<p>
</p>
<p>speedo, by “very different customer,” are you referring to international students from a handful of countries in Asia?</p>
<p>Re #277,</p>
<p>No fab, Erica Munzel’s testimony is not part of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion; it is merely one of many opinions that make up the factual background of the case.</p>
<p>Justice O’Connor made it quite clear that the purpose of the “critical mass” was to enhance the educational experience of all of the students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the graduate level students are looking for a specific educational experience, they’re not looking for a social environment, the customers could care less if the place is 90% Asian or 90% black as long as it provides the appropriate education and access to the work world. It’s a couple of years, a step on the path. The undergrad experience/product has to be marketed to a different customer. One who wants a 4 year educational and social experience. Meeting the right people, roomates, relationships and all that. That’s all part of the marketing at the undergrad level at most elites - MIT and CAL may be a little
different. </p>
<p>Too many Asians is essentially a marketing problem for the elites. They have nothing against Asians. Don’t take it personally. As I said earlier if there were too many Asians, the Asians who got in would start complaining too. When you’re elite you gotta feel elite, discrimination is the name of the game.</p>
<p>As for UCB being an elite, the stats just aren’t there. It’s 90% from CA. 25 % acceptance rate, 660 average SATs. It just doesn’t cut it. Half of your high school calc class will be there too. You’re going to be measured against a bunch of other pretty smart kids from CA. It’s a big state but still a small pond.</p>
<p>How is Mme. Munzel’s testimony not part of the Court’s opinion? Justice O’Connor quoted her in the opinion! Even if Justice O’Connor did not agree with Mme. Munzel’s opinion, that she used it all in her opinion proves without a doubt that it was part of the Court’s opinion!</p>
<p>You say that “the ‘critical mass’ goal which was affirmed as permissible by the U.S. Supreme Court has nothing to do with making minority students ‘feel comfortable.’” OK, I’ll bite. Define “critical mass.” What’s it mean?</p>
<p>Re 283</p>
<p>A very Lowellian answer, I see. Thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that no public university is elite, then?</p>
<p>If we go back to your [url=<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/11/19/looking-for-an-out-of-state-public-university.html]link[/url”>http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/11/19/looking-for-an-out-of-state-public-university.html]link[/url</a>], we see that the highest ranking public school with the greatest percentage of undergraduates who are out-of-state is the College of William and Mary. It’s 64% from VA; its acceptance rate is 34%, which is higher than Berkeley’s; and the middle 50% of first-year students have SATs between 1860 and 2160.</p>
<p>Yet, if you deem W&M elite, then it makes no sense that Berkeley is not elite. USNWR ranks Berkeley higher (1 vs. 6), Berkeley’s acceptance rate is lower, and its middle 50% SAT range is between 1810 and 2190. Of course, my point is moot if you believe that no public school is elite.</p>
<p>I don’t have the list of public schools with me, and it could be argued that the service academies are elite, but as for the rest of public schools, I think not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I find interesting is that you dare to parrot what Lowell once said about the Jews in the 1920s. Harvard practically disowns Lowell now; former President Rudenstine once wrote an incredibly white-washed essay extolling the virtues of Harvard’s “progressive” stance on diversity. He didn’t once mention his predecessor Lowell, and for good reason: it would have made the inanity of his essay even more obvious than it already was. (I’ve got nothing against Harvard; I didn’t apply there three years ago, so I cannot be bitter at a rejection that never happened. I do, however, have issues with certain types of historical revision.)</p>
<p>I’ve been repeatedly arguing that I firmly believe that these institutions, being private, have the right to protect their brand names and images. All I ask in return is that they forfeit federal funding. I’m sure that they have legal teams that are able to create distinctions between their components such that their research divisions can still receive federal grants. Their undergraduate and graduate components are free to continue using racial classification; Harvard can definitely afford to maintain its image from its endowment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I understand it, under your mindset, selectivity is not a sufficient condition for eliteness. The school also has to “look” like America. Well, West Point literally “looks” like America, though Asians are still “overrepresented,” so I guess you are being consistent. I think you might be alone in arguing that no public schools out of the service academies are elite, but then again, you strike me as a person who is proud to be a contrarian, telling the “truth” to people who can’t handle it (ie. “me”).</p>
<p>Yes and Harvard learned it’s lesson well too, there are no Lowells around foolish enough to tell you the truth. And as for forfeiting some of their Federal money, I doubt they really care, but I doubt it will ever happen as the people handing out the Federal Grants are largely from the same caste. There’s a real world out there Fab, it doesn’t operate on your rational and it certainly doesn’t care about your opinion. You’re just another powerless internet typist, clutching at some Don Quixote fantasy. Get real.</p>
<p>You tend to misinterpret long statements, so I’ll just be as brief as possible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Constitution =! An Executive Order by a president whose administration didn’t even implement the policy. The original meaning of a policy is the one that accompanies its implementation. Thus this entire argument about original meaning is absolutely unnecessary. We’re not arguing Constitutional Law here. You can’t build a case based on the wording of an Executive Order that preceded the related policy by almost a decade. </p>
<p>This argument is over.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Bay has already explained it, you misinterpreted critical mass. The argument about critical mass is over.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I question why any group should be matched academically with another. Asians students at a given college are usually noticeably more accomplished than their white counterparts. Should whites be matched with Asians? Or should superior Asian applicants be rejected until the median Asian student is the same as the median white student? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on the New Yorker article, I’m under the impression that the existence of a bottom quarter leads to the question: who would be happy at the bottom quarter? After all, a Harvard President asked it. Surely he would know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>Unless one minority enrollment reaches 14% or higher and every single one manages to fail, you’ll never have a bottom quarter dominated by anything but white students.</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with your analysis of the comparison is that you assume that you’re in both scenarios. If you would actually read the quote you would understand that the comparison was between you, a white male at Morehouse and a black male at Berkeley not a white male at Morehouse and a white male at Berkeley. Thus my comparison was that of a white male going to a school that is 93% non-white (Morehouse) and black male going to a school is 96% non-black as a black male (Berkeley), hence the phrase “and Morehouse is more welcoming to whites than Berkeley is to blacks.” Now 7=!4 but the comparison is quite a bit closer if you just read it correctly.</p>
<p>How this important detail managed to escape you is beyond me. Perhaps you were too busy congratulating yourself on having a point. Now you just look a bit foolish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Federal funding isn’t something that the government just gives a university out of support or charity. Federal funding comes with the expectation that universities do their best to continue the advances that are so instrumental to our continued economic dominance and prosperity. If you want to get forfeit federal funding so that the universities can find some other benefactor, fine. Just realize that you’ll be losing out on a lot by effectively disowning several of the best universities in the world and gaining absolutely nothing. Harvard and its peers can maintain themselves on their endowment and alumni alone. They’ll lose nothing.</p>
<p>fab,
Erica Munzel’s quote was preceded by this introductory sentence in the factual background portion of O’Connor’s opinion:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are using the word “opinion” too broadly. While facts are stated in the document titled “opinion,” it does not mean that all such facts are part of the Supreme Court’s legal conclusions and holdings. I pains me to explain this because to me, it is so blatantly obvious to even an average reader. I think you are intentionally being difficult.</p>
<p>NearL,</p>
<p>The school of originalism does not hold that original meaning only applies when interpreting the Constitution. Justice Scalia does not resort to other philosophies when he interprets the language of legislation, for example. You disagreed that Executive Order 10925 contained the original meaning of affirmative action. I pointed out that your argument would have validity if you could find an older official document that contained the phrase. You have not found such a document because it doesn’t exist. Hence, our disagreement is over; EO 10925, being the first document with the term ‘affirmative action,’ has the original meaning of the phrase.</p>
<p>I did not misinterpret “critical mass.” The argument is over, however, because there was nothing wrong with my interpretation, unless one believes that there is a difference between “not feel[ing] isolated” (Court’s language) and “feel[ing] welcome” (my language).</p>
<p>I’m not sure whether Asians are “noticeably” more accomplished than their white counterparts at a given college. Espenshade, for example, found that Asians “face a loss equivalent to 50 SAT points” compared to whites. One interpretation of that finding is that Asians have higher SAT scores than their white counterparts (possibly indicating negative action), but I wouldn’t consider 50 points to indicate “noticeably [greater accomplishment].” That is, whites and Asians are essentially matched with each other; “should” is unnecessary for they already are.</p>
<p>Point taken and accepted about the effect of magnitude on the racial classification breakdown within the bottom quarter. I guess what matters, then, is the racial classification’s quarter breakdown. I stand by my comment, however, that the mindset you espoused (ie. Ann Arbor close to Detroit? Black student enrollment problem easily solved!) is problematic.</p>
<p>Wait a minute, did you forget that I am Chinese? You wrote, “I’m sure you’d feel uncomfortable at a school like Morehouse - and Morehouse is more welcoming to whites than Berkeley is to blacks.” You see, in the context of the first sentence, the second sentence makes it seem like you think I’m white. I wasn’t aware that <em>that</em> was how you intended your comparison. Indeed, I was focusing on how my potentially being uncomfortable at Morehouse is not the same as a black student’s potentially being uncomfortable at Berkeley, since I am Chinese and you wrote “I’m sure you’d feel uncomfortable at a school like Morehouse…”</p>
<p>See, you’re talking about the research that comes out of these elite universities. As I wrote, “I’m sure that they have legal teams that are able to create distinctions between their components such that their research divisions can still receive federal grants.” If they do that, which I presume they easily can, then I’m not losing out on anything.</p>
<p>No, I am not using the term “opinion” too broadly. Let us take another look at what you wrote, “No fab, Erica Munzel’s testimony is not part of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion; it is merely one of many opinions that make up the factual background of the case.”</p>
<p>“The” Court’s opinion refers to Justice O’Connor’s opinion, which she wrote for the Court with the support of four of her fellow Justices. What I quoted came from that opinion, written by Justice O’Connor for the Court. Hence, what I quoted most certainly was part of the Court’s opinion.</p>
<p>I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. Are you saying that my understanding of “critical mass” is not the same as Mme. Munzel’s? Are you saying that Mme. Munzel’s definition of “critical mass” is not what Justice O’Connor meant when she used the phrase repeatedly in her (ie. the Court’s) opinion? What are you trying to say?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t personally live in NY but I’ve got family in the NYC suburbs that work in the actual city. I don’t really go there frequently but I’ve been. All I’m saying is that Harlem is not as safe as a New England prep school. Harlem is very threatening to most caucasians and playing basketball on the streets there isn’t a verifiable cridential.</p>
<p>Would you disagree that Black on Black crime, in general, is a bigger problem than crimes against “others”? Would for agree that young Black men die from homicide at greater rates then other young men? Harlem might be “threatening” to some ( most??) Caucasians, but I bet it’s not any worse than the reality of living in some urban neighborhoods…I must admit I’ve forgotten how this is on topic…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether blacks are the likely target is irrelevant.
Fine, Harlem isn’t as safe as a prep school for anyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NBA Chris claiming that minorities are excluded from some opportunities.</p>
<p>
I’m sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious “white corn-fed midwestern girl in a gingham dress” was a tongue-in-cheek response to someone saying customers want to see “America” on a college campus, not thousands of Asians milling around. I understand the Little House on the Prairie look went out of style a couple years back 
Yeah, I’m from an affluent NYC suburb, and growing up I also thought of Harlem as the slums. My WASP parents were initially horrified to find that I’m now living there. I don’t think anyone would pretend it’s as safe as a prep school, but I agree with whomever said black-on-black crime is more common. I forgot how this is related to AA or on topic so I don’t think I have a point to make.</p>
<p>I see what you’re saying now, Speedo. I’m sorry, I initially took your comments to mean you had something against Asian Americans, or at least them being overrepresented in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is what I am saying. O’Connor noted Ms. Munzel’s testimony as factual background, but no where did O’Connor adopt Ms. Munzel’s statement as the Court’s definition of “critical mass.” If you can find where O’Connor did this, please provide the quote.</p>
<p>Fab, look up the definition of “dicta.” Much of what is written in court “Opinions” is facts, remarks and editorializing that are not part of the legal basis for the judgment, and are not statements of law or legal precedent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you acknowledge then, that my understanding of “critical mass” is essentially how Mme. Munzel defined it. Good. I was hoping I didn’t have to read a post about how there’s substantive differences between “not feel[ing] isolated” and “feel[ing] welcome.”</p>
<p>Yet, for some reason, you seem to believe that Justice O’Connor had a different definition of “critical mass” than what Mme. Munzel used. The portion of the opinion you cited in 282 does not provide any definition of the phrase. In fact, the portion you cited is much farther into the opinion than the part I cited, suggesting that the part I cited provided the basis for understanding the part you cited.</p>
<p>But I’ll bite, like I did before with your “Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Gratz did not prove that she believed there were limits to the value of diversity” argument. What was Justice O’Connor’s definition, then?</p>
<p>fab,<br>
The Court in Grutter deferred to the Law School to determine what numbers of minorities are sufficient to constitute a “critical mass,” in order to achieve the desired educational benefits that flow from a racially diverse student body. The Court didn’t say anything about the purpose of a “critical mass” being to make minorities feel “welcome.” But it did acknowledge that more than one minority student is necessary to encourage participation/avoid “isolation” and the “spokesman” effects.</p>
<p>
</code></pre>
<p>While the Court never wrote, “critical mass is defined as…,” or “…is achieved by this number of minority students…,” the (obvious) implication is that the law school is free to determine which students would most likely contribute to its goal of encouraging the broadest exchange of ideas and exposing all of its students to the widest variety of viewpoints.</p>
<p>I am tired of rehashing this with you, fab. I know you are bright enough to analyze this stuff honestly yourself, but for some reason you are h*ll-bent on tearing AA apart no matter that nearly every top university in the country, SCOTUS, and studies have found that there is value in it. Are you in this for the fun of it? Or do you just really hate the idea of racially diverse educational environments for some reason?</p>