I took AP Government as a junior in high school. When we were taught the affirmative action Supreme Court decisions, I couldn’t tell if everyone was genuinely dumb enough to believe that you can dole out “plus factors” to one racial group _without_ simultaneously and necessarily doling out “minus factors” to other groups, or if this was just an exercise of cynical wordplay in order to distort perceptions about what was actually going on. This decision finally means we’ve reached the point where proponents can at last drop the charade and speak honestly about their desire to racially discriminate.
Glenn Loury is extremely smart. His training and language is mathematical economics, and he can easily switch to purely verbal argumentations. Not many can do the other way around.
“Reducing people to representation by racial aggregates is a moral error”. Such a wise point by Glen, this applies beyond race to the various superficial and one-dimensional identity groups.
I was so frustrated hearing/reading the discourse on affirmative action following June’s Supreme Court decision. This debate (more of an intellectual conversation imo) was the most honest and fair assessment of the jurisprudence, political economy, and morality of affirmative action. I will be sharing this video with my sociology students next semester as an assignment. Hats off, Professor Loury & Kennedy!
This was so good. Thank you Glenn! I think if we had one Professor Loury to openly challenge the assertions of each "woke" professor in front of their students, then the institutions of higher learning would be better off. The idea that a "race conscious selection scheme" only "disadvantages" Asian students and doesn't "discriminate" against them is absurd. Preferential or exclusionary admittance based upon categories of race, sex, religion, etc. is by definition discrimination -- full stop -- no pedantic semantic song and dance of obfuscation required. The only point I don't understand why there wasn't any push-back was the presupposition that if students were to be admitted based upon class rather than race, then the majority of poor kids admitted would be white. Is that because there are more impoverished white kids in the USA than any other group? Or is it because it's presumed that there would still be some other type of systemic advantage (i.e. better schools)? If it is due to the former than statistically I suppose that outcome is correctly inferred. But if it is the latter then I completely disagree. I went to a primarily white rural High School and it was trash; filled with drunk, dispassionate, disillusioned teachers who there for the paycheck only. They were largely uninterested in, or ignorant of, the material they were charged to convey. One gem that sticks out in my mind is when we glossed over Gandhi, and I asked a question, having heard he was an amazing leader was told, "Gandhi was a big baby who threw a temper tantrum whenever he didn't get his way. He even wore a diaper."
To be clear, I'm not saying that professors who teach ideas of systemic racism, gender abolitionism, white supremacist patriarchal colonialist oppression, etc. as settled fact should be sent to a gulag. I'm just saying students should hear challenges to their arguments by other professors who can expose the faulty logic and validity of the ideas. Students assume that since a professor is teaching them truth; every statement presented is fact. They need an informed authority figure (professor) to offer push back to ideas which are presented as unassailable truth. That's the environment required for critical thinking to thrive.
This was a really good debate by both sides. The only type of stuff where Renu completely loses me is bringing up decisions from 1964 as an example of recent slights... Like Glenn says it's 2023
It depends on what you mean by ‘be disadvantaged’. It’s one thing to be disadvantaged intentionally by other humans, who could make the decision not to do so (and would probably benefit from it themselves). It’s another to be disadvantaged by one of the many things that can disadvantage a person that is not the fault of any person. Only so much can be reasonably done for such people to ‘right the scales’, especially when you consider that the resources needed to do so have alternative uses.
One could argue that discrimination under the ADA to provide reasonable accommodations to the disabled is discrimination against the able but not of the invidious sort.
I don't fully agree with Dr. Kennedy, but it is so nice to hear him embody coherent left-leaning arguments in a respectful conversation with Dr. Loury... something often absent from the left. What a pleasure.
This was a fantastic discussion to listen to. I agree with Glenn in this instance but I very much appreciate the opposing perspective. Attempting to make up for historical inequalities is very challenging problem.
Current inequalities are due to failed family cultures and wider cultures of poverty. Where education isn't a priority at home, children fail to get educated.
@@billmorrison9068 I certainly agree that plays a part. I think there is probably more to it than just that though or at the very least there have been numerous factors that have contributed to that being the current state of affairs. That’s why I’d say it is a challenging problem to solve.
Professor Loury, superb performance! A point to the question of the first woman on the Supreme Court: I’m looking forward to the “first” (fill in the blank) to earn their spot in such positions. If we search for the best all the time, as in athletics, we’ll see outcomes that we can all support and cheer for.
Randall said that Asians have not been "historically marginalized" in America, which is untrue. He also said that Latinos have been historically marginalized in America, which is untrue. This is simple racial discrimination.
no it's not untrue. Latino is not a race if it was how can you be afro latino or white hispanic? There were no federal laws passed against any race at the rate of foundational blacks Americans. Also when immigrants come to this country they reinforce the discrimination against foundational black americans. It's well documented. It's like an HR at work. they protect the company not the workers. Deny, deflect, diffuse.......
Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to internment camps fewer than 100 years ago. A lot of the Chinese and Taiwanese Americans now in the States fled one of the most horrific protracted conflicts in the world fewer than 100 years ago. Millions of South Asians were displaced from their homes in the subcontinent after decolonization, and many of them ended up in the States. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Venezuelans, Mexicans, Haitians, Dominicans, and others have fled from Latin America. Nigerians straight from the Continent are killing it in the US. These are now some of the most successful ethnic groups in the USA. What are American Black people doing, now? Why don't these people complain about their victimhood?
@@randomcommenteronyoutube1055 what laws were passed against them? I think you should watch a few documentaries or talk to some black people. Also what are poor whites doing wrong they don't face discrimination like american blacks. Why is it considered reverse racism when blacks say they want to have representation with their income and taxation? why is there a war on drugs with blacks but fiddles for whites on drugs? Why when a black man runs for office and wins the white city council refuses to hand over the keys. Why can a hispanic lady illegally sell tamales in nyc but a black man can't sell loose cigarettes? black kids selling water? The mythical bootstrap troupe again. And if all these people are so smart and talented then maybe they should stay and build their countries up?
Isn’t the real problem the lifespan developmental disparities? I think a cluster of efforts, from robust, preschool, local library programs to school choice and urban academies, as well as a cultural marketing program, would be helpful, but young people also need to have hope and expectations that they can achieve financial and social success.
With respect to Prof. Kennedy, saying that the penalty Asian applicants pay is "not discrimination" because it's "only" collateral damage is completely insane. Playing word games ("discriminated against" versus "disadvantaged") does nothing to advance any kind of real argument. It's a distinction without a difference. Asians-- through no fault of our own-- are required to score higher than EVERYONE to have the SAME CHANCE at admission. You don't get justice for African Americans by committing injustice against Asians. That argument essentially boils down to "Sorry, Asians, you gotta take one for the team." No, we don't have to take one for the team. WE didn't institute slavery in the U.S., we weren't even HERE when slavery was going on. We had nothing whatsoever to do with it. If you support affirmative action, you're not concerned with social justice. Stop pretending you are.
I can't believe this guy on the right teaches law at Harvard. He is not our best and brightest which is why he is so upset. Glenn knows he is among our best.
Love the conversation i personally agree with both brothers; both ends of the spectrums of the conversation. More black young men can take notes on how to have an educated debate of “UNDERSTANDING.”
But what about the fact that affirmative action and DEI has dumbed down our education system to the point that a college degree today is the equivalent today to what a high school diploma used to be?? How is this a good thing for the country?
@@basedgamerguy818 I don’t think money is the issue. Do you know that in my state, it is against the law for a school to punish a student for “willful disobedience”. Can you believe that? So if a kid throws an expletive ridden tantrum in the middle of class when the teacher questions him/her about their usual missing homework and nothing will happen to the kid. Have we lost our minds? The parents aren’t disciplining the kids at home (both or single parent working full time). Then they go to school with asinine entitled attitudes, act out and disrupt the class, then everyone has to wait for the brat to get themself under control before teaching can resume. No wonder less that half the kids in this country graduating from high school reach a proficiency level in english and math. You can throw as much money as you want at that mess and it won’t help. The problem, I’m afraid, begins at home. Resources would be better spent on teaching the parents the importance of discipline and accountability in raising a child. It’s also up to the parents to instill in the child the value of education, even if the parent didn’t get one themself. They signed up to have the kid, now they have to step up and do what’s right for the kid over themselves. That may be the ONLY way to fix our downward spiral.
It certainly has that perception at least and even that’s not good. When I see countless vids of certain people in high- level positions using terrible grammar ( won’t be more specific) I immediately think they were a DEI hires. It’s like they aren’t getting the fundamentals yet are hired in these positions. And I also see poor “ competency” levels as well. Decades ago it said something about a person, but not now.
@@Kate-it7cn I hear from friends in HR, the new younger hires have to be hand held through everything. Repeatedly. What the hell is this country going to do inn20 years? Less than half of our high school graduates can READ at a proficient level!
@@ninadaly7639 I was referring to one group who still spoke E bon Icks ( I need to write in code because I get thrown in YT prison.) I am guessing the minorities are skewing our reading and math proficiencies down. They make up a little more than half of the population now.
Should not economic factors be taken into account? I could imagine a middle class black person from a stable home being favored over an asian American person from a poor immigrant family. That would seem unfair, so I would favor taking soocial economic factors into account.
two questions not directly answered: 1. are melanin densities justifiable measures of "diversity"? 2. are governmental/institutional coded melanin preferences ever morally defensible?
It's so weird. The DEI point of view almost leaves me with the impression that I'm supposed to believe that black or brown people ARE , in fact, different.
@@tha1neIs Loury evil then for arguing affirmative action was a net benefit to the country? I don't think Kennedy any ill intent here, just very poor reasoning.
Randall Kennedy’s reminded me of the Sphinx in the movie Mystery Men: Mr. Furious : Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's... The Sphinx : Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage... Mr. Furious : ...your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right? The Sphinx : Not necessarily.
If a professor is in front of me, regardless of their race or color, I have never wondered their qualifications to teach my class due to the color of their skin color or race! I am expecting that professor to teach.
1:19:35. Amen brother! Yes. Every citizen has the right and, I'd argue, the RESPONSIBILITY, to understand, engage and actively involve themselves in the creation, execution and subsequent adjustment of the law, regardless of their legal expertise. The argument from authority has no authority in the discussion of the experience of individuals under the law of the day. We should be actively soliciting (pun maybe intended) the opinions of all citizens when we evaluate the efficacy of our laws and have the courage to change them to better serve the individual and the collective when we see unsatisfactory outcomes
From the legal perspective, Bakke would have gone the other way without diversity. Racial preferences would never have been permitted without the diversity rationale. No matter how much you think that the courts should be a vehicle for piecemeal reparations through the neglect of the equal protection clause in favor of what people these days call "anti-racism" the court does not have the ability to selectively disregard the constitution in the pursuit of some greater justice. The court cannnot pick and choose when to abide by the constitution.
Affirmative action out; equalization of school funding across districts in? (It's a travesty to have funding per student differ by the wealth of their district.) Thanks to all involved. We need to keep having this conversation until we are agreed. It seems progress was made at this valuable debate. A few notes: Randall Kennedy is a splitter of hairs. Distinctions without a difference included: boost vs. preference; disadvantage vs. discrimination; invidious discrimination vs. discrimination. I notice that supporters of affirmative action inwardly wrap the idea in warm fuzzies, so to speak, emotionally and intellectually distancing themselves from the discriminatory implications. Dr. Kennedy moved much more on the issue than I expected, perhaps too much. I can't tell if it's only my bias that makes me feel he didn't represent his side as well; but perhaps that's because it's harder to defend? Dr. Loury is a formidable conversation partner who has seemingly thought long and very deep on the topic, and has the advantage of being an insurgent, and thus knowing he must come more than prepared. This seemed like the beginning of his "ministry". All in all, it was a remarkable conversation. I think the universalist approach will win out, but the conversation isn't done yet; we need to keep engaging supporters of the inegalitarian affirmative action approach until they can let themselves characterize it as such, or the reverse. Wishing our country the ability to find a new and truly humane synthesis on this issue. Thank you
You do realize inner city Detroit / Chicago public schools receive millions more than their less-black neighboring school districts, yeah? If the government equalized funding, you’d see the minorities revolt like it was 2020 all over again!
Over 30 percent of white students at Harvard are legacy students, relative of a donor, or related to a current staff, so if we want to argue against race preferences then we must have the same argument on the preferences I just mentioned. There is evidence that shows benefits of diversed leadership in a workplace but for some reason it only benefits the military. I agree with the fact that we have to address these racial and class inequality at the K-12 grades.
38:17 That hypothetical question about ZERO black admissions is so absurd, beyond the implausibility or weak rhetorical trap he's trying to set. He's basically saying "if reality were radically different, and a university admitted no black people, we would want to know why" Um. Yeah. We would. But it's not, so we don't. And it certainly doesn't serve as an argument for AA
I lost Randall's train of thought when he said that being disadvantaged is different from being discriminated against in this context. What kind of magical thinking is this? Quit the word games.
@@mariejane1567 Yeah, that's the problem. The discrimination by race is a policy decision that becomes the causal factor behind the systematic disadvantage against Asians and advantages to Blacks in college admissions. That's not just, and that's an overstretch of the initial civil rights protections that emerged for Blacks over the decades after the Civil War. Being born black is much different from someone being born with a disadvantage and then living in a state with legally mandated school/job accommodations. Nobody is clearly getting a disadvantage from the policy decision to require reasonable accommodations. Lowering the bar for admission of blacks, or legacies for that matter, by hundreds of SAT composite points when compared with Asian kids is not a reasonable accommodation. It's a systematic form of discrimination. It would also be wrong to give people with disabilities a leg up in college admissions for the same reasons that it's wrong to use racial preferences. Such schema incentivize the doling out of a scarce set of class seats to people who are not as qualified by merit and are less likely to generate a return-on-investment for the privilege of an elite education.
@@randomcommenteronyoutube1055This argument is why I'm also against class-based affirmative action. While it isn't as invidious to the recipients as racial affirmative action, as there is not the same stigma because people can't just look at you and presume you received an advantage, it's still unfair to other applicants and presumably would have the same mismatch issues as racial affirmative action.
18:09 “It’s not that they’re Asian that they’re disadvantaged. It’s that they’re not Black.” Professor Loury is spot-on here. Even though it means to do the other, this “distinction” is actually the same exclusionary thinking of past policies of bigotry.
Yeah, I am up to that bit. If a hospital decides it will only treat white people, it isn't discriminating against black people. The hospital is just discriminating towards white people which is collaterally disadvantaging black people.
It’s favoritism. Not equality. These regressive leftists need to get back in touch with the present and reassess their values. The irony is they purport to be the tolerant ones…
Maybe white supremacist killers should try that in court. "No, no, no, it wasn't a hate crime. I didn't kill him because he was black. I killed him because he wasn't white. Come on, it's right there in the name! I'm a _white supremacist,_ not a black inferiorist."
Imagine…. “We’re not excluding you because you’re black. We’re excluding you because you’re not white.” “That’s discrimination!” “No, no, no. It’s merely disadvantaging certain people based on the need to boost others.”
It's essentially saying black Americans are more deserving of these spots than Asian Americans and to my mind, that goes right to the heart of racism; the idea that a particular race is somehow superior or inferior to another.
Discrimination is discrimination. You can sugar coat it all you want, but it is still discrimination. If you started this diversity agenda in the NBA and started favoring less talented non-blacks over more talented blacks you would hear "racism" being screamed from the rooftops and rightfully so and it would be wrong. Favoring less qualified blacks over more qualified non-blacks is doing exactly the same thing in reverse and it is just as wrong. Glenn understands that. Affirmative action sends out the message that blacks are less talented and capable than non-blacks thus they need an advantage. That sounds a lot like the KKK saying blacks were not as good as whites. Now pro-affirmative action people are saying the same thing 'blacks are not as good as non-blacks'. How sad is that?
The problem is you cant be "more qualified" that's statistically impossible there is no measurement for more qualified that has been established. How is a legacy student more qualified? Either you meet the qualifications or you don't. That's why schools release a profile. The Asian guy who got rejected got rejected from every IVY league school. I don't think all eight schools conspired against him and said no you can't come in unison.
@@mariejane1567if you preference admissions based off immutable facts such as race not pertaining to their intellect you will inevitably end up with "less" qualified candidates.
I’ve very surprised that Randall was caught so off guard by Glenn’s argument in support of civil service schools. Seems like an obvious argument that he should already support
Kudos to Mr. Loury for identifying and coherently confronting critical issues on both sides (with suggested solutions) while exposing scattered and confused discourse of a flawed argument.
I think this is one of Glenn Loury's most effective superpowers. He frequently makes better steel man arguments for the opposing position than the opposition can make on their own behalf. Then if he can overcome the steel man arguments, the audience is pretty well convinced.
Is it possible he sees the black plight as more valid? Perhaps he believes achieving mass black wealth in America is the supreme cause no matter the costs or means to others.
Glenn , you are amazing in this podcast . Professor Kennedy , is a very bright gentleman yet in this debate he is far overshadowed by Professor Loury . Thanks to all involved for giving me much 'food for thought' ... May God bless both of these fine minds !
not really the argument that somebody should be admitted over someone because of tests scores but there is still a protected class of legacy students who don't have to meet the criteria helps who exactly? The other argument would be this "more qualified" is immeasurable and not established..... either you qualified or you didn't.
@@jrdoran nope he didn't have to. Just like he didn't argue about states rights. which conservatives love except for now then they go to the supreme court and whine.... UNC is a state school they have an obligation to protect and serve the residents if the state first. Not some kid out of state. That's the problem now all the white kids from georgia can't go to georgia tech because kids are coming out of state. the mission was never to accept the highest test scores it was to educate the students of the state.
@@jrdoran I've actually heard Glenn say if Universities were serious about "DEI" the first thing they would do is abolish legacy admissions, but the rich virtue signalling benefactors will never do anything that actually affects them,
Kennedy desperately trying to find a sliver of distinction so that this isn't explicit outright racial discrimination at the front of the debate is really insightful on the debate culture as a whole. This really sums up the issues with debate on this topic even at the highest most civil levels. "I wouldn't say it's discrimination..." lol. What a beatdown and Glen Loury is a universal treasure. Kudos for Kennedy for coming out and fighting...more than we can say for many others.
This is a Harvard law professor? I knew that academia wasn't it was all it was cracked up to be, but the idea that this is the intellectual pinnacle of the discipline... is humiliating.
Kennedy should have been asked, “Ok, we’ll use disadvantage. Do you think it’s acceptable to have policies that knowingly put Asians at a disadvantage?”
The consensus of the comments of which I absolutely agree, is that Randy‘s argument is based on trying to manipulate the reality to suit an ideology. Glenn won this debate, and buy a large margin. In fact, Randy‘s argument was so weak that anyone who was on the fence or naive about the subject would’ve been repelled by Randy‘s clearly motivated reasoning.
Should financial scholarships be given to certain groups because of their race or should they be given based on need? Should a poor black person be given preference over a poor white person even if that poor white person is factually in greater need?
I have never heard such an intellectually arrogant and illegitimate defense of affirmative action than Prof. Kennedy’s argument. I have always supported AA but if his thinking drives it today then I will rethink my position.
I took AP classes in high school but when it came time for the finals my family wasn't able to pay for them. So it's clear to me that we have a class problem and not a race problem
The more I hear Dr. Kennedy talk, the more I want him to appear with John and Glenn on their show. An hour plus of affirmative action discussion where no one called anyone a racist or a race traitor? In 2023??? What an enriching and wonderful anomaly to experience.
Glenn is as valuable to our as Tom Sowell. His intellect and ability to critically reason are truly elite. Just a reminder - he’s an accomplished economist too.
Absolutely! Glen will be remembered for a very long time. It’s absolutely amazing to be alive to witness such a great man making an *actual* impact for the betterment of our society.
Many groups don't want to "reach their full potential". Buddhists in US rarely study facts and become doctors, it's not worth the stress. American Indians even if rich and sons of elected tribe members, rarely become docs. ITS NOT WORTH THE STRESS. A nap, beer, F, smell the flowers is more enjoyable. Till you make all races uptight pricks like the Chinese there will be differences, in school... Blacks on other hand overdo sports, should we mandate no more than 30% blacks on HS or college or pro team????. Elite systems exaggeerate these mild differences... Just saying, no, culture MAKES different outcomes, demand more Buddhists become accountants to be equal is never gonna happen.... Its hilarious we just ignore these facts amd claim guess society hates blacks and loves Chinese, huh, nope, Chineese study harder!!!!!!! Now let's discriminate to keep Chinese college students low enough to let in some blacks!! Equality!!!!!
white men always seem xconcerned that they're getting the short stick--when even now in 2023, white men make MORE money than anyone elwse, white men are still vast MAJORITY ofr CEOS & top executives in Fortune 500 companies and significant sized corporations. White men are MAJORITY of political & institutional leaders. So, you can calm down; White men's "superior place" remains secure. The rest of us who are NOT white men (EXCEPT for white men who grew up in LOW-INCOME situations).
no that's not the argument. The argument is really what difference does the SAT score make practically vs a single profile that makes up the overwhelming majority of Asian applicants. They want participation points for other things like chess club. The real question is are people okay with the next freshman class being all immigrants from India, China and Nigeria?? All these countries need to do is say is we will pay for any kid who scores between a 1550 and 1600 to go to school in the US and no american kids would be able to go. The only thing saving white kids is legacy admissions.
I’m a big fan of Glenn. Humans are flawed, so there will always be some level of bias, unfortunately. That being said, we’re dumbing down our kids and the standards are being lowered to accommodate a narrative imho. Education K-12 has to get better and we should expect more from our kids not less, simply stated.
Exactly. What a preposterous idea he declared. Disadvantages based on ethnicity fits the very definition of racism and racial discrimination. Dr Kennedy is clearly defending a bad idea if he needs to contradict himself to defend it. He’s denying reality because it disproves his theory.
This is the most candid, constructive and informative debate I have watched on the subject. The 2 guest debaters were very polite, informative and, even more importantly, intellectually honest. Truly a refreshing debate.
Imagine going to a doctor and finding out they lowered the standards for him/her to get into undergrad, graduate and medical school and lowered the standards so they could graduate and practice. How would you feel as a patient? as the doctor
The tentacles of AA are only limited by the imagination of leftist lawyers. Extend the AA argument in Healthcare one more step: it means whites and Asians will be pushed (say by insurance which tries to hit race goals) to the low tier doctors, while white and Asian doctors will primarily see blacks and Hispanics because they (doctors) have to hit race targets.... and on and on
@@ryansookram4023 What kind of stupid are you. I said they all have to pass the same exam's. And how would you know they lowered the bar for black medical students
This is amazing. It’s so wonderful to hear two passionate adults debate, like adults. I will happily listen to opposing points of view when presented this way. It makes me dig deeper into what I believe to see if I truly believe it, or am I swayed to consider the opposing view for further discussion? More of this please n America would truly be a blessing.
A fair comment, but one thing I at least believe I have learned about IQ over the years, is that often times our personality and formative experiences color our perceptions first and foremost. After that, our cognition simply works to falsify opposing hypotheses. We do everything in our power, at least generally, to hold to the things we view as sacrosanct. We'll do backflips and tie ourselves in knots if need be, just to not let go of those beliefs. So when you're really intelligent, you mostly just get better at defending yourself, right or wrong. High intelligence allows us do so more convincingly, but it doesn't necessarily make us more likely to be correct. Hence Kennedy's strong intellect despite his utter wrongness.@@superjnovaannularaurora9065
The incredible irony here is that Dr. Kennedy’s entire argument in the Supreme Court case, correct me if I’m wrong, is also a refutation of the concept of “disparate impact”.
I'm sure those southerners during Jim Crow were just giving whites a boost and not discriminating against black people. There's a moral difference right Randal?
It only makes sense that the group who created a civilized society would do that. If things were reversed I promise you b’s would NEVER have freed the slaves AND given them rights!
I took AP Government as a junior in high school. When we were taught the affirmative action Supreme Court decisions, I couldn’t tell if everyone was genuinely dumb enough to believe that you can dole out “plus factors” to one racial group _without_ simultaneously and necessarily doling out “minus factors” to other groups, or if this was just an exercise of cynical wordplay in order to distort perceptions about what was actually going on. This decision finally means we’ve reached the point where proponents can at last drop the charade and speak honestly about their desire to racially discriminate.
Glenn Loury is extremely smart. His training and language is mathematical economics, and he can easily switch to purely verbal argumentations. Not many can do the other way around.
It's clear Glenn sees the future outcomes of these policies. He cares about the black community so much. You can hear it in his voice.
“Reducing people to representation by racial aggregates is a moral error”. Such a wise point by Glen, this applies beyond race to the various superficial and one-dimensional identity groups.
Totally agree.
I was so frustrated hearing/reading the discourse on affirmative action following June’s Supreme Court decision. This debate (more of an intellectual conversation imo) was the most honest and fair assessment of the jurisprudence, political economy, and morality of affirmative action. I will be sharing this video with my sociology students next semester as an assignment. Hats off, Professor Loury & Kennedy!
Randall was spinning the truth --- Glenn went for the real truth --- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
What I’d give for one iota of Glenn’s eloquence
What amazes me is the more passionate he gets, the more eloquent. When I get worked up, I can't find the right words.
I know right?
This was so good. Thank you Glenn! I think if we had one Professor Loury to openly challenge the assertions of each "woke" professor in front of their students, then the institutions of higher learning would be better off.
The idea that a "race conscious selection scheme" only "disadvantages" Asian students and doesn't "discriminate" against them is absurd. Preferential or exclusionary admittance based upon categories of race, sex, religion, etc. is by definition discrimination -- full stop -- no pedantic semantic song and dance of obfuscation required.
The only point I don't understand why there wasn't any push-back was the presupposition that if students were to be admitted based upon class rather than race, then the majority of poor kids admitted would be white.
Is that because there are more impoverished white kids in the USA than any other group? Or is it because it's presumed that there would still be some other type of systemic advantage (i.e. better schools)?
If it is due to the former than statistically I suppose that outcome is correctly inferred. But if it is the latter then I completely disagree. I went to a primarily white rural High School and it was trash; filled with drunk, dispassionate, disillusioned teachers who there for the paycheck only. They were largely uninterested in, or ignorant of, the material they were charged to convey. One gem that sticks out in my mind is when we glossed over Gandhi, and I asked a question, having heard he was an amazing leader was told, "Gandhi was a big baby who threw a temper tantrum whenever he didn't get his way. He even wore a diaper."
To be clear, I'm not saying that professors who teach ideas of systemic racism, gender abolitionism, white supremacist patriarchal colonialist oppression, etc. as settled fact should be sent to a gulag. I'm just saying students should hear challenges to their arguments by other professors who can expose the faulty logic and validity of the ideas.
Students assume that since a professor is teaching them truth; every statement presented is fact. They need an informed authority figure (professor) to offer push back to ideas which are presented as unassailable truth. That's the environment required for critical thinking to thrive.
Ghandi was a racist look it up
“Separate, but equal”. It is ironic Randy speaks of double talk on this issue.
@@lingoistj1956 the woke, and the kind of racists they claim to stand against are two sides of the same coin.
@@lingoistj1956if you are married to the idea of affirmative action, you have to do this.
We NEED more of these conversations
Instead of 45,000 people viewing this video, it needs to be 45 million. 🙏🇺🇸
Glenn
Amazing debate
You are amazing in thought and articulation
Thank YOU
Respect
This was a really good debate by both sides. The only type of stuff where Renu completely loses me is bringing up decisions from 1964 as an example of recent slights... Like Glenn says it's 2023
This is the best debate I have seen on this issue.
This was a truly excellent exchange, well worth the time. Oh and we can't get Roland Fryer back into a position of influence fast enough.
Why should anyone be disadvantaged for something they hold no responsibility for?
It depends on what you mean by ‘be disadvantaged’. It’s one thing to be disadvantaged intentionally by other humans, who could make the decision not to do so (and would probably benefit from it themselves). It’s another to be disadvantaged by one of the many things that can disadvantage a person that is not the fault of any person. Only so much can be reasonably done for such people to ‘right the scales’, especially when you consider that the resources needed to do so have alternative uses.
@@jmass4207 No student living today should be expected to right the wrongs of people from the past. It is not just.
14:30 discriminated against = invidious discrimination - is there discrimination that isnt invidious?
One could argue that discrimination under the ADA to provide reasonable accommodations to the disabled is discrimination against the able but not of the invidious sort.
Or that discriminating against women in certain military combat roles isn't invidious as its not done out of malice or pure stereotyping.
I don't fully agree with Dr. Kennedy, but it is so nice to hear him embody coherent left-leaning arguments in a respectful conversation with Dr. Loury... something often absent from the left. What a pleasure.
This was a fantastic discussion to listen to. I agree with Glenn in this instance but I very much appreciate the opposing perspective. Attempting to make up for historical inequalities is very challenging problem.
Current inequalities are due to failed family cultures and wider cultures of poverty. Where education isn't a priority at home, children fail to get educated.
@@billmorrison9068 I certainly agree that plays a part. I think there is probably more to it than just that though or at the very least there have been numerous factors that have contributed to that being the current state of affairs. That’s why I’d say it is a challenging problem to solve.
Professor Loury, superb performance!
A point to the question of the first woman on the Supreme Court: I’m looking forward to the “first” (fill in the blank) to earn their spot in such positions. If we search for the best all the time, as in athletics, we’ll see outcomes that we can all support and cheer for.
Amazing discussion.
24:48 - 26:00
Glenn, It is refreshing to see to people with opposing views to actually have a conversation. Great content.
Randall said that Asians have not been "historically marginalized" in America, which is untrue. He also said that Latinos have been historically marginalized in America, which is untrue. This is simple racial discrimination.
no it's not untrue. Latino is not a race if it was how can you be afro latino or white hispanic? There were no federal laws passed against any race at the rate of foundational blacks Americans. Also when immigrants come to this country they reinforce the discrimination against foundational black americans. It's well documented. It's like an HR at work. they protect the company not the workers. Deny, deflect, diffuse.......
Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to internment camps fewer than 100 years ago. A lot of the Chinese and Taiwanese Americans now in the States fled one of the most horrific protracted conflicts in the world fewer than 100 years ago. Millions of South Asians were displaced from their homes in the subcontinent after decolonization, and many of them ended up in the States. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Venezuelans, Mexicans, Haitians, Dominicans, and others have fled from Latin America. Nigerians straight from the Continent are killing it in the US. These are now some of the most successful ethnic groups in the USA. What are American Black people doing, now? Why don't these people complain about their victimhood?
@@randomcommenteronyoutube1055 what laws were passed against them? I think you should watch a few documentaries or talk to some black people. Also what are poor whites doing wrong they don't face discrimination like american blacks. Why is it considered reverse racism when blacks say they want to have representation with their income and taxation? why is there a war on drugs with blacks but fiddles for whites on drugs? Why when a black man runs for office and wins the white city council refuses to hand over the keys. Why can a hispanic lady illegally sell tamales in nyc but a black man can't sell loose cigarettes? black kids selling water? The mythical bootstrap troupe again. And if all these people are so smart and talented then maybe they should stay and build their countries up?
Isn’t the real problem the lifespan developmental disparities? I think a cluster of efforts, from robust, preschool, local library programs to school choice and urban academies, as well as a cultural marketing program, would be helpful, but young people also need to have hope and expectations that they can achieve financial and social success.
With respect to Prof. Kennedy, saying that the penalty Asian applicants pay is "not discrimination" because it's "only" collateral damage is completely insane. Playing word games ("discriminated against" versus "disadvantaged") does nothing to advance any kind of real argument. It's a distinction without a difference. Asians-- through no fault of our own-- are required to score higher than EVERYONE to have the SAME CHANCE at admission. You don't get justice for African Americans by committing injustice against Asians. That argument essentially boils down to "Sorry, Asians, you gotta take one for the team." No, we don't have to take one for the team. WE didn't institute slavery in the U.S., we weren't even HERE when slavery was going on. We had nothing whatsoever to do with it. If you support affirmative action, you're not concerned with social justice. Stop pretending you are.
body language important and i appreciate the full-body, single angle video
I can't believe this guy on the right teaches law at Harvard. He is not our best and brightest which is why he is so upset. Glenn knows he is among our best.
He didn't seem upset to me
Love the conversation i personally agree with both brothers; both ends of the spectrums of the conversation. More black young men can take notes on how to have an educated debate of “UNDERSTANDING.”
But what about the fact that affirmative action and DEI has dumbed down our education system to the point that a college degree today is the equivalent today to what a high school diploma used to be?? How is this a good thing for the country?
that is due to k-12 being defunded
@@basedgamerguy818 I don’t think money is the issue. Do you know that in my state, it is against the law for a school to punish a student for “willful disobedience”. Can you believe that? So if a kid throws an expletive ridden tantrum in the middle of class when the teacher questions him/her about their usual missing homework and nothing will happen to the kid. Have we lost our minds? The parents aren’t disciplining the kids at home (both or single parent working full time). Then they go to school with asinine entitled attitudes, act out and disrupt the class, then everyone has to wait for the brat to get themself under control before teaching can resume. No wonder less that half the kids in this country graduating from high school reach a proficiency level in english and math. You can throw as much money as you want at that mess and it won’t help. The problem, I’m afraid, begins at home. Resources would be better spent on teaching the parents the importance of discipline and accountability in raising a child. It’s also up to the parents to instill in the child the value of education, even if the parent didn’t get one themself. They signed up to have the kid, now they have to step up and do what’s right for the kid over themselves. That may be the ONLY way to fix our downward spiral.
It certainly has that perception at least and even that’s not good.
When I see countless vids of certain people in high- level positions using terrible grammar ( won’t be more specific) I immediately think they were a DEI hires.
It’s like they aren’t getting the fundamentals yet are hired in these positions. And I also see poor “ competency” levels as well.
Decades ago it said something about a person, but not now.
@@Kate-it7cn I hear from friends in HR, the new younger hires have to be hand held through everything. Repeatedly. What the hell is this country going to do inn20 years? Less than half of our high school graduates can READ at a proficient level!
@@ninadaly7639 I was referring to one group who still spoke E bon Icks ( I need to write in code because I get thrown in YT prison.)
I am guessing the minorities are skewing our reading and math proficiencies down.
They make up a little more than half of the population now.
That was a solid discussion
Glenn is an absolute force.
Randall Kennedy is essentially arguing that systematic racism is ok.
Should not economic factors be taken into account? I could imagine a middle class black person from a stable home being favored over an asian American person from a poor immigrant family. That would seem unfair, so I would favor taking soocial economic factors into account.
In an academic institution??
two questions not directly answered:
1. are melanin densities justifiable measures of "diversity"?
2. are governmental/institutional coded melanin preferences ever morally defensible?
It's so weird. The DEI point of view almost leaves me with the impression that I'm supposed to believe that black or brown people ARE , in fact, different.
@@franzsperginand113there is no "brown" really when it comes to blacks because they discriminate against as well.
I do not agree with Mr. Kennedy but I do appreciate his willingness to listen and be rational
Asian-America is not one monolith....
It was a valiant effort but Randall Kennedy knows his argument is a losing one long-term.
they are not but the profiles of the ones who apply are 🤷🏽♀️
not valiant at all, pretty evil actually
@@tha1neIs Loury evil then for arguing affirmative action was a net benefit to the country? I don't think Kennedy any ill intent here, just very poor reasoning.
@@kg356 nah, he’s purposely obfuscating the very real racial discrimination against Asians. Evil shit right there
Randall Kennedy’s reminded me of the Sphinx in the movie Mystery Men:
Mr. Furious : Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's...
The Sphinx : Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage...
Mr. Furious : ...your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right?
The Sphinx : Not necessarily.
If a professor is in front of me, regardless of their race or color, I have never wondered their qualifications to teach my class due to the color of their skin color or race! I am expecting that professor to teach.
A boost based on characteristics. Is language a characteristic?
1:19:35. Amen brother! Yes. Every citizen has the right and, I'd argue, the RESPONSIBILITY, to understand, engage and actively involve themselves in the creation, execution and subsequent adjustment of the law, regardless of their legal expertise. The argument from authority has no authority in the discussion of the experience of individuals under the law of the day. We should be actively soliciting (pun maybe intended) the opinions of all citizens when we evaluate the efficacy of our laws and have the courage to change them to better serve the individual and the collective when we see unsatisfactory outcomes
A long convoluted journey just to get to the issues. Good big brain good big brain and waste of time
From the legal perspective, Bakke would have gone the other way without diversity. Racial preferences would never have been permitted without the diversity rationale.
No matter how much you think that the courts should be a vehicle for piecemeal reparations through the neglect of the equal protection clause in favor of what people these days call "anti-racism" the court does not have the ability to selectively disregard the constitution in the pursuit of some greater justice. The court cannnot pick and choose when to abide by the constitution.
Teachers get what they can get in schools. How about we teach people how to be responsible parents??
Glen is brilliant
Going back 60 years not enough? How about 160 years.
Ask Rome, Spain, Portugal, England and if not successful, america!?
Affirmative action out; equalization of school funding across districts in? (It's a travesty to have funding per student differ by the wealth of their district.)
Thanks to all involved. We need to keep having this conversation until we are agreed. It seems progress was made at this valuable debate.
A few notes:
Randall Kennedy is a splitter of hairs. Distinctions without a difference included: boost vs. preference; disadvantage vs. discrimination; invidious discrimination vs. discrimination. I notice that supporters of affirmative action inwardly wrap the idea in warm fuzzies, so to speak, emotionally and intellectually distancing themselves from the discriminatory implications.
Dr. Kennedy moved much more on the issue than I expected, perhaps too much. I can't tell if it's only my bias that makes me feel he didn't represent his side as well; but perhaps that's because it's harder to defend?
Dr. Loury is a formidable conversation partner who has seemingly thought long and very deep on the topic, and has the advantage of being an insurgent, and thus knowing he must come more than prepared. This seemed like the beginning of his "ministry".
All in all, it was a remarkable conversation. I think the universalist approach will win out, but the conversation isn't done yet; we need to keep engaging supporters of the inegalitarian affirmative action approach until they can let themselves characterize it as such, or the reverse.
Wishing our country the ability to find a new and truly humane synthesis on this issue. Thank you
You do realize inner city Detroit / Chicago public schools receive millions more than their less-black neighboring school districts, yeah? If the government equalized funding, you’d see the minorities revolt like it was 2020 all over again!
Over 30 percent of white students at Harvard are legacy students, relative of a donor, or related to a current staff, so if we want to argue against race preferences then we must have the same argument on the preferences I just mentioned.
There is evidence that shows benefits of diversed leadership in a workplace but for some reason it only benefits the military.
I agree with the fact that we have to address these racial and class inequality at the K-12 grades.
Better? Ok.
Mindy Kaling
38:17
That hypothetical question about ZERO black admissions is so absurd, beyond the implausibility or weak rhetorical trap he's trying to set. He's basically saying "if reality were radically different, and a university admitted no black people, we would want to know why"
Um. Yeah. We would. But it's not, so we don't. And it certainly doesn't serve as an argument for AA
This Randall guy seems to be making it up as he goes.
Randall Kennedy makes me sick.
I lost Randall's train of thought when he said that being disadvantaged is different from being discriminated against in this context. What kind of magical thinking is this? Quit the word games.
If you are disabled you could have a disadvantage but you may or may not be discriminated because of it.
@@mariejane1567being born disadvantaged is one thing, institutionalizing the doling out of descrimination is another.
@@mariejane1567 Yeah, that's the problem. The discrimination by race is a policy decision that becomes the causal factor behind the systematic disadvantage against Asians and advantages to Blacks in college admissions. That's not just, and that's an overstretch of the initial civil rights protections that emerged for Blacks over the decades after the Civil War.
Being born black is much different from someone being born with a disadvantage and then living in a state with legally mandated school/job accommodations. Nobody is clearly getting a disadvantage from the policy decision to require reasonable accommodations. Lowering the bar for admission of blacks, or legacies for that matter, by hundreds of SAT composite points when compared with Asian kids is not a reasonable accommodation. It's a systematic form of discrimination.
It would also be wrong to give people with disabilities a leg up in college admissions for the same reasons that it's wrong to use racial preferences. Such schema incentivize the doling out of a scarce set of class seats to people who are not as qualified by merit and are less likely to generate a return-on-investment for the privilege of an elite education.
Kennedy is a fool is is a black supremacist. He can even see when you boost one set all others are discriminated. He doing word salad
@@randomcommenteronyoutube1055This argument is why I'm also against class-based affirmative action. While it isn't as invidious to the recipients as racial affirmative action, as there is not the same stigma because people can't just look at you and presume you received an advantage, it's still unfair to other applicants and presumably would have the same mismatch issues as racial affirmative action.
this wasn't a debate, this was just Glenn teaching Randall about affirmative action
Yes.
I disagree. I see both arguments as a black person.
@@4greendeep6
I considered myself as a person that was born black. 😊
Stop. Randall Kennedy made cogent arguments and got Glenn Loury concede that historically affirmative action was a net positive.
Randall is talking in circles. Desperately trying to make false distinctions. Conflating disadvantage vs discrimination. Nice try. Glenn Schooled him
18:09 “It’s not that they’re Asian that they’re disadvantaged. It’s that they’re not Black.”
Professor Loury is spot-on here. Even though it means to do the other, this “distinction” is actually the same exclusionary thinking of past policies of bigotry.
Yeah, I am up to that bit. If a hospital decides it will only treat white people, it isn't discriminating against black people. The hospital is just discriminating towards white people which is collaterally disadvantaging black people.
It’s favoritism. Not equality. These regressive leftists need to get back in touch with the present and reassess their values. The irony is they purport to be the tolerant ones…
Maybe white supremacist killers should try that in court. "No, no, no, it wasn't a hate crime. I didn't kill him because he was black. I killed him because he wasn't white. Come on, it's right there in the name! I'm a _white supremacist,_ not a black inferiorist."
Imagine….
“We’re not excluding you because you’re black. We’re excluding you because you’re not white.”
“That’s discrimination!”
“No, no, no. It’s merely disadvantaging certain people based on the need to boost others.”
It's essentially saying black Americans are more deserving of these spots than Asian Americans and to my mind, that goes right to the heart of racism; the idea that a particular race is somehow superior or inferior to another.
Collectivism often impedes rational thought.
Well said!!!!!!
Discrimination is discrimination. You can sugar coat it all you want, but it is still discrimination. If you started this diversity agenda in the NBA and started favoring less talented non-blacks over more talented blacks you would hear "racism" being screamed from the rooftops and rightfully so and it would be wrong. Favoring less qualified blacks over more qualified non-blacks is doing exactly the same thing in reverse and it is just as wrong. Glenn understands that. Affirmative action sends out the message that blacks are less talented and capable than non-blacks thus they need an advantage. That sounds a lot like the KKK saying blacks were not as good as whites. Now pro-affirmative action people are saying the same thing 'blacks are not as good as non-blacks'. How sad is that?
I am mediocre at basketball….they need to add 15 points to my average at the end so I can make it to the NBA!!
The problem is you cant be
"more qualified" that's statistically impossible there is no measurement for more qualified that has been established. How is a legacy student more qualified? Either you meet the qualifications or you don't. That's why schools
release a profile. The Asian guy who got rejected got rejected from every IVY league school. I don't think all eight schools conspired against him and said no you can't come in unison.
@@mariejane1567if you preference admissions based off immutable facts such as race not pertaining to their intellect you will inevitably end up with "less" qualified candidates.
@@jrdoran what are the "qualifications"? you can't be more qualified either you meet the qualifications or you don't.....
this is the one
I’ve very surprised that Randall was caught so off guard by Glenn’s argument in support of civil service schools. Seems like an obvious argument that he should already support
I saw it coming. then again I'm not a nitwit.
Kudos to Mr. Loury for identifying and coherently confronting critical issues on both sides (with suggested solutions) while exposing scattered and confused discourse of a flawed argument.
I think this is one of Glenn Loury's most effective superpowers. He frequently makes better steel man arguments for the opposing position than the opposition can make on their own behalf. Then if he can overcome the steel man arguments, the audience is pretty well convinced.
Dr.* Loury
If our leaders were willing to have such substantive dialog and compromise as much as Doctors Loury and Kennedy... we'd ALL be much better off.
Not even in fairy tales.
@mdquaglia,
What are you talking?
Kennedy is a disgrace.
Many of them do not see themselves as your leaders. They see themselves as your rulers.
why can't he see that Asian Americans are being discriminated against
Yes by white Americans
He does....he is just racist
Is it possible he sees the black plight as more valid?
Perhaps he believes achieving mass black wealth in America is the supreme cause no matter the costs or means to others.
@@ashlibabbittcroakedit9108not factual
@edwinamendelssohn5129 Do your research and you will find that is the case
Loury is a beast! God love him.
Glenn , you are amazing in this podcast . Professor Kennedy , is a very bright gentleman yet in this debate he is far overshadowed by Professor Loury . Thanks to all involved for giving me much 'food for thought' ... May God bless both of these fine minds !
Seem more like Randy was on the back peddle most of this session, to the point where he’s more inclined to react emotionally.
Glenn - STANDING OVATION
If you happen to find yourself upset by much of what Glenn says, it might mean that you are reacting emotionally and don't actually understand reality
not really the argument that somebody should be admitted over someone because of tests scores but there is still a protected class of legacy students who don't have to meet the criteria helps who exactly? The other argument would be this "more qualified" is immeasurable and not established..... either you qualified or you didn't.
@@mariejane1567im sorry did glenn argue for legacy admissions during this debate because I heard no such thing. Very nice straw man though.
@@jrdoran nope he didn't have to. Just like he didn't argue about states rights. which conservatives love except for now then they go to the supreme court and whine.... UNC is a state school they have an obligation to protect and serve the residents if the state first. Not some kid out of state. That's the problem now all the white kids from georgia can't go to georgia tech because kids are coming out of state. the mission was never to accept the highest test scores it was to educate the students of the state.
@@jrdoran I've actually heard Glenn say if Universities were serious about "DEI" the first thing they would do is abolish legacy admissions, but the rich virtue signalling benefactors will never do anything that actually affects them,
Kennedy desperately trying to find a sliver of distinction so that this isn't explicit outright racial discrimination at the front of the debate is really insightful on the debate culture as a whole. This really sums up the issues with debate on this topic even at the highest most civil levels. "I wouldn't say it's discrimination..." lol. What a beatdown and Glen Loury is a universal treasure. Kudos for Kennedy for coming out and fighting...more than we can say for many others.
This is a Harvard law professor?
I knew that academia wasn't it was all it was cracked up to be, but the idea that this is the intellectual pinnacle of the discipline... is humiliating.
Or it's just such a weak argument there isn't much to say beyond appeals to emotional thinking about how bad racism is and US history.
@@kg356Truth. The capability of the messenger is not the problem. The problem lies in the absence of plausible arguments at his disposal.
Kennedy should have been asked, “Ok, we’ll use disadvantage. Do you think it’s acceptable to have policies that knowingly put Asians at a disadvantage?”
it doesn't put Asians as a group at a disadvantage.
It absolutely puts Asians (as a group) at disadvantage
Too many Jews and Asians. Some things haven’t changed. LMFAO
The consensus of the comments of which I absolutely agree, is that Randy‘s argument is based on trying to manipulate the reality to suit an ideology. Glenn won this debate, and buy a large margin. In fact, Randy‘s argument was so weak that anyone who was on the fence or naive about the subject would’ve been repelled by Randy‘s clearly motivated reasoning.
I refer to "progressives" as "regressives".
@@TipToe67oh gee how drole. you don't seem to understand the difference between liberals and progressives
this wasn't a debate it was a conversation
Should financial scholarships be given to certain groups because of their race or should they be given based on need? Should a poor black person be given preference over a poor white person even if that poor white person is factually in greater need?
I have never heard such an intellectually arrogant and illegitimate defense of affirmative action than Prof. Kennedy’s argument. I have always supported AA but if his thinking drives it today then I will rethink my position.
I took AP classes in high school but when it came time for the finals my family wasn't able to pay for them. So it's clear to me that we have a class problem and not a race problem
Hell yeah
Same with me..completely a class issue regardless of race
You enrolled in a class for which your family could not afford fees for the final exam? Was the final not part of the course?
@@straightup7up for me, they were my high school classes & yes the fee was extra…this was the 90s.
@@straightup7upGood point. Was this class a scam? 🤔😳
Wow -- 15 minutes in Kennedy lawyering hard -- "invidious discrimination" Gimme a break.
The more I hear Dr. Kennedy talk, the more I want him to appear with John and Glenn on their show. An hour plus of affirmative action discussion where no one called anyone a racist or a race traitor? In 2023??? What an enriching and wonderful anomaly to experience.
Go Glenn!!!
Glenn is as valuable to our as Tom Sowell. His intellect and ability to critically reason are truly elite. Just a reminder - he’s an accomplished economist too.
Absolutely! Glen will be remembered for a very long time. It’s absolutely amazing to be alive to witness such a great man making an *actual* impact for the betterment of our society.
Absolutely
I don't have any answers. But I sure do want to people reach their full potential.
Many groups don't want to "reach their full potential". Buddhists in US rarely study facts and become doctors, it's not worth the stress. American Indians even if rich and sons of elected tribe members, rarely become docs. ITS NOT WORTH THE STRESS. A nap, beer, F, smell the flowers is more enjoyable. Till you make all races uptight pricks like the Chinese there will be differences, in school... Blacks on other hand overdo sports, should we mandate no more than 30% blacks on HS or college or pro team????. Elite systems exaggeerate these mild differences... Just saying, no, culture MAKES different outcomes, demand more Buddhists become accountants to be equal is never gonna happen.... Its hilarious we just ignore these facts amd claim guess society hates blacks and loves Chinese, huh, nope, Chineese study harder!!!!!!! Now let's discriminate to keep Chinese college students low enough to let in some blacks!! Equality!!!!!
The obvious answer is don't discriminate for or against students based on their race. Period.
you beat his booty, Glenn. well done.
I remember an interview with a woman who owned a business and she was boasting about how diverse her company was because they were 90% women.
Lol.
white men always seem xconcerned that they're getting the short stick--when even now in 2023, white men make MORE money than anyone elwse, white men are still vast MAJORITY ofr CEOS & top executives in Fortune 500 companies and significant sized corporations. White men are MAJORITY of political & institutional leaders. So, you can calm down; White men's "superior place" remains secure. The rest of us who are NOT white men (EXCEPT for white men who grew up in LOW-INCOME situations).
People don’t even know anymore what that word truly means.
It would seem Kennedy believes black oppression warrants special branding or supremacy of victimhood. Isn’t that the real conversation here?
no that's not the argument. The argument is really what difference does the SAT score
make practically vs a single
profile that makes up the overwhelming majority of Asian applicants. They want participation points for other things like chess club. The real question is are people okay with the next freshman class being all immigrants from India, China and Nigeria?? All these countries need to do is say is we will pay for any kid who scores between a 1550 and 1600 to go to school in the US and no american kids would be able to go. The only thing saving white kids is legacy admissions.
@@mariejane1567 we don’t care what color they are. We want the best. Careful, that Identity politics class system is insidious.
@@wills242 the problem is implicit bias and the best isn't measureable
I’m a big fan of Glenn. Humans are flawed, so there will always be some level of bias, unfortunately. That being said, we’re dumbing down our kids and the standards are being lowered to accommodate a narrative imho. Education K-12 has to get better and we should expect more from our kids not less, simply stated.
13:46 what is the result of discrimination if not some kind of disadvantage?
Yeah, that was a low point of the discussion. It was awkward that Randall didn't understand that this is a zero sum game.
@@74357175it's ok as long as those discriminated against aren't black in his mind
Exactly. What a preposterous idea he declared. Disadvantages based on ethnicity fits the very definition of racism and racial discrimination. Dr Kennedy is clearly defending a bad idea if he needs to contradict himself to defend it. He’s denying reality because it disproves his theory.
Liberals always loquaciously wordsmith to nowhere. I commend Professor Loury's patience listening to these mental gymnastics.
Is Randall Kennedy a diversity hire? Loury was all over him. After about 20 minutes it was too painful to watch.
This is the most candid, constructive and informative debate I have watched on the subject. The 2 guest debaters were very polite, informative and, even more importantly, intellectually honest. Truly a refreshing debate.
@user-mv7oy9us9o,
You're a fool.
Kennedy disgraced himself.
Imagine going to a doctor and finding out they lowered the standards for him/her to get into undergrad, graduate and medical school and lowered the standards so they could graduate and practice.
How would you feel as a patient? as the doctor
The tentacles of AA are only limited by the imagination of leftist lawyers.
Extend the AA argument in Healthcare one more step: it means whites and Asians will be pushed (say by insurance which tries to hit race goals) to the low tier doctors, while white and Asian doctors will primarily see blacks and Hispanics because they (doctors) have to hit race targets.... and on and on
TRICK QUESTION, I WOULDN'T BE THEIR PATIENT
But they don't lower the standards, all doctors have to pass the same exams to become a doctor
@@ryansookram4023 What kind of stupid are you. I said they all have to pass the same exam's. And how would you know they lowered the bar for black medical students
Research has shown that black doctors in black communities have a positive outcome for that community, with more healthy patients and longer lives.
Randall takes a long time, rambles, to make a point. Loury is much more direct.
Very enlightening discussion!
Kennedy lost this argument. He was compelled to conceded his POV. It was a worthwhile discussion, however. I am going to recommend it.
This is amazing. It’s so wonderful to hear two passionate adults debate, like adults. I will happily listen to opposing points of view when presented this way. It makes me dig deeper into what I believe to see if I truly believe it, or am I swayed to consider the opposing view for further discussion?
More of this please n America would truly be a blessing.
You gotta love Glenn’s reasoning. It’s hard to refute no matter what one says.
Kennedy's obviously a very intelligent man, but he's still just doing a mental gymnastics routine at the end of the day.
is he intelligent or regurgitate what he learned?
A fair comment, but one thing I at least believe I have learned about IQ over the years, is that often times our personality and formative experiences color our perceptions first and foremost. After that, our cognition simply works to falsify opposing hypotheses. We do everything in our power, at least generally, to hold to the things we view as sacrosanct. We'll do backflips and tie ourselves in knots if need be, just to not let go of those beliefs. So when you're really intelligent, you mostly just get better at defending yourself, right or wrong. High intelligence allows us do so more convincingly, but it doesn't necessarily make us more likely to be correct. Hence Kennedy's strong intellect despite his utter wrongness.@@superjnovaannularaurora9065
Kennedy’s position is so disingenuous that he can’t see it. It’s got to be frustrating for him.
He is saying that you can only discriminate against blacks and not Asians. Asians can't be discriminated against; they can only be disadvantaged.
Excellent debate.
13:16
"They're disadvantaged by a policy but not discriminated against"
This dude is just playing semantics 💀
The incredible irony here is that Dr. Kennedy’s entire argument in the Supreme Court case, correct me if I’m wrong, is also a refutation of the concept of “disparate impact”.
This was very one sided. You can’t win a debate when you’re factually incorrect.
I'm sure those southerners during Jim Crow were just giving whites a boost and not discriminating against black people. There's a moral difference right Randal?
It only makes sense that the group who created a civilized society would do that.
If things were reversed I promise you b’s would NEVER have freed the slaves AND given them rights!