I have had several occasions to discuss the forthcoming study by UCLA law professor Richard Sander arguing that racial preferences in law schools actually reduce the number of black lawyers. (See here, here, and here.) The debate continues. Today the Los Angeles Times runs an OpEd by Sander presenting his case, and a rebuttal by UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu.
Briefly, Sander argues that the data he has examined on 30,000 recent law school graduates indicate that “affirmative mismatch” — admitting black applicants into better schools than their academic record warrants — results in blacks earning significantly lower grades (50% are in the bottom 10% of their classes), a two and a half times higher dropout rate, and a rate of never passing the bar exam that is six times higher than whites. He concludes that in a race neutral system 85% of black applicants would still be accepted in law schools, albeit most at less prestigious schools, and that this match of ability and school would actually lead to the creation of 7% more black lawyers.
Defenders of racial preferences have been badly stung by Sander’s argument, and they have replied in various papers (some of which will be published in the same issue of the Stanford Law Review that is about to publish Sander’s article) that Sander is wrong. I have seen some but not all of these critiques, and will wait until they are published and others more able than I assess the statistical issues have had their say before I wade more deeply into the substance of the controversy. But (you will not be surprised to hear) I do have something more to say now.
And that is that I think there is a little-noticed mismatch between this whole debate and the rhetorical terrain over which this battle is usually fought. Partly this is a result of Sander’s explicit attempt to move the debate away from what he calls here “the legal ideal of colorblindness” and into the realm of number-crunching social science, which he believes supports the conclusion “that racial preferences may materially harm the very people they are intended to benefit.”
But I believe there’s more at work here than that.
Since (as you will also not be surprised to hear) I am loathe to give up so easily “the legal [and moral and ethical] ideal of colorblindness,” let me first call attention to what I think is the quite radical implications of Sander’s rather offhand reference to “the very people [racial preferences] are intended to benefit.” Of course we all know that this is true, but this truth is usually treated like the emperor’s absence of clothes: most of the time it’s simply not mentioned.
There is, of course, a good reason for the fact that it’s usually not mentioned: for the state to implement policies purposefully designed to benefit individuals of one race would raise Constitutional problems too immense for the fig leaf of Grutter-sanctioned “diversity” to cover. As I’ve argued here before (and here and here and here, among others), “diversity,” at least in its sanitzed, official, for public consumption version, is not designed to help minorities at all. Heaven forbid! On the contrary, it is intended to enrich the learning experience of everyone, especially whites, who presumably now have a “diversity” right to be exposed to people of other races. Minorities, after all, would still receive whatever benefits “diversity” has to offer even if they went to less selective schools, but whites at the elite schools would be deprived of what now seems to be their right to be exposed to those who, under racially neutral admissions procedures, would no longer be in their midst.
In pointing to the obvious, then, — that racial preferences are designed to help blacks — Sander is like the little boy who noticed that the emperor had no clothes.
Professor Liu begins his critique by observing that “eighteen months ago, the Supreme Court found that affirmative action in law schools helps cultivate diverse leaders for a diverse society,” accepting the new definition of “diverse” as “black.” (What is a “diverse leader” if not a black, or Hispanic, leader?) He then asks whether Sander is right in a rather curious manner: “Can we have our colorblind cake and eat it too? Probably not.” So, colorblindness is “cake”? What, then, are preferences? Gruel?
Liu then proceeds to dispute some of Sander’s factual arguments, occasionally with arguments that seem somewhat odd coming from the liberal side of the political spectrum. For example:
First, Sander’s conclusion flies in the face of the most basic tenet of economics: that people act rationally to maximize their self-interest. Affirmative action has been with us for 30 years. Is it really possible that cohort after cohort of talented black students, lured by the siren of affirmative action, has incurred large debts and forgone other opportunities in order to attend top law schools — all on a misguided expectation of success?
If the costs of affirmative action outweigh the benefits, then surely the “victims” would know. Over time, they would see that the best black students at second-tier law schools (and some top students do go to second-tier schools for geographic, financial and other reasons) far outperform their peers at more elite schools and have a much easier time passing the bar. That hard truth would be passed from one generation to the next.
Armed with this free-market logic, next thing you know liberals will be demanding the elimination, say, of the Federal Drug Administration. Surely over time people (or at least their descendants and friends) would learn which drugs work and which ones kill them.
Next, he says that, in the absence of preferences, blacks might decide “that other career paths are less isolating and more promising” than being one of a fewer number of blacks at a top law school or attending a second-tier school. Thus, by implication, we should lure them into law with special subsidies in the form of preferences. But wouldn’t this, by definition, reduce the number of blacks in those “other career paths”? Is this worth engaging in racial discrimination to produce?
Finally, accepting Claude Steele’s argument about “stereotype threat” (discussed here and here), Liu argues that ending preferences wouldn’t even end the achievement gap between blacks and whites.
Finally, there’s reason to doubt Sander’s claim that ending affirmative action would eliminate “mismatch” and, with it, racial gaps in law school grades, retention and bar passage. Copious research, which Sander does not confront, shows that the achievement gap at selective universities is because of differences not only in entering credentials but also in the university experience itself….
Stanford psychologist Claude Steele has shown that the fear of doing badly in school and thereby confirming racial stereotypes generates anxiety among black students that undermines academic performance. In addition, for many minority students, the lack of minority faculty heightens feelings of isolation and makes it difficult to find close mentors. And despite much progress, minority students still face discrimination on campus, both subtle and overt.
This is a gloomy, depressing picture. (Whatever happened to happy, optimistic liberals? I miss them.) If it is accurate, admissions preferences are woefully inadequate. We need to come up with a two-tiered set of standards for everything else as well — grades, hiring, pay, promotion, whatever.
Oh, wait. Maybe we’ve already done that.
“Stanford psychologist Claude Steele has shown that the fear of doing badly in school and thereby confirming racial stereotypes generates anxiety among black students that undermines academic performance.” Amazing. When I was in school, fear of doing badly made me study hard so I wouldn’t do badly. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I think that’s how it was with most of my contemporaries, too. Indeed, allow me to be bold and claim that fear of doing badly has motivated people to work hard so they wouldn’t do badly throughout all of history. Has it really come to this: that the promoters of racial preference have to warp the everyday experience of all of humanity to defend their policies? (Oh, never mind……..)
Liu’s appeal to free-market theories suffers from not meeting the requirement that for markets to work the market needs information. Liu says that the “victims” would, “over time” see that those who attended second-tier law schools outperformed those who attended first-tier law schools.
But that can only be true if such information is made available. It seems that one of the benefits of Sander’s paper is to make such information more widely available.
I argue that if admissions officers were more honest with applicants about their preparedness for a given school then people would make more informed choices about where to attend school.
But I doubt that admissions officers are honest about such things. To the contrary, my guess is that they’re very likely to overstate a candidate’s potential for success if that candidate helps to meet some diversity goal of the university.
I had commented on this matter before in this forum and has voiced my disagreements with Bill Kidder, Lampher and Clydesdale in regards to this matter subsequent to their commentary to the Sander article. Goodwin Liu’s commentary on this article just came in today in the LA Times. I had once criticised liu’s article in the UM LAW REview and hithherto sent an e -mail to his Washington law office which predictably went unaswered. There is nothing new in LIu’s claim. Like Kidder and company ,these claims are simply senseless. First Liu claims of the ” Cascade effect “, wherein because of the banning of race preferences will result in the downward flow of black students from first tier law schools to second tier law schools, the would be second tier black law school students would end up in third tier schools and so on and so forth. With or without race preferences, for white or Asian students, the same thing would happen. is LIu trying to say that Black students should be spared the same rigors of competition as white and Asian students ? I do not need to listen to this kind of drivel from Liu.Sander estimates that the percentage of of black students would be reduced by 15% Does that really have a ” the sky is falling ,an unmitigated disaster effect ” ? I tend to agree that the percentage of blacks who will pass the bar exam will actually increase. The “cascade effect ” only says the percentage of black law freshman at UM Ann ARbor Law School might be reduced to just 3% or 4 % from whatever its current percentage right now. Banning of race preferences does not ncecessarily mean it would cause a decrease in the bar passage rate
in a particular school. Let us take the example of Stanford Law school, if I remember it correctly, Boalt law has bout 2 1/2 times as many graduates as Stanford Law, UCLA has about 3 1/2 as many. Yet in the past 3 or 4 years, Stanford has barely edged out UCLA and boalt with regards to their pass rates in the CAlifornia bar exam. IN other words, if the pass rate of Stanford at the Calfornia Bar Exam in a particular year was 91%, then the pass rate of UCLA and Boalt was 88 % or 89% respectively.
IN terms of absolute numbers a far greater number of UCLA and Boalt Law graduates pass the California bar exam compared to Stanford. In light of these facts, one might even say STanford;s performance is downright second -rate or suspect. In fact if STandford has the same number of graduates as UCLA or Boalt Law, its bar passage rate would be definitely lower than either UCLA or Boalt Law. IN the past 3 or 4 years UC Davis Law School actually beat Stanford in its passage rate in the California Bar exam at least once even though it has a greater number law graudates than Stanford has. What if I tell you that the bar passage rate of black students in UC Davis Law School is higher than the bar passage rates of black law students at Stanford. If we ban race preferences, some of the wannabe black students at Stanford might go to UC Davis Law School and hereby increase even further the pass rate of black law school students at UC Davis Law School. Do you know see the senseless logic of goodwin liu and kipper and company ?
Let me put into view a few other things that were said by Liu and Kidder and company in regards to the SAnder article.
Liu claims that Sanders derides the achievements of blacks who grauduated from second tier or third tier law schools. Just because you graduated from a second tier or third tier law schoool does not mean that not mean that you will amount to nothing. Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro the 2 lead attorneys of the O J Simpson defense team, after being denied admission to the UCLA Law School headed to Loyola School for their JD degrees. One of the current Assistant STate Attorney Generals of California graduated from the SAn Fernando College of Law which is not even an ABA – accredited Law School. Nobody is deriding black graduates of second tier or third tier law schools. Kidder further says that black applicants denied admission to first tier or second tier law schools will instead change their profession rather than go to third tier law school. MY response to this kind of nonsense of Liu and Kidder is this. Black and white law school applicants are no different from each other, they are no different from school children offered vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries. In studies made of schoolchildren offered school vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries like New Zealand and Chile, one thing became clear , the parents of the children ultimately decided as to what was best for their self – interest of their children. Not all the children offered vouchers to attend schools away from their neighborhood accepted the offer. In other words, even if other schools were advertised as better than the neighborhood schools, not all the children offered vouchers to non – local schools accepted the offer. Some of the children preferred neighborhood schools over the so called ” better ” for all kinds of reasons. The same thing is true for black students, they will start the same kinds of calcualtions. They will decide if going to third tier law school will be of renumerative economic value to them in the long run or would they rather change to another profession? this is the same kind of economic calculations that white or Asian students will make denied to a second tier law school. Black STudents denied admission to Rutgers Law will apply to less competetive, nearby law schools like Seton Law,Villanova or Widener and not apply to the University of Montana Law school. The applicant be they black or white who has the most money might apply to the University of MOntana only if he or she was denied admission to SEton Hall, Villanova or Widener.
Let me put into view a few other things that were said by Liu and Kidder and company in regards to the SAnder article.
Liu claims that Sanders derides the achievements of blacks who grauduated from second tier or third tier law schools. Just because you graduated from a second tier or third tier law schoool does not mean that not mean that you will amount to nothing. Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro the 2 lead attorneys of the O J Simpson defense team, after being denied admission to the UCLA Law School headed to Loyola School for their JD degrees. One of the current Assistant STate Attorney Generals of California graduated from the SAn Fernando College of Law which is not even an ABA – accredited Law School. Nobody is deriding black graduates of second tier or third tier law schools. Kidder further says that black applicants denied admission to first tier or second tier law schools will instead change their profession rather than go to third tier law school. MY response to this kind of nonsense of Liu and Kidder is this. Black and white law school applicants are no different from each other, they are no different from school children offered vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries. In studies made of schoolchildren offered school vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries like New Zealand and Chile, one thing became clear , the parents of the children ultimately decided as to what was best for their self – interest of their children. Not all the children offered vouchers to attend schools away from their neighborhood accepted the offer. In other words, even if other schools were advertised as better than the neighborhood schools, not all the children offered vouchers to non – local schools accepted the offer. Some of the children preferred neighborhood schools over the so called ” better ” for all kinds of reasons. The same thing is true for black students, they will start the same kinds of calcualtions. They will decide if going to third tier law school will be of renumerative economic value to them in the long run or would they rather change to another profession? this is the same kind of economic calculations that white or Asian students will make denied to a second tier law school. Black STudents denied admission to Rutgers Law will apply to less competetive, nearby law schools like Seton Law,Villanova or Widener and not apply to the University of Montana Law school. The applicant be they black or white who has the most money might apply to the University of MOntana only if he or she was denied admission to SEton Hall, Villanova or Widener.
Let me put into view a few other things that were said by Liu and Kidder and company in regards to the SAnder article.
Liu claims that Sanders derides the achievements of blacks who grauduated from second tier or third tier law schools. Just because you graduated from a second tier or third tier law schoool does not mean that not mean that you will amount to nothing. Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro the 2 lead attorneys of the O J Simpson defense team, after being denied admission to the UCLA Law School headed to Loyola School for their JD degrees. One of the current Assistant STate Attorney Generals of California graduated from the SAn Fernando College of Law which is not even an ABA – accredited Law School. Nobody is deriding black graduates of second tier or third tier law schools. Kidder further says that black applicants denied admission to first tier or second tier law schools will instead change their profession rather than go to third tier law school. MY response to this kind of nonsense of Liu and Kidder is this. Black and white law school applicants are no different from each other, they are no different from school children offered vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries. In studies made of schoolchildren offered school vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries like New Zealand and Chile, one thing became clear , the parents of the children ultimately decided as to what was best for their self – interest of their children. Not all the children offered vouchers to attend schools away from their neighborhood accepted the offer. In other words, even if other schools were advertised as better than the neighborhood schools, not all the children offered vouchers to non – local schools accepted the offer. Some of the children preferred neighborhood schools over the so called ” better ” for all kinds of reasons. The same thing is true for black students, they will start the same kinds of calcualtions. They will decide if going to third tier law school will be of renumerative economic value to them in the long run or would they rather change to another profession? this is the same kind of economic calculations that white or Asian students will make denied to a second tier law school. Black STudents denied admission to Rutgers Law will apply to less competetive, nearby law schools like Seton Law,Villanova or Widener and not apply to the University of Montana Law school. The applicant be they black or white who has the most money might apply to the University of MOntana only if he or she was denied admission to SEton Hall, Villanova or Widener.
Let me put into view a few other things that were said by Liu and Kidder and company in regards to the SAnder article.
Liu claims that Sanders derides the achievements of blacks who grauduated from second tier or third tier law schools. Just because you graduated from a second tier or third tier law schoool does not mean that not mean that you will amount to nothing. Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro the 2 lead attorneys of the O J Simpson defense team, after being denied admission to the UCLA Law School headed to Loyola School for their JD degrees. One of the current Assistant STate Attorney Generals of California graduated from the SAn Fernando College of Law which is not even an ABA – accredited Law School. Nobody is deriding black graduates of second tier or third tier law schools. Kidder further says that black applicants denied admission to first tier or second tier law schools will instead change their profession rather than go to third tier law school. MY response to this kind of nonsense of Liu and Kidder is this. Black and white law school applicants are no different from each other, they are no different from school children offered vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries. In studies made of schoolchildren offered school vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries like New Zealand and Chile, one thing became clear , the parents of the children ultimately decided as to what was best for their self – interest of their children. Not all the children offered vouchers to attend schools away from their neighborhood accepted the offer. In other words, even if other schools were advertised as better than the neighborhood schools, not all the children offered vouchers to non – local schools accepted the offer. Some of the children preferred neighborhood schools over the so called ” better ” for all kinds of reasons. The same thing is true for black students, they will start the same kinds of calcualtions. They will decide if going to third tier law school will be of renumerative economic value to them in the long run or would they rather change to another profession? this is the same kind of economic calculations that white or Asian students will make denied to a second tier law school. Black STudents denied admission to Rutgers Law will apply to less competetive, nearby law schools like Seton Law,Villanova or Widener and not apply to the University of Montana Law school. The applicant be they black or white who has the most money might apply to the University of MOntana only if he or she was denied admission to SEton Hall, Villanova or Widener.
Let me put into view a few other things that were said by Liu and Kidder and company in regards to the SAnder article.
Liu claims that Sanders derides the achievements of blacks who grauduated from second tier or third tier law schools. Just because you graduated from a second tier or third tier law schoool does not mean that not mean that you will amount to nothing. Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro the 2 lead attorneys of the O J Simpson defense team, after being denied admission to the UCLA Law School headed to Loyola School for their JD degrees. One of the current Assistant STate Attorney Generals of California graduated from the SAn Fernando College of Law which is not even an ABA – accredited Law School. Nobody is deriding black graduates of second tier or third tier law schools. Kidder further says that black applicants denied admission to first tier or second tier law schools will instead change their profession rather than go to third tier law school. MY response to this kind of nonsense of Liu and Kidder is this. Black and white law school applicants are no different from each other, they are no different from school children offered vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries. In studies made of schoolchildren offered school vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries like New Zealand and Chile, one thing became clear , the parents of the children ultimately decided as to what was best for their self – interest of their children. Not all the children offered vouchers to attend schools away from their neighborhood accepted the offer. In other words, even if other schools were advertised as better than the neighborhood schools, not all the children offered vouchers to non – local schools accepted the offer. Some of the children preferred neighborhood schools over the so called ” better ” for all kinds of reasons. The same thing is true for black students, they will start the same kinds of calcualtions. They will decide if going to third tier law school will be of renumerative economic value to them in the long run or would they rather change to another profession? this is the same kind of economic calculations that white or Asian students will make denied to a second tier law school. Black STudents denied admission to Rutgers Law will apply to less competetive, nearby law schools like Seton Law,Villanova or Widener and not apply to the University of Montana Law school. The applicant be they black or white who has the most money might apply to the University of MOntana only if he or she was denied admission to SEton Hall, Villanova or Widener.
Let me put into view a few other things that were said by Liu and Kidder and company in regards to the SAnder article.
Liu claims that Sanders derides the achievements of blacks who grauduated from second tier or third tier law schools. Just because you graduated from a second tier or third tier law schoool does not mean that not mean that you will amount to nothing. Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro the 2 lead attorneys of the O J Simpson defense team, after being denied admission to the UCLA Law School headed to Loyola School for their JD degrees. One of the current Assistant STate Attorney Generals of California graduated from the SAn Fernando College of Law which is not even an ABA – accredited Law School. Nobody is deriding black graduates of second tier or third tier law schools. Kidder further says that black applicants denied admission to first tier or second tier law schools will instead change their profession rather than go to third tier law school. MY response to this kind of nonsense of Liu and Kidder is this. Black and white law school applicants are no different from each other, they are no different from school children offered vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries. In studies made of schoolchildren offered school vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries like New Zealand and Chile, one thing became clear , the parents of the children ultimately decided as to what was best for their self – interest of their children. Not all the children offered vouchers to attend schools away from their neighborhood accepted the offer. In other words, even if other schools were advertised as better than the neighborhood schools, not all the children offered vouchers to non – local schools accepted the offer. Some of the children preferred neighborhood schools over the so called ” better ” for all kinds of reasons. The same thing is true for black students, they will start the same kinds of calcualtions. They will decide if going to third tier law school will be of renumerative economic value to them in the long run or would they rather change to another profession? this is the same kind of economic calculations that white or Asian students will make denied to a second tier law school. Black STudents denied admission to Rutgers Law will apply to less competetive, nearby law schools like Seton Law,Villanova or Widener and not apply to the University of Montana Law school. The applicant be they black or white who has the most money might apply to the University of MOntana only if he or she was denied admission to SEton Hall, Villanova or Widener.
Let me put into view a few other things that were said by Liu and Kidder and company in regards to the SAnder article.
Liu claims that Sanders derides the achievements of blacks who grauduated from second tier or third tier law schools. Just because you graduated from a second tier or third tier law schoool does not mean that not mean that you will amount to nothing. Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro the 2 lead attorneys of the O J Simpson defense team, after being denied admission to the UCLA Law School headed to Loyola School for their JD degrees. One of the current Assistant STate Attorney Generals of California graduated from the SAn Fernando College of Law which is not even an ABA – accredited Law School. Nobody is deriding black graduates of second tier or third tier law schools. Kidder further says that black applicants denied admission to first tier or second tier law schools will instead change their profession rather than go to third tier law school. MY response to this kind of nonsense of Liu and Kidder is this. Black and white law school applicants are no different from each other, they are no different from school children offered vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries. In studies made of schoolchildren offered school vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries like New Zealand and Chile, one thing became clear , the parents of the children ultimately decided as to what was best for their self – interest of their children. Not all the children offered vouchers to attend schools away from their neighborhood accepted the offer. In other words, even if other schools were advertised as better than the neighborhood schools, not all the children offered vouchers to non – local schools accepted the offer. Some of the children preferred neighborhood schools over the so called ” better ” for all kinds of reasons. The same thing is true for black students, they will start the same kinds of calcualtions. They will decide if going to third tier law school will be of renumerative economic value to them in the long run or would they rather change to another profession? this is the same kind of economic calculations that white or Asian students will make denied to a second tier law school. Black STudents denied admission to Rutgers Law will apply to less competetive, nearby law schools like Seton Law,Villanova or Widener and not apply to the University of Montana Law school. The applicant be they black or white who has the most money might apply to the University of MOntana only if he or she was denied admission to SEton Hall, Villanova or Widener.
Let me put into view a few other things that were said by Liu and Kidder and company in regards to the SAnder article.
Liu claims that Sanders derides the achievements of blacks who grauduated from second tier or third tier law schools. Just because you graduated from a second tier or third tier law schoool does not mean that not mean that you will amount to nothing. Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro the 2 lead attorneys of the O J Simpson defense team, after being denied admission to the UCLA Law School headed to Loyola School for their JD degrees. One of the current Assistant STate Attorney Generals of California graduated from the SAn Fernando College of Law which is not even an ABA – accredited Law School. Nobody is deriding black graduates of second tier or third tier law schools. Kidder further says that black applicants denied admission to first tier or second tier law schools will instead change their profession rather than go to third tier law school. MY response to this kind of nonsense of Liu and Kidder is this. Black and white law school applicants are no different from each other, they are no different from school children offered vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries. In studies made of schoolchildren offered school vouchers to attend schools of their choice in other countries like New Zealand and Chile, one thing became clear , the parents of the children ultimately decided as to what was best for their self – interest of their children. Not all the children offered vouchers to attend schools away from their neighborhood accepted the offer. In other words, even if other schools were advertised as better than the neighborhood schools, not all the children offered vouchers to non – local schools accepted the offer. Some of the children preferred neighborhood schools over the so called ” better ” for all kinds of reasons. The same thing is true for black students, they will start the same kinds of calcualtions. They will decide if going to third tier law school will be of renumerative economic value to them in the long run or would they rather change to another profession? this is the same kind of economic calculations that white or Asian students will make denied to a second tier law school. Black STudents denied admission to Rutgers Law will apply to less competetive, nearby law schools like Seton Law,Villanova or Widener and not apply to the University of Montana Law school. The applicant be they black or white who has the most money might apply to the University of MOntana only if he or she was denied admission to SEton Hall, Villanova or Widener.
Whether blacks decide to attend a third tier or 4th tier school after their rejection from a first tier or second tier law school will depend on their bottomline assesments of their economic self -interests .For Kidder to say that blacks will opt not to apply to a first tier or second tier law school after their number decreased thru the ban on race preferences in a first tier or second tier school is preposterous. Many of them I am sure will opt to attend a third tier or 4 tier school. Some of course will make self -serving economic calculations that changing their profession will be a better choice than attending a third tier or 4th tier school. but I doubt very much if their will be a great decrease in the number of applicants in first and second tier law schools. The history of Prop. 209 belies this claim of KIddler and Liu.The number of blacks to the top UC schools declined only a bit after the first actually rebounded and kept going up years after. But that would not be different from the behavior of white or Asian students. Is Kidder telling telling us that blacks are more sensitive than whites to feelings of isolation that they would not attend schools where they feel they are a minority?. I had been telling this forum for some time the stiuation in some UC schools where whites feeling that they are in the minority at UC San Diego and UC Irvine would rather attend UC Santa Barbara or UC Santa Cruz even though those schools were less competetive and meant moving farther away from home. Should we then give race preferences for whites in UC San Diego and UC Irvine to ease their feelings at being a minority in those schools and give them mental comfort? Should we then by the same token give race preferences to blacks in law schools to ease their feeling of isolation ? You know very well that both options are downright stupid, sick and disgusting, Furthermore there was a point in time, when the number of Asians were smaller than the number of blacks at UM – Aaaann Arbor and other law schools in this country? Did they at that point demand race preferences to increase their numbers and to reduce their feelings of isolation ? That is why Goodwin lIU and Bill Kidder, both good ol’boy leftists got it all wrong, wrong,……. allthe way.
Finally, I’d like to say something that Bill Kidder talked about. He said that blacks who have the same average LSAT scores and grades as white law school applicants still had a lower passage rate than whites in the bar exam. He further said that Asians and Hispanics also exhibit the same trait. I had seen the performance of blacks, whites, Hispanics and Asians in the California bar exam, All I can say is that Asians do slightly have a lower average passage rate than whites in the California bar exam. In the case of blacks and Hispanics, pass rate gaps were even greater. However , it is interesting to know that ASians who have the same average MCAT scores and grades ad whites when they enter medical school have a higher average pass rate than whites in the 3 parts of the medical licensing exams. Blacks who have the same MCAT scores and grades as their white counterparts when they enter medical school have the same average pass rates as their white counterparts.
What can be made of these facts? It seems to me that the real issue involved is if a cultural bias exists in the LSAT exams? I am of the opinion that the situation that exists in the medical board licensing exam is the same as that of other professional board exams that are based on the sciences and engineering. Therefore Bill Kidder and company should pursue that line of investigation instead of saying that banning race preferences will not increase the pass rates of blacks in the bar exams.
The previous post was made by Leo Cruz.
One final thing about Bill Kidder, he has claimed that Pilipinos who apply to Boalt Law snd presumably other UC law schools have lower admission rates than their other ASian counterparts like Chinese and
Koreans and hence deserves race preferences just like blacks in Boalt Law School admissions. What this white boy is trying to do is to make PIlipinos align themselves with the views of black race preferentialists like Lani Guinier, Connie Rice or Eve Patterson and Troy Duster. This is something insulting and disgusting. Does he mean that the children of Pilipino doctors, nurses and engineers , who are the majority of Pilipino applicants to Boalt Law School ought to be given preferences?This is one Pilipino that does not need this kind of drivel and rubbish from this white boy.