The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Is Public Sector Racism Any More Effective Than The Historical Flavor?

Posted on | January 4, 2013 | 5 Comments

by Smitty

Via Insty,

Court decisions dating to the 1950s theoretically ended racial segregation of higher education in the United States. But data to be presented today at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association show that the pace of desegregation has slowed over time. And in a finding that could be controversial, the study finds that states that ban the consideration of race in admissions may see the pace of desegregation accelerate.
The study is by Peter L. Hinrichs, an assistant professor of public policy at Georgetown University. He focuses on black and white students, not those in other racial and ethnic groups, and he examines “exposure” and “dissimilarity” (defined below) of black and white students as two measures of desegregation. Hinrichs uses federal data from every college, filed since the era in which desegregation started. He argues that these measures illustrate the extent to which colleges are truly desegregated, which may not be reflected simply by increases or decreases in black student enrollments (which can be concentrated at certain institutions).


Hinrichs is quick to say in the paper (and in the interview) that his findings do not suggest that states should ban affirmative action.

This blog is quick and unfailing to point out that raaaaacism is immoral, and attempting “to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption” is as much pure hooey as anything else these Progressives spew.
Oh, and look:


5 Responses to “Is Public Sector Racism Any More Effective Than The Historical Flavor?”

  1. Quartermaster
    January 4th, 2013 @ 6:35 pm

    I ridicule people that use the term ‘racist” because of two factors. First is that the overwhelming majority really don’t know what it means. Second most of those who do know what it means use it as a means of ending an argument.

    The book “The Bell Curve” was condemned as racist by the racialist shills that don’t want to deal with the world as it is. The book simply compiled the facts and, heretical though it was, drew the obvious conclusions from the data. Intelligence is more a matter of genetics than nurture, like it or not. Sucess, however, is more a matter of nurture. Nurture will find the strengths of an individual and will steer the person in the direction of those strengths. A person that truly loves great literature but has no mathematical inclination will not be a good fit as a nuculer Physicist, much less an Engineer. A person that likes Calculus will most likely despise the Bard (like me).

    Affirmative action is a tool of racists and has led to a great deal of grief for those who think it truly benefits them. A lot Black men have flunked out of places like Cal Tech, MIT and Stanford. But, those institutions can report they met their minority quota. Frankly, such things are despicable as slavery, and Libtards are nothing if not reptiles.

  2. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    January 4th, 2013 @ 9:42 pm

    Andrew Sullivan loved the Bell Curve. That alone should make you question it.

    I question it. It is not racist–it is statistics. Does that mean blacks are genetically dumber than white and white are genetically dumber than asians? No, but the statistics certainly suggest and support that. That statistical data is objective, the cause and effect is speculation. Is it genetics or culture that make recent West Indian immigrants in the United States statistically more more successful than “native” blacks?

    We just saw a rash of articles today about lead (mostly in the form of fuel additives) and whether that explains the rise and fall of crime in the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties? If that is true, could that skew the Bell Curve data?

    But given how many variables are involved, issues of culture and environment, and what exactly is “race” I take the Bell Curve with a very big grain of saltg.

    Murray also did his work on studying middle class white suburbs vs. working class neighborhoods (following the Bell Curve) and found culture, traditional values and morality, and simple things like parents being married and staying so plays a huge role on success. Which again supports nuture over nature.

    So I just caution healthy skepticism.

    I do not like affirmative action because it is stupid and we need to promote a meritocracy. The only “affirmative action” I would support is more options on primary education in failing city school systems (DC, Newark, etc.) that give kids there a viable school to go to. That is because local pols are too corrupt to do so. That does not require huge amounts of money (Newark and DC spend north of $20,000 per kid for primary education)–it requires the will to put the interest of kids before corrupt school districts and teachers unions.

  3. Quartermaster
    January 5th, 2013 @ 9:42 am

    EBL, one of the few things not in controversy is the data presented in “The Bell Curve.” There is nothing wrong with “healthy skepticism.” It is certainly not misplaced in science.

    Having said that,I have to ask, did you really read what I said. The only people that question the genetic component in intelligence are leftists who are simply doing their best to keep people on their plantation. Statistics do not work well with individuals as each individual can be an exception as compared to the mass population. When you are dealing with mass population, however, statistics are as close to being able to analyze what is going on as what goes on in Astrophysics or Structural Engineering. I had to take the tough Calculus based Statistics, not the “stat” of the pseudosciences like Sociology and Psychology. I saw how the stuff was derived. Statistics properly applied is a highly useful tool. “The Bell Curve” was one of the very few places where the audience will see Statistics properly applied. That Sullivan liked it is utterly irrelevant to me.

    That you ask the silly question “what is race” is, to me, a surprise. The race of the person can be told simply from the skeleton. It goes all the way to the DNA. This is not a surprise to anyone with a passing familiarity with Genetics. As has been pointed out, Race is simply an inbred group with certain distinguishing somatic characteristics. Because of their genetics, they will also have other characteristics that will be hidden from external inspection, but not from biological analysis. Race is a fact, and not because moonbats are so obsessed with it. Trying to show you aren’t racist by denying race exists is silly.

    In closing, note well what I actually said,

    “Intelligence is more a matter of genetics than nurture, like it or not. Success however, is more a matter of nurture. Nurture will find the strengths of an individual and will steer the person in the direction of those strengths.”

    In a nutshell, that’s why Carribean Blacks do better than native blacks. I’ve seen Africans new to these shores do better. But, that also is not unexpected given what drives people like that to move. Those are the people that tend to be the exceptions in the large mass that Statistics can deal with.

    Nothing wrong with skepticism, as long as it is properly placed. Within its limitations, however, limitations the authors recognized, “The Bell Curve” is solid. I have as yet to see a solid attempt at refutation. Yelling “raaaaacist” is not a refutation, and that’s all the left did.

  4. Steve Skubinna
    January 5th, 2013 @ 12:36 pm

    Facts are inherently racist and cannot be permitted to inform public policy. The only arguments permissible begin with “I feel” or “I believe.” Weight given to the feelings and beliefs shall be assigned based on the group status of the feelers and believers.

    White heterosexual males are under no circumstances allowed to participate, unless they are progressive celebrities and media figures, and they base their arguments on the feelings and beliefs of acceptable groups.

  5. Bob Belvedere
    January 5th, 2013 @ 5:11 pm

    Well put, QM, except your hate of Billy Shakes. Life, tragic as it is, would be a lot worse experience without having the option of The Bard as a salve.