John Warner Profile picture
Jan 24 8 tweets 2 min read
Call me a pessimist, but I think a Supreme Court that's not going to bat an eye in overturning Roe isn't going to worry about the consequences of ending affirmative action entirely in college admissions.
It'll do nothing to change the composition of who goes to elite institutions, Harvard and Yale will find a way to admit who they wish, but it is a huge encroachment on the rights of academic institutions to operate according to their purported values.
Ending affirmative action will open the door to an endless stream of litigation over every aspect and operation of educational institutions.
Affirmative action now is only allowed under an explicit educational rationale, the benefit of a diverse cohort of students. Ending it suggests that institutions should be open to lawsuits on any aspect of their operations, without the autonomy to make those decisions.
Someone could sue over a requirement to take an African-American studies course because of some bullshit nonsense about coerced thinking, and there's courts in this country (including the SC) that will take that seriously.
The purpose of this litigation is not to make admission to Harvard fairer. It is backlash to whatever progress we've made toward a multi-racial democracy.
I had similar thoughts to @kevincarey1 on enforcement post AA. Are they going to require Harvard to livestream their admission committee discussions?
But I'll also reiterate that this is much more than about how Harvard chooses students. This is an attempt to establish a rationale that allows this kind of intrusion in many other spaces. It's intimidation.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Warner

John Warner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @biblioracle

Jan 25
Not at all irrational to make sweeping claims from a single question on a single survey. I say it's a sign of our national irrationality that so much weight is given to pundits who are uncareful about the conclusions they draw from limited data.
Obviously there's some psychological stuff going on around covid and risk, but like all things, it's complicated. The thirst of pundits like Leonhardt to drive a narrative based on limited data is unhelpful in the extreme.
Declaring that you yourself are able to look at things rationally is not actually evidence that you are looking at things rationally.
Read 11 tweets
Jan 21
When teaching was the central focus of my work, I got to regularly experience a feeling of progress and accomplishment. It's a big motivator. But I wonder if that sense is much harder to come by even for those who are still teaching. insidehighered.com/blogs/just-vis…
I started drafting my post last week before I read this piece from @kevinrmcclure and Alisa Hicklin Fryar, which makes clear that even those who remain engaged in the work are feeling alienated and lost. Institutions better wake up. chronicle.com/article/the-gr…
The pandemic was (still is) and opportunity for a reset. We could have a higher education system that doesn't require people to be used up and spit out. My vision is here: beltpublishing.com/products/susta…
Read 4 tweets
Jan 20
Always fascinated about this particular genre of op-ed. Want to explore why I don't think it's doing what the authors would like to claim they're trying to do. Image
The surface-level positioning here is an intention to highlight the superior threat of the Magaverse on our democratic processes as compared to the progressive left. The authors would claim they're trying to convince conservatives to reject Maga. they are not achieving this, tho.
First, if the goal is to highlight the disproportionate authoritarian threat of the right Magaverse, spending over 1/3 of your piece to trot out the case for left/liberal authoritarian tendencies is not an effective rhetorical choice.
Read 13 tweets
Jan 13
A couple of days ago I did a thread on the difference between "debaters" and "illuminators" in public writing, using @tressiemcphd as an example of an illuminator. Today I have an object example of a debater.👇🧵
As I tried to show in the earlier thread, an illuminator is interested in shining a light on a phenomenon in order to increase the sum total of our collective understanding of that phenomenon.
A debater wants to "win" an argument, winning being gauged by moving people toward your position, or receiving approval or what have you. Winning may require obscuring as much or more than illuminating.
Read 22 tweets
Jan 12
I have taught thousands of college students. I have never looked a parent in the eye and told them "I will watch out for their child." Am I off base or are elites different than the rest of us? insidehighered.com/blogs/just-vis…
The time I have spent thinking about a student's parents in relation to the student's work in my college course is less than negligible, pretty much zero. Parents have no productive role in that dynamic, IMO.
I very much try to practice an ethic of care when it comes to working with students, but that's a compact between me and the students, not me pledging anything to their parents. That shit's just weird.
Read 5 tweets
Jan 11
Holy smokes is @tressiemcphd good. The way this weaves together multiple strands of culture to illuminate the world we're living in is just a master class of writing as thinking. nytimes.com/2022/01/10/opi…
It's so interesting to contrast piece linked above with the writing of some of the prominent Substack politics and policy heroes. @tressiemcphd is fundamentally an "illuminator" someone who shines light on a phenomenon in an attempt to understand it better. In contrast...
...we have folks I won't name who act as "debators" are trying to win an argument, often by placing the topic on ground most favorable to them. They must often obscure, rather than illuminate because full illumination would show more complexity & undermine their argument.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(