[Jonathan Adler, June 28, 2009 at 3:35pm] Trackbacks
Political Privilege & U. of Illinois Admissions:

The Chicago Tribune reports on a brewing scandal at the University of Illinois law school. Government officials pressured U. of I. administrators to admit politically connected but unqualified applicants. Paul Caron rounds up more coverage here.

As Brian Leiter notes, many of those attacking U. of I. officials are missing the bigger picture.

the University of Illinois is hostage to the public purse for a lot of its operations, so every request for 'special consideration' on admissions from a politician with influence on the purse strings comes with an implied threat: admit this student, or lose funding. One can be sure Chancellor Herman understands that. Attacking university officials over this scandal is like attacking the victim of a robbery for handing over his money.
Leiter concludes: "the same story is waiting to be written about admissions at every state university in the country." I would like to think that public universities in some states are more insulated from political pressure -- Illinois is Blago country, after all -- but that may be a bit naive.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Illinois Faculty Respond to the Tribune:
  2. University of Illinois Admissions
  3. Political Privilege & U. of Illinois Admissions:
josil (mail):
Don't these guys have tenure? If so, they have no reason for caving other than the usual bureaucratic ones (e.g., size of budget). And if threy don't have tenure, then it's simply politics as usual.
6.28.2009 3:46pm
Oren:
Size of budget is huge.
6.28.2009 4:04pm
MnZ (mail):

Attacking university officials over this scandal is like attacking the victim of a robbery for handing over his money.


Correction: Attacking university officials over this scandal is like attacking a member of the mafia for paying off his boss with blood money.

Any honest university official should have immediately gone to the US Attorney (Patrick Fitzgerald) and offered assistance in running a sting operation. They didn't. Why? Maybe, the university officials were expecting to be rewarded with future favors. Perhaps, the university officials - being loyal Democrats - didn't want to rat out their own party.

Whatever the reasoning, we should be clear about one thing - University of Illinois officials were accomplices in public corruption.
6.28.2009 4:10pm
interruptus:

Correction: Attacking university officials over this scandal is like attacking a member of the mafia for paying off his boss with blood money.

If we want to make the mafia analogy, it seems closer to attacking restaurant owners who pay protection money. Yes, maybe they ought to have gone to the police and helped out in a sting instead, but most people just want the mafia off their backs with as little effort as possible. From what I read in this article, it sounds like the officials in question here were angry that they were being asked to accept unqualified students, but wanted to find a way to get rid of the requesters with as little payout as possible.
6.28.2009 4:17pm
Mike& (mail):
So it's OK to be corrupt if doing the moral thing might be costly? Most would disagree. Yet that seems to be exactly what Leiter is saying.

Unlike a robbery victim, the Dean did not face physical harm. Sure, standing up for the the Dean's principles (assuming she had any) might have been costly. Yet.... That's what good people do every day.
6.28.2009 4:18pm
guest:
I suspect any legal issues here will prove to be highly murky. There are always discretionary admits, and the question is how best to use them (minorities, lousy test scores but some promise in the record, important ties to powerful alums, political connections). As Leiter suggests, every public law school in the country gets leaned on by powerful political officials to admit dubious applicants. Doesn't make political sense to piss them all off. A politically astute dean tries to manage it as best possible given the long-term relationships, and reasonable politicians try not to pawn off numb skulls on their prestige schools or make explicit threats.
6.28.2009 4:24pm
frankcross (mail):
MnZ, I don't think this unsavory action was illegal, so turning in the government wouldn't really be an alternative.

Mike&, the problem is defining what the "moral thing" is. The admission of favorites surely harms some students who would otherwise be admitted (though they presumably can attend other good institutions). Fighting the power would compromise the interests of many students (who may lose labs or other opportunities provided by funding). It's not clear that adopting the latter is the moral alternative.
6.28.2009 4:29pm
Psuess (mail):
If we want to make the mafia analogy, it's like Pelosi threatening to cut off DNC funding to a congressman who opposes cap &trade.
6.28.2009 4:31pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
Hmmm. Brian Leiter taught for some years at a state university's law school. Is he trying to tell us something? Has he ever practiced what he now preaches?
6.28.2009 4:38pm
ard:
Leiter has been neither a dean nor a political bigwig.
6.28.2009 4:42pm
BT:
"Hurd replied: "Only very high-paying jobs in law firms that are absolutely indifferent to whether the five have passed their law school classes or the Bar."

Hurd's e-mail suggests that students getting the jobs are to be those in the "bottom of the class." Law school rankings depend in part on the job placement rate of graduates.

It wasn't immediately clear if the private sector or government jobs were provided."

This seems strange to me. (I am not a lawyer) but from reading this site, where you rank within your law school and how high up the ladder your school is in comparison to other schools seems almost to the point of obsession with most lawyers. So are there private firms that don't care about class rankings, passing the bar, etc., and will take someone who shows poorly in school if he is politically connected? To answer my own question, I guess anything is possible,(especially here in Illinois) but something tells me that most of those bottom 5 ended up in state government.
6.28.2009 4:45pm
Paul B:
The original post and almost all the comments here seem to be written by people out of touch with reality. Illinois politicians could use lessons in subtlety and administrators at the university need to remember that emails are permanent records, but this sort of thing happens at every single competitive public university in the country. At least the admins at the law school negotiated some benefits for their student body in exchange.

This behavior doesn't end with public universities. What do you think happens to your child's application at an Ivy League school if it includes a letter of recommendation from the Board chair whose name is on a couple of buildings on campus? Or if the general counsel of your largest client asks if his daughter might be considered for employment at your law firm? In Chicago, even the daily newspaper has made job offers (in better times at least)to junior reporters at the behest of the politically powerful.
6.28.2009 4:47pm
Mike& (mail):
The original post and almost all the comments here seem to be written by people out of touch with reality.


No. We quite clearly understand the "reality." The disagreement is over whether the reality that exists is corrupt or not.
6.28.2009 4:51pm
MnZ (mail):
frankcross, I don't know about that. Even if we ignore the fact that public university officials were providing something of value (a university admission) to the politically connected outside the process, there still is the problem that many of the clout admits received full-ride scholarships.

Effectively, public university officials were handing out money out of the public coffers to politically connected people (i.e., relatives of politicians and their donors). Criminal charges should at least be considered.
6.28.2009 4:53pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
Let 'em in, then flunk 'em out. That's how they did it at Cow College when I was there.
6.28.2009 5:04pm
MnZ (mail):
Amazing:


The exchanges show a mordant wit from put-upon administrators. In April 2006, Herman writes former law Dean Hurd asking "what kind of job counts" to fulfill the five sought "Straight from the G.," adding "my apologies."

Hurd answers:

"Only very high-paying jobs in law firms that are absolutely indifferent to whether the five have passed their law school classes or the Bar. Sheeshk. It's enough to make one want to be a Republican."


My party - right or wrong!!!
6.28.2009 5:07pm
Oren:

So it's OK to be corrupt if doing the moral thing might be costly? Most would disagree. Yet that seems to be exactly what Leiter is saying.

It's not moral to expect a man to self-immolate every time an immoral politician politely requests (nudge nudge) some corrupt favor. Good men need not put their livelihoods on the line at every wrong either.
6.28.2009 5:23pm
Oren:

Let 'em in, then flunk 'em out. That's how they did it at Cow College when I was there.

And lower the average GPA?! Do you have no regards for the sanctity of the US News Ratings?
6.28.2009 5:25pm
drunkdriver:
As noted by others, this happens all the time at competitive public universities. Beating up on the administrators now is just piling on.

Why, I'd wager that over the last several months, state politicians have been peppering UofI administrators with the usual amount of requests for favors getting someone admitted.
6.28.2009 5:39pm
ArthurKirkland:
Let's not forget the moral culpability of those who try to use connections to push their child, or their relative's child, or their business associates' child, or their friend's child at the expense of a more deserving candidate. When that soft corruption is coupled with active hypocrisy (pretending to prefer a meritocracy, for example, or decrying those who 'couldn't earn it'), it becomes a particularly objectionable course of conduct. Perfectly acceptable in some levels of society, of course, but nonetheless the mark of a reprobate.
6.28.2009 5:45pm
Ben P:

"Hurd replied: "Only very high-paying jobs in law firms that are absolutely indifferent to whether the five have passed their law school classes or the Bar."
Hurd's e-mail suggests that students getting the jobs are to be those in the "bottom of the class." Law school rankings depend in part on the job placement rate of graduates.

It wasn't immediately clear if the private sector or government jobs were provided."

This seems strange to me. (I am not a lawyer) but from reading this site, where you rank within your law school and how high up the ladder your school is in comparison to other schools seems almost to the point of obsession with most lawyers.


Yes and no.

There's a grain of truth in the statement, but it depends on how you look at it.

You are correct in thinking that there is a near obsessive focus on both school and class rank in a big chunk of the top end of the legal community. Most Big (and in this case I mean Big City big) firms recruitment pages note that they do on Campus interviews at *Top 10 schools + Local Schools* but will "consider" resumes from other "well qualified applicants." The import of that is generally that assuming no other facts, your resume needs to be really outstanding if you're from some lesser category to get anything beyond a first look and "circular file."

The reality however, is that first and second year associates in really big firms aren't doing all that much that an average student (or paralegal for that matter) couldn't do if they were willing to put in the massive number of hours necessary, so a person who's perhaps not so "outstanding" could probably get lost in the shuffle, and given that the typical pattern at a lot of BigLaw firms is up or out within a few years, people who don't have an enduring connection generally leave after a while.


In contrast, at smaller or more specialized firms, it's most likely much more exposed as being utterly incompetent, because associates are somewhat more likely to be asked to shoulder something more than doc review and basic due diligence work.
6.28.2009 5:48pm
Libertarian1 (mail):
Not apropos to this particular incidence of Chicago corruption but nevertheless amusing. Knowing we were going to be married in June in Chicago my wife thought it would be a lark to be the couple that got the first June license and maybe even get a newspaper writeup. We got to Chicago City Hall at 7:00AM on June 1 and waited for them to open at 9AM.

We were indeed first in line and were very pleased with our success. Fame? Fortune? Then they opened and the clerk came out and greeted me. Are you Mr. Smith? Evidently the first in line in Chicago is whomever the city politicians decide they want to have that honor. I don't even think the Mr. Smith in question even bothered to come to City Hall to actually get the license but we did see their picture in the paper the next day.

If you don't understand that is typical of Chicago you will never understand Chicago politics and those who thrived in that sort of community as an organizer.
6.28.2009 5:49pm
AJK:

Any honest university official should have immediately gone to the US Attorney (Patrick Fitzgerald) and offered assistance in running a sting operation.


I couldn't disagree more.

Champaign is in the Central District, so they should have gone to Rodger Heaton.
6.28.2009 5:50pm
John Thacker (mail):
Attacking university officials over this scandal is like attacking the victim of a robbery for handing over his money.


I suppose. Everyone always says to hate the game, not the player. Companies insist that campaign contributions are extorted from them; members of Congress insist that they couldn't get elected without them.

Some commenting show a ridiculous naivete in just assuming that this happens everywhere. So is Wisconsin-Madison not competitive, or is Ann Althouse lying when she said she never faced it when on the Admissions Committee there?

Some states really are cleaner than others, and Illinois is one of the dirtiest.
6.28.2009 5:51pm
Libertarian1 (mail):
ArthurKirkland:
Let's not forget the moral culpability of those who try to use connections to push their child, or their relative's child, or their business associates' child, or their friend's child at the expense of a more deserving candidate. When that soft corruption is coupled with active hypocrisy (pretending to prefer a meritocracy, for example, or decrying those who 'couldn't earn it'), it becomes a particularly objectionable course of conduct. Perfectly acceptable in some levels of society, of course, but nonetheless the mark of a reprobate.



For those of us who do prefer a meritocracy does it matter to the deserving applicant that the reason he didn't get in was because a politician used his influence to bump him as compared to his not getting in because the school had a racial quota system that bumped him? Bottom line, he deserved entrance but he didn't get in.
6.28.2009 5:57pm
ArthurKirkland:
The question is, does it matter to those who ostensibly prefer a meritocracy that a politician, or a big donor, or a board colleague, or a big customer, or a prominent alumnus, or someone similar tries to use influence to trump merit?

A genuine proponent of meritocracy would refrain from making the call, be disgusted by another who makes the call, refuse to be swayed by such a call, and perhaps work to make all such calls ineffective.

Which raises the question, how many genuine believers in meritocracy are among us?
6.28.2009 6:15pm
Alan P (mail):
Yes, this is a story of corruption and using political influence on behalf of various friends and relatives. However, there are are several comments that seem to suggest that this is an Illinois or Chicago or Democrat problem.

For those who believe that, take a look on this site for the South Carolina Bar Exam scandal of 2007 which involved, inter alia, the daughters of a Republican Legislator and a Republican Judge.

Leiter is right; this is undoubtedly a problem in admissions to all State Law Schools but also other Graduate Schools and Undergraduate Colleges and Universities. It is probably also a problem in the most honored private schools as well.

Corruption begins when those in power believe that their personal desires are more important than honoring the trust they were hired to represent. This belief is hardly confined to one party or region.
6.28.2009 6:25pm
Allan Walstad (mail):

Attacking university officials over this scandal is like attacking the victim of a robbery for handing over his money.

Wait a minute. The university GETS money from the state, which lifted that money from the citizens. Looks to me like university officials are receiving stolen funds and then whining because the pols expect favors in return for the coercively obtained largesse. Well, that's the way politics works. Don't like it? Eliminate political funding of education.
6.28.2009 6:34pm
MnZ (mail):
Alan P said:

However, there are are several comments that seem to suggest that this is an Illinois or Chicago or Democrat problem.


No, this is an Illinois/Chicago/Democrat problem. Obviously, there is corruption elsewhere, but this does not change who the offending parties are in this case.
6.28.2009 6:42pm
dearieme:
Once University admissions officers accept race-privileged admissions, why should they bother to oppose minor corruption?
6.28.2009 6:52pm
ArthurKirkland:
Legacy admissions and "special admits" predated affirmative action by decades, if not centuries.

Are you attempting to argue that most opponents of affirmative actions have long opposed family-privileged admissions, legacy programs and the like?

I submit that nearly all of the concern developed only when poor, black, disadvantaged candidates became part of the "problem."
6.28.2009 7:00pm
Oren:


Wait a minute. The university GETS money from the state, which lifted that money from the citizens.

No Taxation Even With Representation!
6.28.2009 7:06pm
who is concerned:
Depends on who you think is concerned here. There is a mericratic ethos and a highly selective admissions process that arose in some public higher ed institutions in the postwar period and primarily since the 1960s and later, and both the outside world and academics now generally favor admitting based on "academic standards." Departures from that require special justification, and those justifications sell better to some constituencies than to others. Academics have generally bought into affirmative action as a good justification for departing from normal criteria, but are much more skeptical about athletics, legacies and the politically connected. Alumni, journalists, the mass public, and politicians have their own views about what counts as a good justification for departing from normal academic standards for admission. Administrators tend to manage those conflicting pressures, while favoring the views of academics.
6.28.2009 7:16pm
Oren:

Academics have generally bought into affirmative action as a good justification for departing from normal criteria, but are much more skeptical about athletics, legacies and the politically connected.

Skeptical, but as a rule we're willing to put up with it because it keeps the donations rollings. Unlike Mike&, we're not all chomping at the bit to tilt at windmills (how's that for a mixed metaphor?).
6.28.2009 7:36pm
Psalm91 (mail):
"dearieme:

Once University admissions officers accept race-privileged admissions, why should they bother to oppose minor corruption?"

Thanks for the pre-1970's history lesson. Mr. Kirkland hit it as well.
6.28.2009 7:39pm
pt98 (mail):
if you can't take the legislature's money and then head to work the next day and deny admittance to their friends and family, then you have no business being Dean of a state school.
6.28.2009 8:14pm
Oren:

if you can't take the legislature's money and then head to work the next day and deny admittance to their friends and family, then you have no business being Dean of a state school.


Quite literally, you will have no business being Dean of the school.
6.28.2009 9:12pm
Shannon (mail):
I don't know if I buy the argument that the admissions officials only acted under duress. It seems pretty clear from everything I've read that this was a quid pro quo - admissions for the under-qualified in exchange for jobs for bottom of the barrel graduates (from the Tribue article):

When Law School Dean Heidi Hurd balked on accepting the applicant in April 2006, Herman replied that the request came "Straight from the G. My apologies. Larry has promised to work on jobs (5). What counts?"

Hurd replied: "Only very high-paying jobs in law firms that are absolutely indifferent to whether the five have passed their law school classes or the Bar."

Hurd's e-mail suggests that students getting the jobs are to be those in the "bottom of the class." Law school rankings depend in part on the job placement rate of graduates.

The analogy of blaming the robbery victim for handing over the money is flawed. This seems to me more along the lines of an insider at the bank agreeing to help with the robbery in exchange for a piece of the take.
6.28.2009 9:23pm
second history:
Another argument against the public university system. As a resident of California forced to support two public university systems (California State University and University of California, not including the two-year community college system), the state could go a long way to fiscal solvency by cutting off funding and privatizng the higher education system. Let their alumni and private industry support higher education. By removing public support you avoid outside enrollment influence; if it occurs at a private university its their own money at stake and not the taxpayers.
6.28.2009 9:27pm
CFG in IL (mail):
Apparently the medical school dean was leaned on as well, but said no. Could it be a law school thing?
6.28.2009 9:31pm
ArthurKirkland:
Is the argument that eliminating public education (at least beyond high school) would eliminate anti-merit bias or, instead, make it more palatable? Would it reduce the injury to society inflicted by legacy admissions and similar flaws?

I do not believe it would eliminate anti-merit bias, make it more acceptable, or reduce the injury to society. But I am open to an education.
6.28.2009 9:57pm
sarcasm alert:
It seems pretty obvious that Hurd was being sarcastic in that email (always risky since those things don't always convey well in email -- easier to read if you've ever heard her in person). The offer to "work on jobs" came from above. Her response is clearly along the lines of "Oh, gee, well that makes it all better that they want us to accept these clowns -- and that we may have to do it." The offer is sugarcoating. The problem that everyone recognizes is what if you say no, but then next year your appropriation comes up and you need some flexibility on how you set tuition, or more money to build a new library, or hire a bunch of new faculty, or whatever, and it turns out the powers that be decide they aren't in a very giving mood when in comes to UIC-Law.
6.28.2009 10:03pm
Grumpy Old Man (mail) (www):
Private universities admit children of prominent alumni and donors all the time, regardless of SAT or GPA-type merit.

Why did we ever try to eliminate the spoils system, anyway? Multiguess skill is overrated (and I say that as someone who has benefitted from having it).

All this outrage strikes me as rather hypocritical.
6.28.2009 10:15pm
ArthurKirkland:

It seems pretty obvious that Hurd was being sarcastic in that email


This was my first thought as well.
6.28.2009 10:26pm
BGates:
Are you attempting to argue that most opponents of affirmative actions have long opposed family-privileged admissions, legacy programs and the like?

I have to admit that I have not spent centuries opposed to legacy programs and the like. I've only been opposed to them, and race-based programs, for as long as I've been sentient. I hope someday you will be able to say the same.
6.28.2009 10:43pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
ArthurKirkland,

When I see someone oppose "legacy" preferences and athletic preferences equally, I will know that I've found someone who dislikes the idea of preferences.

Unfortunately, I have never encountered anyone who made a public point of hating legacy preferences and also thought that football and basketball players, say, ought to be admitted on the same academic terms as the rest of the student body.
6.28.2009 11:14pm
ArthurKirkland:
Anyone who has always opposed legacy programs and other non-merit admission policies is admirably consistent and, among opponents of affirmative action, a rarity.
6.28.2009 11:19pm
autolykos:
A large reason this is such a large problem in Illinois, and may or may not be in other states, is because of the fact that the university's trustees are appointed by the governor. Given the governors we've had in the recent past (and, no, Blago isn't the only felon among them), it's no surprise the trustees are corrupt.

Frankly, Quinn's entire dog and pony show strikes me as extremely cynical and appears to be more of an attempt to try and stretch out the matter to let public anger subside than anything else.
6.28.2009 11:53pm
autolykos:

Legacy admissions and "special admits" predated affirmative action by decades, if not centuries.

Are you attempting to argue that most opponents of affirmative actions have long opposed family-privileged admissions, legacy programs and the like?

I submit that nearly all of the concern developed only when poor, black, disadvantaged candidates became part of the "problem."


This is what happens when you stop thinking of people as individuals and start trying to stereotype people on the basis of political belief. Whether or not you've heard the objections, I'd submit that those of us among the great unwashed have always been against these types of preferential admissions. You might not read those objections in the national press, but that doesn't mean they haven't always existed.
6.29.2009 12:00am
JRE:
This story is not particularly surprising, and these kinds of practices are hardly limited to public universities. In the 1990's, Tulane had a scandal due to a scholarship program they had where public officials such as mayors and state legislators were granted full-tuition scholarships to award to recipients of their choice. This policy received a great deal of public attention after New Orleans Mayor Sidney Barthelemy awarded a scholarship to his own son.
6.29.2009 12:06am
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
ArthurKirkland,

Anyone who has always opposed legacy programs and other non-merit admission policies is admirably consistent and, among opponents of affirmative action, a rarity.

Well, that would be me, though I doubt I could prove it to your satisfaction.

What I'd like to know, though, is what fraction of affirmative action proponents are willing to denounce legacies and special athletic admits in the same breath. I've never seen anyone do it.
6.29.2009 12:17am
John Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Actually, most leading opponents of affirmative action also oppose legacy preferences. Ward Connerly is typical; he "contends that they have no place in what should be meritocratic systems. He succeeded in getting legacy preferences banned at the University of California in 2000, four years after his victory over racial preferences through California’s Proposition 209."

But be that as it may, exactly why is a powerful political class's demand that preferential treatment be awarded to its members' offspring worse than a racial or ethnic class demanding the same thing?
6.29.2009 12:31am
Desiderius:
At least we'll soon have a public option in Healthcare as well so that the Universities won't feel so singled out.
6.29.2009 12:53am
Bob White (mail):

Were this court to have the courage to forbid the use of racial discrimination in admissions, legacy preferences (and similar practices) might quickly become less popular--a possibility not lost, I am certain, on the elites (both institutional and individual) supporting the Law School in this case.


n.10 in Justice Thomas's opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger.
6.29.2009 1:33am
ArthurKirkland:
Ms. Thomson:

I do not doubt your convictions, convictions I consider refreshing. I believe athletic accomplishment should be considered -- with other extracurricular achievements reflecting effort, skill and character, including the hurdling of obstacles -- but do not favor admission of non-students for purely sports-related reasons.

Mr. White:

I do not share Justice Thomas' expectation that elimination of affirmative action would precipitate diminution of legacy preferencees and similar programs. I do not understand the argument.

Autolykos:

Connection-based admissions have overwhelmed affirmative action in magnitude and duration, yet have not generated a substantial fraction of the criticism associated with preferences favoring the disadvantaged. I hope most people (washed or not) dislike friends-and-family admissions, but have not seen evidence that vindicates that hope. For example, I do not recall a political party lathering up its base by opposing connection-based preferences. Perhaps that episode occurred before my time?
6.29.2009 8:53am
Ohio Scrivener (mail):

Legacy admissions and "special admits" predated affirmative action by decades, if not centuries.

Are you attempting to argue that most opponents of affirmative actions have long opposed family-privileged admissions, legacy programs and the like?

I submit that nearly all of the concern developed only when poor, black, disadvantaged candidates became part of the "problem."


This may come as a shock to you, but many poor and middle class folk object to getting the short end of the stick on either basis. Do you really think people tolerate getting screwed becaue of their economic status but only object when they start getting abused because of their race as well? Hardly.
6.29.2009 9:37am
dearieme:
"I have never encountered anyone who made a public point of hating legacy preferences and also thought that football and basketball players, say, ought to be admitted on the same academic terms as the rest of the student body." But now you have.
6.29.2009 9:48am
autolykos:

Connection-based admissions have overwhelmed affirmative action in magnitude and duration, yet have not generated a substantial fraction of the criticism associated with preferences favoring the disadvantaged. I hope most people (washed or not) dislike friends-and-family admissions, but have not seen evidence that vindicates that hope. For example, I do not recall a political party lathering up its base by opposing connection-based preferences. Perhaps that episode occurred before my time?


Your first statement is simply untrue (at least with respect to magnitude). In the Michigan case, much ink was spilled about the existence of legacy admissions and given as a justification for racial preferences. However, using Michigan's relatively simple numerical formula, legacy admits got 1 point added to their admissions score. URMs received 18 points.

As for your second point, are you really asking why politicians don't try to get ordinary Americans whipped into a fervor over programs that mostly benefit politicians? Really?
6.29.2009 10:47am
GU (mail):
U. of I. administrators to admit politically connected favored but unqualified applicants.


I thought all law schools practiced affirmative action!?
6.29.2009 1:15pm
Bob White (mail):
Mr. Kirkland:
I agree with you that the excerpt that I posted from Justice Thomas's opinion was not in and of itself a complete argument. I believe his point (or perhaps mine, and I'm simply coopting his sentiments) is that the difference between legacy admits and other privileged admits is one not of kind, but of degree, and the striking out those of greatest degree exposes those of lesser degree to greater scrutiny.

It may be quite right that this is a fool's errand. There are, as Daniel Golden demonstrated in The Price of Admission, many entrenched interests with a strong interest in keeping the current system as is-more underqualified privileged admits means less competition for the qualified legacy admits and fewer spaces for the unconnected, after all.
6.29.2009 4:56pm
ArthurKirkland:
By magnitude, I referred to the huge number by which "connections" admissions have outweighed affirmative action admissions in the United States.

By duration, I referred to the decades (amounting to centuries) during which "connections" admissions occurred before the majority classes considered permitting the institution of affirmative action programs.

I continue to believe that the outcry regarding non-merit admissions did not begin in earnest until the poor, the unconnected and the differently pigmented got into the game. What explains this?
6.29.2009 5:25pm
neurodoc:
"Clout" is a familiar enough word, but "clouted" for someone with clout? Is that standard usage or something of a neologism?
6.29.2009 9:43pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Link B I Strike Block Quote
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.