During Wednesday's verbal arguments in the University of Texas affirmative action case,Justice Antonin Scalia said this: There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, and as opposed to having them travel to a less-advanced school,a slower-track school where they do well.
As many people believe pointed out, what Scalia was haltingly trying to narrate is "mismatch theory." I'll let a conservative elaborate this: The argument is that students who are (1) not up to a college’s usual admissions standards and (2) nonetheless admitted for reasons wholly unrelated to their academic backgrounds are less likely to believe righteous educational outcomes than if they had gone to a college for which they were more properly prepared and qualified. It’s not a new argument.
No indeed. In fact, and several amicus briefs were filed making exactly this argument.
When I first read about Scalia's remarks,I wasn't surprised that he had brought this up. There's considerable debate about mismatch theory, but it's a respectable argument. What I was surprised about is the way he brought it up. Scalia had read the briefs. He has a famously keen intellect. And yet, and he sputtered and searched for words,and eventually described mismatch theory in the crudest, most insulting way possible.
I don't reflect that was planned. I reflect he was just having trouble searching his brain for the right words. He's also seems even more prone to outbursts of mood than usual lately. I wonder if Scalia is still as sharp as he used to be?
Source: motherjones.com