|
Post by hcpride on Jun 20, 2023 4:58:43 GMT -5
Got a feeling this was a common take on recent events…but certainly not in the generally anti-Thomas (and left-leaning) popular press. Quite complimentary of our college: I continue to believe that there is an important role for the college to play in American life as the nation’s preeminent small Catholic liberal-arts college, with a historic mission of educating the next generation of Catholics in the faith and sending them forth to carry it into the world. It shouldn’t be just another link in an archipelago of secular colleges with identical student bodies and philosophies. Should be available to read (free articles before a paywall kicks in). www.nationalreview.com/2023/06/holy-crosss-president-wrongs-clarence-thomas/
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Jun 20, 2023 5:17:43 GMT -5
Author, Dan McLaughlin, is an HC alum, ‘93.
Could not read the article because I used my allotment of free articles.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 20, 2023 5:25:30 GMT -5
Author, Dan McLaughlin, is an HC alum, ‘93. Could not read the article because I used my allotment of free articles. If I could I would happily give my allotment to you.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 20, 2023 5:26:02 GMT -5
By DAN MCLAUGHLIN June 19, 2023 3:08 PM
If Justice Thomas’s own college is still holding his admission against him, it is just making his point about racial preferences.
I have a deep well of affection for my alma mater, the College of the Holy Cross. I met my wife there, we sent our older daughter there, and I made the most lasting friendships of my life there. I have never missed a reunion, and was back last weekend for my 30th. It’s not just the power of community of Holy Cross alumni and students: I continue to believe that there is an important role for the college to play in American life as the nation’s preeminent small Catholic liberal-arts college, with a historic mission of educating the next generation of Catholics in the faith and sending them forth to carry it into the world. It shouldn’t be just another link in an archipelago of secular colleges with identical student bodies and philosophies.
But all has not been well on Mt. St. James in recent years. The college’s new president, Vincent Rougeau, made a particularly bad decision in writing an op-ed in the Boston Globe a few weeks ago entitled “Clarence Thomas was a beneficiary of race-based admissions at my school”:
During the height of the civil rights movement, at a time when racial integration was sparking controversy on many campuses, College of the Holy Cross President the Rev. John Brooks drove around the country to personally recruit Black high school students to the college’s all-male, primarily white campus in Worcester. The 20 young men he recruited have become an illustrious group, including business leaders, a Pulitzer Prize winner, a Super Bowl champion, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, class of 1971.
“Thomas, once the beneficiary of the most overt example of race-based admissions I can imagine, will probably be among the Supreme Court’s majority in the next few weeks when it is expected to strike down the use of affirmative action in college admissions. [Emphasis added.]”
This is shameful behavior on Rougeau’s part, both because it is an abuse of his position and because of what it says about racial preferences.
Clarence Thomas is one of the most prominent and distinguished alumni in the college’s history, probably rivaled among living alumni only by Boston Celtics legend Bob Cousy and, if you must include him, Dr. Anthony Fauci. Justice Thomas is in the arena of legal and political controversy, so I would never argue that he should be immune from criticism, including criticism from individuals within the Holy Cross community. (I have not hesitated to quarrel with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, even though she was in my law-school graduating class). But for the president of the college, its public representative, to wield the authority of his position to criticize Thomas is a disservice to the college, its students, and its alumni. Doing so says much about how politics have superseded a sense of good stewardship among so many of the liberals and progressives who today run our major institutions.
Think about it: When you hear from your old school, the tone used to discuss prominent alumni is typically as celebratory as a family Christmas card talking about the kids. This is intended to convey a sense of communal pride not only in the accomplishments of alumni but also in the many and varied paths they have taken in life. It’s supposed to convey a sense of family and belonging, and for alumni of a politically or socially left-leaning bent, it is nearly always done without a sense of judgment. That is doubly true of a small college with a huge reservoir of communal spirit and a long tradition of families attending across multiple generations. It is certainly how Holy Cross talks about all the other illustrious members of that group of black men — many of them prominent in public life — who were recruited along with Thomas.
It is hard to imagine the college’s official voices and administrators discussing Dr. Fauci or other left-leaning political figures in terms which suggest that they should be publicly castigated, even when they were taking steps that directly stifled campus life. There’s plenty of that out there for them in the world, but their own school should not be casting stones. And yet, when it’s conservative alumni, there is a tendency to treat them as, at best, somewhat embarrassing, and, at worst, people to be scolded from a school-provided soapbox. This is why we get the recent phenomenon of “open letters” from faculty, students, and alumni of various schools trying to excommunicate conservative politicians and judges who attended those schools. “Not in our name,” they often say.
The message sent by these sorts of jeremiads, when they are done with the official seal of the school’s approval, is not merely we disagree with you, but you do not belong; you are not one of us. Is it any wonder that conservative-leaning students and alumni, even those who are not all that politically active or vocal themselves, frequently feel alienated from their schools by this kind of thing?
As to the substance of Rougeau’s criticism, it validates Thomas’s fundamental critique of racial preferences. Thomas turns 75 years old next week. He has been out of college for 52 years. He went on from Holy Cross to Yale Law School, and then worked for a major corporation, in state government, and on Capitol Hill. He headed an executive-branch agency. He published a memoir and several law-review articles. He has been a justice of the United States Supreme Court for more than 31 years. He is nationally known, and has produced his own extensive and scholarly body of constitutional theory. He was once respected enough by his alma mater to serve on its board of trustees and receive an honorary degree.
And yet, Rougeau’s op-ed announces to the world that, even now, we will never stop telling people he only got into our college because he was black. Even after all these years. Even after everything he has done with the opportunities he has had. (Never mind that Rougeau cites as “the most overt example of race-based admissions I can imagine” a personal appeal by Father Brooks to recruit skeptical black students to the school and offer a scholarship to a student who was in desperate financial need.)
What better evidence could there be in favor of Thomas’s argument that a degree obtained by an African American from a school that uses racial preferences will always carry an asterisk of sorts? That benefiting from racial preferences degrades the dignity of the recipient, because it will always be either openly thrown in his face or silently held against him? That it creates a sense of debt to the institution granting the preference, or worse, a sense that the institution owns your opinions forever?
No black American should have to go through the world chased by that asterisk. There’s a famously mordant observation on racism in society that goes something like this: “What do you call a man who graduates last in his class in medical school? Doctor. What do you call a black man who graduates first in his class in medical school? N*****.” It’s a grim comment on a world that never lets you forget that some people will always see you first and foremost as black. That’s a world we’re supposed to be trying to get away from, not leaning into.
Justice Thomas has sworn an oath to the Constitution and laws of his nation. And nobody — least of all the president of his alma mater, writing in the pages of a major newspaper — should presume to tell him that he ought to rule on racial preferences in college admissions differently than his white colleagues due to his race or how he got into college.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 20, 2023 5:34:35 GMT -5
National Review = Political. Should we seek a cease & desist order from Dean Wormer?
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 20, 2023 5:42:06 GMT -5
Author, Dan McLaughlin, is an HC alum, ‘93. Could not read the article because I used my allotment of free articles. Always good to read an article by a proud ✝️ alum in a respected magazine regarding our current president and most prominent graduate. (Whether or not one agrees 100% with the perspectives of any of the three.)
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 20, 2023 6:01:11 GMT -5
The question is not whether the article is "good to read." It is whether it is appropriate for this apolitical board. National Review is a political publication. This article lays out a position on the political question of affirmative action as was used to admit Thomas. Oops, don't take the bait. I'm merely making a point about the political nature of the article. Any commentary pertaining to the article would of necessity be political unless one were to limit one's comments to the author's use of capital letters, punctuation, spelling, grammar, syntax sentence structure & writing style. One may believe the article is a good read but it is political. Is this another back door attempt to proselytize? Peace.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 20, 2023 6:19:39 GMT -5
Open suggestion to Dean Wormer: I read Vince Rougeau's letter about Clarence but don't recall if it was copied onto Crossports. So, here's my "pearl of wisdom:" If Vince's letter was posted and remains on Crossports, this post should also remain. If Vince's op ed was never on here, or has been removed, so should this thread, or at least the copied version here. Your welcome!
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jun 20, 2023 6:44:15 GMT -5
I disagree with some of this article's main arguments, but I also think it makes some valid points. I'm not going any deeper to avoid being political. I will say, however, that I believe in a free expression of ideas (except for hate speech or incitement to violence), liberal and conservative. I subscribe to National Review and WSJ, among other publications, because I like to have my own beliefs challenged. I think academia should have the same approach.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 20, 2023 7:48:11 GMT -5
VR chose to speak truth about power and damn the consequences. Some might say it is brave, some might say it is foolhardy. It has been a long time since I read CT's autobiography, but IIRC, he acknowledged that his admission to HC and YLS were influenced by affirmative action. This recent Frontline piece confirms that he has said he was a beneficiary of it. www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/I do think that it is funny that people who think that blacks should "get over" prior discrimination think that we need to protect them from the stigma of being perceived as being the beneficiary of affirmative action. In any event, the court is going to address this issue by the end of the month. Unless they find a way to dodge the question, race based affirmative action in higher education is likely dead. Colleges will likely focus on geographic and socioeconomic justifications for admissions decisions and we will see conservative groups fight those on the basis of discriminatory impact--a legal concept they railed against for years. PS I don't read the National Review but in looking at it, it appears that our alumnus writes about interesting legal issues with some detailed analyses. PPS Trinity follows this author's advice. I never see them trashing Jesse Watters or Tucker Carlson.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 20, 2023 7:56:15 GMT -5
The question is not whether the article is "good to read." It is whether it is appropriate for this apolitical board. National Review is a political publication. This article lays out a position on the political question of affirmative action as was used to admit Thomas. Oops, don't take the bait. I'm merely making a point about the political nature of the article. Any commentary pertaining to the article would of necessity be political unless one were to limit one's comments to the author's use of capital letters, punctuation, spelling, grammar, syntax sentence structure & writing style. One may believe the article is a good read but it is political. Is this another back door attempt to proselytize? Peace. While this thread can very likely go down a rabbit hole, the article is about Holy Cross. As such I don't think it violates either the letter or the spirit of out board rules. This board is not a democracy so my interpretation of the rules carried no weight - just throwing in my two cents
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jun 20, 2023 7:58:33 GMT -5
Colleges will likely focus on geographic and socioeconomic justifications for admissions decisions I've always thought that this is the way to do it. Wouldn't the white kid who is from Appalachia and comes from a poor family have more hurdles than the black kid who is from Long Island and attended a private school? Or, the black kid who is from the inner city and went to PS 154 has more hurdles than the black kid from Fairfield County.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 20, 2023 8:21:21 GMT -5
I did not know that President Rougeau had written that op-ed. Most unfortunate
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Jun 20, 2023 8:37:44 GMT -5
poor mm: triggered?
If Justice Thomas was a lefty there would be seven statues of him on campus and he would be on the cover of every HC publication
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 20, 2023 9:02:10 GMT -5
Colleges will likely focus on geographic and socioeconomic justifications for admissions decisions I've always thought that this is the way to do it. Wouldn't the white kid who is from Appalachia and comes from a poor family have more hurdles than the black kid who is from Long Island and attended a private school? Or, the black kid who is from the inner city and went to PS 154 has more hurdles than the black kid from Fairfield County. PS 154 is in an upscale Brooklyn neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 20, 2023 9:04:04 GMT -5
Some have already gone down the rabbit hole. Dean?
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jun 20, 2023 9:08:27 GMT -5
I've always thought that this is the way to do it. Wouldn't the white kid who is from Appalachia and comes from a poor family have more hurdles than the black kid who is from Long Island and attended a private school? Or, the black kid who is from the inner city and went to PS 154 has more hurdles than the black kid from Fairfield County. PS 154 is in an upscale Brooklyn neighborhood. Worried that might happen. I just picked three numbers at random.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 20, 2023 9:49:36 GMT -5
I do think President Rougeau’s opinions publicly shared in his Boston Globe Op-Ed (excerpted and linked elsewhere on Crossports) regarding Justice Thomas are precisely the sort regularly tossed about (without rebuttal) in the faculty lounge of any progressive institution. (Not to mention The Boston Globe’s editorial room.) In fact, he was practically re-writing verses from progressive articles of faith.
But the National Review article (Dan McLaughlin, ‘93) brings up several points (some subtly and some not so subtly) and a perspective President Rougeau may not have considered. And should have.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jun 21, 2023 7:24:29 GMT -5
It's nice to see this thread take a pause, and I'm not trying to re-energize it, but I do encourage everyone to read the Amici Curiae brief filed by HC and 55 other Catholic colleges with the Supreme Court on the pending case.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 21, 2023 7:59:05 GMT -5
Re: Amici Brief. The summary on p.12 says it all. Could not have said it better myself. Affirmative action benefits the colleges & universities and society. Hope the Court listens & at least in its opinion limits its decision to the litigants and avoids a wide ranging, sweeping decision overturning affirmative action entirely. Look how affirmative actiont enabled Clarence Thomas. How many other students are out there who could benefit by leveling the playing field as did Thomas. But, I'm inclined to believe this Court sadly will not agree with the amici.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 21, 2023 8:18:20 GMT -5
Likely will regret weighing in here but I used to be a semi-expert (is that an oxymoron?) having led/authored my company's diversity plan which was used as a model for the larger multi-billion dollar "enterprise" as I did a lot of research on the subject with my ad hoc team. That said, that was over 25 years ago and forgot almost everything having "studied to the test." "Diversity" and "Affirmative Action" are terms that likely have as many definitions as there are people talking about them. While it is clearly factual that Fr. Brooks went up and down the east coast to seek out black students to apply, get scholarships and attend Holy Cross, I believe some people assume, incorrectly, that affirmative action by definition means less qualified candidates/applicants. While in some cases it involves giving "a break" on subjective criteria, it doesn't mean picking unqualified candidates. Not sure how this is much different than legacy admissions, giving them "a break" and I happen to have been an example of a legacy admission. As some here already know, I was not, and am not a fan of Clarence Thomas and has absolutely nothing to do with his politics. But, I have never doubted that he and the other "Fraternity" admissions were well-qualified to come to Holy Cross and what Fr. Brooks did, IMHO, was simply bring Holy Cross to the attention of students who were either unaware of Holy Cross and/or couldn't afford to attend without financial assistance. Affirmative Action for Clarence? Kinda. Sorta. No pun intended but not a "black and white" issue.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 21, 2023 8:21:51 GMT -5
It's nice to see this thread take a pause, and I'm not trying to re-energize it, but I do encourage everyone to read the Amici Curiae brief filed by HC and 55 other Catholic colleges with the Supreme Court on the pending case. 1. I think most folks are in favor of affirmative action in the sense of recruiting applicants of racially diverse backgrounds to apply to the college. Who could argue with that? It was always my understanding that Fr. Brooks engaged in this sort of affirmative action. 2. Affirmative action loses in the public eye when and where there are folks harmed or disadvantaged in the admission process because of their race. Asian students at Harvard in the case at hand. These two separate 'affirmative action' initiatives are frequently conflated (deliberately or not)* and/or finessed by progressives in support of a race-based admissions process. The Amici Curiae brief repeats arguments that affirmative action and racial diversity are very good and Catholic colleges especially think racial diversity and affirmative action are very good but, IMHO, does nothing to address point 2, above. Although off the topic, it was my understanding that Clarence Thomas benefitted from #1, above, and still supports #1, above. Since the matter before the courts is the separate matter of #2, I would assume the majority of the court (including Justice Thomas) will end the race-based admission process currently disadvantaging Asian students (on the basis of their race). *Dan McLaughlin '93 very gently skewers President Rougeau on precisely this point (conflation of 1 and 2) by italicizing the word "recruit"...letting Vince know Dan sees the deliberate conflation at work.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 21, 2023 8:47:48 GMT -5
Logic and mathematics will tell you that if you're giving one demographic group an advantage you are necessarily discriminating against other groups.
|
|
|
Post by princetoncrusader on Jun 21, 2023 9:02:59 GMT -5
If I recall, CT graduated cum laude with a degree in English. Given that such honors were more rare back then than today, was it really that much of a stretch to get CT through the HC admissions office? Coming out of Yale law school, none of the white shoe law firms in the Accela corridor--so woke today--would touch him. So CT ended up working for John Danforth in Missouri. So while affirmative action may have helped him in admissions, it certainly didn't help him get a job. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 21, 2023 9:07:23 GMT -5
Can't argue with that logic. But, here's the thing: was Clarence et. al. given "an advantage" by Fr. Brooks any more than HC recruiters informing other high school kids about our esteemed college or just leveling the playing field? As for advantage, I'll admit as a legacy, I had one. Did that discriminate against some other kid (male - no girls, please! ) whose father didn't graduate from Holy Cross? You betcha according to your definition. I believe I was "qualified" to go to Holy Cross (since I graduated) but little doubt some kid smarter than I may not have been accepted but wasn't a legacy. There's the subjectivity. I also think I was probably smart enough to attend and graduate from Harvard. I didn't bother to apply. I know I would not have been accepted. If my parents gave them $100 million, I might have applied and guarantee you that I would have been accepted. As we say here in this tiny state, "it is what it is."
|
|