RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-conspiracy-against-specialized-high-schools

New York City’s racial polarizers are back, targeting academic excellence in public schools. This time, they’re mobilizing to oppose the standardized test that the city’s specialized high schools use to achieve race-blind, meritocratic admissions.

To understand the polarizers’ scheme, take a step back. The Specialized High Schools Admission Test (SHSAT), which determines admissions to eight of the city’s nine specialized high schools, had been provided by Pearson Assessments to the New York City Department of Education under a multiyear contract. That contract expired on October 31, and the decision to renew the deal falls to the city’s Panel for Education Policy (PEP).
 
PEP itself has a history of racial politicking. The panel infamously helped kill the department’s gifted and talented program in 2021, with members claiming that the G&T admissions test was racist. They declined to approve the vendor contract for G&T testing—with Pearson. “A yes vote on this contract would be a continuation of white supremacy,” said one PEP member. Other members suddenly discovered frugality and objected to the test’s cost.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, in his final year in office and no friend of G&T, used the panel’s denial of the Pearson contract to terminate the program entirely. Mayor Eric Adams restored it, but without the admissions testing that PEP had rejected, rendering the program far less effective in delivering rigorous K-8 education that, among other things, prepares top students for the SHSAT.

This time, the racial polarizers’ pretext for objecting to the proposed Pearson contract renewal is the proposal to replace paper-and-pencil testing with computerized (“digitized”) testing, which, they claim, “could worsen inequities.” The notion that, in our digital age, the city’s sharpest eighth-graders would be intimidated by computers is ridiculous. Indeed, the SAT, Advanced Placement tests, and New York State’s proficiency tests—the last administered even to grade schoolers—have all been successfully computerized without fuss. The GRE and MCAT have been computerized for decades.

https://tomklingenstein.com/will-racial-quotas-survive-scotus/

Now that the first slate of undergraduate admissions statistics following the Supreme Court’s decision outlawing race-based affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and its companion case has been released, it is clear that elite colleges are following one of two paths. 

The first path is largely one of prudential compliance with the Court’s ruling. Elite colleges following the first path feature incoming classes of first-year students with higher proportions of Asian and white students than in previous classes while maintaining stellar secondary school class rank and standardized test scores. Call this the path of least resistance, demonstrating prima facie that these colleges’ admissions practices hew toward the race-neutrality the SFFA decision requires. 

The second path is one of greater resistance toward the Court’s ruling. With the composition of incoming classes of first-year students unchanged from previous admissions cycles or even in some cases featuring increased numbers of black and Hispanic students, elite colleges following the second path are taking increased risks of future litigation. Such litigation, even if unwelcome, would demonstrate fidelity to a regime that preserves race-based affirmative action and quotas, in spirit if not in name.     

Affirmative action in college admissions has redounded toward greater percentages of black and Hispanic students, to the detriment of Asian-American and white applicants. The problem at root though is that race-conscious admissions, a group quota regime which Tom Klingenstein has rightly decried on this website and in his public remarks, runs contrary to the first principles of moral and legal judgment. As philosopher Hadley Arkes has observed, “It is the fallacy of assuming that we can draw moral inferences about persons, their goodness or badness, their moral deserts, as though race determined or controlled their conduct and character.” Setting aside the fundamental injustice of using race as a proxy for an individual’s moral standing, racial categories in modern America are imprecise groupings of individuals motivated to further political goals, as the scholar David E. Bernstein demonstrated at length in his 2022 book Classified, on which I worked as a research assistant. Elite colleges signal fidelity to these political goals by reporting racial quotas as a sign of commitment to group diversity rather than individual merit. 

https://amgreatness.com/2024/12/05/dei-is-deflating/

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has, over the past several years, become part of the fabric of American institutions, notably businesses and schools. In a nutshell, DEI pays no mind to quality but, instead, is a system whereby racial bean counting is the sine qua non of our culture. While this has already been a disastrous policy for all concerned, a recent study delves into the serious damage it has done.

On November 25, the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University Social Perception Lab released “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias.” The study examines whether the themes and materials common in DEI training foster inclusion or exacerbate conflicts and whether such materials promote empathy or increase hostility towards groups labeled as oppressors. The study consists of three experiments—one that focused on race, one on religion, and the other on caste.

As noted by National Review’s Abigail Anthony, although proponents of DEI training claim that they are designed to educate individuals about bias and reduce discrimination, “the study found that participants primed with DEI materials were more likely to perceive prejudice where none existed and were more willing to punish the perceived perpetrators.”

In the experiment that focused on race, the researchers randomly assigned 423 Rutgers University undergraduates into two groups: one control group exposed to a neutral essay about U.S. corn production and the other exposed to an essay that combined material from Ibram X. Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility. After exposure to the essays, participants were presented with the following race-neutral scenario: “A student applied to an elite East Coast university in Fall 2024. During the application process, he was interviewed by an admissions officer. Ultimately, the student’s application was rejected.”

The results showed that participants who were primed with Kendi’s and DiAngelo’s books perceived more discrimination from the admissions officer, despite the absence of any racial identification and evidence of discrimination. Those participants also believed that the admissions officer was more unfair to the applicant, had caused more harm to the applicant, and had committed more “microaggressions.”