Supreme Court Decision

[Boris]

Cruising the Internet I found a story about the Supreme Court decision in the Michigan Law School case. Next to the story was a picture of a white female and an Asian female hugging each other at a rally at U of M to celebrate the decision. I really got a kick out of that picture because affirmative action is definitely disadvantageous to Asians in particular and will hurt women in the near future. Oh well. At least the girls looked happy.

On a related note, when it comes education I don't have any problems with a straight up quota system. Hiring quotas in the workplace is a different matter. But in education I think it's completely fair to set quotas or have lowered admission standards based on ethnicity. If you are a marginally qualified candidate with a non quota qualifying skin color, there are any number of universities, grad schools, law schools etc... that will accept your application. Giving the designated victim group this small advantage can only make our society a better place and it has vitually no cost.

[HDPM]

I quickly read the majority opinion and some of the others. O'Connor's majority opinion isn't particularly well-reasoned IMO, but I didn't read it carefully as I said. Thomas's dissent is interesting and makes some good points IMO. Scalia likes Thomas's dissent but he uncorked some rude statements as he likes to do. I did laugh where he talks about schools talking the diversity talk but walking the tribalism walk. He doesn't reason through how diversity often equals tribalism tho, at least in American higher education. I stopped reading Ginsburg's opinion when she started quoting U.N. crap. (Groan) The opinion is going to lead to all kinds of litigation and isn't particularly intellectually honest IMO. I think Thomas would have preferred if the majority had just said quotas were ok. This fight isn't over.

P.S. The whole thing about diversity programs somehow sunsetting is bizarre. I don't know how something morphs from constitutional to unconstitutional via the passage of time.

[MMMMMM]

Disadvantages for U.S. citizens today are primarily economic, not racial or ethnic.

The principal disadvantage blacks face today is that they're likely to grow up in a lower income bracket. Decades ago, the core of the issue was indeed racial, with rampant prejudice and segregation, but today most of that has passed away. Today it is really much more about plain economics.

The problem with assigning preferences based on very broad racial groups is that not only do individuals who don't fit the average get treated unfairly, but that certain groups which are very disadvantaged don't get recognized as such. For instance, Albanians are very disadvantaged: their country is the poorest in Europe and is terribly ridden with crime. Certain Asians, too, come from very poor countries, but they are lumped in with the richer Asians who are considered "advantaged." The quota system based on race has some glaring flaws.

Question: Given that awarding racial preferences (as is done today with Affirmative Action) should be a temporary measure, at what point do we decide it is no longer needed and abolish it in favor of basing everything on Constitutional, individual rights? At what point would we no longer 'need' Affirmative Action? And how willing would the groups who currently benefit be to give up the huge advantages conferred by such legalized racial preferencing?

My personal opinion is that we should probably throw it out lock, stock and barrel. Yes, we should let college admissions personnel take into account economic background and life experiences of applicants on an individual basis, but not a group basis. So what if you're in some same 'group' as I am? Did you share my experiences? What are your experiences? What disadvantages did you overcome? What are your thoughts and plans? If you grew up poor and maybe worked part-time during high school and got a slightly lower grade average than someone who grew up rich, then I can certainly see some balancing in evaluating the admissions. But if you grew up rich and you're black, or if you grew up white and you're poor, or if you grew up in Albania, or grew up poor in the Phillipines, or...etc...Affirmative Action is really a lousy and unfair system, overbroad, and very untargeted. Also, does it really help those who are admitted to schools which are beyond their academic capability to perform? And doesn't it hurt otherwise deserving students who get 'bumped'--and maybe these were poor students to begin with?

Sooner or later we are going to have to do away with all forms of group preferencing in order to adhere to the core values of equal rights and opportunity for everyone. If we're not quite yet at the point where this should be done--and we may not be--I think it should at least be coming soon.

[Clarkmeister]

"Question: Given that awarding racial preferences (as is done today with Affirmative Action) should be a temporary measure, at what point do we decide it is no longer needed and abolish it in favor of basing everything on Constitutional, individual rights? At what point would we no longer 'need' Affirmative Action?"

When the "Population" of the Board of Directors for all Fortune 500 companies bears a resemblence to the population of the country at large.

[andyfox]

"O'Connor's majority opinion isn't particularly well-reasoned"

-Are any of her opinions particularly well-reasoned? And don't quote me the one she voiced upon hearing that if the Florida Supreme Court's ruling held up Gore would be president: "Oh, no." /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Jimbo]

MMMMMM asked:

"Question: Given that awarding racial preferences (as is done today with Affirmative Action) should be a temporary measure, at what point do we decide it is no longer needed and abolish it in favor of basing everything on Constitutional, individual rights? At what point would we no longer 'need' Affirmative Action?"

Clarkmeister responded:

"When the "Population" of the Board of Directors for all Fortune 500 companies bears a resemblence to the population of the country at large. "

Jimbo attempts to clarify:

In other words never.

[HDPM]

Well, it wasn't as embarassing as the "Oh no."

[Clarkmeister]

"Jimbo attempts to clarify:

In other words never. "


You'll have to explain to me just why that will *never* occur. Apparently I'm too dense to understand without further explaination.

[Jimbo]

I was hoping you would ask. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif I agree that affirmative action adds value to our country. It however does not make people smarter or much more likely to make them fortune 500 directors. Just like giving an average poker player a buyin to a 100/300 holdem game. Sure they get to play for a while but that doesn't make them better poker players nor more likely to win.

So if that is your criterion for success then affirmative action must continue ad infinitum.

[Clarkmeister]

"I agree that affirmative action adds value to our country. It however does not make people smarter "

So your contention is that some races/ethnicities are smarter than others?

And here M almost had me convinced that the bias in our country was economic and not ethnic. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[Jimbo]

So your contention is that some races/ethnicities are smarter than others?

I agree with your earlier statement Clarkmeister, you may be dense after all or else you are intentionally misconstruing my premise. Allow me to explain again; It matters not whether you put less academically qualified white people in college or less academically qualified people of another ethnicity in college. Less academically qualified is still less academically qualified and less likely to become industry chieftans.

[adios]

"When the "Population" of the Board of Directors for all Fortune 500 companies bears a resemblence to the population of the country at large."

What are the actual numbers regarding the makeup of the board of directors of the Fortune 500 companies and their representation by ethnic groups? "Bears a resemblence" seems like an awfully vague term to me and one that is highly subjective IMO.

[MMMMMM]

Jimbo I guess you'll have to explain to me why you feel Affirmative Action adds value to our country.

To my way of thinking anything which encourages mediocrity and discounts accomplishment likely subtracts value in sum.

[Clarkmeister]

" or else you are intentionally misconstruing my premise"

Oh I am quite certain I am not misconstruing anything at all.

[Clarkmeister]

I'd like to know the exact breakdown also. But I think we all know what it would look like. I'll see if I can find anything on it.

As for defining "resemblance", I dunno....maybe within +/-30% of the actual population at large? For example, if group A constitutes 5% of the population, being within the 3.5-6.5% range is probabaly OK. Just throwing a number out there, I'm sure some statisticians could find an actual number that is within acceptable statistical guidelines.

[John Feeney]

"Less academically qualified is still less academically qualified and less likely to become industry chieftans."

Isn't it true though that affirmative action will sometimes (often?) apply to a choice between two more or less *equally* qualified candidates, pushing the choice toward the one from the group which affirmative action aims to help?

I'm not taking a stand in favor of affirmative action, btw. I see it as a complex issue with convincing arguments on both sides. But I wanted to raise the question of whether it always (or generally) involves picking a *less* qualified candidate. How often does it proceed from the point: "all things being equal..."? By merely applying affirmative action to this situation, I would think that the racial/ethnic makeup of the boards of Fortune 500 companies would, in time, change a great deal.

[adios]

"I'd like to know the exact breakdown also. But I think we all know what it would look like. I'll see if I can find anything on it."

I have a bias myself but I'd still like to work from facts if possible. I think there's value in knowing the numbers.

"As for defining "resemblance", I dunno....maybe within +/-30% of the actual population at large? For example, if group A constitutes 5% of the population, being within the 3.5-6.5% range is probabaly OK. Just throwing a number out there, I'm sure some statisticians could find an actual number that is within acceptable statistical guidelines. "

I understand about the statistical guidelines but it seems like the logical extension is a quota system i.e. the goal hasn't been acheived until the numbers look like this.

[adios]

"My personal opinion is that we should probably throw it out lock, stock."

Messers Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and I believe Alan Keyes are actually offended by affirmative action as they find it condescending and demeaning to their particular ethnic group. I'm opposed to bigotted discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual preference to name a few. Does that make me supportive of affirmative action or against it?

[nicky g]

Nice post. I largely agree in principle with what you say - ie that positive discrimination should allow for individual circumstances - though I would imagine blacks would still be the major beneficiaries in most parts of the US. From what I understand in the Michigan case coming from a deprived socioeconomic background counted as much in favour of you as race did (and you couldn't win twice, if you see what I mean), so I think poor Asians etc were equally favoured in that case. My wife has some arguments in favour of affirmative action as it is that I found quite persuasive, but I can't remember what they were; I shall have to ask.

Incidentally there isn't really anything similar to AA in the UK. There was recently a huge row when Bristol university, which (as with all the top British colleges, has a huge private school intake), decided to lower their admission standards slightly for applicants from deprived state schools. After a big row, they dropped the policy, which I thought was a terrible shame.

[MMMMMM]

I suppose it would incline you to be against Affirmative Action, although I could see it differently too.

By the way, I seem to recall Thomas Sowell quoting Booker T. Washington as saying "There are those who do not wish the patient to get well."

[Clarkmeister]

"though I would imagine blacks would still be the major beneficiaries in most parts of the US. "

I'm still looking for data on my Fortune 500 Board of Director stats, but I'd be surprised if the group that received the biggest benefit wouldn't be women.

[MMMMMM]

Interesting.

Anyway, specifically talking about the U. of M. issue, I wonder where they got the 20 points for being black vs. 12 points for perfect scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. And if what you are saying is accurate, coming from a deprived economic background was worth 40 points? These numbers seem absurd and I would think them absurd even if I favored Affirmative Action. I wonder what point score they gave to, say, a B+ grade average.

If minor differences in performance are balanced by backgrounds--especially individual backgrounds--I can see it, more or less--but giving such proportionately HUGE weighting to being black or Hispanic just seems---well---like the comittee who came up with these numbers were stoned to the wide---high as kites or something...20 vs. 12...hmmmm....maybe that's the number of joints they had smoked as a group, that day vs. the previous day.

[Clarkmeister]

"Studies focusing on American corporations have shown that women and minorities constitute fewer than 6 percent of the top officers and directors of Fortune 500 companies.

The EEOC reports that 97 percent of the corporate senior ranks are occupied by white men."

But there's no racism or sexism in America, right? M, care to change your mind that its all about economic background only? Racism and Sexism are alive and well.

http://www.iccr.org/issue_groups/equality/analysis_diverse.htm

[nicky g]

In terms fairly distributing the top jobs amongst the races and sexes etc, yes (though I don't think that's a great indicator of a fair society). I was talking more about replacing positive discrimination on a racial basis with positive discrimination on a poverty/social class basis.

[nicky g]

"And if what you are saying is accurate, coming from a deprived economic background was worth 40 points?"

Coming from a deprived social background is worth 20 points, as is coming from an underrepresented ethnic group, along with a few other things in the same category. But you can't score within the cateogry twice - ie being black and coming from a deprived social background is still only worth 20 points. This, from an interesting article on the case, explains it better than I have:

"The system that Michigan uses to filter the unwieldy flood of hopefuls is a mixture of the complex and the crude. It awards a maximum of 150 points, with applicants needing at least 100 to be considered. The university allots 110 of these points purely on the basis of academic achievement. The remaining 40 (the absolute maximum, regardless of your circumstances) come under the heading "Other factors". Here, you can get five points for both personal achievement and leadership/service; four if your parents or step-parents went to the university; and three for the quality of the compulsory essay explaining why you want to go there. An applicant from the state of Michigan automatically gets 10 points; one from an underrepresented county within Michigan gets another six; and an applicant from another underrepresented state gets two.

But in the bottom right-hand corner, under the subheading "Miscellaneous", stands the nub of the controversy in black and white. Here, the university awards five points if you are a man who wants to go into nursing, and 20 points, at the provost's discretion, if you are at socioeconomic disadvantage, a scholarship athlete or from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group. The latter alone is the target of the plaintiff's ire. No one can score more than 20 in this section. So a poor, black, male basketball supremo who wants to go into nursing would score only 20, as would a wealthy, white tennis champion."

from Guardian Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,980731,00.html)

One thing I don't understand is that you get points (not only at Michingan) if your parents went to the university. What's the rationale behind that?

[MMMMMM]

So:

An Asian or Caucasian who gets perfect SAT scores (12 points) plus gets the maximum points for achievement/leadership/service (5 points) plus gets the maximum points for an essay (3 points) only manages to precisely offset the disadvantage of being Asian or Caucasian in the first place. And that's presuming that their black or Hispanic counterparts get zero points for SAT scores, zero points for achievement, and zero points for essay: then the playing field has been leveled. What percentage of Asians or Caucasians get such perfect scores?

As I said, what was that committee smoking? Good thing the Supreme Court disallowed that part of the policy, at least.

[Jimbo]

Isn't it true though that affirmative action will sometimes (often?) apply to a choice between two more or less *equally* qualified candidates, pushing the choice toward the one from the group which affirmative action aims to help?

Yes John I believe that is possible however isn't it just as (or more) likely to take to equally unqualified applicants and advance the person who qualifies under the affirmative action program?

Many people seem to be missing the fact that people assigned preferential treatment by affirmative action guidelines are not the highest scoring candidates. Otherwise they would not need the additional push the affirmative action offers. In other words if you meet all the "normal" academic requirements the affirmative action is unnecessary. It is when you are looking at people on the cusp where it comes into play.

[Jimbo]

Nicky g the point system you outlined is the undergraduate affirmative action program which was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court yesterday. Just in case there was any confusion.

[Jimbo]

Oh I am quite certain I am not misconstruing anything at all.

In that case you must have been correct in your earlier quote about your specific density. It appears you believe that if one does not believe affirmative action will turn average students into industry leaders then that person must be biased against minorities. I am only biased against liberal policies whether their followers be white or a minority.

[MMMMMM]

I fear it comes into play not only on the cusp, Jimbo, but well away from the cusp also. Else why would ethnicity be worth so much more than perfect SAT scores?

If it only mattered on the cusp my opposition to it would be less. But I've hear stories of minorities who scored in the 400's on their SAT's getting into Harvard, etc.

Half a grade, or just maybe a full grade perhaps, adjusted in the admissions process, might be considered "on the cusp." But is it really so limited or do D's, in effect, turn into B+'s or A's under current Affirmative Action overall weighting as is commonly practiced at most universities. Just wondering.

Next step on this path;-): Course grading students using a formula which reduces the letter grades for "non-minorities" and increases the letter grades for "minorities." A palette shift involving approximately one full grade is my best guess at this point;-)

[Jimbo]

You are probably correct MMMMMM. I am doing my best to remain open-minded about affirmative action less Clarkmeister outright accuses me of being a racist instead of his current insinuations. If he knew my ethnic background he would likely be surprised. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Utah]

Hi Clarkmeister,

How do you conclude racism from these statistics? What exact form does this racism take? Can you give me a valid study that proves this alleged racism?

Some Questions:
1) The typical path to a CEO in corporate 500 is 30-40 years. Therefore, how do you know there is not a delayed effect? If sexism and racism ended 20 years ago you would not see an effect yet at the top levels.
2) What percentage of Women, Blacks, Asians, etc. actually enter corporate America in an attempt to reach the CEO post? My experience working at corporate america is that very few do.
3) Why do you think every group has the genetic disposition that makes them suitable candidates for fortune 500 leadership (intellect, preferences, etc.)? It is strongly backed by scientific evidence that all groups are not identical in their abilities (I am not saying some are inferior. rather each group as a whole has advantages and disadvantages).
4) How do you account for standard deviation?

My experience in several fortune 500 companies is that most companies go out of their way to help minorities and women. White males are at a disadvantage over these groups and usually must be smarter and work harder to get ahead. Also, my experience is that most women are simply unwilling to make the neccessary sacrifices to climb the latter as they would rather spend time with their families. Go into any Fortune 500 corp. at night and a huge percentage of those working late will be aggressive white men, not women with families. Additionally, I have seen over and over again top women candidates quite work completely to raise a family but I have yet to see a white mail do it.

Finally, Given your logic, do you think the NBA and other professional sports are some of the most racist groups in the US given the player makeup; i.e. the huge anomoly of black players in pro sports versus their percentage in the general population. Maybe its simply nothing more than the fact that they are better players. Why is it easy to accept that in sports but not other areas of society?

[Michael Davis]

Nicky,

Coming from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background WAS afforded the same number of points as being from a minority background. However, the application form had no place where a qualified applicant could indicate their socioeconomic status, and no instructions on any way they could possibly take advantage of the point bonus. Thus, as you can imagine, it was considerably easier to earn the points as a minority, something which was easily marked on the forms.

-Mike

[adios]

I wonder how many QUALIFIED minorities and women are denied positions due to bias. To be fair I asked Clarkmeister to provide a source to quantify his statement which he did. With that said the trend is also important to know.

[jokerswild]

Your posts clearly display a ridiculous racial bigotry. You assume time and tome again that white corporate execs are more talented and intelligent than people of color.

Of course you defend the US Government when it is in your interest, while continuing to break the law and support terrorism with online gambling. You are quite simply a hypocrite that advertizes his IP address everyday to the FBI. I hope for your sake that you declare any activity on your taxes. You will need to be able to account for every penny.

[KJS]

I'm not sure you can only look at the end of the equation. For many people, becoming unqualified starts as soon as they are denied entrance to a certain school (or can't afford to go), given a grade they did not deserve, face a criminal charge because of racial bias, etc.. I probably couldn't become a CEO based purely on the fact that my parents could only afford to send me to a state university. How many Fortune 500 CEOs come from those? It goes deeper than just the people who actually get to an interview with the board.

KJS

[adios]

I agree with your point. However, I think the biographical data on for instance
<ul type="square"> Franlin Raines CEO of Federal National Mortgage (Fannie Mae)
Richard Parsons CEO of AOL-Time Warner E. Stanley O'Neal CEO of Merrill Lynch (Forbes top African-American CEO) Colin Powell - US Secretary of State Clarence Thomas Supreme Court Justice Carley Fiorina CEO of Hewlett-Packard Meg Whitman CEO of EBAY Dr. Condoleezza Rice National Security Advisor [/list]

to name a few would be very interesting to see what they had to overcome. Here is a short biographical sketch of Franklin Raines who IMO is an incredibly brilliant man:

Franklin Raines (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/black.history/stories/17.raines/)

I have no idea what he had to overcome to accumulate his credentials or how much he was assisted by affirmative action or how he views affirmative action.

[nicky g]

Interesting. Over here, it's generally pretty easy to tell such things from what school you went to; I don't know if that's the case in the US. Also the top colleges here generally interview you before offering you a place.

MMMMMM, I'm missing something here, but I understood that 110 of the points were based soley on academic ability? I agree that the essay points are ridiculously small compared to other factors; I'd always thought that would be one of the main deciders.

Jimbo - no, I hadn't realised that. So, if positive discrimination is allowed, but both points and quotas systems are unconstitutional, what method are they going to use now?

[Utah]

I think you bring up an interesting point and I hear arguments like yours all the time. However, I simply don't believe that school or almost anything is an absolute qualifier: except for some places like investment banking (although I still know people who have gotten into IB from mediocre schools).

Personally, I worked for a fortune 500 retail company where I started out as a busboy in a company restaurant. I went to a state university degree (after failing out twice) and completed my meagar degree. Within a few years I was able to work my way into the strategic planning department on an equal par with the Harvard and Stanford kids. Within a few years after that my career had far surpassed almost everyone elses at my level.

Since everyone around me had gone to Ivy League MBA programs, I felt that I needed to as well. I applied to most of the major MBA schools and got turned down by every one of them (Although I am positive I would have gotten in as a minority or women since my GMAT scores were higher than all the school averages). Although it sucked, it just motivated me to work harder.

I was on the path to senior management and I certainly wouldn't have been limited by a state school degree. I eventually left when I was recruited by a different company - which of course didnt care about my school background.

To me, the keys are: very hard work (I used to be the first one to work and the last to leave), the willingness to take big risks and to put your career and name on the line for what you believe, and the ability to eat, with a smile on your face, the mountains of corporate crap that people sling at you all day long, and the ability to overcome adversity.

The huge majority of people are unwilling or unable to do this. When they don't succeed they blame their problems on race, sex, pedigree, or whatever. I have yet to see anyone exhibit these traits and fail because of such factors.

I am reading a book called Fermet's Enigma, which talks about the history of mathematics. There has been several women who became great mathematicians, even though they weren't allowed to study mathematics and they were greatly discriminated against. of course, on of these women had her skin torn off on an alter because of her studies, but that is a different story.

[MMMMMM]

Perfect SATs + maximum points on an essay + maximum points for personal achievement = 20. Merely being black or Hispanic or American Indian also = 20. Doesn't that strike you as a ridiculous comparative weighting? How few people actually get perfect SATs and would get maximum points for personal achievement as well? This weighting trivializes their performance and achievement.

Well, at least the Supreme Court too apparently saw the absurdity of U. of M.'s point system.

[andyfox]

FWIW, Colin Powell has always been a proponent of affirmative action. Here is what he had to say earlier this year, which parallels what he said many times before he was a part of the administration:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/powell.race/

[nicky g]

It does seem high if you look at it that way but all the same, 110 points were allocated solely academic ability - all it really suggests is that they valued a proven academicrecord more highly than SAT scores and non-academic interests. But regardless, it doesn't really matter now.