A macro aggression

Antonin Scalia better not show his face in New Haven. The kids there are sensitive little flowers, and at the slightest provocation  — they call it a micro aggression  — they lose the will to live.  They can’t study, they can’t sleep, they just can’t function.  A call for tolerance in Halloween costumes gives them such a case of vapors that they needed to take time off from school to recover their nerve.

In oral argument yesterday Scalia referred to academic research showing mismatched affirmative action students do poorly in schools to which they are not qualified for admission.  Studies show they’re much better off at less rigorous academic settings. For this, he is pilloried.

I have to admit I just can’t get inside the head of these people.  Yale is a tough place to get into.  You need super grades, very high test scores, and God knows what else.  Kids who get in on their merits are high achievers with natural mental ability.  It’s a hard thing to admit, but the kids at Hackensack State just aren’t as bright and probably not as highly motivated.  So what would you expect if you took some kids from Hackenstack State and put them in Yale instead?  A few would do fine, but most would have a tough time.  Many would get discouraged and drop out, whereas if they’d stayed at State they’d have done fine.

Is that line of thinking controversial?  Are you kidding?  In Canada they can throw you in jail for hate speech for saying something like that.  According to one report, there were gasps of disbelief in the audience when Scalia uttered  his hate thought.

My God, my God.  As I saw  for myself at UCLA Law, Class of ’74, the black kids who get in on affirmative action have a very difficult time.  At UCLA Law, once you were admitted you were pretty much guaranteed to graduate.  They didn’t want people dropping out.  So all these guys got their J.D., and then 90% couldn’t pass the bar exam.  They’re not lawyers, the just have a law degree.  Whoop de do.  Was that worth three of the best years of your life?

But oh the faculty and administration were so proud of themselves.  They were so enlightened.  They were the good people.

So it gets down to Justice Kennedy.  What a weasel.  The last time the case was up he wanted it remanded so the trial court could give him some rationale for upholding affirmative action.  Kennedy, also, is enlightened, and a good person.  So now it’s back before them and they’ve got nothing for him.  He wanted the University to give him some cover, and they came up empty.  So for the first hour or so (I’m going off news accounts) he wonders aloud if maybe they should send it back again.  He doesn’t want to rule against the University, but he needs some help, some factual basis for his opinion.  Finally at the end of argument he gives up.  Sending it back wouldn’t do any good.  He’s stuck with the facts he’s got, and will be forced to rule against the University.  But he won’t strike down affirmative action.  It will be a narrowly tailored opinion.  Because Kennedy is a kind and caring person with great moral vision.

Where was Texas Gov. Perry when all this was going on?  Didn’t he control appointments to the Board of Regents, which devised these policies?

Public universities are subject to public control through the political process.  It’s time people start demanding their elected representatives stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Reagan did it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s