First Derivative [63]

first Derivative [63]

July 3, 2018

It's been a while since the last issue and so much has happened: family separation on the border, Harvard's race lawsuit, Justice Kennedy's resignation, etc. I'm sure I'm missing plenty of other very important events and trends and I hope to cover them in the following issues (hopefully will be able to send out the next one within the week to make up.

I wanted to try something different this issue as I ended up reading a number of articles that I felt should be presented thematically. In particular, the case against Harvard and NYC Mayor De Blasio's plan for the city's magnet schools both hit home for me as an Asian-American alumnus of Harvard and a NYC high school. I don't think I've ever covered up the fact that with fD I'm presenting my subjective view (though not exactly my personal opinions), but I wanted to be a bit more explicit on that topic. Take it as you will.

Also, I'm trying out this new thing where you can ask me questions, anonymously if you want, and I'll post a public answer. Of course, I reserve the right to choose what I respond to but anything about my takes on the topics I cover in fD will be fair game. I'm curious, since I suspect the readership here is a bit to my left. As always, you can also just email me questions by replying to this email.

Happy 4th of July everyone! —TK

Immigration

Enforce the Border — Humanely
by David Frum (Atlantic)

Confessions of a former immigration hawk
by Matthew Walther (Week)

The Travel Ban, the Law, and What’s ‘Right’
by Shadi Hamid (Atlantic)

I think these articles do a good job of triangulating my view on immigration. I think family separation is immoral but I don't think there is anything wrong with enforcing the border, rather I think it's quite necessary. I've been a bit surprised by how quickly the calls for people to see family separation as a singularly reprehensible policy gave away to cynical opinions along the lines of "oh, now people think things are better because children are imprisoned with their parents." That being said, just because our country has the right and obligation to enforce our borders, I do not think there is a reason to be an immigration hawk (aside from combatting the increasingly mainstream view that borders are themselves illegitimate) because we do not seem to be experiencing a border crisis. Illegal immigration across the southern border is down, and the sense I get is that illegal immigration is not simply "taking away jobs" and that there isn't some assimilation crisis outside the bounds of the American history of immigration. I do think that the American situation is substantially different from the situation in Europe both in terms of our endogenous character as a nation the exogenous situation.—TK

Affirmative Action

Harvard is Wrong That Asians Have Terrible Personalities
by Wesley Yang (NYT)

No Ethnic Group Owns Stuyvesant. All New Yorkers Do.
by Boaz Weinstein (NYT)

Too Many of America’s Smartest Waste Their Talents
by Noah Smith (Bloomberg)
“The idea of meritocracy is that education both identifies and cultivates the future working elite — after the smart kids get good educations, they will go on to occupy the social roles where their talents are most needed, whether in business, academia or government. But if that link is broken — if the best and brightest are wasted after they graduate — then educational meritocracy was for naught.”

I have to admit that I have been ambivalent about affirmative action for some time insofar as I am deeply conflicted about social customs that reinforce the salience of race and particularly, law that sanctions its use as a discriminatory category, whether for good or bad ends. But in my, admittedly partial, view this is separate from what I see going on at Harvard in practice and in the motivations behind Mayor De Blasio's proposal. I feel that many of my liberal friends are contorting themselves to deny what elsewhere they would accept prima facie as evidence of racial discrimination, because if they admit Asians are discriminated against, that can only come at the expense of blacks and Latinos, by way of destroying affirmative action programs. I think this ethically and intellectually dishonest. I can stomach a grand political racial bargain but if to even admit that Asians are getting the short stick here would topple the whole thing then I think that only goes to show how weak the foundations of that bargain are now. You will find that many opposed to the status quo, myself included, agree that yes admissions should not be simply about academic performance and that there is perhaps such a thing as "too many Asians" (though those two points are not necessarily related) but we need to discuss what that means exactly and why, a discussion that requires all stakeholders.

If you are unpersuaded, have your narrative at least account for these facts: 1) Asian applicants not only outperformed other ethnic groups on academics but also, extracurriculars. 2) Interviewers rated them on par with white applicants in terms of personality, but admissions officers, many of whom had never met the applicants, rated Asians collectively as the worst group in that aspect. 3) even for the lowest-income segment of Asian applicants, there was a negative effected associated with being Asian.

In the case of Mayor De Blasio's plan there too are some inconvenient facts for the conventional narrative: 1) already 44% of Stuy students are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced lunch. 2) Asians experience the highest poverty rate in NYC, higher than 25%. 3) in nearly one-quarter of NYC public middle schools, zero seventh-graders  scored at advanced levels on the state math exam in 2017, evidence of the city administration's utter failure to provide at all, much less equally provide, the kind of education that would prepare students for the magnet schools. Yet the story that Asians are a singularly privileged group simply does not hold. If test results were simply a matter of costly test prep, we would see a much wealtheir, and probably whiter, student body.

Finally though, Noah Smith's article raises the question of why we should care about meritocratic educational channels at all, if they merely serve as a funnel to industries that produce little economic value or engage in rent-seeking.

When Children Say They’re Trans
by Jesse Singal (Atlantic)
A really considerate and nuanced piece that looks at the developing standard of proper care for gender dysphoria, and the experience ofdesisters/detransitioners which are not representative of most who do transition, but underline the importance of proper care standards that maximize good outcomes—TK

Classless Utopia versus Class Compromise
by Michael Lind (American Affairs)
An interesting historical and intellectual analysis of class in America, specifically class conflicts and their outcomes—TK

Inside a Heist of American Chip Designs, as China Bids for Tech Power
by Paul Mozur (NYT)
Just a recent example in the trend of Chinese acquisition of US intellectual property either by the government coercing US companies to operate in joint ventures with Chinese companies that take off with the IP or by sanctioned corporate theft—TK

Conservatives, Don’t Put Too Much Hope in the Next Justice
by Marc O. DeGirolami and Kevin C. Walsh (NYT)
The message is coming from a bit to the right of me but I think the point, that we need to achieve more with democracy and less with the courts, is valid regardless of your politics—TK

If you were forwarded this email, click here to subscribe.

ABOUT fD

fD is a newsletter focusing on signal insights and deep trends in ideas, technology, politics, economics, foreign affairs, culture, philosophy, and more. The goal is to deliver content and analyses that matter beyond the present moment.

I hope you enjoy. Questions and comments always welcome (just respond to this email)—TK

EPHEMERA

I've seen a bunch of movies since the last issue but none I can strongly recommend. Just picked up Tim Wu's The Attention Merchants again and hope to finish it this time.