I took AP Government as a junior in high school. When we were taught the affirmative action Supreme Court decisions, I couldn’t tell if everyone was genuinely dumb enough to believe that you can dole out “plus factors” to one racial group _without_ simultaneously and necessarily doling out “minus factors” to other groups, or if this was just an exercise of cynical wordplay in order to distort perceptions about what was actually going on. This decision finally means we’ve reached the point where proponents can at last drop the charade and speak honestly about their desire to racially discriminate.
18:09 “It’s not that they’re Asian that they’re disadvantaged. It’s that they’re not Black.” Professor Loury is spot-on here. Even though it means to do the other, this “distinction” is actually the same exclusionary thinking of past policies of bigotry.
Yeah, I am up to that bit. If a hospital decides it will only treat white people, it isn't discriminating against black people. The hospital is just discriminating towards white people which is collaterally disadvantaging black people.
It’s favoritism. Not equality. These regressive leftists need to get back in touch with the present and reassess their values. The irony is they purport to be the tolerant ones…
Maybe white supremacist killers should try that in court. "No, no, no, it wasn't a hate crime. I didn't kill him because he was black. I killed him because he wasn't white. Come on, it's right there in the name! I'm a _white supremacist,_ not a black inferiorist."
Imagine…. “We’re not excluding you because you’re black. We’re excluding you because you’re not white.” “That’s discrimination!” “No, no, no. It’s merely disadvantaging certain people based on the need to boost others.”
It's essentially saying black Americans are more deserving of these spots than Asian Americans and to my mind, that goes right to the heart of racism; the idea that a particular race is somehow superior or inferior to another.
Glenn Loury is extremely smart. His training and language is mathematical economics, and he can easily switch to purely verbal argumentations. Not many can do the other way around.
I was so frustrated hearing/reading the discourse on affirmative action following June’s Supreme Court decision. This debate (more of an intellectual conversation imo) was the most honest and fair assessment of the jurisprudence, political economy, and morality of affirmative action. I will be sharing this video with my sociology students next semester as an assignment. Hats off, Professor Loury & Kennedy!
Kudos to Mr. Loury for identifying and coherently confronting critical issues on both sides (with suggested solutions) while exposing scattered and confused discourse of a flawed argument.
I think this is one of Glenn Loury's most effective superpowers. He frequently makes better steel man arguments for the opposing position than the opposition can make on their own behalf. Then if he can overcome the steel man arguments, the audience is pretty well convinced.
“Reducing people to representation by racial aggregates is a moral error”. Such a wise point by Glen, this applies beyond race to the various superficial and one-dimensional identity groups.
Glenn , you are amazing in this podcast . Professor Kennedy , is a very bright gentleman yet in this debate he is far overshadowed by Professor Loury . Thanks to all involved for giving me much 'food for thought' ... May God bless both of these fine minds !
This is the most candid, constructive and informative debate I have watched on the subject. The 2 guest debaters were very polite, informative and, even more importantly, intellectually honest. Truly a refreshing debate.
This was so good. Thank you Glenn! I think if we had one Professor Loury to openly challenge the assertions of each "woke" professor in front of their students, then the institutions of higher learning would be better off. The idea that a "race conscious selection scheme" only "disadvantages" Asian students and doesn't "discriminate" against them is absurd. Preferential or exclusionary admittance based upon categories of race, sex, religion, etc. is by definition discrimination -- full stop -- no pedantic semantic song and dance of obfuscation required. The only point I don't understand why there wasn't any push-back was the presupposition that if students were to be admitted based upon class rather than race, then the majority of poor kids admitted would be white. Is that because there are more impoverished white kids in the USA than any other group? Or is it because it's presumed that there would still be some other type of systemic advantage (i.e. better schools)? If it is due to the former than statistically I suppose that outcome is correctly inferred. But if it is the latter then I completely disagree. I went to a primarily white rural High School and it was trash; filled with drunk, dispassionate, disillusioned teachers who there for the paycheck only. They were largely uninterested in, or ignorant of, the material they were charged to convey. One gem that sticks out in my mind is when we glossed over Gandhi, and I asked a question, having heard he was an amazing leader was told, "Gandhi was a big baby who threw a temper tantrum whenever he didn't get his way. He even wore a diaper."
To be clear, I'm not saying that professors who teach ideas of systemic racism, gender abolitionism, white supremacist patriarchal colonialist oppression, etc. as settled fact should be sent to a gulag. I'm just saying students should hear challenges to their arguments by other professors who can expose the faulty logic and validity of the ideas. Students assume that since a professor is teaching them truth; every statement presented is fact. They need an informed authority figure (professor) to offer push back to ideas which are presented as unassailable truth. That's the environment required for critical thinking to thrive.
I’ve very surprised that Randall was caught so off guard by Glenn’s argument in support of civil service schools. Seems like an obvious argument that he should already support
I lost Randall's train of thought when he said that being disadvantaged is different from being discriminated against in this context. What kind of magical thinking is this? Quit the word games.
@@mariejane1567 Yeah, that's the problem. The discrimination by race is a policy decision that becomes the causal factor behind the systematic disadvantage against Asians and advantages to Blacks in college admissions. That's not just, and that's an overstretch of the initial civil rights protections that emerged for Blacks over the decades after the Civil War. Being born black is much different from someone being born with a disadvantage and then living in a state with legally mandated school/job accommodations. Nobody is clearly getting a disadvantage from the policy decision to require reasonable accommodations. Lowering the bar for admission of blacks, or legacies for that matter, by hundreds of SAT composite points when compared with Asian kids is not a reasonable accommodation. It's a systematic form of discrimination. It would also be wrong to give people with disabilities a leg up in college admissions for the same reasons that it's wrong to use racial preferences. Such schema incentivize the doling out of a scarce set of class seats to people who are not as qualified by merit and are less likely to generate a return-on-investment for the privilege of an elite education.
@@randomcommenteronyoutube1055This argument is why I'm also against class-based affirmative action. While it isn't as invidious to the recipients as racial affirmative action, as there is not the same stigma because people can't just look at you and presume you received an advantage, it's still unfair to other applicants and presumably would have the same mismatch issues as racial affirmative action.
Discrimination is discrimination. You can sugar coat it all you want, but it is still discrimination. If you started this diversity agenda in the NBA and started favoring less talented non-blacks over more talented blacks you would hear "racism" being screamed from the rooftops and rightfully so and it would be wrong. Favoring less qualified blacks over more qualified non-blacks is doing exactly the same thing in reverse and it is just as wrong. Glenn understands that. Affirmative action sends out the message that blacks are less talented and capable than non-blacks thus they need an advantage. That sounds a lot like the KKK saying blacks were not as good as whites. Now pro-affirmative action people are saying the same thing 'blacks are not as good as non-blacks'. How sad is that?
The problem is you cant be "more qualified" that's statistically impossible there is no measurement for more qualified that has been established. How is a legacy student more qualified? Either you meet the qualifications or you don't. That's why schools release a profile. The Asian guy who got rejected got rejected from every IVY league school. I don't think all eight schools conspired against him and said no you can't come in unison.
@@mariejane1567if you preference admissions based off immutable facts such as race not pertaining to their intellect you will inevitably end up with "less" qualified candidates.
Kennedy desperately trying to find a sliver of distinction so that this isn't explicit outright racial discrimination at the front of the debate is really insightful on the debate culture as a whole. This really sums up the issues with debate on this topic even at the highest most civil levels. "I wouldn't say it's discrimination..." lol. What a beatdown and Glen Loury is a universal treasure. Kudos for Kennedy for coming out and fighting...more than we can say for many others.
This is amazing. It’s so wonderful to hear two passionate adults debate, like adults. I will happily listen to opposing points of view when presented this way. It makes me dig deeper into what I believe to see if I truly believe it, or am I swayed to consider the opposing view for further discussion? More of this please n America would truly be a blessing.
The more I hear Dr. Kennedy talk, the more I want him to appear with John and Glenn on their show. An hour plus of affirmative action discussion where no one called anyone a racist or a race traitor? In 2023??? What an enriching and wonderful anomaly to experience.
The consensus of the comments of which I absolutely agree, is that Randy‘s argument is based on trying to manipulate the reality to suit an ideology. Glenn won this debate, and buy a large margin. In fact, Randy‘s argument was so weak that anyone who was on the fence or naive about the subject would’ve been repelled by Randy‘s clearly motivated reasoning.
Glenn is as valuable to our as Tom Sowell. His intellect and ability to critically reason are truly elite. Just a reminder - he’s an accomplished economist too.
Absolutely! Glen will be remembered for a very long time. It’s absolutely amazing to be alive to witness such a great man making an *actual* impact for the betterment of our society.
Many groups don't want to "reach their full potential". Buddhists in US rarely study facts and become doctors, it's not worth the stress. American Indians even if rich and sons of elected tribe members, rarely become docs. ITS NOT WORTH THE STRESS. A nap, beer, F, smell the flowers is more enjoyable. Till you make all races uptight pricks like the Chinese there will be differences, in school... Blacks on other hand overdo sports, should we mandate no more than 30% blacks on HS or college or pro team????. Elite systems exaggeerate these mild differences... Just saying, no, culture MAKES different outcomes, demand more Buddhists become accountants to be equal is never gonna happen.... Its hilarious we just ignore these facts amd claim guess society hates blacks and loves Chinese, huh, nope, Chineese study harder!!!!!!! Now let's discriminate to keep Chinese college students low enough to let in some blacks!! Equality!!!!!
Exactly. What a preposterous idea he declared. Disadvantages based on ethnicity fits the very definition of racism and racial discrimination. Dr Kennedy is clearly defending a bad idea if he needs to contradict himself to defend it. He’s denying reality because it disproves his theory.
This was a really good debate by both sides. The only type of stuff where Renu completely loses me is bringing up decisions from 1964 as an example of recent slights... Like Glenn says it's 2023
Kennedy is the most honest and level headed proponent of affirmative action I've heard so far. I'm still more on Glenn's side of thinking, but hats off to Kennedy for taking into account Glenn's concerns. I wish there were more people who I disagreed with like him. He reminds me of the rare liberal college professor I've had who would actually engage me without denigrating me.
not really the argument that somebody should be admitted over someone because of tests scores but there is still a protected class of legacy students who don't have to meet the criteria helps who exactly? The other argument would be this "more qualified" is immeasurable and not established..... either you qualified or you didn't.
@@jrdoran nope he didn't have to. Just like he didn't argue about states rights. which conservatives love except for now then they go to the supreme court and whine.... UNC is a state school they have an obligation to protect and serve the residents if the state first. Not some kid out of state. That's the problem now all the white kids from georgia can't go to georgia tech because kids are coming out of state. the mission was never to accept the highest test scores it was to educate the students of the state.
@@jrdoran I've actually heard Glenn say if Universities were serious about "DEI" the first thing they would do is abolish legacy admissions, but the rich virtue signalling benefactors will never do anything that actually affects them,
I took AP classes in high school but when it came time for the finals my family wasn't able to pay for them. So it's clear to me that we have a class problem and not a race problem
Wonderful to see how they can reach agreement on many issues by honest and open debate, actually listening to and considering each other's rationale. By the end they had practically converged.
Whenever I hear people say that the only way to ensure a diverse representation is to lower standards for one group over the others, I think about how people fall into a bigotry of low expectations. To address lower testing scores, you don't lower the expectations but identify the root cause and address the issues.
Should financial scholarships be given to certain groups because of their race or should they be given based on need? Should a poor black person be given preference over a poor white person even if that poor white person is factually in greater need?
white men always seem xconcerned that they're getting the short stick--when even now in 2023, white men make MORE money than anyone elwse, white men are still vast MAJORITY ofr CEOS & top executives in Fortune 500 companies and significant sized corporations. White men are MAJORITY of political & institutional leaders. So, you can calm down; White men's "superior place" remains secure. The rest of us who are NOT white men (EXCEPT for white men who grew up in LOW-INCOME situations).
Glenn; eloquent, logical and directly to the point. The other guy: eloquent, somewhat emotional, and SHIFTY. Moving the goal posts and shifting the examples, shifting/replacing words that don't drive home his point, or changing the words of others to weaken the opposing argument, redefining etc.
Kennedy should have been asked, “Ok, we’ll use disadvantage. Do you think it’s acceptable to have policies that knowingly put Asians at a disadvantage?”
Glen Loury is such a thinker. He is so judicious. In the past, in various podcasts, Loury has spoken of the mathematics involved in the best economics work competing around the world for publication. He operates in the realm of the highest intellectual demands. Loury articulates what is necessary for the US to remain a leading country academically and economically. Even Kennedy is not in his league.
Is it possible he sees the black plight as more valid? Perhaps he believes achieving mass black wealth in America is the supreme cause no matter the costs or means to others.
Hi Glenn! Long time fan, and subscriber of your channel... Decided to watch this on a rainy day, and saw it was filmed at The College of the Holy Cross... College of the Holy Cross is my favorite college. I love it. You get a real education at Holy Cross. The Best! Thanks Glenn! Really like John McWhorter also...all the best!
1:01:55 It’s worth pointing out that it doesn’t only stigmatize the beneficiaries. Over time it stigmatizes and erodes trust in the institutions ability to accomplish its mission and in the worst cases (as can be seen in certain corners of cultural discussion) it stigmatizes and erodes trust in the disciplines associated with the institutions.
Equality of treatment vs equality of outcome. Note: use of “you”, “your” and “you’re” here are generic, not personal or accusatory. False dichotomy. In America, we value equality of OPPORTUNITY, which means that, rather than blame the current inhabitants of a poor inner city neighborhood for the conditions which predate their birth, you make sure THEIR schools get subsidized - not endlessly but enough to ensure they are NOT hindered by the circumstances they were born into - because poor, inner city neighborhoods don’t have the tax base to provide equal opportunity. Its real convenient to scream “socialism” and “reverse discrimination , etc if you BENEFIT from the status quo by not having to compete with poor people on a fair playing field, and LANGUAGE may hide your intentions but it cannot hide what’s in your heart. If you CHOOSE to believe poor people are genetically less intelligent and more prone to violence, then THAT is ignorant bigotry because it has been demonstrated to be false (ref: Sowell’s exposition on how poor black students perform on military bases when they are not living in poor neighborhoods (although Sowell blames it on “black culture”, which has been debunked by others - refs on request) As for “steeling from Peter to pay Paul” goes, it’s not about redistribution, it’s about NOT letting latent talent go to waste, and providing a higher quality workforce for the capitalist economy. An education is cheap compared to the potential of a lifetime. If you doubt the power of language to hide deliberate, intentional oppression of a population, I offer this: Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni@@er, ni@@er, ni@@er." By 1968 you can't say "ni@@er" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni@@er, ni@@er." Lee Atwater, Architect of the Southern Strategy; Advisor to Reagan, both Bushes and Donald Trump AUDIO ON TH-cam: th-cam.com/video/X_8E3ENrKrQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6aUGEG3aqi0-gFU7
The incredible irony here is that Dr. Kennedy’s entire argument in the Supreme Court case, correct me if I’m wrong, is also a refutation of the concept of “disparate impact”.
Glenn Loury makes me proud to have gone to Brown every time I hear him speak. Randall Kennedy is also a brilliant mind, and while I may not agree with his points, he makes me proud to be a lawyer. Thank you both!
no that's not the argument. The argument is really what difference does the SAT score make practically vs a single profile that makes up the overwhelming majority of Asian applicants. They want participation points for other things like chess club. The real question is are people okay with the next freshman class being all immigrants from India, China and Nigeria?? All these countries need to do is say is we will pay for any kid who scores between a 1550 and 1600 to go to school in the US and no american kids would be able to go. The only thing saving white kids is legacy admissions.
I don't fully agree with Dr. Kennedy, but it is so nice to hear him embody coherent left-leaning arguments in a respectful conversation with Dr. Loury... something often absent from the left. What a pleasure.
Isn’t the real problem the lifespan developmental disparities? I think a cluster of efforts, from robust, preschool, local library programs to school choice and urban academies, as well as a cultural marketing program, would be helpful, but young people also need to have hope and expectations that they can achieve financial and social success.
This was a fantastic discussion to listen to. I agree with Glenn in this instance but I very much appreciate the opposing perspective. Attempting to make up for historical inequalities is very challenging problem.
Current inequalities are due to failed family cultures and wider cultures of poverty. Where education isn't a priority at home, children fail to get educated.
@@billmorrison9068 I certainly agree that plays a part. I think there is probably more to it than just that though or at the very least there have been numerous factors that have contributed to that being the current state of affairs. That’s why I’d say it is a challenging problem to solve.
Professor Loury, superb performance! A point to the question of the first woman on the Supreme Court: I’m looking forward to the “first” (fill in the blank) to earn their spot in such positions. If we search for the best all the time, as in athletics, we’ll see outcomes that we can all support and cheer for.
Imagine going to a doctor and finding out they lowered the standards for him/her to get into undergrad, graduate and medical school and lowered the standards so they could graduate and practice. How would you feel as a patient? as the doctor
The tentacles of AA are only limited by the imagination of leftist lawyers. Extend the AA argument in Healthcare one more step: it means whites and Asians will be pushed (say by insurance which tries to hit race goals) to the low tier doctors, while white and Asian doctors will primarily see blacks and Hispanics because they (doctors) have to hit race targets.... and on and on
@@ryansookram4023 What kind of stupid are you. I said they all have to pass the same exam's. And how would you know they lowered the bar for black medical students
Great discussion. But no matter what people decide on when it comes to policies, satisfactory will never be achieved. You can't please everyone involved.
1:00:05 "defensiveness and desperation." Well-said, and too often what these conversations devolve to. Especially ironic in a context of academic quality. Anyway, great debate. Thank you.
On the one hand Dr. Kennedy says even if there is objective evidence of discrimination you should trust institutions when they say it’s not invidious, then on the other hand he says he won’t take the word of an institution if there aren’t “bodies” in there…wish he would have clarified that
I was in my first year of career employment as a caseworker in the 1970s and post 1964 civil rights legislation. A number of black staff became supervisors, one of whom was my first supervisor still learning on the job. I had difficulty finding her in her office to get approval on case actions, to answer my questions. I faced other experiences of being ignored by black women supervisors, both in PA and MD. I gave up as a school bus driver, on calling my supervisor to get OT pay approval , that I had to call a white male supervisor to get this pay. Being ignored on the job is also discriminatory
It seems to me that Professor Kennedy makes a mistake when he says the Supreme Court removed race-conscious policies from discussion, experimentation, and modification. Properly read, the US Congress did this in 1965, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court over-ruled this act in the Bakke decision (1978) and subsequent decisions, by pretending that the plain wording of the law didn't mean what it said. In a democracy, any policy ought to be debatable. If racial preferences have a legitimate purpose, Congress could pass a new law requiring racial preferences, or at least ending their prohibition. Very few people have made a concerted effort to convince the public that any form of racial preferences is good policy, and fewer have attempted to justify preferences as practiced in college admissions. On the contrary, preferences have been defended by mischaracterizing them: claims are made that preferences are small, when they are actually very large; claims are made that they benefit underprivileged students from poor schools, when they primarily benefit children of the upper middle class, often from elite schools. No matter what one might think of the justification or desirability of some policy, one should keep in mind that the policy will be implemented by people and institutions with their own motivations and priorities. Given the interests and priorities of higher education institutions, it's unlikely that they will consistently pursue the social justice objectives.
The problem for whites is they seem to think equality among blacks means oppression for whites and they refuse to admit it....... it seems as though meritocracy and competition is only preferable when the outcome is in their favor. Are whites ok with the next incoming class of Harvard freshman being all Africans because they all scored 1600 on the SATs? I work with all white southern christian males and posed that question to them. They all said "No white people would not be okay with that." "What about if the entire incoming class at West Point was Chinese, Muslim, or Russian?" That's a problem too. As a black women I appreciated their honesty...... At least with affirmative action we had some protection for American whites now they have nothing but possibly China owning our universities too. They already own our food supplies and 40 million acres of land in America. I see this being a potential homeland security issue........
The question is are Black students throughout history stigmitized regardless of affirmative action? The answer is YES!!! This stigmatized line of reasoning is a JOKE!
When thinking of future justices who make it to the Supreme Court moving forward as we wean ourselves from the policies based around the necessary exceptions like Affirmative Action coming out of the 1960s and 70s, I think we ought to consider just how much influence the Federalist Society and other "debate societies" have had and continues to have when leaders decide who to appoint to these justice positions - and what their motives and ideologies are; and will the courts reflect the cultural leanings of the nation or will they sustain the status quo and the economic objectives of the elites?
you're not understanding the argument. affirmative action wasn't helping high school dropouts get into Harvard it was helping upper middle class minorities get into elite universities
With respect to Prof. Kennedy, saying that the penalty Asian applicants pay is "not discrimination" because it's "only" collateral damage is completely insane. Playing word games ("discriminated against" versus "disadvantaged") does nothing to advance any kind of real argument. It's a distinction without a difference. Asians-- through no fault of our own-- are required to score higher than EVERYONE to have the SAME CHANCE at admission. You don't get justice for African Americans by committing injustice against Asians. That argument essentially boils down to "Sorry, Asians, you gotta take one for the team." No, we don't have to take one for the team. WE didn't institute slavery in the U.S., we weren't even HERE when slavery was going on. We had nothing whatsoever to do with it. If you support affirmative action, you're not concerned with social justice. Stop pretending you are.
Only thing that made sense coming from Randall Kennedy was “I will take whatever I get.” That is the honest truth. He also knows black kids admitted on affirmative action can’t compete.
Randall said that Asians have not been "historically marginalized" in America, which is untrue. He also said that Latinos have been historically marginalized in America, which is untrue. This is simple racial discrimination.
no it's not untrue. Latino is not a race if it was how can you be afro latino or white hispanic? There were no federal laws passed against any race at the rate of foundational blacks Americans. Also when immigrants come to this country they reinforce the discrimination against foundational black americans. It's well documented. It's like an HR at work. they protect the company not the workers. Deny, deflect, diffuse.......
Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to internment camps fewer than 100 years ago. A lot of the Chinese and Taiwanese Americans now in the States fled one of the most horrific protracted conflicts in the world fewer than 100 years ago. Millions of South Asians were displaced from their homes in the subcontinent after decolonization, and many of them ended up in the States. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Venezuelans, Mexicans, Haitians, Dominicans, and others have fled from Latin America. Nigerians straight from the Continent are killing it in the US. These are now some of the most successful ethnic groups in the USA. What are American Black people doing, now? Why don't these people complain about their victimhood?
@@randomcommenteronyoutube1055 what laws were passed against them? I think you should watch a few documentaries or talk to some black people. Also what are poor whites doing wrong they don't face discrimination like american blacks. Why is it considered reverse racism when blacks say they want to have representation with their income and taxation? why is there a war on drugs with blacks but fiddles for whites on drugs? Why when a black man runs for office and wins the white city council refuses to hand over the keys. Why can a hispanic lady illegally sell tamales in nyc but a black man can't sell loose cigarettes? black kids selling water? The mythical bootstrap troupe again. And if all these people are so smart and talented then maybe they should stay and build their countries up?
I want Glenn to be in an advisory committee of whoever wins the presidency of the United States, on how to deal with the social issues of inequality. Brilliant mind.
Randall Kennedy’s reminded me of the Sphinx in the movie Mystery Men: Mr. Furious : Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's... The Sphinx : Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage... Mr. Furious : ...your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right? The Sphinx : Not necessarily.
This is why AA doesn’t work today because it’s never a win-win proposition. Somebody is going to lose in this equation. This is just kicking the can around which never solves the problem. You are discriminating against one group to give advantage to another group. basically it’s still discrimination. This is like putting a bandage on the problem or like driving a car with a doughnut tire temporarily. It was advantageous back in the 60’s but it doesn’t work in the 21st-century. They are too many laws on the books against discrimination. We either follow the law or we don’t. You just have to be prepared to pay the price if you don’t. But like every successful discussion less emotions and more brains, is helpful to solve any problem Bravo Glenn!
I took AP Government as a junior in high school. When we were taught the affirmative action Supreme Court decisions, I couldn’t tell if everyone was genuinely dumb enough to believe that you can dole out “plus factors” to one racial group _without_ simultaneously and necessarily doling out “minus factors” to other groups, or if this was just an exercise of cynical wordplay in order to distort perceptions about what was actually going on. This decision finally means we’ve reached the point where proponents can at last drop the charade and speak honestly about their desire to racially discriminate.
18:09 “It’s not that they’re Asian that they’re disadvantaged. It’s that they’re not Black.”
Professor Loury is spot-on here. Even though it means to do the other, this “distinction” is actually the same exclusionary thinking of past policies of bigotry.
Yeah, I am up to that bit. If a hospital decides it will only treat white people, it isn't discriminating against black people. The hospital is just discriminating towards white people which is collaterally disadvantaging black people.
It’s favoritism. Not equality. These regressive leftists need to get back in touch with the present and reassess their values. The irony is they purport to be the tolerant ones…
Maybe white supremacist killers should try that in court. "No, no, no, it wasn't a hate crime. I didn't kill him because he was black. I killed him because he wasn't white. Come on, it's right there in the name! I'm a _white supremacist,_ not a black inferiorist."
Imagine….
“We’re not excluding you because you’re black. We’re excluding you because you’re not white.”
“That’s discrimination!”
“No, no, no. It’s merely disadvantaging certain people based on the need to boost others.”
It's essentially saying black Americans are more deserving of these spots than Asian Americans and to my mind, that goes right to the heart of racism; the idea that a particular race is somehow superior or inferior to another.
What I’d give for one iota of Glenn’s eloquence
What amazes me is the more passionate he gets, the more eloquent. When I get worked up, I can't find the right words.
I know right?
Glenn Loury is extremely smart. His training and language is mathematical economics, and he can easily switch to purely verbal argumentations. Not many can do the other way around.
when arguing with someone based in bad faith like this its easy
this wasn't a debate, this was just Glenn teaching Randall about affirmative action
Yes.
I disagree. I see both arguments as a black person.
@@4greendeep6
I considered myself as a person that was born black. 😊
Stop. Randall Kennedy made cogent arguments and got Glenn Loury concede that historically affirmative action was a net positive.
Randall is talking in circles. Desperately trying to make false distinctions. Conflating disadvantage vs discrimination. Nice try. Glenn Schooled him
I was so frustrated hearing/reading the discourse on affirmative action following June’s Supreme Court decision. This debate (more of an intellectual conversation imo) was the most honest and fair assessment of the jurisprudence, political economy, and morality of affirmative action. I will be sharing this video with my sociology students next semester as an assignment. Hats off, Professor Loury & Kennedy!
It's clear Glenn sees the future outcomes of these policies. He cares about the black community so much. You can hear it in his voice.
Kudos to Mr. Loury for identifying and coherently confronting critical issues on both sides (with suggested solutions) while exposing scattered and confused discourse of a flawed argument.
I think this is one of Glenn Loury's most effective superpowers. He frequently makes better steel man arguments for the opposing position than the opposition can make on their own behalf. Then if he can overcome the steel man arguments, the audience is pretty well convinced.
Dr.* Loury
“Reducing people to representation by racial aggregates is a moral error”. Such a wise point by Glen, this applies beyond race to the various superficial and one-dimensional identity groups.
Totally agree.
Glenn , you are amazing in this podcast . Professor Kennedy , is a very bright gentleman yet in this debate he is far overshadowed by Professor Loury . Thanks to all involved for giving me much 'food for thought' ... May God bless both of these fine minds !
Seem more like Randy was on the back peddle most of this session, to the point where he’s more inclined to react emotionally.
Glenn - STANDING OVATION
Collectivism often impedes rational thought.
Well said!!!!!!
Loury is a beast! God love him.
This is the most candid, constructive and informative debate I have watched on the subject. The 2 guest debaters were very polite, informative and, even more importantly, intellectually honest. Truly a refreshing debate.
@user-mv7oy9us9o,
You're a fool.
Kennedy disgraced himself.
Randall was spinning the truth --- Glenn went for the real truth --- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Mr. Kennedy speaks like a true lawyer. Glenn is a breath of fresh air and is an absolute joy to listen to and learn from. Fantastic conversation.
This was so good. Thank you Glenn! I think if we had one Professor Loury to openly challenge the assertions of each "woke" professor in front of their students, then the institutions of higher learning would be better off.
The idea that a "race conscious selection scheme" only "disadvantages" Asian students and doesn't "discriminate" against them is absurd. Preferential or exclusionary admittance based upon categories of race, sex, religion, etc. is by definition discrimination -- full stop -- no pedantic semantic song and dance of obfuscation required.
The only point I don't understand why there wasn't any push-back was the presupposition that if students were to be admitted based upon class rather than race, then the majority of poor kids admitted would be white.
Is that because there are more impoverished white kids in the USA than any other group? Or is it because it's presumed that there would still be some other type of systemic advantage (i.e. better schools)?
If it is due to the former than statistically I suppose that outcome is correctly inferred. But if it is the latter then I completely disagree. I went to a primarily white rural High School and it was trash; filled with drunk, dispassionate, disillusioned teachers who there for the paycheck only. They were largely uninterested in, or ignorant of, the material they were charged to convey. One gem that sticks out in my mind is when we glossed over Gandhi, and I asked a question, having heard he was an amazing leader was told, "Gandhi was a big baby who threw a temper tantrum whenever he didn't get his way. He even wore a diaper."
To be clear, I'm not saying that professors who teach ideas of systemic racism, gender abolitionism, white supremacist patriarchal colonialist oppression, etc. as settled fact should be sent to a gulag. I'm just saying students should hear challenges to their arguments by other professors who can expose the faulty logic and validity of the ideas.
Students assume that since a professor is teaching them truth; every statement presented is fact. They need an informed authority figure (professor) to offer push back to ideas which are presented as unassailable truth. That's the environment required for critical thinking to thrive.
Ghandi was a racist look it up
“Separate, but equal”. It is ironic Randy speaks of double talk on this issue.
@@lingoistj1956 the woke, and the kind of racists they claim to stand against are two sides of the same coin.
@@lingoistj1956if you are married to the idea of affirmative action, you have to do this.
If our leaders were willing to have such substantive dialog and compromise as much as Doctors Loury and Kennedy... we'd ALL be much better off.
Not even in fairy tales.
@mdquaglia,
What are you talking?
Kennedy is a disgrace.
Many of them do not see themselves as your leaders. They see themselves as your rulers.
I’ve very surprised that Randall was caught so off guard by Glenn’s argument in support of civil service schools. Seems like an obvious argument that he should already support
I saw it coming. then again I'm not a nitwit.
We NEED more of these conversations
I lost Randall's train of thought when he said that being disadvantaged is different from being discriminated against in this context. What kind of magical thinking is this? Quit the word games.
If you are disabled you could have a disadvantage but you may or may not be discriminated because of it.
@@mariejane1567being born disadvantaged is one thing, institutionalizing the doling out of descrimination is another.
@@mariejane1567 Yeah, that's the problem. The discrimination by race is a policy decision that becomes the causal factor behind the systematic disadvantage against Asians and advantages to Blacks in college admissions. That's not just, and that's an overstretch of the initial civil rights protections that emerged for Blacks over the decades after the Civil War.
Being born black is much different from someone being born with a disadvantage and then living in a state with legally mandated school/job accommodations. Nobody is clearly getting a disadvantage from the policy decision to require reasonable accommodations. Lowering the bar for admission of blacks, or legacies for that matter, by hundreds of SAT composite points when compared with Asian kids is not a reasonable accommodation. It's a systematic form of discrimination.
It would also be wrong to give people with disabilities a leg up in college admissions for the same reasons that it's wrong to use racial preferences. Such schema incentivize the doling out of a scarce set of class seats to people who are not as qualified by merit and are less likely to generate a return-on-investment for the privilege of an elite education.
Kennedy is a fool is is a black supremacist. He can even see when you boost one set all others are discriminated. He doing word salad
@@randomcommenteronyoutube1055This argument is why I'm also against class-based affirmative action. While it isn't as invidious to the recipients as racial affirmative action, as there is not the same stigma because people can't just look at you and presume you received an advantage, it's still unfair to other applicants and presumably would have the same mismatch issues as racial affirmative action.
Discrimination is discrimination. You can sugar coat it all you want, but it is still discrimination. If you started this diversity agenda in the NBA and started favoring less talented non-blacks over more talented blacks you would hear "racism" being screamed from the rooftops and rightfully so and it would be wrong. Favoring less qualified blacks over more qualified non-blacks is doing exactly the same thing in reverse and it is just as wrong. Glenn understands that. Affirmative action sends out the message that blacks are less talented and capable than non-blacks thus they need an advantage. That sounds a lot like the KKK saying blacks were not as good as whites. Now pro-affirmative action people are saying the same thing 'blacks are not as good as non-blacks'. How sad is that?
I am mediocre at basketball….they need to add 15 points to my average at the end so I can make it to the NBA!!
The problem is you cant be
"more qualified" that's statistically impossible there is no measurement for more qualified that has been established. How is a legacy student more qualified? Either you meet the qualifications or you don't. That's why schools
release a profile. The Asian guy who got rejected got rejected from every IVY league school. I don't think all eight schools conspired against him and said no you can't come in unison.
@@mariejane1567if you preference admissions based off immutable facts such as race not pertaining to their intellect you will inevitably end up with "less" qualified candidates.
@@jrdoran what are the "qualifications"? you can't be more qualified either you meet the qualifications or you don't.....
this is the one
Kennedy desperately trying to find a sliver of distinction so that this isn't explicit outright racial discrimination at the front of the debate is really insightful on the debate culture as a whole. This really sums up the issues with debate on this topic even at the highest most civil levels. "I wouldn't say it's discrimination..." lol. What a beatdown and Glen Loury is a universal treasure. Kudos for Kennedy for coming out and fighting...more than we can say for many others.
Go Glenn!!!
This is amazing. It’s so wonderful to hear two passionate adults debate, like adults. I will happily listen to opposing points of view when presented this way. It makes me dig deeper into what I believe to see if I truly believe it, or am I swayed to consider the opposing view for further discussion?
More of this please n America would truly be a blessing.
The more I hear Dr. Kennedy talk, the more I want him to appear with John and Glenn on their show. An hour plus of affirmative action discussion where no one called anyone a racist or a race traitor? In 2023??? What an enriching and wonderful anomaly to experience.
Glenn is just the clearer thinker.
Glen! It is debates like this that i saw once and found you a few years back. It was a breath of fresh air. I’m sure more are on their way!!
You gotta love Glenn’s reasoning. It’s hard to refute no matter what one says.
Very enlightening discussion!
Glenn
Amazing debate
You are amazing in thought and articulation
Thank YOU
Respect
The consensus of the comments of which I absolutely agree, is that Randy‘s argument is based on trying to manipulate the reality to suit an ideology. Glenn won this debate, and buy a large margin. In fact, Randy‘s argument was so weak that anyone who was on the fence or naive about the subject would’ve been repelled by Randy‘s clearly motivated reasoning.
I refer to "progressives" as "regressives".
@@TipToe67oh gee how drole. you don't seem to understand the difference between liberals and progressives
this wasn't a debate it was a conversation
Glenn is as valuable to our as Tom Sowell. His intellect and ability to critically reason are truly elite. Just a reminder - he’s an accomplished economist too.
Absolutely! Glen will be remembered for a very long time. It’s absolutely amazing to be alive to witness such a great man making an *actual* impact for the betterment of our society.
Absolutely
Instead of 45,000 people viewing this video, it needs to be 45 million. 🙏🇺🇸
This was a truly excellent exchange, well worth the time. Oh and we can't get Roland Fryer back into a position of influence fast enough.
An amazing demonstration of, if you don't have a point to make...make it forcefully.
I don't have any answers. But I sure do want to people reach their full potential.
Many groups don't want to "reach their full potential". Buddhists in US rarely study facts and become doctors, it's not worth the stress. American Indians even if rich and sons of elected tribe members, rarely become docs. ITS NOT WORTH THE STRESS. A nap, beer, F, smell the flowers is more enjoyable. Till you make all races uptight pricks like the Chinese there will be differences, in school... Blacks on other hand overdo sports, should we mandate no more than 30% blacks on HS or college or pro team????. Elite systems exaggeerate these mild differences... Just saying, no, culture MAKES different outcomes, demand more Buddhists become accountants to be equal is never gonna happen.... Its hilarious we just ignore these facts amd claim guess society hates blacks and loves Chinese, huh, nope, Chineese study harder!!!!!!! Now let's discriminate to keep Chinese college students low enough to let in some blacks!! Equality!!!!!
The obvious answer is don't discriminate for or against students based on their race. Period.
Excellent debate.
13:46 what is the result of discrimination if not some kind of disadvantage?
Yeah, that was a low point of the discussion. It was awkward that Randall didn't understand that this is a zero sum game.
@@74357175it's ok as long as those discriminated against aren't black in his mind
Exactly. What a preposterous idea he declared. Disadvantages based on ethnicity fits the very definition of racism and racial discrimination. Dr Kennedy is clearly defending a bad idea if he needs to contradict himself to defend it. He’s denying reality because it disproves his theory.
This is the best debate I have seen on this issue.
This was a really good debate by both sides. The only type of stuff where Renu completely loses me is bringing up decisions from 1964 as an example of recent slights... Like Glenn says it's 2023
Great discussion and good to see points of agreement between the two opponents. Thank you!
Kennedy is the most honest and level headed proponent of affirmative action I've heard so far. I'm still more on Glenn's side of thinking, but hats off to Kennedy for taking into account Glenn's concerns. I wish there were more people who I disagreed with like him. He reminds me of the rare liberal college professor I've had who would actually engage me without denigrating me.
He was so heavily defeated he didn’t have much else he could do
If you happen to find yourself upset by much of what Glenn says, it might mean that you are reacting emotionally and don't actually understand reality
not really the argument that somebody should be admitted over someone because of tests scores but there is still a protected class of legacy students who don't have to meet the criteria helps who exactly? The other argument would be this "more qualified" is immeasurable and not established..... either you qualified or you didn't.
@@mariejane1567im sorry did glenn argue for legacy admissions during this debate because I heard no such thing. Very nice straw man though.
@@jrdoran nope he didn't have to. Just like he didn't argue about states rights. which conservatives love except for now then they go to the supreme court and whine.... UNC is a state school they have an obligation to protect and serve the residents if the state first. Not some kid out of state. That's the problem now all the white kids from georgia can't go to georgia tech because kids are coming out of state. the mission was never to accept the highest test scores it was to educate the students of the state.
@@jrdoran I've actually heard Glenn say if Universities were serious about "DEI" the first thing they would do is abolish legacy admissions, but the rich virtue signalling benefactors will never do anything that actually affects them,
I took AP classes in high school but when it came time for the finals my family wasn't able to pay for them. So it's clear to me that we have a class problem and not a race problem
Hell yeah
Same with me..completely a class issue regardless of race
You enrolled in a class for which your family could not afford fees for the final exam? Was the final not part of the course?
@@straightup7up for me, they were my high school classes & yes the fee was extra…this was the 90s.
@@straightup7upGood point. Was this class a scam? 🤔😳
Thank you Glen for your stance... Keep fighting the "good" fight!
you beat his booty, Glenn. well done.
Wonderful to see how they can reach agreement on many issues by honest and open debate, actually listening to and considering each other's rationale.
By the end they had practically converged.
Whenever I hear people say that the only way to ensure a diverse representation is to lower standards for one group over the others, I think about how people fall into a bigotry of low expectations. To address lower testing scores, you don't lower the expectations but identify the root cause and address the issues.
Hell yeah Glen!!! You are the man!
Fantastic debate, with concise and well put arguments on each side.
As Mr. Kennedy said, it's a shame we cant decide policy in a forum such as this.
@bruceleeharrison9284,
I don't know what you're talking about.
Kennedy embarrassed himself here.
I really enjoyed that you were respectful to each other’s opinions.
Should financial scholarships be given to certain groups because of their race or should they be given based on need? Should a poor black person be given preference over a poor white person even if that poor white person is factually in greater need?
I remember an interview with a woman who owned a business and she was boasting about how diverse her company was because they were 90% women.
Lol.
white men always seem xconcerned that they're getting the short stick--when even now in 2023, white men make MORE money than anyone elwse, white men are still vast MAJORITY ofr CEOS & top executives in Fortune 500 companies and significant sized corporations. White men are MAJORITY of political & institutional leaders. So, you can calm down; White men's "superior place" remains secure. The rest of us who are NOT white men (EXCEPT for white men who grew up in LOW-INCOME situations).
People don’t even know anymore what that word truly means.
Glenn; eloquent, logical and directly to the point. The other guy: eloquent, somewhat emotional, and SHIFTY. Moving the goal posts and shifting the examples, shifting/replacing words that don't drive home his point, or changing the words of others to weaken the opposing argument, redefining etc.
Kennedy should have been asked, “Ok, we’ll use disadvantage. Do you think it’s acceptable to have policies that knowingly put Asians at a disadvantage?”
it doesn't put Asians as a group at a disadvantage.
It absolutely puts Asians (as a group) at disadvantage
Dr. Loury, I'm so glad I found your channel, finally, a voioe of reason in the wilderness!
Glen Loury is such a thinker. He is so judicious. In the past, in various podcasts, Loury has spoken of the mathematics involved in the best economics work competing around the world for publication. He operates in the realm of the highest intellectual demands. Loury articulates what is necessary for the US to remain a leading country academically and economically. Even Kennedy is not in his league.
why can't he see that Asian Americans are being discriminated against
Yes by white Americans
He does....he is just racist
Is it possible he sees the black plight as more valid?
Perhaps he believes achieving mass black wealth in America is the supreme cause no matter the costs or means to others.
@@KemetledAfricanot factual
@edwinamendelssohn5129 Do your research and you will find that is the case
Hi Glenn!
Long time fan, and subscriber of your channel...
Decided to watch this on a rainy day, and saw it was filmed at The College of the Holy Cross...
College of the Holy Cross is my favorite college. I love it. You get a real education at Holy Cross. The Best! Thanks Glenn! Really like John McWhorter also...all the best!
1:01:55 It’s worth pointing out that it doesn’t only stigmatize the beneficiaries. Over time it stigmatizes and erodes trust in the institutions ability to accomplish its mission and in the worst cases (as can be seen in certain corners of cultural discussion) it stigmatizes and erodes trust in the disciplines associated with the institutions.
Went to HC. Glad this conversation is happening.
Equality of treatment vs equality of outcome.
Note: use of “you”, “your” and “you’re” here are generic, not personal or accusatory.
False dichotomy. In America, we value equality of OPPORTUNITY, which means that, rather than blame the current inhabitants of a poor inner city neighborhood for the conditions which predate their birth, you make sure THEIR schools get subsidized - not endlessly but enough to ensure they are NOT hindered by the circumstances they were born into - because poor, inner city neighborhoods don’t have the tax base to provide equal opportunity. Its real convenient to scream “socialism” and “reverse discrimination , etc if you BENEFIT from the status quo by not having to compete with poor people on a fair playing field, and LANGUAGE may hide your intentions but it cannot hide what’s in your heart. If you CHOOSE to believe poor people are genetically less intelligent and more prone to violence, then THAT is ignorant bigotry because it has been demonstrated to be false (ref: Sowell’s exposition on how poor black students perform on military bases when they are not living in poor neighborhoods (although Sowell blames it on “black culture”, which has been debunked by others - refs on request)
As for “steeling from Peter to pay Paul” goes, it’s not about redistribution, it’s about NOT letting latent talent go to waste, and providing a higher quality workforce for the capitalist economy. An education is cheap compared to the potential of a lifetime.
If you doubt the power of language to hide deliberate, intentional oppression of a population, I offer this:
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni@@er, ni@@er, ni@@er." By 1968 you can't say "ni@@er" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni@@er, ni@@er."
Lee Atwater, Architect of the Southern Strategy; Advisor to Reagan, both Bushes and Donald Trump
AUDIO ON TH-cam: th-cam.com/video/X_8E3ENrKrQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6aUGEG3aqi0-gFU7
Well done, Dr. Loury!
The incredible irony here is that Dr. Kennedy’s entire argument in the Supreme Court case, correct me if I’m wrong, is also a refutation of the concept of “disparate impact”.
Glenn Loury makes me proud to have gone to Brown every time I hear him speak. Randall Kennedy is also a brilliant mind, and while I may not agree with his points, he makes me proud to be a lawyer. Thank you both!
Calling Kennedy “brilliant” is a bit of a stretch.
It would seem Kennedy believes black oppression warrants special branding or supremacy of victimhood. Isn’t that the real conversation here?
no that's not the argument. The argument is really what difference does the SAT score
make practically vs a single
profile that makes up the overwhelming majority of Asian applicants. They want participation points for other things like chess club. The real question is are people okay with the next freshman class being all immigrants from India, China and Nigeria?? All these countries need to do is say is we will pay for any kid who scores between a 1550 and 1600 to go to school in the US and no american kids would be able to go. The only thing saving white kids is legacy admissions.
@@mariejane1567 we don’t care what color they are. We want the best. Careful, that Identity politics class system is insidious.
@@wills242 the problem is implicit bias and the best isn't measureable
I don't fully agree with Dr. Kennedy, but it is so nice to hear him embody coherent left-leaning arguments in a respectful conversation with Dr. Loury... something often absent from the left. What a pleasure.
Dr. Glenn Loury is spot on. I appreciate how he articulates his opinion and backs-up his opinion with facts.
Isn’t the real problem the lifespan developmental disparities? I think a cluster of efforts, from robust, preschool, local library programs to school choice and urban academies, as well as a cultural marketing program, would be helpful, but young people also need to have hope and expectations that they can achieve financial and social success.
Amazing discussion.
24:48 - 26:00
Glenn, It is refreshing to see to people with opposing views to actually have a conversation. Great content.
This was very one sided. You can’t win a debate when you’re factually incorrect.
This was a fantastic discussion to listen to. I agree with Glenn in this instance but I very much appreciate the opposing perspective. Attempting to make up for historical inequalities is very challenging problem.
Current inequalities are due to failed family cultures and wider cultures of poverty. Where education isn't a priority at home, children fail to get educated.
@@billmorrison9068 I certainly agree that plays a part. I think there is probably more to it than just that though or at the very least there have been numerous factors that have contributed to that being the current state of affairs. That’s why I’d say it is a challenging problem to solve.
Glenn is so good at presenting his point of view that even if I didn’t agree with him, I’d want to agree with him.
Professor Loury, superb performance!
A point to the question of the first woman on the Supreme Court: I’m looking forward to the “first” (fill in the blank) to earn their spot in such positions. If we search for the best all the time, as in athletics, we’ll see outcomes that we can all support and cheer for.
Imagine going to a doctor and finding out they lowered the standards for him/her to get into undergrad, graduate and medical school and lowered the standards so they could graduate and practice.
How would you feel as a patient? as the doctor
The tentacles of AA are only limited by the imagination of leftist lawyers.
Extend the AA argument in Healthcare one more step: it means whites and Asians will be pushed (say by insurance which tries to hit race goals) to the low tier doctors, while white and Asian doctors will primarily see blacks and Hispanics because they (doctors) have to hit race targets.... and on and on
TRICK QUESTION, I WOULDN'T BE THEIR PATIENT
But they don't lower the standards, all doctors have to pass the same exams to become a doctor
@@ryansookram4023 What kind of stupid are you. I said they all have to pass the same exam's. And how would you know they lowered the bar for black medical students
Research has shown that black doctors in black communities have a positive outcome for that community, with more healthy patients and longer lives.
Great discussion. But no matter what people decide on when it comes to policies, satisfactory will never be achieved. You can't please everyone involved.
Liberals always loquaciously wordsmith to nowhere. I commend Professor Loury's patience listening to these mental gymnastics.
1:00:05 "defensiveness and desperation." Well-said, and too often what these conversations devolve to. Especially ironic in a context of academic quality. Anyway, great debate. Thank you.
Randall Kennedy is essentially arguing that systematic racism is ok.
Great discussion
On the one hand Dr. Kennedy says even if there is objective evidence of discrimination you should trust institutions when they say it’s not invidious, then on the other hand he says he won’t take the word of an institution if there aren’t “bodies” in there…wish he would have clarified that
I was in my first year of career employment as a caseworker in the 1970s and post 1964 civil rights legislation. A number of black staff became supervisors, one of whom was my first supervisor still learning on the job. I had difficulty finding her in her office to get approval on case actions, to answer my questions. I faced other experiences of being ignored by black women supervisors, both in PA and MD. I gave up as a school bus driver, on calling my supervisor to get OT pay approval , that I had to call a white male supervisor to get this pay.
Being ignored on the job is also discriminatory
It seems to me that Professor Kennedy makes a mistake when he says the Supreme Court removed race-conscious policies from discussion, experimentation, and modification. Properly read, the US Congress did this in 1965, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court over-ruled this act in the Bakke decision (1978) and subsequent decisions, by pretending that the plain wording of the law didn't mean what it said.
In a democracy, any policy ought to be debatable. If racial preferences have a legitimate purpose, Congress could pass a new law requiring racial preferences, or at least ending their prohibition. Very few people have made a concerted effort to convince the public that any form of racial preferences is good policy, and fewer have attempted to justify preferences as practiced in college admissions. On the contrary, preferences have been defended by mischaracterizing them: claims are made that preferences are small, when they are actually very large; claims are made that they benefit underprivileged students from poor schools, when they primarily benefit children of the upper middle class, often from elite schools.
No matter what one might think of the justification or desirability of some policy, one should keep in mind that the policy will be implemented by people and institutions with their own motivations and priorities. Given the interests and priorities of higher education institutions, it's unlikely that they will consistently pursue the social justice objectives.
Nor should they. 16:55
The problem for whites is they seem to think equality among blacks means oppression for whites and they refuse to admit it....... it seems as though meritocracy and competition is only preferable when the outcome is in their favor. Are whites ok with the next incoming class of Harvard freshman being all Africans because they all scored 1600 on the SATs? I work with all white southern christian males and posed that question to them. They all said "No white people would not be okay with that." "What about if the entire incoming class at West Point was Chinese, Muslim, or Russian?" That's a problem too. As a black women I appreciated their honesty...... At least with affirmative action we had some protection for American whites now they have nothing but possibly China owning our universities too. They already own our food supplies and 40 million acres of land in America. I see this being a potential homeland security issue........
Kennedy’s position is so disingenuous that he can’t see it. It’s got to be frustrating for him.
The question is are Black students throughout history stigmitized regardless of affirmative action? The answer is YES!!! This stigmatized line of reasoning is a JOKE!
When thinking of future justices who make it to the Supreme Court moving forward as we wean ourselves from the policies based around the necessary exceptions like Affirmative Action coming out of the 1960s and 70s, I think we ought to consider just how much influence the Federalist Society and other "debate societies" have had and continues to have when leaders decide who to appoint to these justice positions - and what their motives and ideologies are; and will the courts reflect the cultural leanings of the nation or will they sustain the status quo and the economic objectives of the elites?
This discussion wouldn't be taking place if concessions weren't necessary in order to be accepted into a college.
you're not understanding the argument. affirmative action wasn't helping high school dropouts get into Harvard it was helping upper middle class minorities get into elite universities
13:16
"They're disadvantaged by a policy but not discriminated against"
This dude is just playing semantics 💀
discrimination vs disadvantage is an absurd argument..... the result/fact is what matters
Good Lord Glenn, you are a patient man.
With respect to Prof. Kennedy, saying that the penalty Asian applicants pay is "not discrimination" because it's "only" collateral damage is completely insane. Playing word games ("discriminated against" versus "disadvantaged") does nothing to advance any kind of real argument. It's a distinction without a difference. Asians-- through no fault of our own-- are required to score higher than EVERYONE to have the SAME CHANCE at admission. You don't get justice for African Americans by committing injustice against Asians. That argument essentially boils down to "Sorry, Asians, you gotta take one for the team." No, we don't have to take one for the team. WE didn't institute slavery in the U.S., we weren't even HERE when slavery was going on. We had nothing whatsoever to do with it. If you support affirmative action, you're not concerned with social justice. Stop pretending you are.
Randall takes a long time, rambles, to make a point. Loury is much more direct.
Only thing that made sense coming from Randall Kennedy was “I will take whatever I get.” That is the honest truth. He also knows black kids admitted on affirmative action can’t compete.
The ones who can’t compete want AA.
The ones who can , hate it esp because they know they will be viewed as “ DEI” recipients.
Return to valuing family life.
Excellent K-12 education and prep schools not lower standards.
Randall said that Asians have not been "historically marginalized" in America, which is untrue. He also said that Latinos have been historically marginalized in America, which is untrue. This is simple racial discrimination.
no it's not untrue. Latino is not a race if it was how can you be afro latino or white hispanic? There were no federal laws passed against any race at the rate of foundational blacks Americans. Also when immigrants come to this country they reinforce the discrimination against foundational black americans. It's well documented. It's like an HR at work. they protect the company not the workers. Deny, deflect, diffuse.......
Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to internment camps fewer than 100 years ago. A lot of the Chinese and Taiwanese Americans now in the States fled one of the most horrific protracted conflicts in the world fewer than 100 years ago. Millions of South Asians were displaced from their homes in the subcontinent after decolonization, and many of them ended up in the States. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Venezuelans, Mexicans, Haitians, Dominicans, and others have fled from Latin America. Nigerians straight from the Continent are killing it in the US. These are now some of the most successful ethnic groups in the USA. What are American Black people doing, now? Why don't these people complain about their victimhood?
@@randomcommenteronyoutube1055 what laws were passed against them? I think you should watch a few documentaries or talk to some black people. Also what are poor whites doing wrong they don't face discrimination like american blacks. Why is it considered reverse racism when blacks say they want to have representation with their income and taxation? why is there a war on drugs with blacks but fiddles for whites on drugs? Why when a black man runs for office and wins the white city council refuses to hand over the keys. Why can a hispanic lady illegally sell tamales in nyc but a black man can't sell loose cigarettes? black kids selling water? The mythical bootstrap troupe again. And if all these people are so smart and talented then maybe they should stay and build their countries up?
I want Glenn to be in an advisory committee of whoever wins the presidency of the United States, on how to deal with the social issues of inequality. Brilliant mind.
Randall Kennedy’s reminded me of the Sphinx in the movie Mystery Men:
Mr. Furious : Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's...
The Sphinx : Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage...
Mr. Furious : ...your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right?
The Sphinx : Not necessarily.
This is why AA doesn’t work today because it’s never a win-win proposition. Somebody is going to lose in this equation. This is just kicking the can around which never solves the problem. You are discriminating against one group to give advantage to another group. basically it’s still discrimination.
This is like putting a bandage on the problem or like driving a car with a doughnut tire temporarily. It was advantageous back in the 60’s but it doesn’t work in the 21st-century. They are too many laws on the books against discrimination. We either follow the law or we don’t. You just have to be prepared to pay the price if you don’t.
But like every successful discussion less emotions and more brains, is helpful to solve any problem Bravo Glenn!