|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 21, 2023 9:14:11 GMT -5
Some would not characterize affirmative action as an advantage but as a leveling of the playing field to avoid discrimination. In the amici brief considering race as a factor in admissions was presented as an issue of academic freedom and thus rooted in the constitution's right of free speech.
Other factors which play into admissions, give some an advantage & may be considered affirmative action to benefit some groups at the expense of others: gender, geographic location, legacy admits, scholarship athletes & those with other special talents music, acting, etc. It's sort of an affirmative action for all which in a sense one could posit discriminates against others. Race as a factor is different tha race based, The Court is being asked to abolish race as a factor. No sense carrying on about this. The differences about considering race as a factor & not other things as a factor have been debated for decades. I expect the Court will overturn affirmative action based on the political views of the majority. Schools will of necessity find a way around the decision so as to construct a school population they deem necessary to carry out their mission. I will cease & desist. No hard feelings? Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 21, 2023 9:23:43 GMT -5
Let's face it, Fr. Brooks did something for the black students that he didn't do for white students - i.e. pro-actively sought out this segment of the student population. So, yes, that was an affirmative (positive) action whether or not it is defined as "Affirmative Action." He never came to my house or my high school to speak to me but, he didn't need to. Frankly, I know that HC never sent anyone to my high school from Admissions or any other department. If my father, uncle and older brother hadn't gone to Holy Cross, I probably would not have known about Holy Cross. I don't know how my other 2 high school classmates knew about Holy Cross. I know I didn't tell them!  |
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 21, 2023 9:27:06 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." No-- Father Brooks, as I see it, just chose to recruit in some areas that were not previously visited by HC. |
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 21, 2023 9:29:10 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. It seems a no brainer that favoring one racial group on account of their race in admissions would disadvantage another racial group on account of their race in admissions. Admissions is a zero sum game. It seems a no-brainer decision that discriminating against Asians on account of their race would be unlawful. I would expect the moderates and conservatives to join together on this one. And maybe even a liberal surprise. NYT today: Sometime in the next 10 days, the Supreme Court is expected to tightly restrict or ban race-based affirmative action in college admissions. The ruling could come as soon as tomorrow or as late as Friday, June 30, before the justices leave for their summer break.www.nytimes.com/2023/06/21/briefing/affirmative-action-ruling-scotus.html Given the damning relevant facts (and logic and mathematics) and our constitution I guess it is no surprise the progressive response is to either talk of Clarence Thomas or the benefits of diversity or the evils of white supremacy or the practice of legacy admissions or athletic scholarships. Or a goopy mélange of all of it at once. None of which matter in regards to the case-in-hand. |
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 21, 2023 9:40:34 GMT -5
Don't want to go further down this rabbit hole but I THINK you are agreeing with me that Clarence didn't have an "advantage" only that Fr. Brooks recruited in other areas than where Admissions recruited traditionally (mostly white, Catholic, northeast schools) but perhaps disputing that what he did was "affirmative action." If so, I go back to my original post that different people have different definitions of affirmative action. It may or may not fit your definition. That's perfectly fine one way or the other. Good thing none of us are on the Supreme Court! P.S. In speaking to a staffer at HC who's worked there for 10+ years. She said when she started, alums complained that Holy Cross "wasn't Catholic enough." Now, the chief complaint is Holy Cross is "too woke." I'm "tapping out" now.  |
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 21, 2023 9:41:20 GMT -5
Let's face it, Fr. Brooks did something for the black students that he didn't do for white students - i.e. pro-actively sought out this segment of the student population. So, yes, that was an affirmative (positive) action whether or not it is defined as "Affirmative Action." He never came to my house or my high school to speak to me but, he didn't need to. Frankly, I know that HC never sent anyone to my high school from Admissions or any other department. If my father, uncle and older brother hadn't gone to Holy Cross, I probably would not have known about Holy Cross. I don't know how my other 2 high school classmates knew about Holy Cross. I know I didn't tell them! Next, you'll tell us without your family HC connection, you would have gone to BC. Heaven forbid!  |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 21, 2023 11:32:41 GMT -5
Shame on me, but I never read Fraternity. My understanding, corroborated by posts on this thread, is that President Rougeau statement above is inaccurate. Justice Thomas was clearly the beneficiary of some race targeted recruitment. Probably some race influenced financial aid. The phrase "race-based admissions" suggests to me that race played a role in his application being accepted - basically implying that Fr Brooks recruits wouldn't have gotten in without a thumb on the scale. Without some supporting evidence, I think it's unfair to say Justice Thomas was "the beneficiary of the most overt example of race-based admissions"
|
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 21, 2023 12:07:25 GMT -5
Down the rabbit hole I go - again. With all due respect to my fellow cynical alum, I DID read Fraternity but need a refresher, but Clarence getting in absolutely, positively did get in due to his race. It does NOT follow that he wouldn't have gotten in "without a thumb on the scale."
Brooks was specifically looking for qualified, black students. They had to be black. They had to be qualified. For Brooks, they had to be BOTH. The one did not contradict the other. If Thomas was white, he would not have been in the "Fraternity." He would have had to have gotten in like other whites. Frankly, if he was a smart, white student in Georgia, he probably wouldn't have gone to Holy Cross. He wouldn't have heard of Holy Cross. I believe one of my black, Georgia Classmates was instrumental in connecting Brooks with Thomas. But, if Thomas was "just black" and not smart enough, he wasn't going to be coming to Holy Cross either. Brooks was creating awareness and opportunity to students who probably were unaware of Holy Cross or thought it was unattainable.
So, yes, race definitely played a role in Thomas coming to Holy Cross. But, no, there was no "thumb on the scale" any more than Bob Kissane, as an example, had a thumb on the scale because he played basketball very well, or Gordie Lockbaum played football extremely well.
Or, Tom, am I misinterpreting what you said? Just the cynic in me, maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 21, 2023 12:47:29 GMT -5
Maybe slight misinterpretation.
If Fr Brooks had not gone on his recruiting trail, but divine inspiration told Justice Thomas and the others to apply to an outstanding small school in New England, I was under the impression they would have gotten in. Albert Einstein didn't have to settle on inferior B.C. because a less qualified Justice Thomas took his seat,
Maybe I'm delving too deep into semantics. Was race a factor in Justice Thomas and the others getting recruited? Absolutely. A huge factor. Were accommodations made for these specific recruited kids to get really good financial aid packages? Probably - most likely better than the average unsolicited application from a kid from a similar economic background. That does not mean race was a factor in the accept/reject/waiting list decision? Maybe it was, but I think it's probably a disservice to those students to assume it was a factor - and the associated implication I said in my last post.
Towards a similar situation you mentioned, yes I believe athletic ability is a factor in acceptance decisions. Less so at HC than some other schools, but I'm sure it happens to some degree
|
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 21, 2023 12:51:37 GMT -5
I think we are in agreement.😊
|
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 21, 2023 13:31:10 GMT -5
A couple of points: 1. I don't think that Justice Thomas came to HC through the Brooks recruiting trip. IIRC, he had left the seminary because, among other things, he was horrified by his classmates' reaction to the assassination of Dr. King. He was going to to a non flagship state school and someone suggested HC. IIRC, he acknowledged in his autobiography that his grades were less than stellar at that point. The fact that he had a 3.5+ GPA at HC proves he had potential which, as I understand it, is a reason for a holistic admissions policy which includes consideration of race as a factor. 2. Before the other issues arose, CT's position on affirmative action were a big part of the Judiciary Commitee's consideration of the nomination. As he had been head of the EEOC, that is not surprising. I just found the transcript and would point you all to the chairman's questioning of Father Brooks and Judge Gibbons (an alum) at the bottom of page 85 of the transcript and following. Gibbons testified that CT was not opposed to selecting a black student over a white one when they were evenly qualified. I know that affirmative action is more complicated than that, but I don't think CT would find even that level of an advantage permissible today. www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CHRG-102shrg56271Op2/CHRG-102shrg56271Op2/contextYou can find this document elsewhere by googling it and it may not take so long to open. |
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 21, 2023 14:33:48 GMT -5
OK, from "Fraternity:"
After leaving the seminary,
While Bob ("Robert" now) wasn't wild about HC initially, I saw him and talked somewhat extensively at our delayed 50th reunion. Robert made very clear that he had white roommates all 4 years at Holy Cross and was very informative about the "caste system" not only between whites and blacks in Georgia but among blacks that he and Thomas encountered. I knew him freshmen year on our corridor and lost track of him as he ended up an economics major and we had no classes together.
He was, and still seems to be, a very quiet, introspective but very bright person. He and Art Martin pre-dated Fr. Brooks' Fraternity tour.
And while Art was co-founder and very active leader of the BSU, Robert told a group of us that he was, to use his term, only "a de facto member of the BSU."
|
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 21, 2023 14:51:20 GMT -5
We are totally focused on CT. What about HC. In the mid '60's one could not look at the student body and not think the school was de facto segregated. There were almost no African Americans, none in my class. Very few fair skinned Latinos. No women. But there was a group of Africans who ran track and stayed pretty much to themselves. It was not a good campus learning environment.
We were a bunch of white school boys. Our education was rigorous but narrow. This is not to imply racial animus was overtly rampant but white male privilege & ignorant stereotyping of women & racial/ethnic minorities certainly were common. Many of us were aware of the serious shortcomings of the school & did not like it. Some called HC a glorified New England prep school with all the negative connotations. It was a white all male academy isolated on a hill. We believed we graduated with a rigorous education but were lagging in areas of awareness of "others" in the wider world.
HC had to change. It was the right thing to do for the students - applicants & those on campus. Of course there will always be some who will engage in "what absolutism" in blind defense of the school they love. However these arguments do not truly address the serious issues at HC nor constructively point in a positive direction for the school. Fr. Brooks and those who followed him to today's President Vincent Rougeau were concerned about these problems with the school and have tried to bring about positive change. And, for this they should be commended. HC is a better school today, And, more needs to be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 21, 2023 15:02:19 GMT -5
I wonder if President Rougeau regrets his Boston Globe Op-Ed or at least has reconsidered parts of it.
Justice Thomas receives more than his share of condemnation and criticism from the left and this just smacked of piling on. A faux ‘gotcha’ that accomplished nothing. Let’s have some other progressive college president launch the next attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jun 21, 2023 15:06:29 GMT -5
I wonder if President Rougeau regrets his Boston Globe Op-Ed or at least has reconsidered parts of it. Justice Thomas receives more than his share of condemnation and criticism from the left and this just smacked of piling on. A faux ‘gotcha’ that accomplished nothing. Let’s have some other progressive college president launch the next attack. Totally disagree. My guess whether he regrets it: not one word. |
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 21, 2023 15:15:10 GMT -5
I wonder if President Rougeau regrets his Boston Globe Op-Ed or at least has reconsidered parts of it. Justice Thomas receives more than his share of condemnation and criticism from the left and this just smacked of piling on. A faux ‘gotcha’ that accomplished nothing. Let’s have some other progressive college president launch the next attack. Totally disagree. My guess whether he regrets it: not one word. I understand his circle may think the world of this sort of thing…but Dan McLaughlin is not alone in his distaste for this public OP-Ed by an HC president directed against our most prominent (and accomplished) alum…we’ll see. |
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 21, 2023 15:24:52 GMT -5
I wonder if President Rougeau regrets his Boston Globe Op-Ed or at least has reconsidered parts of it. Justice Thomas receives more than his share of condemnation and criticism from the left and this just smacked of piling on. A faux ‘gotcha’ that accomplished nothing. Let’s have some other progressive college president launch the next attack. Totally disagree. My guess whether he regrets it: not one word. newfie guy, you are being played by someone who is merely trying to gain attention by making controversial comments. Note the silent reaction to his comments on the board. Peace |
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Jun 21, 2023 15:25:13 GMT -5
I'll say this, very few schools in the country have such politically, polarizing alums as CT and AF....in many ways it's a tribute to the school.
It's a very hot-button issue. I remembah the Bakke/medical school case back when I was still in high school and disco was all the rage.
No easy answers/solutions.
|
|
|
|
Post by HC13 on Jun 21, 2023 19:33:06 GMT -5
We are totally focused on CT. What about HC. In the mid '60's one could not look at the student body and not think the school was de facto segregated. There were almost no African Americans, none in my class. Very few fair skinned Latinos. No women. But there was a group of Africans who ran track and stayed pretty much to themselves. It was not a good campus learning environment. We were a bunch of white school boys. Our education was rigorous but narrow. This is not to imply racial animus was overtly rampant but white male privilege & ignorant stereotyping of women & racial/ethnic minorities certainly were common. Many of us were aware of the serious shortcomings of the school & did not like it. Some called HC a glorified New England prep school with all the negative connotations. It was a white all male academy isolated on a hill. We believed we graduated with a rigorous education but were lagging in areas of awareness of "others" in the wider world. HC had to change. It was the right thing to do for the students - applicants & those on campus. Of course there will always be some who will engage in "what absolutism" in blind defense of the school they love. However these arguments do not truly address the serious issues at HC nor constructively point in a positive direction for the school. Fr. Brooks and those who followed him to today's President Vincent Rougeau were concerned about these problems with the school and have tried to bring about positive change. And, for this they should be commended. HC is a better school today, And, more needs to be done. All true, however, you could substitute the name of virtually any northeast private school, including nearly all the Ivies & Little Ivies, for HC and the criticisms would still be valid. Personally, I have never understood why Fr. Swords gets so little credit for the changes that began under his tenure as president, espically in the late '60s. Without his full support for Fr. Brooks, the Fratenity may never happened. |
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 21, 2023 21:23:39 GMT -5
On this particular matter (race-based affirmative action in college admissions), Justice Thomas is quite clearly in the mainstream: Most Americans oppose race-based admissions programs, polls show. When these programs have appeared on the ballot, they have almost always lost, including in Arizona, California, Michigan and Washington State, which are hardly red states. www.nytimes.com/2023/06/21/briefing/affirmative-action-ruling-scotus.html |
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 22, 2023 2:46:18 GMT -5
I'll say this, very few schools in the country have such politically, polarizing alums as CT and AF....in many ways it's a tribute to the school. It's a very hot-button issue. I remembah the Bakke/medical school case back when I was still in high school and disco was all the rage. No easy answers/solutions. I dreamed of winning the lottery and donating enough to HC to build the Anthony Fauci School of Medicine at The College of the Holy Cross. But with all the backlash against him, I'd have to donate enough for the Clarence Thomas School of Law at the College of the Holy Cross to balance the backlash. Leaving me enough winnings after taxes for a Dunkin Donut.🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 22, 2023 5:51:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 22, 2023 6:07:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Jun 22, 2023 6:08:38 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.the world would be a different - and far better, in my view - place if there was widespread adoption of your tolerant and open-minded practices. not to mention, we would all be better informed on key issues and have more understanding opinions of people. on that note, academia is an absolute cesspool of close-minded, tribal, and holier than thou attitudes among the faculty and administrators of greatest influence. this is sadly even true in academic medicine, where i have spent the last 20 years of my career. all i can say is be very careful what you trust blindly in the practice of medicine in 2023. |
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 22, 2023 12:50:36 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.the world would be a different - and far better, in my view - place if there was widespread adoption of your tolerant and open-minded practices. not to mention, we would all be better informed on key issues and have more understanding opinions of people. on that note, academia is an absolute cesspool of close-minded, tribal, and holier than thou attitudes among the faculty and administrators of greatest influence. this is sadly even true in academic medicine, where i have spent the last 20 years of my career. all i can say is be very careful what you trust blindly in the practice of medicine in 2023. How does "wholistic medicine" fare in the break rooms of academic medicine? |
|
) 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." 
