The defense of affirmative action in hiring is invulnerable to contrary evidence, just as we foes have always suspected.

I don’t think so. I think there are very legitimate challenges to affirmative action. Justice Thomas arugues as persuasively as anyone I’ve read.

I think that a college using affirmative action hiring policies has a special obligation to only hire qualified applicants.

(did that get your attention?)

NLSF data is PUBLIC. The books from it? PUBLIC. The conclusions? PUBLIC. Other comparable works with other data? PUBLIC. ye gods.

you just don’t bother to read them.

and this is hilarious:
“Yes! If the students/professors admitted/hired by Williams with the benefit of affirmative action did as well as the other students/professors then I would question the standard criteria that Williams uses.

But, of course, they don’t. In fact, they do much worse.

But, of course, all my SWPL friends don’t want to admit that. In fact, the refuse to release any data on that issue.”

shorter version: X would prove it. X is not true. I do not know if X is true. say what??!???

Or, in Rumsfeldian terms via samuel l. jackson in cartoon form: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkU4t2dUEwk

is there any evidence that could convince you to question your doubt?

Yes! If the students/professors admitted/hired by Williams with the benefit of affirmative action did as well as the other students/professors then I would question the standard criteria that Williams uses.

But, of course, they don’t. In fact, they do much worse.

But, of course, all my SWPL friends don’t want to admit that. In fact, the refuse to release any data on that issue.

some evidence of any harm actually coming to the quality of research and or/teaching at an institutional level.

But aren’t you in favor of keeping precisely this sort of data away from critics like me? I maintain that, for example, African-American students at Williams do much worse than other students in terms of grades and graduation rates. But the college, with some exceptions, refuses to allow interested alumni/outsiders to examine this data. So, how can we ever move beyond anecdotes if people like you won’t let us see the data?

i’ll wait for those. well, i won’t, because they haven’t and don’t exist ndn affirmative action has been used for long enough that any evidence of this trend would have already been uncovered. and it just doesn’t exist.

is there any evidence that could convince you to question your doubt?

the carcass here isn’t the one you think i was talking about.

as for the timeline, i got confused by your presentation. still, there’s always the possibility that williams attempted to hire a tenure track faculty and failed (that happens more often than people think, bizarrely) to get their hire and so needed a replacement. Or it wasn’t a quick hire and there are countless other possibilities.

it sounds like the most likely thing was that he got the position because poly sci had an unexpected opening (Professor Thomas leaving) and needed a quick hire.

No. The dates don’t work out. (Don’t you click on the links that I so laboriously provide?) Thomas left in June 2007 (and gave the department some warning). Moore did not start until September 2008. So, to the extent that a “quick hire” was needed, it would have been made for September 2007.

this is like a vulture circling the carcass, basically.

Excellent image! And further scavenging will reveal just what rottenness the carcass contains . . .

unless you know something you’re hiding

I have no inside information beyond what I have already revealed.

There is no greater lesson to be learned about diversifying the faculty here, just as there’s no lesson to be learned about hiring Israelis as faculty by the example of Professor Robb (the economist who killed his wife) or hiring Williams graduates from the exception of Tracy McIntosh.

The defense of affirmative action in hiring is invulnerable to contrary evidence, just as we foes have always suspected.

Is there anything that would ever, under any conceivable circumstances, cause you to question your faith in “diversifying the faculty?”

i’m just not sure if comment 4 counts as a new attempt or not.

Mr. Moore’s failings are uniquely bizarre and they cast an unfortunate light on hiring non-white faculty because we like to consider them as always representative of their race instead of as individuals. That’s not right in general to do to someone and it’s not appropriate here either. There is no greater lesson to be learned about diversifying the faculty here, just as there’s no lesson to be learned about hiring Israelis as faculty by the example of Professor Robb (the economist who killed his wife) or hiring Williams graduates from the exception of Tracy McIntosh.

this is like a vulture circling the carcass, basically.

actually, it sounds like the most likely thing was that he got the position because poly sci had an unexpected opening (Professor Thomas leaving) and needed a quick hire. And then he got reappointed because he hadn’t gotten terrible scores as faculty and was bringing in some good publicity for the school.

there is no greater lesson about faculty diversification to be learned from this unless you know something you’re hiding. and you don’t, i’d bet. and if you did and didn’t post it, well, then shame on you for that.

1) We don’t have enough evidence on the issue. No one knows if race played a role.

2) Race did not play a role, therefore discussing race is “race-baiting.”

3) Race (probably) did play a role in Moore’s hiring, but discussing that fact is still “race-baiting.”

If one of these choices does not capture your position, please provide your own answer. I am honestly curious.

well no, david, we all expected you to race-bait. I predict at least two more attempts.