Discrimination at Harvard

 

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

“A good way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

-Chief Justice John Roberts

                “Harvard College’s admissions policy aims to evaluate each individual as a whole person,” reads a letter addressed to alumni that I received from the president of Harvard University, Lawrence S. Bacow. In it, “Larry”, as he signs the letter, reaffirms “the importance of diversity and everything it represents in the world.” What it reaffirms to me, however, is that applicants of Asian descent will continue to be discriminated against in Harvard’s admissions policy because their “personal” ratings, a subjective measure, rank lower on average than those of black, Hispanic and white applicants, even though their academic ratings, an objective measure, on average, rank much higher.

A group known as Students for Fair Admissions brought a lawsuit against the university alleging discrimination against Asian-American applicants in a case that brought this admissions policy to public attention. It seemed like a slam-dunk case. SAT scores and other academic measures are the best predictors of academic success in college. “Personal” ratings, whatever that might measure, probably are not the best predictors of academic success. However, a federal judge, Allison Burroughs, in a victory for political correctness and a defeat for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination on the basis of race, ruled that Harvard’s admissions program passes constitutional muster and that it satisfies the dictates of strict scrutiny. Stricter scrutiny, in my view, would suggest that Harvard discriminates on the basis of race to achieve student body diversity. Perhaps it can now also discriminate on the basis of political affiliation to achieve more political diversity on the university faculty and administration.

Why should this matter to Americans who may have little interest in what it takes to get admitted to the country’s top-rated university? It matters because the policy is simply unfair in that it clearly discriminates on the basis of race. Persons of Asian descent account for over a third of the world’s population. What kind of a message about fairness does this send to them?

Race should never be a factor in determining who are among the fortunate few that get admitted to an elite and prestigious university. If Harvard wants to achieve a greater degree of diversity, it should do so by targeting its recruiting efforts to attract more of the under-represented groups, but the playing field for admissions should be level. It matters also because our universities are (for now, at least) the best in the world and we need to keep them that way. Asian-American students, for whatever reason, consistently do better academically on average than other ethnic or racial groups, including Caucasians. One likely reason is that education is so highly- valued in Asia-American families and academic achievement is strongly encouraged at home. Our elite universities should endeavor to attract as many of the best and the brightest they can, regardless of race, or background or “personal” ratings because America needs their talents to deal with the challenges our nation faces.

Yet, some of our universities continue to dumb down curricula and offer majors that are virtually worthless. Political correctness, speech codes, political activism and student protests continue to stifle debate and discussion on campus and distract from the primary mission of education. Administrative positions sometimes outnumber faculty, professors spend more time writing than teaching and teaching is left to assistants.

Harvard and the other elite universities should focus more on developing students’ minds rather than developing the “whole person”. You don’t have to attend a university to become a “whole person.” Leave that job to the parents and, to use a phrase that I heard a lot at the Harvard Business School, just “stick to the knitting.” In other words, stick to what you are supposed to be best at doing. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will agree on appeal.

November 24, 2019

 

Murder and Mayhem South of the Border

Murder and Mayhem in Mexico——————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Continuing another year of violence in Mexico, three SUVs carrying U.S. citizens were ambushed and attacked in northern Mexico, not far from our border, resulting in the savage murder of three women and six children. There were 36,000 murders in Mexico last year and this year is on track to come close. Since the so-called war on Mexican drug gangs began in 2006, more than 250,000 lives, about the population of Richmond, Virginia, have been lost to violence and more mass graves containing mutilated human remains are found regularly.

 

Mexico has lost that “war” against drug cartels. The latest decisive, humiliating defeat came last month when Mexican police and national guardsmen surrendered drug lord Ovidio Guzman whom they had just captured. Outgunned by the mobsters, heavily-armed with automatic weapons made in America, the government force just surrendered, rather than risk further casualties. Such bravery! The younger Guzman is the son of Joaquin “Shorty” Guzman who sits in a New York prison, hopefully for life, but don’t count on it. He’s escaped more often than my cat.

 

But before just blaming the violence on our neighbors to the south, consider why these brutal cartels stay in business. It’s demand for their products which are drugs and human smuggling. The drug customers are mostly Americans whose insatiable demand keeps these thugs in business. And they will maim and murder without mercy or remorse, anyone who gets in their way of profit or territory. Other sources of incidental income are extortion and kidnapping for ransom. So if you are even a casual user of illegal or illegally obtained drugs, even just to be fashionably naughty occasionally, or you have an encouraging, cooperative attitude toward illegal immigration, you are part of the problem. These are not victimless crimes. Income from these activities keeps the gangs in business which puts innocent people at risk on both sides of the border.

 

President Donald Trump telephoned Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador offering U.S. assistance, including military aid, to help fight the cartels. Not surprisingly, Mr. Lopez Obrador declined the offer, referring to it as intervention. Mr. Trump must realize that given Mexican history, no Mexican government will ever will permit Yanqui intervention.  But the continued violence and carnage on our southern border endangers American as well as Mexican lives and is not just Mexico’s internal affair. Perhaps Mr. Trump actually intended to make an offer the Mexican president couldn’t refuse.

 

Lopez Obrador came to office with a supposedly new approach to dealing with the cartels. He called it “Hugs, not bullets”, saying that his predecessor’s war against the drug dealers was a failure. He’s right, of course. It was a failure but so is his approach and, furthermore, it’s not new. It’s the same old approach that liberals tend to take when approaching problems like drug abuse and homelessness: look for someone else besides the users and dealers to blame. Instead of drying up the demand by zero tolerance which is hard work, just look for reasons why people turn to drugs, why people turn to drug dealing to support their families, and why people choose to live on the street when there are often shelters and jobs available. In other words, talk the problem to death under the pious impression that you’re actually helping to solve it.

 

Even while they are searching for reasons, liberal states like California are emptying their prisons of “minor” drug offenders. The message this sends to our youth is that minor drug use is no big deal. Adults do it. Any illegal drug use is a big deal because it supports violent criminal gangs.

 

And by the way, California liberals continue to tolerate the homeless epidemic despoiling their cities by saying the main cause is a lack of affordable housing which is the fault of municipal government. It’s local government’s fault alright but it’s not primarily caused by lack of affordable housing and it won’t be solved by building more potential slums. It’s primarily caused by drug addiction and mental illness. You know where the drugs come from.

 

Mexico, our third largest trading partner, is in danger of becoming a failed state. It is losing its lucrative and important tourist business. It has become one of the most dangerous countries in the world. It is now estimated that the cartels control about a third of the country. If you think that you know which two-thirds are safe, you are deluding yourself. Sadly, it is unlikely to get better until Mexico, the world’s 15^th largest economy, favored by its location next to the largest, its rich culture and home to some of the nicest, most industrious people in the world, learns how to complete the transition from a third world country, plagued by corruption, poverty and cartel violence. Its people deserve better and we deserve a safer neighbor on our southern border.

Nove3mber 7, 2019

Impeachment Madness

The Perils of Impeachment—————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

              In America, the citizens get to choose their president by participating in free elections every four years. The Constitution gives this power to the people. It also seeks to protect them from a president who commits impeachable offenses, defined as high crimes and misdemeanors such as treason and bribery, by giving Congress the power to impeach him. The authors considered but rejected including mal-administration as a cause for impeachment, fearing that it could too easily be used by Congress to remove a president over political or ideological differences, thereby giving one equal branch of government an ultimate advantage over another.

 

While a number of this president’s actions could reasonably be viewed as mal-administration, there is no general agreement that they amount to the high crimes and misdemeanors the founders had in mind or, indeed, that they were even illegal. If President Donald Trump’s implication that he would withhold aid to Ukraine unless certain conditions were met is considered bribery, then plenty of his predecessors would be guilty of the same thing.

 

The founders were extremely cautious in setting conditions for impeachment because initiation of that process by the House of Representatives is a gravely serious matter in that it could result in the removal of a president duly elected by the people. And when that branch of congress is controlled by the opposition party and the impeachment process is initiated just a year before a presidential election, the public is justified in suspecting that Congress is intruding upon their rights to select their president. The impeachment process should, therefore, be as transparent and open as possible, starting with a full vote of the House, not just a decision during a press conference by its Speaker, a strident critic of the president. Each of the three impeachments to date was initiated by a full vote of the House. Thus far, this impeachment process has been anything but open and transparent.

 

Once a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry is obtained, a committee may be tasked to gather facts and interview witnesses but that process should be open as well. It’s true that committees often meet in closed session but this is not just another committee hearing. It’s part of a process that could result in the removal of a president duly elected by the people, shortly before an election that would give them a choice in the matter. Moreover, the hearing is centered around the allegations of an unnamed whistle blower and consists of hearsay and the president, as the accused, is not even permitted to question his accuser or interview witnesses. House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff defends this secrecy by likening it to a grand jury process which is conducted in secrecy by law. But a House committee is not a grand jury and is not provided such secrecy by law. Transparency should outweigh secrecy in matters as grave as this.

 

A federal judge has ruled that Schiff’s committee is engaged in an impeachment inquiry, in spite of the fact that the full House did not authorize it. Speaker Nancy Pelosi departed from this precedent by not requiring a vote before turning Schiff’s committee loose. Perhaps such a vote would have failed. It’s too late now so we’ll never know. This process is, therefore, flawed from the very start.

 

Constitutional law experts David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, observed that the Senate has not only the power but the obligation to try all impeachments but this pre-supposes that the House followed a proper impeachment process. It did not. Why was a full vote of the House not taken to initiate it as has been done in all previous impeachment efforts? What gives the Speaker the right to shortcut this process? And the process being thus flawed, what’s to prevent the Senate from declining to try this case if, that is, the House is even able to come up with articles of impeachment that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

This is not just another political disagreement of passing interest to voters. It should be a matter of immense concern to all of us who care about the Constitution and our democracy. This unseemly rush to turn Mr. Schiff’s committee loose without a House vote in an effort to remove a duly-elected president in the midst of a presidential campaign was a colossal mistake on the part of Speaker Pelosi and seems like the act of a desperate party that doubts that any of its candidates for the nomination has what it takes to defeat Donald Trump in a fair election.

November 3, 2019