That’s politics, though, not science.
Sure, it could be.
But it’s far less likely to be harmful than under-representation of ethnic groups, because no one lives to be 22 and has no idea what it’s like to be a man in America, or is ignorant of the different perspectives some men bring to the table, or have never had to interact with men and know them primarily though stereotypes. No college student’s circle of lifelong friends will fail to include men because there weren’t many men at their college. Discussions of issues touching on gender are unlikely to fail to include the male perspective because of a lack of a critical mass of men. Need I go on?
And second, under-representation of men probably isn’t a problem the state created. So its compelling interest in solving the problem is lessened, which is true of lots of other kinds of underrepresentation we might identify.
Now, I’ve answered your question, so you should answer mine: is it categorically unconstitutional for a state school to seek male students? Conservative students?
It should be, yes. A school’s sole consideration should be the chances of academic success. You know what happened when California ended race-conscious admissions? Minority graduation rates increased.
Diversity must be meant for white students’ benefits, because it certainly wasn’t helping black or Hispanic students any. They’d get into schools they were less qualified for, when they could have graduated from a less demanding school.
Those are exactly the kind of policy arguments that a legislature or board should consider in deciding to adopt such policies.
Those are also arguments a court should hear in deciding whether or not diversity has intrinsic value. The empirical data says it is a net negative, not a net positive, at least if you are trying to hard to achieve it. If it comes naturally, which it does in our day and age, it’s all good.
Although non-Asian minority enrollment in selective California universities has fallen, they are still very diverse.
I would argue that you don’t correct it at all by doing that, but simply perpetuate the injustice in the opposite direction. As Roberts said once, the only way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Thomas’ dissent in Grutter is my opinion: diversity itself is not a goal of a university. The betterment of education is the goal of the university, and diversity is a means to achieve that goal.
And since having an elite university is not a compelling state government interest, by itself, then it certainly follows that any racial admissions scheme is not narrowly tailored toward that compelling government interest. Many states don’t have elite universities at all.
Further, the Court shouldn’t be making these societal value judgments. Today “diversity” is a great constitutional goal. What if 100 years from now “segregation” is considered such a goal? The Constitution does and should abhor distinctions based on race.
I’ve basically said the same thing as jtgain and ahaher. Diversity of thought and background is useful. Diversity of race, well, isn’t.
If you want to argue that it’s a reparations issue, make that argument. In fact, that’s why I don’t oppose affirmative action–at least, the pure kind where equal scores mean you defer to the more discriminated individual. I’m less sure about the kind that allows lower scores through because of race, but I can at least see the argument for such. I cannot see the argument that schools need to have different colored people in order to promote diverse opinions and thus intellectual growth.
The only way I can support this sort of thing is if it is an end run around a law preventing reparations. And it would have to outlaw even the pure version of affirmative action I mention above.
Okay, didn’t read this part. This is stupid. Yes, if we discover that segregation is the more moral choice (as unlikely as it is), then of course the Court should be pushing towards it. jtgain is making a logical error here, simultaneously arguing that values can change but then judging based on the older values. He’s holding two contradictory positions at once.
That’s what affirmative action was at first. It took real individuals who had experienced obvious discrimination, and elevated them as a form of recompense. Today, it’s much harder for an individual to claim discrimination more than any other individual, because things are much more complex now. Not only is society more diverse, but there are now many more factors at play that can cause one person to be favored over another. Traditional discrimination still takes place, but there’s also pro-minority discrimination now. Plus there are an infinite number of other situations where discrimination can affect an individual depending on their situation. The best way to deal with it is to have laws banning discrimination, not have a system where some minorities are judged more discriminated against than others and give them special protections(which are then taken advantage of primarily by the wealthier and more educated, still leaving the poor behind).
I agree with this as well. If it is 1965 and you end discrimination, you can’t take a black man who when to inferior black schools and an inferior black college and tell him that since he’s equal now, he can compete fairly with whites. I could agree with temporary help in that situation.
Today’s young people entering college and the workforce never went to de jure segregated schools and were never discriminated against (and if they were, they had the full protection of law behind them). To continue preferences for people who never felt the effects of Jim Crow mitigates against this preference.
And although I agree that the secondary effects for the second and third generations are real, there comes a time where society has to say that enough is enough.
Further, these schools, especially law schools, are being disingenuous. They use GPA and LSAT scores as 95% of their admissions process KNOWING that blacks do poorer on these tests than whites, but then demand a racial preference to compensate for it. If these tests unfairly discriminate, then don’t fucking use them. Find an alternative, race-neutral method to decide the students you want at your school. But if these two factors are useful, good methods to determine who will succeed in law school, they why in the hell would you want to add people (of any race) who do poorly on these factors and set them up for failure in law school to the tune of a 6 figure debt and no degree or no job prospect?
It would be like if my admissions policy was to pick the highest GPAs in Vermont, and then complain that there was no diversity at my school. It would be my own fault for using my initial criteria. But if Vermont GPAs were the cat’s meow as to future success at my school, then why pick others doomed to fail?