community. Overpriced, as well. Again, i would humbly suggest that C-O-P check out the gated communities elsewhere in AMerica, especially Brentwood and Santa Monica...liberal bastions, to be sure, but second to none in keeping people out.

Your reference of these indicates a standard liberal pathos....what those places need is a rudy giuliani and jack kemp; i.e. crimefighting and new ways of creating opportunity. the problems and debates of a liberal arts faculty are much beyond their scope.

UNCW, while a pleasent place, is a very doctrinaire, reflexively liberal place, at least among the admin. and faculty.

Adams' broadside should shake the place to the foundation.

Michele, you raised some interesting and pertinent points with regard to support for class-based AA and race-based AA.

I tend to fall on your side of the issue that many, although clearly not all, that support race-based-AA are either tepid in their support of a class based approach or averse to it.

I listened to the Supreme Court oral arguments of the Michigan case. (N.B. I may have heard this wrong as I was stuck in D.C. traffic and not listening as closely as I might otherwise. So - please someone feel free to set the record straight if I mis-state this.) Justice Breyer asked this very same question of the attorney for U.Michigan: Have you consider4ed or would you consider a policy based on economic differences rather than one solely based upon race. The answer was no. (Again I may have mis-heard this - but it did come up and I await a transcript).

Couple of Points is correct in nothing that a class-based policy would yield similar, but not identical, results. (This is the flip side of the disparate impact analysis that courts use in weighing discrimination claims against regulations or policies that are drafted in a race-neutral context.) There are critical differences between race-based and class-based AA, however. Key amongst them is the mitigation of the claim that race-based AA is designed not just to promote the skill-sets of a traditional underclass but also to punish the traditional white over class. That may not be the intent of AA but that is the perception shared by many. If the underlying goal is to mitigate white opposition to AA then minimizing the racial aspect is critical.

This approach might not sit well with some AA opponents. For me, the best way to win converts to any cause is not to attack your opponents but to co-opt them. Dismissing opponents of race-based AA as reactionary tools of the power elite does not win converts amongst the vast majority of white Americans who do not send their children to prep schools and who laugh at the claim that they are capable of oppressing anyone. Evolving AA into a system that can be promoted as one that benefits any American who has struggled through poverty or despair to get a good GPA or test score (and Couple of Points you indicate you qualify on that score) is far more likely to gain acceptance than the system as currently constructed.

But race-based AA does not operate in a vacuum. It is not simply an academic tool but also operates as a potent political weapon and symbol. It serves as a litmus test for democratic candidates and also a rallying point in general elections. AA is a means by which the Democratic Party gets out the black vote every November. (Similarly, abortion is used to galvanize women voters. Clearly, there are similar tools in the Republican Party tool box.)

The Democratic Party does not want to lose this tool. If AA becomes race-neutral, or seems to become race neutral, a weapon is lost.

Also, the use of economics and class as a potent political tool has faded since 1941. The U.S. entry into WWII effectively ended the depression, and the post-war years have witnessed an amazing economic boom. Simply put, the class war really does not exist on a significant level any more.

Lastly, let us assume that there is such a thing as an oppressive white ruling class. What do you think suits their interest in preserving their ruling status: a vertical system that pits whites against blacks (not to mention Asians against blacks - just look at the admissions policies of the U.Cal. schools) or a horizontal system that might just provide evidence that poor whites and poor blacks have more in common than they now believe? Some might argue that race-based AA is a tool designed to keep the black underclass marginalized and at the mercy of the white ruling class.

"Simply put, the class war really does not exist on a significant level any more." Good quote, Stolypin.

The overriding question for Couple of Points is this: Why in the world do you think that colleges should be in the business of solving the racial issues that trouble you? I don't see racial and sexual engineering as the responsibility of colleges.

Black violence against whites far exceeds white violence against blacks. We all love to muster up the martyrs to our cause. I can name a dozen incidents in which whites have been victimized by black gang violence. What do blacks owe whites as a result?

The majority of blacks are middle class. I could use statistics to prove this, but watch rap and hip-hop for a more visceral proof. The black kids are all wearing their emblems of success. In fact, among traditional blues musicians there is much despair that black kids are abandoning the blues because they see it as a music of the past and of poverty.

Couple of Points, your rhetoric is in fact "reactionary," wedded to a past that no longer exists.

Prof. Adams is a genius. He has cut to the point very nicely.

How about this? How should medical school graduates be accepted for surgical residencies? On the basis of medical school grades? If enough black medical students don't measure up on the basis of grades, should race be taken into account in order to ensure that adequate numbers of black doctors receive surgical training at the best hospitals? Why not? How, then, should hospitals hire surgeons graduating from surgical residencies? Based on their grades (or other measures of performance) as surgeons? If enough minorities don't measure up by those standards, should race be taken into account in order to ensure that adequate numbers of black doctors work as surgeons at our best hospitals? How about this: how are you going to pick a surgeon to perform life-saving surgeon on your mother or child?

Stolypin: Interesting points, especially the last. The more people are made to focus on race, the less able they are to see commonalities that cut across racial lines.

I have heard another explanation of the unpopularity of class-based AA (and also "top-X%" plans like the ones in Florida and Texas) with advocates of race-based AA that seems plausible to me. These programs do benefit underrepresented minorities disproportionally, since underrepresented minorities are more likely to be poor, to attend majority-minority schools, &c. What they do not do is benefit the slice of the minority population from which the AA activists are mainly drawn. The high-profile activists are affluent and well-educated; they live in good neighborhoods and send their kids to good schools. They've achieved their way right out of the reach of class-based AA. But not race-based.

OK, call me cynical, but I think this is a factor. (I still remember George Will confronting Jesse Jackson on "This Week" a few years back about school vouchers — the Rev. Jackson was all for the vital role of public schools in our civic life, &c., and Will devastatingly ended the interview with "see you at the next parents' meeting at [whatever private D.C. school they both have kids at].")

BerkeleySurvivor:

I'm a psychometrician. It's someone who has a Ph.D. in Quantitative Psychology, Psychometrics, or Educational Measurement (a bit of a tautological explanation, but I figured I'd begin there). It's someone who has expertise in measurement of human abilities, traits, and attitudes. Many psychometricians these days work in admissions, certification or K-12 testing, and I'm no exception.

I run a blog about standardized testing and psychometrics called Number 2 Pencil (http://www.homestead.com/swygert/files/no2pencil.html). I cover all the stories I can find about standardized testing and I correct a lot of the errors that I see. I also point out that many people make the claim, as does Couple of Points, that the SAT primarily measures SES. They never back that claim up with evidence, and they never mention that SAT also predicts college GPA better than any other single predictor, and it measures something different than does high school GPA.

Kids who have more money undoubtedly have more resources to prepare for college, but people who bash the SAT by repeating the erroneous claim that it mainly measures SES neglect to point out that rich kids basically have an advantage in every respect, especially on the road to college. Thus, the SAT is no more "unfair" than the better schools, nicer clothes, and healthier food that kids who come from a richer background have access to. It's not "unfair" that parents give kids the best education that they can afford.

That said, there is nothing about the SAT that should be a mystery for kids whose parents don't have thousands of dollars to spend on test prep. Test prep is essentially free, through high schools and libraries. The only recommended test prep method is working through old tests, which are cheap to buy. Those who claim that kids who spend big bucks on test prep get higher SAT scores are essentially believing the inflated claims of the test prep companies. The College Board has found no correlation with SAT score and the use of a test prep company.

Psychometrician is most definitely NOT an insult, except among people who have convinced themselves that all standardized tests are biased, or that they measure nothing except family income, or that such tests cannot be used for any objective prediction. They're wrong on all three counts. I'm sure CoP would label me a reactionary because I don't support affirmative action (in the quota, lowered standards, or free points sense). Problem is, many psychometricians disagree with me on this point, and CoP's error is one that many people make - lumping test developers and psychometricians into one homogenous group.

As far as I can figure, people like CoP start with erroneous assumptions about tests, assume that the people who make these tests must all be rabid right-wingers and bigots, and then they spread misinformation about testing.

The problem, of course, is that objective tests do not show results that toe the politically correct line. Test use often has a differential impact on various ethnic groups, and I've written about that before. Impact has nothing to do with bias, but testing opponents insist on treating them as one and the same. Because our tests often highlight inequalities in the K-12 education program, they have decided that the tests (and the testmakers) are the problem, not the education. It's a classic case of blaming the messenger.

Admissions tests are valid predictors of college performance. They do have differential impact in that the distributions for ethnic subgroups have different means. Some psychometricians believe that AA is necessary to offset this differential impact. I do not, because I believe changing things at this end (i.e., using lowered standards for some groups) is a panacea that helps to hide the poor K12 education that many minorities receive. Low test scores should be a strong impetus for educational reform at the K-12 level; removing the importance of the scores removes the impetus for that reform.

Apologies for the long-winded post. Hope this helps.

Kimberly

Thanks Kimberly. Since it seems that most attacks on standardized testing usually come from unsubtantiated claims, I can only assume that the real driving force behind it is something similar to moral relatavism. In other words, just as there are no moral truths in the universe, there are no standards by which we can measure educational success. There are no such things as objective measures, even in simple adding and subtracting.

In the legal (academic) world, these people call themselves Critical (insert subject) Theorists. A Critical Race Theorist believes that all laws are made to maintain the power of one race and the subjugation of another. There are many varieties of these Theorists, all lumped into one group called Critical Legal Studies. Their basic claim is that we can find no objectiuve reasons for having a particular law, but that laws are used to advance some and not others. By making this claim, they need not worry about a moral justification for a law; they only need to show you an oppressed group that would benefit.

My guess is that those who claim we cannot measure educational success or merit seek the same sort of result: if there are no objective or merit based measures in education, then we can teach whatever we want and choose subjectively and with impunity who gets to go to school and who doesn't.

Also Kimberly, you're exactly right on where the problems are. There is no doubt in my mind that certain minortiy groups in our country aren't fairing as well as they should. By that I mean that there are a disproportionate number of minority kids who have all the raw ablilities they need to succeed, but don't. The answer is not putting underqualified young adults in situations where they will fail. The answer is to focus on K-12, and really, probably just K-6. But this isn't glamorous, and requires actual work and teaching, whereas AA doesn't require anyhting of an educator.

Psychometrician--two phrases for you: "regatta," and The Bell Curve.

My point about psychometry is that it has a unsavory history (Mismeasure of Man is a standard source), and that many of its proponents tend to involve themselves in anti-progressivist politics, for what I think are apparent reasons. You may or may not personally, but I was speaking of the profession as a whole. I did define how I was using the term "reactionary," which I regard as neutral and accurate. Movable Type could certainly benefit from a threaded-commenting system; it wouldn't surprise me if a reader has missed something in this series of comments. I'd suggest investigating something like Scoop, if you want to facilitate discussion on your site.

Ron Boyd--glad you're familiar with the area. I brought up specifics about the community in order to remind people of the environment in which Professor Adams labors, and the very real racism still prevalent there.

Doug--Prof. Adams's most ardent admirers might blush at calling him a "genius," I think. The only reason I bothered to comment on this proposal was it was the second time I've noted his name associated with bad publicity from my a.m. And, concerning the student email situation, I think something that your readership and FIRE may not have paid particular attention to is the power imbalance between student and professor in a university. Inciting others to berate her from a position of authority (and a moment of jingoism) is not libellous or any way actionable (I do not think UNCW officials should have looked through his private email), I agree, but it does show bullying opportunism and poor judgement.

And psychometrician--I doubt that many of us who have taken the SAT and its cousins are going to accept that there are not knowledge- and ability-independent test-taking strategies that will significantly increase any given test-taker's score. Princeton Review, Kaplan, etc. aren't just selling snake-oil.

I read that passage in the Bell Curve. I also know a lot of white kids that don't know what a regatta is. Moreover, the example in the Bell Curve only proves that it you know the types of analogies the SAT used, deductive reasoning would have required the test taker to choose regatta. That is, the analogy was of the participant-event category. None of the other choices had a participant-event relationship between the two nouns, and all were easily identifiable. In other words, the test was seeing if test-takers would use their deductive reasoning about categories to venture a guess on a word most 17 year-olds don't know.

"My point about psychometry is that it has a unsavory history (Mismeasure of Man is a standard source), and that many of its proponents tend to involve themselves in anti-progressivist politics, for what I think are apparent reasons."

"Progressive" is about the most "reactionary" politics around. Progressive is a code word for those who still hold onto the socialist and Marxist religion, despite the events of the 20th century.

The old labor union language and the sloppy Marxist cant that Couple of Points favors makes it obvious where he/she is coming from -- the most backward political stance in the marketplace. Progressivism/Marxism/Socialism is a relic of the Old World of peasants caught in the landlord/tenant struggle. Americans and property owners, Couple of Points. We rejected the Old World cant in favor of democracy and the free market.

So, oh so progressive Couple of Points, when do you plan to catch up with the rest of us? It's the 20th century. The great Soviet Union is dead, and progressivism is dead with it. It is Couple of Points who is a hopeless "reactionary," lost in the politics and postures of the past.

CoP: Judging by the accounts Erin linked to (if you know of any inaccuracies or omissions in them, please elaborate), I don't see how Prof. Adams abused his authority in any way in the email incident. He was sent an email containing explicit instructions to forward it to others; he did so; he also commented in response, and so did some to whom he forwarded it. If the student wished to send the thing only to people who would agree with her, she ought to have been more careful about her mailing list.

BS--the point is that knowing the word "regatta" (SAT Verbal and similar tests simply measure vocabulary) is much more likely to be a class-marker than an educational achievement. If your daddy participates in them, etc.

Stephen--I'll never forget the patriot John Birch; will you?

Michelle--"undeserving of serious consideration," "intentionally divisive diatribe," "dishonest," and "bigoted, unintelligent, and immature" seem to me to be rather bullying phrases, esp. as they do nothing to address the substance of the student's email. Remember, Adams is a professor--a potential evaluator of the student, a man trusted with the authority to assess students independent of their political beliefs.

"Stephen--I'll never forget the patriot John Birch; will you?"

Couple of Points, now that you've completely disgraced yourself, I think you would do well to shut up.

Now, let me tell you something about you. You are an absolute pretender. You have no black friends or associates. You're lying. I know, because I've met plenty like you. You have the typical stance of those who live in lily-white enclaves -- the weepy condescension.

Unlike you, I live in an integrated community. Believe me, that community has no tolerance for the backward views you represent.

So, yes, Couple of Points, you are a total "reactionary," totally lost in the past and incapable of understanding the dynamism and brilliance of the U.S. Your statements only serve to embarass you. I'd suggest you quit now.

Two quick items:

In an above post I wrote "Couple of Points is correct in "nothing" that a class-based policy would yield similar, but not identical, results."
It should have read "noting" - not "nothing". Althopugh probably clear in context . . . a clarification is probably in order.

As to test results, I can understand the arguments pro and con with regard to the 'verbal' portion of standardized tests. (Although hasn't everyone been to Henley. Who doesn't know what a regatta is! I know I never missed a boat race from my apartment in the Bronx. Geez.)

I have never understood the argument as it applies to basic math skills. Can someone set me straight on both sides of this issue?

Stephen--one quick question: is your integrated community idyllic because you didn't let them fluoridate the drinking water?

Couple of Points: back to you.

Is that really a halo over your head?

You may be mistaking your anus for a halo. Check the position of your legs in relationship to your head.

So, you are really a lily-white kid with no experience in the larger world. You've gotten the usual stupid indoctrination in the discredited Marxist dialectic and you know all the answers.

Come clean, Couple of Points, you don't give a rat's ass about any of this crap you're talking about. Preening your halo is all that interests you, and as I've said, you may be mistaking another part of your body for that halo.

Now kids, play nice ;-)

CoP: "Bullying" implies threat. None of us know who this student was or what she was studying, but I doubt it was criminal justice. Had she known Prof. Adams I doubt she would have sent this email specifically to him in the first place. (Does anyone happen to know who else got it, by the way? My guess is that she got ahold of the faculty email directory and sent it to everyone.)

The presumption on college campuses is that the students are adults. There are areas where students do need to be protected, and are — professors can't get romantically involved with their own students, for example.

I'm not sure that Prof. Adams would necessarily be in the wrong even if the emailer had been his own student. A good teacher can separate political or other conflicts with a student from the question of the quality of the student's work. I've myself argued with teachers and professors many times over things other than the subject matter, and in the end always found myself graded fairly.

But she almost certainly was not one of Prof' Adams' students, nor likely to become one; and she addressed him as an adult, not a student. Once again, I don't see that he "bullied" her nor did anything wrong.

Stephen--I conserve my halo as I do my precious bodily fluids. This is the source of my strength and of the "Moor"'s carbuncles.

Michelle--the email was sent to an all-faculty and all-student list, best I recall. I'm sure that Adams teaches an intro to criminiology class, and, had this student wanted to take it, she would have more than just cause to be concerned about his objectivity after the reaction her email received.

The email in question was designed to provoke discussion, and it was improper--not illegal--but improper for Adams to abuse and attempt to intimidate her because he disagreed with her message. Had the sender been a fellow tenured faculty member, the situation would be different.

C-O-P: Here's the thing. Jervay and Creekwood are just crappy areas, I've been in and around and through them many times. They are actually much nicer than many areas in which poor people live across the U.S. They have nothing to do with racism...and everything to do with being full of poor people. For about $200 more per month than it costs to live in and around Jervay, you can live in a decent apartment anywhere else in Cape Fear.

Here's the other thing: Youre example, meant to inflict a bolt of consceince upon guilty whites, is wrong on another level. The cape fear region in which Prof. Adam's toils is probably one of the most racially integrated in AMerica. In my humble experience, I have been no where else in this nation where poor and lower middle class blacks and whites live in such close proximity..or so peacefully...and where the income differentials are less steep.

In other words, if there is any University less in need of affirmative action than UNCW, I am hard pressed to imagine it.

By the way, just for information, in the classes that I TA'd in at UNCW, I encountered an unusually wide band of African-American academic achievment. The middle or top levels of academic talent were easily the peers, if not more accomplished, than their white colleagues. I am certain that these students have attained broad levels of post-collegiate success.

The bottom third or quarter were obviously AA admits and wholly unready for University-level academics. The same level in whites usually indicated not so much an inability to do the work, but rather the fact that they were stoned, slacking, surfing et al...To be fair, there were several whites who could not do the work as well and represented failures on the part of the admissions office.

When I assigned grades on papers or tests based upon what these sorts of students earned, i.e. a 43, or an F, frequently, the professor would ask me to reassign the grade of the black student, because of the perceived damage to the psyche of that student. I was never asked to do so on the part of the white student.

RB--The environment you describe is not the one I remember, and I suspect that your own unconscious biases play some part in your perceptions of student abilities. This is the case for everyone, and it's one of the things that AA is designed to attempt to alleviate. No one has ever claimed that it's an ideal or problem-free solution, but it is better than the alternative.

A more important question is--what did you do to defend Larry Cable?

I'll confess to not being a true academic, but it strikes me as not necessarily silly to ask whether or not an associate professor is tenured. Caltech, I know, has tenured associate professors. Harvard, I believe, does not. So there's some room for different policies even among elite schools, right?

C-O-P: Larry Cable!!! Your UNCW creds are clearly unimpeachable. I was a big fan and was readily influenced by him, and i am a skeptic and cynic. Actually, more than that, did you know me while i was there....very few would know that I was intellectually close to the guy.

to your point: I worked with Usilton and McClaurin to ensure that my thesis defense would be ok...he got in trouble the day before my defense. I was honored to work with the guy.

I also have spent several years trying to track him down. No luck.

Re Stolen valour....the case is damning against him, but i believe LC.

Hello CoP:

The "bodily fluids" quote is from Dr. Strangelove, probably circa 1967. You are a 60s relic, aren't you?

Herein lies your problem. Kubrick's central thesis in Strangelove was wrong. It was a good movie, and even funny at times, but Kubrick was plain wrong. The movie posits a universe in which the Soviet/U.S. conflict was a broad farce, and both sides were morally equal. I was a leftist in 1967, and I believed the same thing.

The Soviet Union and the U.S. were not morally equal, as history has since proven. The Soviet Union wasn't just as bad as conservatives said in 1967 -- we have discovered that it was far worse. The revelations of the opening of Soviet archives has proven this. Ronald Reagan was right about the Soviet Union in 1967, and the military buildup that he sponsored was the final nail in the coffin of the Evil Empire.

So, CoP, you are a rube and a yahoo for this continuing infatuation with Marxism. This infatuation marks you as "reactionary" and "backward." It isn't those foolish Americans who don't have a clue. It's you.

Welcome to the 21st century, rube. The great socialist revolution has been junked because it led inexorable to mass murder, poverty and insanity. Guess you haven't heard the news yet. What do you read out there in the stix? Don't you have any sophistication at all? Still reading the Weatherman comics? Ever planning on departing from 1968?

Sixty-four comments, and I read 'em all! Mike Adams (the original subject) has been left in the dust, replaced by a dust-up between Couple_of_points and a couple of other posters (well >2, but aliteration atop accuracy).

CoP, you're a mensch to make a passionate, careful, and literate case for what you believe regarding affirmative action, knowing that this forum would give you little support.

That said, I'll reflect on motives. You're not (I'm supposing) writing to challenge yourself by exposure to novel ideas and interpretations. A number of your incorrect and incomplete assertions have prompted careful and detailed rebuttals, yet you haven't offered even a grudging admission that your pre-existing stance might be incorrect or incomplete, in any way.

Similarly, you aren't (I'm supposing) writing to persuade. The rhetoric is too harsh and categorical, the attention to logic too intermittent, the ad hominems too frequent.

There have been times when I've invited door-to-door Jehovah's Witnesses in for coffee. Pretty quickly, the conversation gets strangely interesting, in line with the Watchtower magazine. We've discussed articles about how recent carbon-14 dating findings have proven that the age of the earth is only 6000 years--a discussion where only one of the parties knows what 14-C is.

It didn't matter. Because a core J.W. article of faith is witnessing, the act of conversation--even our dialogue of the deaf--was, of itself, valuable.

In this vein, CoP, you've been deepening your own faith by witnessing to an unsympathetic readership. You've also done a good turn: your alternate world-view represents a marxist "road not taken" for me, a reminder of a vision that, ultimately, doesn't comport with my experience of objective reality.

As for the other good-humored posters: the many thoughtful comments show that, as Mike Adams (remember him?) quipped, "bad speech can serve as a catalyst for better speech by others."

Thanks for a good read, everyone.

AMac,

That was very well done.

Tmac--My motive here has been to try to break the vicious circle of differential association here, but, if you take your own analogies seriously, I see no reason to question my doubts about whether such a thing is possible. Prof. O'Connor has drawn an audience (commenting, at least) ready to believe that academia is full of Marxists who want to undermine everything that makes America a great place to own property and ask students to question their own prejudices. Would that it were so.

A quick point: "logic" in this sense you're using it means only what persuades you. Argument uses what is called "informal logic." Rhetorical fallacies are not "logical" fallacies, as any primer on the subject is quick to note. They are descriptive, not binding.

I do not consider myself a Marxist, and very few people do, but our academic culture would be much healthier if there were more students of Marx in place of the omnipresent third-order disciples of Ayn Rand, including most certainly among the cultists of g.

"our academic culture would be much healthier if there were more students of Marx in place of the omnipresent third-order disciples of Ayn Rand"

Ugh!!

Marxism is Nazism. Nazism was driven out of public discourse by simple disgust at the moral depravity of any person who would entertain that genocidal, racist ideology. Marxism is precisely the same as Nazism in every detail.

Marxism must also be driven out of public discourse by simple disgust. CoP, you missed the main lesson of the 21st century, and you are implying that others are rubes. I'll ask you again. What kind of claptrap are you reading out there in the stix? Doesn't it kind of embarass you to continue to tolerate the ideology of yokels -- Marxism?

Thanks, CoP, for your civil response (7:42pm).

I am sure that your latest post reflects what you want to express, as obviously it should. However, I don't understand the thrust of most of the points you make, to the extent that they are meant as a response to me.

I've speculated on what your motive for writing might be. Mine is to offer ideas for consideration by curious and open-minded people. Such readers will decide for themselves what consitutes 'bad' and 'good' speech. In that light, having said my piece, I'm not inclined to work through items one-by-one with you (though you are a darned fine debater). This thread provides a surfeit of material as it is.

I'm happy for you to have the 'last word' in our exchange, if you wish.

Stephen--"Marxism is Nazism," is that a koan? I've repeated it several times, and I'm beginning to feel some enlightenment. It could also be the bourbon.

Tmac--thanks for the kind words. If you could tighten up on defense, you'd be my MVP candidate. And to think that you achieved all of that without a college education.

No, "Marxism is Nazism" is the truth.

I'll compare my artistic, educational and professional achievements to yours any time.

You'll lose.

Whip it out.

If I had known that my past achievements make me right, without the need to make an argument, I would have gotten another degree instead of entering the workforce.

In other words, even though I've been on the other side of COP for this entire string of posts, that last statement is just disturbing, especially after all the (rightful) berating COP has taken for his lack of cogent arguments.

Well, it was fun while it lasted boys and girls.

Time now to relocate my 'oh so deep' posts from Wilmington, from whence I once used to ship millions of board feet of hardwood lumber to Brooklyn, from whence I and many little Stolypins sprang.

Meet you all at Juniors.

Ivan

Juniors!!

Love the cheesecake, at least when they properly defrost it prior to service.

Have witnessed a few mob gatherings there as well.

Stephen--though you wouldn't know it from my habit of making comments on a blog, I actually have no accomplishments. My penis is larger than yours, however.

BS--if I may paraphrase an idol: "Cogency is as cogency does."

I'm not surprised about the accomplishments.

You'll lose out in the penis competition, too. You are obviously a member of the voluntary castration cadre -- in deference to the poor oppressed wimmen.

Might as well give up.

Stolypin, you old fart, you've got a good sense of humor.

Always a pleasure debating willfully ineducable reactionary white guys.

Ta ta!

Stephen, in the name of all that is most holy (my sanity), I respectfully request that you not rise to the bait here.

It is almost lunch time and I don't really want to read any more about the size, vel non, of your respective sexual organs. You two already have exacerbated my physiological inferiority complex.

Do you really want to continue to engage yourself with a kid who couldn't even get into UNC Chapel Hill, who had to settle for UNCW and who clearly suffers from the affirmative action version of Stockholm Syndrome?

It is has been my experience (and I am frequently guilty of this as well) that the level of grandiose posturing as to one's own intellectual or moral superiority is more a reflection of one's own insecurity than it is of the fact of that superiority. I expect as much from a kid who cannot get into a good school - but I expect more from grown ups. (I've read your posts - you know you are better than that!)

As I suggested yesterday, go on up to Brooklyn and enjoy the comments about Brooklyn College. There are a range of well-written posts - pro & con without the e-group trash-talking.

If this string keeps up it will diminish Erin's blog to a level usually preserved for WWF message Boards - and I like this blog too much for that to happen.

In an effort to mollify you somehwat (as I am posting this with affection not anger) I leave you with this little tidbit from a conversative (some would say reactionary) MP (circa 1990) Norman Tebbit in reaction to the BBC's coverage of the first Gulf War:

"The word conservative is used by the BBC as a portmanteau word of abuse for anyone whose views differ from the insufferable, smug, sanctimonious, naive, guilt-ridden, wet, pink orthodoxy of that sunset home of the third-rate minds of that third-rate decade, the nineteen-sixties."

Hope you take this in the spirit in which it was intended.

Let the kid have the last word Stephen - it will make him feel better.

Regards, An Old Leftist Fart from Brooklyn.

An imposter posted the last message under my name, I'm afraid.

The comments about insecurity and superiority are very likely true, and it's interesting that they are made in a context of asserting your own superiority and those of the RWM who happens to agree with you against my inferiority--all the while amusingly claiming that it is I who has been resorting to ad hominem attacks in lieu of substantive argument.

"Marxism is Nazism." Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata.

An imposter posted the last message under my name, I'm afraid.

The message before last IS mine.

Sorry I didn't have the time nor the patience to read all that is written on this subject. Please be patient if I bring up old arguments but I think I bring up things that many of you don't understand.

First off let me address the fact that I'm a conservative for Affirmative Action. Second that I'm a first generation immigrant and I'm not white.

Now first off they shouldn't call it affirmative action but affirmative consideration. It's in consideration that so many minorities have suffered in the past that they are trying to amend. Words have a strong power on people's emotions and I think that if we would use the right words then it would have a better effect.

Something that people don't know and don't understand is how it feels to be a minority in the US. If you are a minority you are more familiar with the "white culture" then "whites" are of ours. The fact that you think social or economic class is the same for all races shows how much we need to diversify universities. The fact of the matter you will never know how much bias, discrimination, and racism exists in America today. It isn't even close to the levels that it was in the 60's but it still exists. The purpose to diversify is to help counteract some of that. If you don't believe there is any racism, bias, or prejudice in America then you are proof of the need for diversity.

Another reason we need diversity is because the belief is how do we help correct social injustices of the past and not punishing those of the current system. Allowing a few people in because of their race would only eliminate approximately 5% of all applicants. Applicants on the borderline that would have been accepted if not for the diversity policies. The belief is that if the social injustices of the past had not happened that those students would have had better resources and lesser disadvantges and would merit acceptance. That if the past injustices had not happened they would have been that much farther ahead and then have "merited" acceptance and those students eliminated would have been eliminated anyways.

Also standardized tests are racially, culturally, and genderally bias. Until recently most standardized test were made of entirely white males. That is why women in general don't do as well on standardized tests as men overall. If there was a group of people raised, educated, cultured, the same as me and we created a test, who do you think of all the test takers would do the best? Probably those that did have the same background as I did. How do you overcome differences like that?

Why do Professors want participation from everyone in the class? Everyone has different points of view. If you admitted only a few merit based minorities then the campus wouldn't be very diverse. That means that class discussions would mostly be by people that are the same race, culture, color, and probably similar backgrounds. How much perspective would you gain then? When would they ever become educated about "other cultures" or people? Being a minority we bring something with us that whites would bring to a African, Asian, South American, and Pacific Island dominant setting. If you don't understand that, just skip the rest of my post.

Now to address the success rates of minorities in universities. If you accept a more "merit based" pool of applicants into a school compared to a pool of people that were accepted less on the merits of course there is a huge disparity between minorities suceeding (a merit based process). It does not mean all accepted that do not make the "merit" requirements are not qualified. There are some that do get accepted that cannot handle the competitiveness and should not have been accepted. I concede that. The fact is that many that are accepted merit based drop out as well so numbers are not a good indicator. The fact of the matter many are accepted even though there scores didn't merit it. They do suceed and add to the school. Also statistically the pool is much smaller. So every drop out affects the statistics dramatically. It can be very misleading due to the size of the pool compared to the larger pool. Everyone knows the larrger the pool the more accurate the statistic. Also who do you think is more prepared for college the students that are second, third, fourth, fifth generation college student that have a family support group or the ones that come from a first generation college family? How do you think it feels to live away from home in a predominantly white area when you're not white? We have to learn a whole new culture and many times language. We have to learn to adapt to teachers mentality that may not be able to follow our mentatlity because they weren't raised the same as us. Unless you have lived in a different culture that isn't white you wouldn't understand further proving my point for the need of diversity.

I won't go into the economic and disadvantaged backgrounds that many minorities face. I believe that those are pretty evident. There are my views I have many more but I'll give them after because I'm tired of typing. Oh yeah sorry for the typos but I'm not a perfectionist. You know what I mean and that is enough.

I wonder what the pro-Affirmative Action folks make of the statistics (which I am unfortunately unable to cite, because I don't want to spend the time, sorry :) which indicate that Carribean immigrants of African descent are much more successful academically and economically than native-born Americans of African descent.

If race is the issue, what of all of the immigrant peoples who are doing just fine in America?

=darwin

That statistic is very manipulative. If you grew up with immigrants you'd know why that is and how it isn't relevant.

My parents as most immigrants came here from countries that had little to expect and everything to gain in this country. They compared what they had here compared what they ahve in another country. Most immigrants come here and work twice as hard as most and are more motivated to do what it takes to get where they want to be. They work harder than any american born group. I doubt anyoen works as hard as they do. They don't worry about how many times they'll eat that day, where they'll live, and do anything they have to survive.

Most Americans born in the states don't have that outlook in life. We expect equality. We don't accept being treated as second class. I'm not as motivated as my parents because I'm American and expect to live an "American" life. I want to eat three times a day. I want to watch TV, go hang out, and hook up with women. I don't have tunnel vision and focus soley on my education as many immingrants do. I don't feel motivated to work 3 jobs like my parents. I want to work hard in one job because that is the american dream I have. My parents and other immigrants have another to work as many jobs as they can and make it that way. I decided education was my ticket because that is how I'm going to make it.