The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Scalia Probably Read MISMATCH, Not Rushton or Richard Lynn–But What If He Did Read Lynn?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As if Donald Trump wasn’t doing enough to make goodwhite liberals sputter and swoon, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set off another spasm of PC outrage on Wednesday last week.

The Supremes were hearing oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas You’ll recall that Abigail Fisher, a white lady, sued the University of Texas, claiming she wasn’t admitted in 2008 because of affirmative action.

If you’re thinking, “Wait a minute, didn’t the Supremes hear that case already?” you’re right, they did, back in 2012. On that occasion the Supremes sent the case back to the Circuit Court, the Circuit Court again found for the University, Ms Fisher again appealed their decision, so here we are again.

What caused the outrage was some comments made during these oral arguments. Here’s what the man said:

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to … get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school … a slower-track school where they do well. One of … the briefs pointed out that … most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re … being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them. I’m just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer (black students). Maybe it ought to have fewer.

mismatchScalia is likely working here from the 2012 book Mismatch by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, which argued that affirmative action just puts blacks into college programs they can’t handle, as evidenced by their high dropout rates and their high failure rate on post-college professional tests like the bar exam.

The book was well reviewed and its ideas are now pretty mainstream. You’d never know that from the reaction to Scalia’s mild remarks. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid went straight to the point, calling Justice Scalia “racist” on the floor of the United States Senate. Quote from him:

The idea that African-American students are somehow inherently intellectually inferior from other students is despicable. It’s a throwback … to a time that America left behind a half a century ago.

Rep. G.K. Butterfield, the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus said Scalia’s comments were “disgusting, inaccurate and insulting to African Americans. Thousands of black Americans have excelled in top-tier universities.” That of course is neither here nor there since Scalia was speaking in generalities, as were the authors of Mismatch.

The White House itself chimed in. Presidential spokesman Josh Earnest said during a briefing that Obama’s own education — he graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School — is an example that refutes Scalia. Of course it doesn’t, as again Scalia was addressing generalities.

Nobody denies that there are some extremely intelligent blacks. There just aren’t enough to fill up all the affirmative-action slots at the best schools. The best schools make up the difference by putting less smart blacks in the vacant slots.

ORDER IT NOW

This has two bad consequences, according to the Mismatch argument. First, those less-smart blacks are out of their depth. Hence the high dropout rates. Hence also, many of us think, all the recent ructions on our campuses, with blacks complaining about lack of respect. They know they’re out of their depth and it makes them first uncomfortable, then resentful.

Second, those less-smart blacks sucked up by the top schools are now not available to the second-rank schools, who have to reach further down the ability scale to fill their affirmative-action slots … And so on in a cascade of mismatching all the way down the educational scale.

It’s all very plausible, and Scalia’s remarks show he’s well-informed and up-to-date on the arguments about affirmative action … which you’d want a Supreme Court Justice to be when hearing a case about the topic.

I note by the way that the Mismatch theory can be put forward without any appeal to race realism. Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor in fact did not rest their arguments on race realism. They observed all the genteel proprieties, blaming black underperformance on “failing schools” and so on: You know, those schools whose bricks and mortar and asphalt exude invisible vapors that enstupidate the students.

Whether Justice Scalia is a race realist I can’t say. The point is that he doesn’t need to be to put forward the Mismatch argument. He could believe that the poor academic performance of blacks is due to absent fathers, or poverty, or the legacy of slavery, or invisible vapors, or witchcraft; and still arrive at Mismatch theory.

Still, as always in stories like this, I end up reflecting wistfully on how much more honest, more straightforward our public discourse would be, and what a wealth of intellectual effort — not to mention actual dollar wealth — would be saved, if race differences were openly acknowledged.

Homo sapiens, like any other widely-distributed species, comes in regional variants, that display different statistical profiles on all heritable traits. That includes traits of behavior, intelligence, and personality, all known to be heritable. Get over it!

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tom_R says:

    HARRY REID, THE ELECTION THIEF
    WHY IS HE NOT IN PRISON?

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. Scalia is right—there is no point in putting blacks into top universities where they cannot compete on merit. And yes, they have lower IQ’s and higher levels of testosterone resulting in higher levels of aggression.

    But one of the most crooked politicians in USA today is Harry Reid, the election thief.

    http://tomwoods.com/blog/did-harry-reid-steal-the-election/

    After stealing the election (the fraudulent voting machines through which he won the election were maintained by a company run by his son), he has continued to steal millions.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/03/corruption-scandals-led-to-harry-reids-abrupt-retirement/

    His list of crimes would have landed most Republicans in prison by now (see how they framed Senator Ted Stevens on flimsy grounds).

    It is amazing that in this criminal state Jew-S-A (incidentally, his wife is Jewish), this criminal is still free. Maybe she helps this Demogangster stay out of prison, using her contacts with the Jewish Oligarchs, who own and operate our Jewdiciary?

  2. TangoMan says:

    He could believe that the poor academic performance of blacks is due to absent fathers, or poverty, or the legacy of slavery, or invisible vapors, or witchcraft; and still arrive at Mismatch theory.

    There are at least two battlefronts in play here. The first is the one you write about – the efficiency/utilitarian model – how best to manage the system. The second battlefront is completely dormant. It’s been observed that conservatives are merely providing backstopping of liberal arguments from a few decades in the past and they are – no one is defending “white privilege.”

    The US Constitution lays out WHY our ancestors built the United States – “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” What liberals claim as white privilege is what our ancestors left for their posterity. As far as I can see US jurisprudence established on the anti-discrimination ethos is a direct attack on the benefits previous generations have bestowed on their posterity.

    When I kick off, my estate is going to my children and it’s ludicrous to expect that a stranger on the street can barge in on the reading of my will and expect to share equally in the estate I leave to my kids. Similarly, it’s ludicrous that the society that our ancestors built is shared with new immigrants on a, at best, equal basis, and more typically with newcomers receiving favored status in order to advance the faulty notions of equality, non-discrimination and benefits of diversity.

    Every society on the face of the Earth had the same opportunity to develop a successful society with highly regarded institutions and most societies couldn’t develop their societal capital to the point where they could achieve these aims. The fact that we “built that” means that our ancestors contributed to the commons, they left “money on the table” by not enriching themselves as fully as they could at the expense of society and this contribution to the commons built our society and its institutions. They left that money on the table so that their children could benefit, not so that Abdul could show up in 2015 and get preferential benefits over their own descendants.

    When I contribute countless hours of volunteer labor to building a park, more to politicking in favor of the park, many dollars of direct contribution and even donated material, I do this so that my neighborhood is improved, so that my kids can enjoy the park and so that those people like me who also have kids can enjoy the park, I don’t contribute to the commons so that Muslims can take over the park and hold outdoor worship sessions. Multiply this process by countless billions of instances where our ancestors contributed to the commons and the outcome is the very desirable society that we have and which draws immigrants from loser countries over here to take advantage of what our ancestors left to US. They have no right to expect to share equally in what was left to us.

    The above applies to university admissions and job opportunities and all other activities which are dependent on a well-developed commons. Harvard wasn’t built by a bunch of Mexicans, Blacks, Arabs, Chinese and Jews, so why is it that the most under-represented group on the Harvard campus is gentile-whites, the descendants of the types of people who built Harvard into the institution it is today?

  3. Scalia could have been working from Mismatch. He also could simply have been working from the attorney’s brief from which he was quoting.

  4. pyrrhus says:

    The Mismatch idea is fact, regardless of race….and non-blacks of my generation fully understood that it was better to go to a school in which you could be reasonably successful than one where you were out of your depth, and would probably drop out…..Also, going to a school that is too “easy” is a bad idea because many people lose interest. My kids got bored in easy high school courses, and only got top grades in AP courses.

  5. Rehmat says:

    Justice Antonin Scalia is an odd ball within the entire Judeo-Christian nine-misfit Supreme Court judges. He is considered conservative Christian who usually favors “religion” over America’s “democratic values”.

    In June, the Organized Jewry chased Justice Antonin Scalia for penning a majority opinion in favor of a Muslim woman’s right to wear Muslim Hijab. The court ruling that determined the young Muslim woman was unjustly discriminated against when she didn’t get a job because she was wearing a headscarf.

    In 2012, Scalia, a devout Catholic, told the ‘Catholic Information Center’ that among the nine judges; three are Jewish (representing less than 2% of US population), and six Catholics (representing 22% of US population). Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ cousin Jean Podrasky is lesbian (ABC News, March 25, 2013). Justice Elena Kagan, is Jewish and reportedly a closet lesbian. She never married and has no children.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/06/16/farrakhans-alabama-visit-angered-jewish-lobby/

  6. Realist says:

    “Nobody denies that there are some extremely intelligent blacks.”

    I think not…..intelligent, not extremely.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Realist, you have refuted his statement!

    (Regardless of how one defines “extremely”, you are clearly not “nobody”.)

    • Replies: @Realist
  8. Realist says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes, if you use the adjective ‘extremely’ to describe intelligent blacks, then how do you describe whites and Jews of scientific accomplishment?

  9. Polymath says:

    I was being facetious, because you were denying something he said “nobody denies”, his statement was too strong so that your mere denial already refuted it without your needing to provide evidence.

    As for “extremely”, it’s really a question of how large you want to make the class. There are lots of great mathematicians, but it’s possible to rank Archimedes, Newton, and Gauss at a higher level than the others; however I’d like to be able to use the word “extreme” to refer to the talent and abilities of other great mathematicians too, even if they are not “greatest of all time” caliber.

    In the case of people of sub-Saharan African ancestry, there are certain areas of human accomplishment where I can’t think of any of them who are in the top 100 historical figures. It’s a fair use of the word “extremely” to exclude them; but if you relax it a bit, and say “extremely” means”better than 999,999 out of 1,000,000 random humans at those areas of accomplishment”, then they qualify.

  10. Rehmat says:
    @Realist

    Any thought on Nelson Mandela?

    In June 26, 2013, Rob Eshman, Editor-in-Chief of the ‘Jewish Journal’ called Mandela, modern-day Moses. “Mandela was as close to the biblical Moses as we’ll see in our lifetime,” he said, and adds, “From Moses to Mandela, there has been only one Mandela”.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/12/06/jewish-editor-mandela-was-moses/

    • Replies: @Realist
  11. Realist says:
    @Rehmat

    I very much disagree. He was a racist thug.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS