Author Archive

I’ve written a couple of times before about Romney’s ridiculous lie that half of recent college grads can’t find jobs (the real number is somewhere between six and nine percent). And though I hate to beat a dead horse, he told the lie again twice in last night’s debate, with a twist that makes it worth revisiting.

Here are the quotes:

“With half of college kids graduating this year without a college — excuse me, without a job. And without a college level job, that’s just unacceptable.”

And then later:

“An economy with 50 percent of kids graduating from college that can’t find a job, or a college level job, that’s not what we have to have.”

There are a few things going on here. First, there’s the fact that in each case he repeated the original claim — that half of new college graduates can’t find work of any kind — before revising it by repeating it with the “college level” qualification. Whether this was an attempt to befuddle fact-checkers or an example of old habits being hard to break I don’t know, but in any event it had the effect of making his walkback hard to catch and hard to follow.

But in a sense it doesn’t matter, because Romney’s new, scaled back claim is no more defensible than the original. As I’ve noted in the past, the claim that half of recent college graduates “can’t find … a college level job” is false.

Quickly, here’s why.

According to the economist Romney is citing, about half of recent college graduates in 2011 (not “this year”) took full-time jobs that paid well, utilized their skills, and required a college degree after they left college. The rest of them — the half that Romney is referring to — can best be described as “everybody else.”

That “everybody else category includes the unemployed, who were something like six to nine percent of the total recent-graduate pool. It includes those who went on to grad school or law school or med school. It includes those who took entry-level positions in their field that didn’t require college degrees but would get their foot in the door for later jobs that would. It includes actors who decided to wait tables while going on auditions and poli-sci majors who took jobs with campaigns and writers who took paralegal gigs so they could pay their bills and work on their one-woman shows in the evenings.

It includes all sorts of people, in other words, most of whom have jobs, and many of whom are pursuing their careers in exactly the way they’d planned before going to college.

The reality is that a strong majority of recent college graduates found solid work after graduation, and that you can only claim otherwise if you count law students and publishing house copyeditors and off-Broadway actors as “kids that can’t find a college level job.”

This is the first in a series of posts I’ll be writing about the oral arguments in Fisher v. Texas, the campus admissions affirmative action case argued in the Supreme Court last week. Series intro here.

Bert Rein, attorney for rejected white University of Texas applicant Abigail Fisher, got just one sentence into his presentation before he was interrupted for the first time. As he was preparing to make his case for the unconstitutionality of Texas’s admissions policies, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg jumped in to ask him why he was even there in the first place.

As I noted last week, you can’t just sue somebody because you feel like it. You have to show that you’ve been harmed, and you have to show that the harm is one that the government can remedy. It’s not clear that Abigail Fisher’s case clears either of those hurdles.

First, there’s the question of harm. According to the state of Texas, affirmative action had nothing to do with Fisher’s rejection. Her application, and in particular her test scores, just weren’t good enough for UT. (Fisher came within a smidge of automatic admission to the university under a state law guaranteeing a seat to every student who graduates in the top 10% of their class, but her SATs were much less impressive than her grades.)

So if affirmative action isn’t the reason she was rejected, what’s the basis for her suit? Well, it turns out that the question of whether she would have gotten in without AA wasn’t litigated at trial — Texas says she wouldn’t have, and it’s hard to imagine that they’re wrong, but Fisher’s lawyers say they should have a chance to contest that claim before the government uses it against them.

There’s more, too. Fisher’s camp says that the denial of equal treatment on the basis of race represents a “constitutional injury,” whether or not it would have been decisive in this case. In other words, if she applied to the university, and they held her race against her, that’s harm, whether or not her race denied her the seat.

On the question of damages, things aren’t any clearer. Fisher isn’t asking to be admitted to UT, because after she was rejected she accepted admission to LSU, enrolled there, and completed an undergraduate degree. She’s a college graduate now, and doesn’t want to go to UT anymore. As far as monetary damages go, her only stated loss is the school’s application fee and a housing deposit, which together amount to only $100.

And Texas says she’s not entitled to that, even if she wins the case. She would have paid those fees whatever the admissions process, and they wouldn’t have been refunded if she’d enrolled, so she doesn’t have a basis for demanding them back.

You’d think this stuff would have been addressed before the case got to the Supreme Court, but it wasn’t. And you’d think the questions involved would be straightforward, but they’re not … as this exchange between Chief Justice Roberts and the attorney for the state of Texas makes clear:

ROBERTS: What about our Jacksonville case that said it is an injury to be forced to be part of a process in which there is race-conscious evaluation?

GARRE: Texas v. Lesage says that  that injury is not sufficient in a backward-looking case like this, where you only have monetary damages. In Jacksonville and all the other cases, they involved forward-looking claims for declaratory injunctive release where people who were going to go out and get contracts again.

ROBERTS: I thought your friend — your friend told us that these remedial issues and damages issues had been segregated out of the process and are still available for remand.

On Twitter a few minutes ago, I posted a list of ten topics I’d like to see discussed at tonight’s presidential debate, but don’t expect to. Since everything’s more fun when there’s something on the line, I’ve made the list into a contest — guess which ones will make it in, and whoever comes closest wins.

Here’s the list:

1. Poverty.
2. Climate change.
3. Reproductive rights.
4. LGBTQ issues.
5. Student debt.
6. The drug war.
7. Voter suppression.
8. Labor issues.
9. The DREAM Act.
10. Infrastructure.

I’ll be the final arbiter of what qualifies as a reference to each topic, and I’ll figure out a tiebreak algorithm in case nobody gets it exactly right. Post your guesses here or on Twitter.

Winner gets a blogpost by me on the subject of your choice, plus a physical prize to be named later.