All Episodes
Previous Next
June 30, 2023 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
19:14
Why Conservatives Are Wrong About Affirmative Action
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Let me set up the background a little bit for affirmative action.
I have read the syllabus of the decision, so I have read quite a bit of it, but it was remarkably long.
It's a huge issuance from the court on this matter.
I'll try to go into some details.
I have some somewhat surprising takes on this.
One thing that I find interesting is that I remember last May being in Dallas, Texas, actually, and I was at the airport, and the leaked decision on Roe v.
Wade had been issued.
And as it turns out, what was leaked in the final decision were all but identical.
I don't even know if there's any change whatsoever.
And there was a kind of, it was a bit like a 9-11 moment in a way.
Like there was, I think people were getting these messages on their phones and there was surprise.
I mean, again, maybe this is all me in my head or something, but it just seemed like there was a little bit of surprise, alarm, maybe joy with some people, but just a kind of sense that something had happened.
And obviously what we saw afterwards were the protesting of the justices' homes and just all of this outrage.
I don't think we're going to see anything like that actually involved with affirmative action.
Much as roughly 65% of the country supports the basic outline of Roe v.
Wade.
However they might call themselves, like, oh, I'm pro-life or I'm pro-choice or I'm pro-woman or whatever, all that's kind of virtue signaling.
Effectively, Roe v.
Wade was very popular.
And so there was a lot of outrage.
And I think at the very least, there's a sense that something impactful really happened.
Kind of the reverse is the case here.
So polling on this is pretty interesting.
It's roughly...
The amount of people who oppose affirmative action are pretty much the same amount of people who support abortion rights.
And it actually includes a lot of Democrats.
It's interesting.
We actually live in a world in which affirmative action at universities is banned in certain states, California being one.
And that's a rather surprising thing.
There's a lot of right-wing insurgency.
I think this is a place in which the Biden administration, which is claiming to...
Disagree with this.
I think Biden said this is not a normal court, etc.
They actually are out of step with normie America on this one.
They weren't with abortion.
They probably aren't with a lot of things, but they are out of step with this one.
So affirmative action's taken a long and Twisted Road.
Legally speaking, it's basically Bakke versus the regents of the University of California or something.
And then, what was the last one called AA?
It was called Grudinger?
Grudinger?
Grudinger?
Something like that?
Basically, they were both done by plaintiffs that were white plaintiffs that were...
Angry that they had not been allowed into these universities, which of course carry quite a bit of weight, and they sued about being discriminated against racially that is protected with the Civil Rights Act and with the 14th Amendment, in fact.
And the last one, which I believe was called Grottinger, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
There was a kind of timestamp placed on it by Sandra Day O 'Connor who wrote the decision.
And she said, we're allowing this as one factor among many.
So you can't have outright racial quotas, but we understand what you're trying to do here.
We basically agree with this notion.
Which is the background notion that really determines everything, which is that there's a compelling interest for diversity to exist at these institutions.
But we think that within 25 years, this will no longer be necessary.
We will have reached a kind of new stage of American history of colorblindness or just a demographic change or whatever she meant by it.
But there was clearly a timestamp.
Within 25 years, it's around 20 or a few more.
But the court said that we claim that there was a time expiration date on this, and you all, that is Harvard and the University of North Carolina, have clearly made no effort whatsoever to end this, and there is no reason to believe that this will end.
This is an entrenched institutional thing.
I would say that overall, I am pleased.
I think that it is overall a good thing and all that jazz.
But I have a couple more things to say on this.
First off, there are some loopholes.
As many have been pointing out on Twitter, there is some notion of like you've overcome racial discrimination or you've lived in a place that the wounds are still open of our past of slavery and Jim Crow, etc.
And you can put that in an essay.
And so that is a kind of loophole and a way to do it.
The other thing that I would point out is that I was just looking at some of the demographic facts and figures that are issued by these institutions.
I looked at two schools.
It might be interesting to look at this more broadly, but the fact is these schools are so aware of one another and trends that I imagine you're just going to get the same figures.
Princeton.
And I'll just look at undergraduates.
So whites are in the current 2022 to 2023 class, whites are a plurality but actually a distinct minority.
They are 41% of the student population underrepresented, let's say.
I'll just share the screen here so you guys can see the numbers.
But that is a remarkable thing at Princeton.
Now, Asians, who make up 6% of the population, are dramatically overrepresented at 28. Blacks are a little bit underrepresented at 9%, although not terribly underrepresented.
And Hispanics are pretty significantly underrepresented.
Then you have this multiracial category.
How does that go?
Unknown.
So there's 10% of the class that's unknown or multiracial.
I don't know.
Maybe those are actually whites claiming my great-grandmother was Native American or something like that.
But then you have a somewhat similar case in UCLA.
So this is a place where affirmative action is banned outright.
It is illegal to, at the very least, use quotas, but also use race as a factor.
And I remember when I was a high schooler, UCLA was I think it might still have that nickname, although perhaps that's outmoded.
But as you can see here, Asians are 33%.
It's very similar.
Asians are dramatically overrepresented at Princeton.
They're less so within the state of California.
UCLA, of course, has people from all around the country who go there, but it is a state.
So it should, you know, look out for citizens of that state first.
But so I believe Asians are 16 to 20 percent of California and they are higher, 33 percent.
Hispanics are within the state of California underrepresented and whites are a quarter.
That is also underrepresented.
I think whites might be 35 to 40 percent of the state of California.
So there you go.
But what I would say about this is that there is no doubt that the UCLA is using some sort of affirmative action.
And I actually read an article on how the California schools are going to address this.
And you see Berkeley, which is another great state college in California, they're spending $12 million a year to promote African-American enrollment in some fashion.
The fact is...
I mean, whenever conservatives address this, they're always like, "We're against quotas," or something.
Well, they haven't been using quotas for at least 30 years, probably going on 50 years.
That's not really the issue.
The issue is giving people a nudge in the application process.
And the other thing you'll hear from conservatives is we want just pure meritocracy or something like that.
Well, what is that exactly?
Pure meritocracy.
That sounds like test-taking or GPA to me.
Now, GPA is a good measure, of course, but one that I think is actually something that we should be extremely skeptical of.
Getting a 3.5 GPA at a really good prep school is extremely different than getting a 4.0 at some public school in a bad part of town, regardless of the race.
And it just is.
It is fundamentally different.
That person...
He or she might be one of those B students who kind of doesn't try quite hard enough, but is actually quite good and is well-educated, whereas who knows what the GPA is of someone at a bad school.
I just remember being so infuriated when I was at University of Virginia, and I would talk to some of these people who went to public school in Virginia.
They did not...
They didn't know how to use a library.
They didn't understand the concept of research.
They were joking about how they would just watch the television.
I think they watched Raiders of the Lost Ark in history class.
Just something that insultingly dumb.
And they certainly weren't analyzing it or appreciating it.
They were just kind of watching it, you know, while their history teacher, you know, I don't know, answered emails or played solitaire on his computer.
I mean, it's just fundamentally different.
And so to make this like GPA thing meritocratic is ridiculous.
In Texas, there was something with George W. Bush when he was actually governor of...
I forgot what it was.
It's like if you're in the top 5% of your class, you automatically can get a spot at UT Austin.
And again, being top 5 in your class at Highland Park or St. Mark's or wherever where I went, that is just exceedingly different than being at the top of your class somewhere else.
So it's a kind of other form of affirmative action.
The other thing that I would say in terms of this meritocratic, Now, is the SAT a good proxy for IQ, let's say?
Is the SAT also, to a much lesser degree, a good proxy for general knowledge?
Kind of.
It is a good proxy for just test-taking ability or just raw IQ intelligence.
Well, I hate to break the news to you, fellas, but if we do a pure meritocratic, that is pure SAT-based admission standard, it is going to be a whole lot of Asians.
I agree with the plaintiffs in this way.
I think at UCLA, this is just my gut feeling, is that Asians are actually...
They're overrepresented, but I think they're being harmed by a certain results outcome-based notion of, we don't want a school that is 75% Asian.
And if we did pure GPA and SAT score, that's what it would be.
And you could even argue that in this case, not in most cases, but in this case, whites would even be less represented.
If it's pure...
Test-taking.
Asian's really good at that.
And I would just say, as a liberal arts-type guy, that test-taking is not everything, my friend.
I did pretty well at the SAT, and I did even better at the GRE.
But that does not define me.
And someone else who has my identical GRE score or whatever, I think we actually have very different personalities and very different interests and abilities and depth, let's say.
So I just don't buy this fascination with meritocratic system.
I don't think that's what's going to happen.
I think these schools will just have a more complicated...
And thus, more nuanced and insidious version of affirmative action.
And they're going to create classes like this for, among other reasons, you don't want to see a UCLA campus where it's 75% Asian girls.
Also, these campuses maintain a 50-50 split between men and women, by the way.
That's also unnatural.
And it's unnatural in favor of men.
I think this is another topic, and it's something worth discussing.
But girls are doing a lot better than boys on GRE-type stuff and SAT-type stuff.
So when some of these Blacks tell you that...
I remember so many Blacks always told me this.
They're like, the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action are white women or whatever.
This is just nonsensical.
I mean, obviously, women benefited from the end of sex segregation.
I mean, of course.
But this is absolutely ridiculous.
Clearly, the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action are African Americans.
That's who it's for.
You guys lucked out.
You're the political football of the century.
You're the suffering Jesus figure.
You know, poor little victim that everyone worries about.
And so they want to bring, you know, do recompense for the fact that granddaddy owned slaves by sending you to Harvard.
I mean, congratulations.
Affirmative action is solely for you.
Diversity and blacks are two different things.
I think all of this affirmative action debate is ultimately how are we going to get blacks into college?
That's all they're ultimately talking about.
They're spilling...
Millions of pounds of ink on this subject.
Diversity is another situation.
Do we want a situation in which Indian immigrants who I imagine, don't think of the whole subcontinent of India, but Indian immigrants who I imagine are very high IQ and very good test takers and have a mother or father that's whipping them to study.
And Asians who really excel at this kind of Mandarin environment.
I mean, East Asians are evolved to test-taking.
I mean, literally.
This is the ultimate expression of just Mandarism.
And so what do you want?
Do you want more?
Like, we want real diversity or we want meritocracy or something.
That sounds to me like you're going to have...
A UCLA student body that is 65% female and 65% East Asian.
That's what it sounds like to me.
So, again, I think the court is kind of like catching up with things in many ways.
And I think the American public has...
Not liked this for a while and are over it, and they see it as not benefiting their own children, it is inherently unfair, etc.
And I think the court is, in a way, responding to this.
But once again, the conservative fantasies...
I mean, in a way, thank God that these admissions officers are going to create some Byzantine way of maintaining racial balance, which they are.
Thank God for that, actually.
▲
Export Selection