|
Confessing racial preferences
Robert H. Heidt, a law professor and former admissions officer at Indiana University Law School in Bloomington, gives an unprecedentedly frank description of his school’s minority preference policies, concluding: “In my four years on the admissions committee, routinely leapfrogging minority applicants over so many dramatically more qualified non-minority applicants, foul is how our affirmative action policy came to feel. Seeing the photographs and reading the record and personal statements of non-minority applicants whom we rejected in order to admit the far less qualified left me feeling as though I should wash. Eventually, I could not acquiesce in this policy any longer.” One wonders whether Mr. Heidt, whose tell-all appeared in the Indianapolis Star, will be able to keep his teaching job after this. Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 03, 2003 03:02 PM | Send Comments
I sent this article to two college professor friends of mine. One of them is retired, the other still teaching. Both have always supported “affirmative action.” Posted by: David on January 5, 2003 11:32 AM“In fact, of all the law schools in the country approved by the American Bar Association, none regularly lowers its standards of admission for affirmative action purposes as much as we do. … Such is the affirmative action admissions policy we at the I[ndiana] U[niversity] Bloomington Law School have followed for more than 30 years. … . I said … in … a … report on our policy a few months ago, ’ … the faculty and administration are entrenched in a [policy] from which apparently no force on earth can dislodge us.’ … Just recently, the IU administration, in an article published in our local newspaper, denied ever discriminating in favor of blacks and minorities in admissions. One cannot help but admire such brazenness. However, many fervent supporters of our policy are idealists, and, as the saying goes, the first thing an idealist will do for his ideals is lie.” — Prof. Heidt Here’s a professor who has actually served on the admissions committee four years, implementing an affirmative-action policy that not only reverse-discriminates but reverse-discriminates worse than any comparable law school’s affirmative-action policy in the country — something, moreover, which this professor says has been going on for over thirty years now — and the administration of that same university brazenly comes out just recently and … wait for it … actually publicly denies using affirmative action in admissions. Sound familiar? Anyone remember Jane’s pious insistence that the U. of Toronto (one of the most left-wing universities on the North-American continent) does not use affirmative action in its admissions? I repeat what I said then: I’ll give a year of my income to anyone who can prove that the U. of Toronto — all its public denials notwithstanding — doesn’t use affirmative action or some equivalent thereof in its admissions policies. Unadorned, I note that there have been no takers on your offer to date. The only way to fight this is to sue schools like IU. Once schools have to start paying out large settlements to those who have suffered, changes will be made. Of course, if the Supreme Court upholds this blatant form of discrimination, all bets are off. I wonder if part of the reason for the Lott embroglio was to ensure that the Bush administration would enter the case on the side of continuing preferences. Posted by: Carl on January 5, 2003 1:07 PM |