Saturday, October 27, 2012

Microsoft Word - 2012 Voting and Racism.docx

http://comm.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/docs/2012/2012%20Voting%20and%20Racism.pdf


Sent from my iPad

AP poll: A slight majority of Americans are now expressing negative view of blacks - The Washington Post

Academic analysis: http://tinyurl.com/8pzbebm




Sent from my iPad

Racial prejudice in US worsened during Obama's first term, study shows | World news | guardian.co.uk

The survey also found that some 79% of Republicans expressed explicit racial prejudice compared to 32% of Democrats.

The implicit test too showed that 64% of Republicans had racial prejudice compared to 55% of Democrats, while independents came in at 49%.

The explicit racism test asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people.

In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly", 'hardworking", ''violent" and "lazy" described blacks, whites and Hispanics.

The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character.

The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.



Sent from my iPad

How The Associated Press polls on racial attitudes were conducted - The Washington Post

The polls also used a technique aimed at measuring what psychologists call "affect misattribution." This involved showing faces of people of different races quickly on a screen before displaying a neutral image that people were asked to rate as pleasant or unpleasant. Studies have shown that people consciously or unconsciously transfer their feelings about the photograph to the object they are rating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-associated-press-polls-on-racial-attitudes-were-conducted/2012/10/27/85da79b8-200a-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html


Sent from my iPad

How The Associated Press polls on racial attitudes were conducted - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-associated-press-polls-on-racial-attitudes-were-conducted/2012/10/27/85da79b8-200a-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html


Sent from my iPad

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Will the Supreme Court Reverse Course on Affirmative Action? : The New Yorker

AT THE SUPREME COURT, A TIMID DEFENSE

supreme-court-affirmative-action.jpg



After the arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday, it's unclear whether there is a legal problem with the affirmative-action admissions program at the University of Texas. Regardless of how the case turns out, though, it is clear that there is a political problem with contemporary affirmative action.

The flagship U.T. campus in Austin admits students in two ways. First, students at the top of their high-school class—usually the top ten per cent—are admitted automatically. Second, some students are admitted under a "holistic" analysis of all of their qualifications, including their race. Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was rejected for admission, sued, claiming that the consideration of the race of minority applicants amounted to discrimination against her.

Nine years ago, in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion upheld a similar admissions program at the University of Michigan Law School. Even then, her ruling expressed palpable discomfort with any sort of racial preference; she said racial considerations should be allowed on campuses for no more than the next twenty-five years. But less than a decade later, her successors on the Court may be on the way to limiting, or overruling, her opinion.

Supporters of affirmative action are now reduced to talking about how little these programs do, not how much. As Justice Stephen Breyer said at the argument, "There is no quota. It is individualized. It is time limited. It was adopted after the consideration of race-neutral means. Each applicant receives individual consideration, and race did not become the predominant factor." At the daily White House news briefing, Jay Carney gave a similarly grudging endorsement of the practice: "I think you know the President's position on affirmative action. As the Supreme Court has recognized in the past, diversity in the classroom has learning benefits for students, campuses, and schools. President Obama has said that while he opposes quotas and thinks an emphasis on universal and not race-specific programs is good policy, considering race along with other factors can be appropriate in certain circumstances."

In light of this chronic defensiveness on the part of affirmative action supporters, it's no surprise that conservatives are emboldened. Justice Antonin Scalia focussed on the vexing question of who is, in fact, a minority: "Did they require everybody to check a box or they have somebody figure out, Oh, this person looks one-thirty-second Hispanic and that's enough?" (The lawyer defending the program said that the university relied on the students to define their own ethnicity.) In the same vein, Samuel Alito wondered about the accuracy of the categories: "How do you justify lumping together all Asian-Americans? Do you have a critical mass of Filipino Americans? Cambodian Americans?" O'Connor's decision said that universities could seek a "critical mass" of minority students. "What is that number?" Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to know. "What is the critical mass of African Americans and Hispanics at the university that you are working toward?" (The lawyer said there was no specific number.)

Alito raised the difficult issue of race and class, which is actually a happy consequence of the development of a sizable upper-middle-class minority community. (This might be called the Sasha and Malia problem.) "If you have a [minority] applicant whose parents… put them in the top one per cent of earners in the country and both have graduate degrees, they deserve a leg up against, let's say, an Asian or a white applicant whose parents are absolutely average in terms of education and income?" Not really, said Gregory Garre, the lawyer for the university, adding, "we want minorities from different backgrounds. We go out of our way to recruit minorities from disadvantaged backgrounds."

Garre and the liberal justices tried so hard to say what the affirmative-action program was not that it became hard to understand what it was. At one point, Donald Verrilli, the Solicitor General, who was defending the Texas plan on behalf of the Obama Administration, said that race did not function as a tiebreaker in admissions decisions. "I don't understand this argument," Justice Anthony Kennedy responded, "I thought that the whole point is that sometimes race has to be a tiebreaker and you are saying that it isn't. Well, then, we should just go away. Then we should just say you can't use race, don't worry about it."

"I don't think it's a tiebreaker," Verrilli tried again in response, "I think it functions more subtly than that, Justice Kennedy."

Subtle indeed, apparently. It may be that, after the Court decides the Texas case, affirmative action will survive in some form or another. But it speaks to the perilous state of public support for affirmative action that its supporters in the Supreme Court could scarcely articulate what it did and why it mattered—while the opponents of the policy spoke with clarity. Policies survive when their benefits are clear—and that wasn't the case for affirmative action on Wednesday at the Supreme Court.


Photograph of Abigail Fisher by Susan Walsh/AP.



Sent from my iPad

Century Foundation report advocates class-based affirmative action | Inside Higher Ed

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/03/century-foundation-report-advocates-class-based-affirmative-action


Sent from my iPad

How to Think About Affirmative Action Like an Economist - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic

How to Think About Affirmative Action Like an Economist

Does affirmative action cheat hard-working white students? Does it hurt minorities? Does it even work? That's the high-stakes debate happening now at the Supreme Court. Here's how a stoic economist might think about it.615_Michigan_Affirmative_Action_Reuters.jpg

(Reuters)

If you're hoping today's affirmative action case at the Supreme Court will finally settle the issue of whether race should play a role in college admissions ... tough luck. Justice Anthony Kennedy is widely considered the swing vote this time around, so chances are we're looking at a mushy compromise decision. And that means we're also bound to keep on having the same visceral arguments about skin color and academic opportunity that have been raging in this country for half a century. 

So let's do a bit of debate prep. Below are six controversial and familiar questions about affirmative action. You've probably heard how lawyers or politicians think about some of them. How about an economist? In 2005, Harvard's Roland Fryer and Brown University's Glenn Loury published a paper titled "Affirmative Action and Its Mythologies," which serves as a wonderful roadmap for considering the costs and benefits of letting schools factor race into their selection criteria. The way they engage these issues can help us all form our opinions about them a little more clearly, whether we agree with their conclusions or not. 

(1) Does affirmative action discourage minorities from studying hard? 

Legally speaking, modern affirmative action programs at universities are supposed to be about creating diversity -- and only diversity. Fixing the damage done by America's history of discrimination isn't technically part of the rationale. But get affirmative action supporters away from a courtroom, and they'll probably admit they're interested in righting past wrongs by giving minority students a helping hand in college admissions. 

Some argue, though, that affirmative action actually does a disservice to black, Hispanic, and other minority students because it lowers standards. By giving kids easier entry onto campus, the argument goes, we're creating incentives for them not to study, and thereby doing more harm than good.

Fryer and Loury allow that, at least in corporate affirmative action programs, giving minority job applicants a leg up might convince them they don't need to invest in job skills. But they also suggest that the promise of affirmative action could encourage some applicants to get a good education and apply for positions that might have otherwise seemed closed off to them. 

The same goes for potential college students. Some teenagers could theoretically decide they only need a B average, instead of an A-, to get into a solid university and slack off as a result. Or, knowing they'd probably be rewarded for their efforts, they might be encouraged to do the extra work to get into the school of their dreams. 

In short, we can't just reason our way to an easy answer.

University of Chicago economist Brent Hickman has attempted to use SAT scores to investigate these issues, and his findings provide an equally complicated answer. He concludes:

AA practices in US college admissions narrow the gap between median SAT scores among minorities and non-minorities by 14%. They discourage achievement among minority students at the upper and lower extremes of the score distribution, while encouraging students in the middle to score higher. The two effects balance each other out, so that virtually no change occurs for average minority SAT scores. [My emphasis]

This is just one working paper, but it offers a sense of the dynamics at play. Does affirmative action encourage minority students to work more or less? Possibly both. 

(2) Can we really have affirmative action without quotas? 

Quota. It's a word everybody hates. In the seminal affirmative action case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court struck down the use of concrete quotas for admitting minorities into school. Today, colleges instead argue that they're looking for a "critical mass" of minority applicants to ensure a certain baseline level of diversity on campus. The way they frame it, the number is just a goal.

Quota, goal ... it's a distinction without much difference in practice, argue Fryer and Loury. It comes down to how college administrators enforce their own policies. If a school has a "quota," but doesn't hand serious punishments to the admissions office for failing to meet it, then they're really using a more flexible system. But if a school sets a fuzzy "goal," then fires the admissions director who fails to hit the target, then they've essentially created a quota. These sorts of internal machinations are impossible for most outsiders to observe in action. Moreover, they may all just be implicit understandings. And the semantics used to describe a University's official MO certainly doesn't change them. 

(3) Can "color-blind" affirmative action work? 

As race-based affirmative action has become increasingly controversial, some states have tried to find workarounds that achieve similar goals. In 1997, Texas passed a bill that guarantees every student who finishes in the top 10 percent of their high school class admission to one of the state's flagship campuses (e.g. UT-Austin and Texas A&M), no matter what their SAT scores, extra-curriculars, or ethnicity might be. In today's Supreme Court case, the state university system is defending a separate part of its affirmative action program, which explicitly takes race into account for students who don't make the 10 percent cut.

This is one example of what Fryer and Loury call "color-blind affirmative action." In Texas, it works because communities tend to be extremely segregated, so taking the best students from each school district yields a decent amount of diversity. In a state that is 38 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black, the students admitted under the 10 percent rule are 26 percent Hispanic and 6 percent black, a somewhat reasonable result. Other colleges take different approaches, such as letting applicants skip sending in standardized test scores, or focusing more on extra-curricular activities.

Fryer and Loury's qualm with these methods isn't whether they may or may not work at getting minority students in the door. Rather, the pair think they simply aren't efficient. Affirmative action, by definition, requires schools to ease up on their admissions criteria. That makes the overall class less academically prepared by standard measures. If the ultimate goal is to create a racially diverse campus, then colleges may be dropping their standards more than necessary for the sake of looking race-neutral. They cast a wider net than they have to, and catch more marginally qualified students than they need.

If your goal is to move the focus off race and onto socioeconomic status, all of this isn't really a problem. And that may be a fair goal. One of the criticisms of race-based affirmative action is that it too often assists upper-middle-class and upper-class African Americans, or wealthy black students from Africa or the Caribbean, instead of truly disadvantaged students. But if your policy amounts to making schools go through an elaborate charade in order to keep minorities on campus, that comes with consequences. 

(4) Can affirmative action hurt minority students in the long run? And does it matter?

There's an obvious draw-back to taking marginal students and putting them in elite universities: some of them won't be able to handle it. A number will flounder, and a number will simply drop out. This problem, known as "mismatch," has drawn the attention of a growing group of researchers and writers, including UCLA Law Professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor, Jr., who recently published an excerpt of their book on the topic in The Atlantic.

Loury and Fryer acknowledged that if this problem truly turns out to be severe, it should give everyone pause. But they wondered themselves: If some minorities fail, could an affirmative action program still be worth it? Take, for instance, law schools. Sander's research has suggested the black law students often underperform their white peers, and drop out at higher rates, because they tend to end at schools they're ill-prepared to attend. But from society's perspective, those casualties might be justified by the overall goal of producing more black lawyers. One might retort that making sure black students are in suitable schools will lead more to graduate and take the bar. In the end, it's a very cold, cost-benefit analysis, but one that should still be made. 

(5) Will giving students "equal opportunity" lead to an equal society?

When affirmative action was born in the 1960s, American universities had a long history of discrimination against African Americans and other minorities. Today, with campuses desperately battling to keep their diversity programs in tact, nobody would seriously suggest that's still a widespread problem. And so it's worth asking: if we just keep giving everyone an equal shot at college, will that one day be enough to get equal results?

Loury and Fryer say no, it won't be enough. Neighborhoods tend to segregate by race, and our own success in life is not only profoundly affected by the success of our parents, but also the behavior of the people we grow up around, and the public resources we have in reach, including good schools and safe streets. Minority communities start at a disadvantage on all these measures, and the reality is that means they'll probably end at a disadvantage too.  

It's possible that may be too bleak an assessment, that things like public school reform, universal pre-K, and better law enforcement could help overcome those problems well before kids apply for college. But it's an issue that has to be contended with. 

(6) Are lots of white students getting cheated by affirmative action?

More than any other, this is the question that probably fuels all the acrimony over affirmative action. Fryer and Loury note some 40 percent of whites older than 18 "believe it likely they or someone they know were rejected from a college due to an unqualified black applicant being admitted." That sense of grievance, they argue, is probably overwrought. 

Research has shown that only the top 20 percent of colleges actually bother with racial preferences. This makes sense, since those are the schools with high enough standards that they need to make occasional exceptions to them. Assuming that 15 percent of students selected at these schools are black or Hispanic, and absolutely all of them were taken based on their race, that would make affirmative action just 3 percent of all selective college admissions in a year. Chicago's Hickman had a similar estimate. He found affirmative action reduces non-minority enrollment at the top quarter of schools by 4.2 percent a year.

So why do so many white students feel cheated by a relatively small phenomenon? Loury and Fryer use a parking metaphor: 

Suppose a single unused parking space in front of a popular restaurant is reserved for disabled drivers. Non-disabled drivers who observe the unused space while trying to park might resent this policy, imagining that it prolongs their parking search. But when parking is tight it is likely that, even if the disabled space were not reserved, it would already have been taken by the time a given driver comes along. When many non-disabled drivers overestimate their chance of getting the unreserved space, the perceived cost of a policy favoring the disabled could be large, despite fact that the policy has a negligible effect on the mean duration of a parking search. So too, it would seem, with racial affirmative action in higher education. [My emphasis]

To some, though, the precise percentage may not matter. One student, two students, or twenty students losing out to a numerically less qualified candidate might be too much. But focusing on them would mean thinking like an ethicist, not an economist. 





Sent from my iPad

Deborah N. Archer: The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations: Why Affirmative Action Still Matters

The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations: Why Affirmative Action Still Matters

On Oct. 10, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin, its first consideration of race-conscious admissions since its 2003 landmark decision Grutter v. Bollinger upholding the constitutionality of the University of Michigan's affirmative action program. Abigail Fisher, an applicant to the University of Texas, is challenging UT Austin's modest consideration of race as one of the many factors that goes into admissions decisions. If the challenge is successful, Fisher would reverse decades of legal precedent, stifling universities' ability to develop a diverse student body, and closing the door to equal opportunities for students of color. Not only would minority students lose, but so would our nation.

Altough America has made substantial progress in race relations, there remains a systemic racial hierarchy that produces and perpetuates racial disparities in educational outcomes. Race-conscious admissions programs, like the one used by UT Austin, are designed to counter this systemic racism and create a vital pipeline to educational and professional opportunities for minority students. The proven success of these programs in increasing equal opportunity serves as compelling evidence of their value and counsels in favor of continuing them.

Despite this success, the tone of the debate around race-conscious admissions programs has changed since the Court validated the constitutionality of well-designed affirmative action admissions programs in Grutter. Most of the nation's universities and professional schools agree that a racially and ethnically diverse student body improves the quality of education for all students and has a positive impact on our larger society. Affirmative action certainly creates real opportunity for the students of color who are admitted under these programs. However, citing to a study of class rank and bar passage rates of African-American law students, some opponents of race-conscious admissions programs now argue that these programs demoralize minority students, lead them to attend colleges, universities and professional schools for which they are unqualified, and expose them to academic environments in which they are outmatched.

The often-recited statistics are indeed troubling, but race-conscious admissions programs cannot be faulted for those troubles. Myriad factors, beginning with structural racism and a failing system of public education, conspire to leave far too many students of color poorly prepared for college when compared to their peers.

But whatever challenges some students of color might face upon admission, it is paternalistic to argue that we should abandon race-conscious admissions programs in order to save minority students from their own supposedly flawed decisions. Minority students, like all students, are aware of the risks and rewards of attending school in a challenging and rigorous academic environment. These students knowingly choose to challenge themselves academically in exchange for the increased career opportunities that admissions programs like that at UT Austin's has made possible.

But this argument by affirmative action's opponents is not only paternalistic, it is wrong. It turns out that the choice of many minority students to attend competitive colleges and universities is a very good one. In Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Public Universities (2009), William G. Bowen, Matthew M. Chingos and Michael S. McPherson challenged the assumption that race-conscious admissions programs led to "mismatching" and lower graduation rates for African-American students. In their study, the authors grouped African American men by their high school GPAs and then examined whether those with relatively low GPAs who enrolled in more selective public universities graduated at lower rates than those with the same GPAs who attended less selective institutions. The results proved just the opposite -- for all GPA levels, African-American men who went to more selective institutions graduated at higher rates than their peers with similar grades who went to less selective colleges. Moreover, for students of similar gender, socioeconomic status, high school grades and SAT scores, graduation rates were highest for those students who attended the most selective schools.

George W. Bush once spoke of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." By arguing that affirmative action causes students of color to aim too high, affirmative action's opponents prove the truth of these words. America is built on a promise of equal opportunity. And while young men and women of color have never fully been party to that promise, achieving true equality of opportunity should be our nation's primary mission. The findings in Crossing the Finish Line support the conclusion that affirmative action is helping to improve academic and professional outcomes for minority students, by promoting their admission to academically rigorous colleges and universities. Students of color benefit, their classmates benefit, and, ultimately, America benefits.

 

 



Sent from my iPad

mismatch_april2009.pdf

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~hf14/WorkingPaper/mismatch/mismatch_april2009.pdf


Sent from my iPad

Attacking the 'Mismatch' Critique of Affirmative Action | Inside Higher Ed

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/03/affirm


Sent from my iPad

Richard D. Kahlenberg Reviews "Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended To Help, And Why Universities Won’t Admit It" | The New Republic

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/mismatch-affirmative-action-fisher-university-texas#


Sent from my iPad

Microsoft Word - 105-2 Barnes FINAL

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v105/n2/791/lr105n2barnes.pdf


Sent from my iPad

A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/rubinfeldd/SanderFINAL.pdf


Sent from my iPad

Does Affirmative Action Reduce the Number of Black Lawyers?

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2230&context=fss_papers


Sent from my iPad

How Does Affirmative Action Impact Colleges? : NPR

How Does Affirmative Action Impact Colleges?

Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

What happens when race is taken out of university admissions? In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, which bans state government institutions including the universities from considering race, sex or ethnicity in their policies. The results of Prop 209 are in dispute, and that dispute is argued in briefs filed in the Fisher case. The president and chancellors of the University of California have filed a brief in support of the University of Texas' plan.

After Prop 209, it says, the rates at which under-represented minority students applied to or admitted to and enrolled at the University of California fell often by very significant percentages at every UC campus. And they say at the most selective campuses, these declines were steep.

Well, joining us now is a UCLA law professor who has also filed a brief arguing the contrary. Richard Sander argues in a new book, "Mismatch," that while minority admissions and enrollment at the most selective UC campuses may have declined after Prop 209, the number of minority students receiving degrees is the same. Race conscious admissions, he argues, created a mismatch - students were in over their heads at elite campuses and they didn't finish. Have I summed up "Mismatch" pretty well there?

RICHARD SANDER: I think so.

SIEGEL: You and journalist Stuart Taylor argue that, say, a law student who's in the top fifth of the class at 30th ranked Fordham Law School will earn just as well as a student at fifth ranked Columbia Law School who finishes, say, below to middle of the class. So, the advantage of being admitted to the more competitive school is outweighed by how well you do, doing better at the less competitive school. This is central to the idea of "Mismatch."

SANDER: It's important. You know, most students who are evaluating where to go to college or where to go to professional schools had nothing more to guide them than U.S. News rankings. And those are all about eliteness. But what's really relevant, as we argue in the book, is how you as an individual are going to fare at that school. And if you go to a school where most of the students have much stronger qualifications, you're very likely to get poor grades, and those end up having a bigger effect on your career than getting an elite degree.

SIEGEL: But there's research by Alan Krueger, of Princeton University and now the White House Chief Economic adviser who's studied this issue, and he found that while it's true that it might not enhance your earnings to go to an elite school as opposed to a less competitive one, while it's generally true, it's not equally true for African-American, Latino or poor students. That, for them, going to the elite school "does increase earnings significantly," quote, unquote.

SANDER: It's an interesting finding and Krueger is a terrific economist. But the research on the earnings effects of going to a more elite school is actually very divided. So I think that's an issue where there's a legitimate difference of opinion. There's much less difference of opinion in terms of careful research about what the GPA effects are, what the graduation effects are, what are the effects of law graduates passing bar exams. In all those areas, the evidence for mismatch is pretty overwhelming.

SIEGEL: You argue in your brief against race-based admissions because of the damage they do to minority students who are admitted into schools where they find themselves in out of their depth. The Fisher case is being brought by an aggrieved white applicant. If, in fact, the damage here is being done to minority students, why aren't minority groups all over the country lined up with Abigail Fisher? And what is it that you see about the harm being done to black and Latino students that groups of black and Latino students don't see?

SANDER: There's a strong issue of solidarity, I think, behind racial identification with preferences that somehow this is repairing past wrongs and making groups whole. As we discuss in the book, there are hundreds of individuals that we talked to who, in fact, see mismatch in their own lives. And if the Supreme Court mandates, as we hope, greater transparency, we think there will be a lot of pressure for change because many students are going into schools where their actual prospects, given their credentials, are really quite poor.

SIEGEL: And you say that they would be better off going to a school where their credentials are better matched to the competitiveness of the school?

SANDER: Yeah. And the University of California experience really illustrates this. You mention what happened at the most elite campuses, but across the whole eight-campus system, minority enrollment went up dramatically. It's much higher now than it was before Prop 209. And the number of graduates, the number of black and Hispanic graduates, has more than doubled.

It's also important, in light of that earlier report that you had from Andrea, to note that the level of integration across the eight UC campuses was higher after Prop 209, because Berkeley and UCLA were admitting a very disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics. And there's very interesting research showing that social interaction is fostered by having students with closer academic credentials, that there's a lot of cross-stereotyping when the academic distances are large.

So, it's logical to think there's actually going to be better social interaction when racial preferences are lower.

SIEGEL: Professor Richard Sander of UCLA Law School, co-author with Stuart Taylor of "Mismatch," thank you very much for talking with us.

SANDER: It was great to be here.

SIEGEL: Tomorrow we'll hear from Nina Totenberg about the arguments before the Supreme Court in this case. Also, last week, we asked for your thoughts about affirmative action, and tomorrow we'll hear what some of you had to say.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SIEGEL: This is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News.

Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.



Sent from my iPad

Debunking the debunker of affirmative action. - Slate Magazine

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2005/04/sanding_down_sander.html


Sent from my iPad

The Unraveling of Affirmative Action - WSJ.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578050901460576218.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Sent from my iPad