Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

SAT Hypocrisy?

I?ve just read a fascinating, impressive article on the SAT by Charles Murray, who argues, perhaps surprisingly, that it should be abolished. Briefly, he argues for getting rid of the SAT because it?s ?a red herring? with a bad (though wholly undeserved) reputation, and that nothing of value would be lost since the SAT II/Achievement tests are equally useful at predicting college grades.

I don?t want to discuss this argument now, but if you?re interested in the controversy over testing, especially the SAT, then you should definitely read the whole thing, and then take a look at some of the comments it inspired over the past few days on National Review Online?s Phi Beta Cons blog.

What I do want to note here is the editorial blurb at the top of Murray?s article:

The SAT got him into Harvard from a small Iowa town. But now, CHARLES MURRAY wants to abolish the test. It?s unnecessary and, worse, a negative force in American life.

Now recall the standard, almost boilerplate liberal criticism of Clarence Thomas: that as someone who ?is where he is because of his race,? he is a selfish, ungrateful hypocrite for opposing affirmative action.

I?m waiting for some (even one) of the liberals who routinely denounce Clarence Thomas as a selfish, ungrateful hypocrite for opposing the affirmative action that was the foundation (they claim) of his success to denounce Charles Murray in similar terms for opposing the SAT, even though he benefited from it immensely himself.

I suspect I?ll be waiting a long time.

Full post as published by Discriminations on May 02, 2009 (boomark / email).