> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Courts
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

A Closer Look at a Comment From Justice Scalia That Sparked Outrage

By  Beckie Supiano
December 9, 2015

Justice Antonin Scalia lit up the Internet on Wednesday after oral arguments in the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of a closely watched affirmative-action case, by raising the idea that African-American students might fare better at a “slower-track school.”

Here’s what Justice Scalia had to say in the arguments over the case, Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin:

Justice Scalia: There are — there are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to — to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well. One of — one of the briefs pointed out that — that most of the — most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas.
Mr. Garre: So this court —
Justice Scalia: They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re — that they’re being pushed ahead in — in classes that are too — too fast for them.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Justice Antonin Scalia lit up the Internet on Wednesday after oral arguments in the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of a closely watched affirmative-action case, by raising the idea that African-American students might fare better at a “slower-track school.”

Here’s what Justice Scalia had to say in the arguments over the case, Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin:

Justice Scalia: There are — there are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to — to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well. One of — one of the briefs pointed out that — that most of the — most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas.
Mr. Garre: So this court —
Justice Scalia: They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re — that they’re being pushed ahead in — in classes that are too — too fast for them.

Reaction online was swift and fierce. Here are a few examples:

2015 is exposing the reality that racism exists at the highest levels of American jurisprudence. Scalia is a racist
pic.twitter.com/PnM34FGHyh

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) December 9, 2015

Appalled and disappointed (but NOT surprised) at Scalia’s misinformed comments about the readiness of #BlackandSTEM https://t.co/zZSogh5ToH

— Jedidah Isler, PhD (@JedidahIslerPhD) December 9, 2015

If I listened to #Scalia I never would have applied to and graduated from 2 Ivy League schools. This level of ignorance is dangerous.

— Vanessa K. De Luca (@Vanessa_KDeLuca) December 9, 2015

What was the justice referring to, anyhow? Let’s break his comments into two parts. We’ll start with this question of whether students would “do well” at the University of Texas at Austin or someplace “less advanced.”

Here Justice Scalia appears to be referring to the idea of “mismatch,” which argues that students who are admitted to a college under a preference, despite having weaker academic credentials than the college’s typical student, are less likely to succeed there.

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s an idea that’s been studied and debated for years. Richard H. Sander, an economist and law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, released a controversial study over a decade ago arguing that there would be more black lawyers if law schools got rid of racial preferences.

In a blog post published on Wednesday for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, a conservative think tank, Mr. Sander laid out his take on where research on mismatch currently stands. “Only demagogues (of which there is, unfortunately, no shortage),” he wrote, “or people who haven’t read the relevant literature can still claim that mismatch is not a genuine problem.”

In an interview with The Chronicle, he noted that “mismatch has been really controversial,” but said “there’s an emerging consensus that this is a real thing.” The evidence is most compelling, Mr. Sander said, in two contexts. One is law school; the other, he said, is the sciences: Students who receive large preferences and who plan to study science have high attrition out of those majors. The preferences need not be based on race, Mr. Sander added — they could also be for athletes or legacies, for instance. And Mr. Sander lamented that the issue remained difficult to study because colleges kept their practices opaque.

Another scholar who’s studied mismatch had a decidedly different take, which he broadcast on Twitter:

Scalia clearly hasn’t read work debunking low-quality “mismatch” evidence, such as: https://t.co/xABfkgpF3D

— Matt Chingos (@chingos) December 9, 2015

Matthew M. Chingos, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, was one of the authors of Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public Universities, a scholarly book based on research that found whatever students’ grades and test scores, they were more likely to graduate if they attended a more-selective college.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mismatch is “not crazy-sounding in theory,” Mr. Chingos said in an interview. And there are circumstances under which it would happen: “If we took someone who couldn’t read, they’d be unlikely to succeed at Harvard.”

Harvard, of course, has an admissions process, in part for that reason.

The serious question, Mr. Chingos said, is whether colleges’ affirmative-action policies admit students who are not likely to succeed there. “There is no high-quality empirical evidence in support of that hypothesis,” he said.

The basis for the second part of Justice Scalia’s comment, that “most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas,” was not immediately clear. But he may have been referencing research showing that historically black colleges play an outsize role in producing African-American graduates who go on to earn doctorates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

That point doesn’t quite connect to the mismatch one, Mr. Chingos said. He offered an analogy: Most Pell Grant recipients who earn bachelor’s degrees don’t get them from top colleges. That’s a question of enrollment patterns and volume. But a particular Pell-eligible student would still have a higher chance of graduating if he or she went to a more-selective college.

ADVERTISEMENT

Beckie Supiano writes about college affordability, the job market for new graduates, and professional schools, among other things. Follow her on Twitter @becksup, or drop her a line at beckie.supiano@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the December 18, 2015, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Beckie Supiano
Beckie Supiano writes about teaching, learning, and the human interactions that shape them. Follow her on Twitter @becksup, or drop her a line at beckie.supiano@chronicle.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

  • Supreme Court Laments How Little It Really Knows About Race-Conscious Admissions
  • ‘This Case Shouldn’t Be Here Again’: Activists Outside the Supreme Court on ‘Fisher’ and Race
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin