What really is Affirmative Action?

[BeerMoney]

What is it really supposed to be?

Have you ever been a victim of it? I have. I'd just like to hear what others have to say.

I think it sucks.

[elwoodblues]

Just as good of a question is: What is discrimination? Have you ever been the beneficiary of it? I'm sure that I have (either directly or indirectly).

I'm curious to hear how you were the victim of Affirmative Action. I'm not saying that I necessarily don't believe that you were, but I don't believe a lot of the stories. The stories that I've heard from other victims goes something like this...

I applied for a job. I am very qualified. I interviewed and so did a black man. He wasn't as qualified as me (how I know this remains to be seen). The black man got the job. I talked to a friend of mine who works there. He said that they hired the other guy because he was black. I believe my friend because he wouldn't just tell me the easy answer ("you didn't get the job because he's black") instead of the more difficult one ("you weren't as good of a candidate as the other guy. Your interview wasn't that great and your resume was submitted on purple construction paper.")

[BeerMoney]

Do you consider this discrimination? I applied for a job and interviewed and was ready to be hired. However, human resources said the people had to interview a minority and female candidate. It took 4 weeks while I waited for that to occur. So, I lost 4 weeks of work and wages. I lost money because no other people were qualified for the job at that time and I had to wait. What if you were at a poker table and couldn't play because you had to wait for women to show up? Gay. Its not a blatant he got hired and I was better qualified than him.. But its still lame.

[elwoodblues]

Wow, that HR person is an idiot. I can imagine the telephone call --- "BeerMoney, this is HR. We think you're great and are ready to hire you. The only problem is we want to interview some minorities and women. We'll get back to you in a couple of weeks after conducting these token interviews."

[Rushmore]

Doesn't ring real true, huh?

I'm not a big fan of Affirmative Action, but let's face it--that conversation didn't happen.

[BeerMoney]

What are you talking about didn't happen. I never had that conversation with the person from HR, but that's what the people I interviewed with said. Dude, my story is absolutely 100% true. The same thing has happened in the NFL. The management is supposed to interview a minority before hiring anyone. Why is that hard to believe?

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about didn't happen. I never had that conversation with the person from HR, but that's what the people I interviewed with said. Dude, my story is absolutely 100% true. The same thing has happened in the NFL. The management is supposed to interview a minority before hiring anyone. Why is that hard to believe?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying that the guy who interviewed you TOLD you he had to interview an Eskimo and a hermaphrodite before he could give you an answer?

I didn't know this was legal.

I guess we agree.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
What is it really supposed to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Affirmative action" is a catch-all phrase that describes a variety of governmental policies intended to remedy the effects of past and/or current racial, ethnic, and/or gender discrimination. These policies might range from preferential law school admissions at a state university to quota laws concerning the awarding of building contracts in a municipal district.

People who say affirmative action is discriminatory are of course right - that's the whole point. But lots of institutions run in fundamentally discriminatory ways, such as legacy systems at elite universities, nepotism-ridden job-hiring practices, or countless others that are rife with the informal tacit racial discrimination that afflicts most of us (including me).

[adios]

I prefer using the term "positive discrimination" which I first saw in the Guardian I believe. Generally speaking I think it's demeaning to those that it's meant to help but I do think there are situations where a seemingly objective process is in place that really isn't, thus it is probably necessary on a limited basis.

[JTrout]

Don't the NFL teams have to interview a black person before they give anyone the job?

[Utah]

There is no strong moral case to ban affirmative action, although there is a good economic case to ban it.

Lets face it, we already practice class based hiring. However, we usually use intelligence instead of skin color. Why should someone borne with higher intelligence (a genetic trait) be given preference over someone with a dark skin color (another genetic trait)?

While there is a strong economic argument for using intelligence over skin color (i.e., the economy runs better) there is no moral justification to say that we should ban affirmative action.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]

You're saying that the guy who interviewed you TOLD you he had to interview an Eskimo and a hermaphrodite before he could give you an answer?

I didn't know this was legal.

I guess we agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he obviously didn't say Eskimo/ hermaphrodite. I asssumed it was legal. Maybe I should have challenged it. Maybe I still can.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
These policies might range from preferential law school admissions at a state university to quota laws concerning the awarding of building contracts in a municipal district.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely my point, which is, WHO GETS TO DECIDE?

[Sundevils21]

I don't know if you can challenge anything. Like you said, the NFL does have a rule now that states for any head coaching job vacancy, one minority canidate must be interviewed.
The Detroit Lions got fined by the league for hiring Steve Mariucci before at least interviewing a minority. Personally I think the rule of having to interview a minority to help prevent racism, is in fact racism in and of itself.

[superleeds]

Proof that racism is still alive and well in the 21st Century.

[B-Man]

Affirmative action is discrimination against whites, especially against white men.

That's about it. Many in this country would have you believe that there is "good" and "bad" racial discrimination; that's absurd. All racial discrimination is bad; two wrongs do not make a right.

Unfortunately, if you say this in public, many people will call you a racist.

[Sundevils21]

I agree Bman. If you ask the average black person if they would like special treatment just because they are black, they would call that racist. So I have a question for all of the pro-Affirmative actionists of the world. What about the places where white people are the minorities?(In some cities at least, if not states[New Mexico] white people would fall into the minority category) So do the white people get the same treatment... NO??? Isn't that racist... NO??? I don't get it.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These policies might range from preferential law school admissions at a state university to quota laws concerning the awarding of building contracts in a municipal district.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is precisely my point, which is, WHO GETS TO DECIDE?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first instance, I imagine it is the regents of the university. In the second, I think those tend to be city or state laws. Many have been challenged and have gone all the way up to the Supreme Court, with mixed results.

It is just a feature of our governmental system that in these situations generally a policy can be put into place by whoever is in charge or can command a legislative majority without much a priori restraint. This is basically a good thing in the end. But one of the consequences is that to knock it down you have to go through this time-consuming legal trek through the courts.

[southerndog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These policies might range from preferential law school admissions at a state university to quota laws concerning the awarding of building contracts in a municipal district.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is precisely my point, which is, WHO GETS TO DECIDE?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first instance, I imagine it is the regents of the university. In the second, I think those tend to be city or state laws. Many have been challenged and have gone all the way up to the Supreme Court, with mixed results.

It is just a feature of our governmental system that in these situations generally a policy can be put into place by whoever is in charge or can command a legislative majority without much a priori restraint. This is basically a good thing in the end. But one of the consequences is that to knock it down you have to go through this time-consuming legal trek through the courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if you are someone who considers yourself important, you get to decide what's fair and what's not?

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Affirmative action is discrimination against whites, especially against white men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily.

[ QUOTE ]

That's about it. Many in this country would have you believe that there is "good" and "bad" racial discrimination; that's absurd. All racial discrimination is bad; two wrongs do not make a right.


[/ QUOTE ]
How successful/necessary affirmative action these days is debatable. The presence of "old boys networks", cronyism, and nepotism in the American workplace is not. But that stuff doesn't seem to perturb the anti-AA crowd. I have yet to hear anyone propose that they get rid of legacy acceptances at Ivy League schools.

[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, if you say this in public, many people will call you a racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it sucks when you go to a party and they want to use you to play "pin the tail on the honkey" just for putting down affirmative action.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if you are someone who considers yourself important, you get to decide what's fair and what's not?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If you are someone who has the power to push through some kind of legislation, then you get to do so within certain reasonable bounds.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
But that stuff doesn't seem to perturb the anti-AA crowd. I have yet to hear anyone propose that they get rid of legacy acceptances at Ivy League schools.



[/ QUOTE ]


what is a legacy acceptance? if it's what i think it is, then i am definitely against it. you should be judged in this world according to merit alone. affirmative action is reverse racism.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should someone borne with higher intelligence (a genetic trait) be given preference over someone with a dark skin color (another genetic trait)?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because higher intelligence might actually affect job performance. The same reason we don't allow blind pilots. Skin color does not affect job performance.

The point is that it isn't only that either is an accident of birth; rather that it is an accident of birth and isn't rationally related to job peformance.

[hetron]

It's favoring prospective students whose parents/siblings/grandparents went to that school.

[nicky g]

It isn't because they are minorities, but because they have been historically discriminated against (there are positive discrimination programmes i SOuth Africa, where blacks are the majority but were severely disenfranchised under apartheid), and still appear to be currently discriminated against given their under-representation in certain fields. I can't think of many places where white people have been historically discriminated against or are proportionately under-represented in professional/high grade fields. Can someone else?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
How successful/necessary affirmative action these days is debatable. The presence of "old boys networks", cronyism, and nepotism in the American workplace is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

hetron, if you read my post you know I'm in favor of positive discrimination (affirmative action) on a limited basis. I have a few comments on your statement that I quoted. It is impossible to totally eradicate what you call the "old boys networks." Second of all what you and I consider to be cronyism may be far different so abscense of an objective standard in my mind weakens the arguement supporting affirmative action. Cronyism isn't necessarily illegal either. Third of all, how to do we prove that "old boys networks" are acting illegally i.e. how do we prove that these "old boy networks" practice racial, gender or whatever kind of illegal discrimination they're accused of being guilty of?

[MMMMMM]

It is a fallacy to think that discrimination is necessarily the reason for under-representation in certain fields. Different groups do not tend, in the real world, to produce the same results. The reasons for this are many and usually do not involve discrimination.

[nicky g]

It may not be. I think there is good evidence in many cases that it is. South Africa is an open and shut case, for example.

[MMMMMM]

Yes in many cases it has been.

The insidious fallacy that so many people buy into, though, is that if it were not for discrimination, all professions would be equally represented amongst all ethnic groups.

Different groups produce different results, and have heavier concentrations in different areas. Look how Asians dominate math and the hard sciences, even compared to whites, in our universities and in the professional world. Blacks dominate basketball. Different groups simply tend to produce different results, and presuming they ought to produce the same results is quite the fallacy.

[southerndog]

Exactly. When you go to a university, and you are studying physics, do you care if your professor is black, white or Asian? No, of course not, you want the best teacher. You know when a strong black applicant goes to apply at a university in an underrepresented field, the university's will scratch and claw for that person. Guess what? That costs money. They have to pay that person more because the demand is so high. Guess what? That costs the students more money!! That sux. I've seen it happen. Its lame.

[elwoodblues]

The question for me is whether those trends are a result of biological distinctions or cultural. If there are cultural reasons for distinctions in performance, those should be explored. I'm not suggesting that you are doing so, but to deny that past/present discrimination has shaped different cultures in the US would be silly. To the extent that present cultures have been shaped (to the detriment of many) by discrimination, those groups that have benefited from that discrimination "owe" something to the other cultures to try to remedy the present effects of past discrimination.

[elwoodblues]

And when you are hiring someone you want someone who is best at the job. Subconsciously, I usually think I am the best person for the job. Therefore, when someone reminds me of myself, I look favorably upon them.

Does this mentality lead to discriminatory practices? If so, what can/should we do to try to remedy it?

[MMMMMM]

The effects of past discrimination dissipate greatly over time. Much time has passed so that the idea of reparations for blacks today is absurd, in my opinion. Furthermore, today blacks enjoy even more advantages than whites in our society.

[superleeds]

The costs are minimal compared to the money saved by having minority's feel they are not being discrimanated against.

This is the long term goal of Affirmative Action.

[Utah]

Because higher intelligence might actually affect job performance. The same reason we don't allow blind pilots. Skin color does not affect job performance.

The point is that it isn't only that either is an accident of birth; rather that it is an accident of birth and isn't rationally related to job peformance.

My point exactly. You can make an economic argument for it but you cant make a moral argument. You cannot say that it is unfair that someone got a job because they were black over a more intelligent (i.e., qualified) candidate. You can only say that its bad for the economy.

The American dream is a myth to a large degree. We live in a caste system based on intelligence. We basically tell the unitelligent - your s#$% out of luck. However, we lie to ourselves and mask the true nature of our society.

[elwoodblues]

In my mind the existence of current social/economic/cultural distinctions between blacks and whites (for example) that can be directly tied to slavery and subsequent post-abolition discrimination is so clear it defies me how this could be denied.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, today blacks enjoy even more advantages than whites in our society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually you can find some commonality when you aren't on the same page as someone else. This comment makes me think that we aren't in the same book or even the same library.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
In my mind the existence of current social/economic/cultural distinctions between blacks and whites (for example) that can be directly tied to slavery and subsequent post-abolition discrimination is so clear it defies me how this could be denied.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elaborate please.

[nicky g]

I don't know enough about it to really get into this, but as elwood says culture and environment probably have a lot to do with this. There may be legitimate small differences in certain occupations but I don't beleive there's a legitimate reasons for blacks being underrepresented as a whole at universities or in senior positions across the board, or over represented (vastly) in unemployment or incarceration figures, for example.

As for blacks having more rights than whites, I think you are using too narrow a legal view. Yes in theory legally they are no longer discriminated against and even get a help up from certain programmes, but you'd have to believe that they are seriously deficient in many many areas for the current racial economic divide to be legitimate. Part of the problem is that we have different views of government; you think that once reasonable laws oare in place everyone should be left up to themselves. I think if there's evidence things aren't working to plan, there's good reason for government to step in. Bigger argument, I suppose.

[adios]

IMO the trouble with going down the slippery slope of reparations is how much is enough (quantitatively not qualitatively), when is the onus on the culturally deprived to improve their lot, as well as determining the proper remedy. Certainly making racial discrimination (there are other illegal discrimation types in the USA as well) and having the government enforce the laws is the key portion of any remedy. How far beyond that is justified, warranted, and effective im my mind is open to debate. This is one time I'm going to play the age trump card on you and state that you should see where the US has come from. I have and have posted about my personal experiences in the past.

[MMMMMM]

Blacks today enjoy the legal advantages of affirmative action. Whites and Asians suffer a little from this.

In our society today, there is virtually no discrimination--except for legal discrimination under affirmative action.

Enough decades have passed so that the effects of past discimination against blacks should be largely dissipated. Nearly anyone can get ahead in today's America if they are studious, hard-working and diligent. Blaming blacks' current problems on discrimination is a canard.

What does need to be addressed are some things all too common in the black culture: broken homes, crime, drugs and alcoholism. Interestingly, similar cultural problems can also be founbd amongst Native Americans living on Indian Reservatiuons today. But no amount of reasoning can showe that their problems are due to the effects of long past discrimination and injustices. Today they get all manner of benefits from the government, yet are plagued by such problems. Those who have built casinos often get rich but are still beset by problems such as alcoholism and violence.

Too much time has passed for it all to be attributable to long since past injustices. The problem has become cultural: today's culture.

Even Bill Cosby, at the recent commemoration of Brown vs. Board of Education at Constitution Hall, said that many Blacks can't speak English. This is getting a little tangential, but here is what he said:

"Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids – $500 sneakers for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.'

"They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"

[southerndog]

An interesting article..

McWhorter, John H. "Explaining The Black Education Gap." Wilson Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 3, Summer 2000, pp.72-92.
Despite the rise of the black middle class in America, African-American students still lag significantly behind their peers in academic performance. The author, an African-American professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, believes that the root of this gap is not racism, inadequate school funding, or socioeconomic status, but a strain of anti-intellectualism that plagues the black American community. In this thoughtful article, McWhorter writes that in his years teaching at Berkeley, he has "spent a long time trying not to give credence to a pattern that became too consistent and obvious to ignore", that African-Americans were among his poorest students (black students from the Caribbean and African nations have been among his best). A product of centuries of slavery and segregation, he believes that anti-intellectualism among American blacks has been reinforced by the 1960s-1970s strand of separatism that rejects everything "white". He notes that it permeates black American culture, yet goes unrecognized because of the widespread victimologist mindset. He states: "it is not pleasant to think that blacks are held down by black culture itself, but it is absolutely vital that we address anti-intellectualism in black American culture honestly."



I can't seem to get my hands on the entire article. But I read it once, and it is really interesting. What the author says, who is a black prof at berkely, is that black students that were let in under AA at berkely were rude to the students that were let in without affirmative action. He also has a lot of other interesting points.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
It's favoring prospective students whose parents/siblings/grandparents went to that school.

[/ QUOTE ]

then clearly it is as dumb as affirmative action.

[hetron]

Adios in response to your question, I'm not sure you could if AA didn't exist. And that's the thing; I'm not saying AA is the perfect solution, but what other solutions exist?

[elwoodblues]

Am I reading the paragraph wrong or is he saying in one part "the root of [the education] gap is not racism" then goes on to say "A product of centuries of slavery and segregation, he believes that anti-intellectualism among American blacks has been reinforced by the 1960s-1970s strand of separatism that rejects everything 'white'." Those sentiments seem to contradict one another. It's not about racism but rather is about a culture that was born from slavery and separatism.

[elwoodblues]

I guess in an overly simplistic way, I would say that slavery and subsequent deep seeded discrimination placed a disproportionate number of black families in a significant economic disadvantage to their white counterparts. Just as wealth and success is handed down to subsequent generations, economic disadvantage is handed down to subsequent generations. Poor black families lived in communities together and those pools of communities were unable to create a solid educational infrastructure (here I would recommend reading any chapter of Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities). This lack of infrastructure permeated other aspects of life beyond education. Ultimately, this resulted in a system where only the truly exceptional succeed.

Much of the current problem is as much an economic one as it is a race one, but its roots for blacks traces back to large scale institutionalized discrimination. What's the solution? I have no idea. I think improving schools and encouraging education would make a difference, but as a post later in this thread points out - there tends to be a lack of interest in better education. I think having positive role models within struggling communities, not of the exceptional person who succeeds but of one who is just like everyone else, would do wonders. This is where affirmative action comes in.

Ultimately, I don't know if I favor affirmative action on the basis of race. I think affirmative action based on economic class makes more sense. A rich black kid in suburbia probably doesn't need the same leg up as a poor white kid in an inner city. Until we make that change, I'm comfortable with our current affirmative action policies.

[MMMMMM]

I have before posted that if the problem is economic disadvantage, then that should be the basis nof affirmative action, not race. A rich upper class black does not need affirmative action. A poor white in an inner city or in Appalachia might benefit from it though. Since the real problem is economic, which spills over into education, it does not make sense to base such measures on race instead of on economic need. Also changing it to economic-need-based would help ensure that the aid goes where it is most needed. And most of the aid would still go to blacks and hispanics, but it would be more accurately targeted.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean I'm in favor of ANY kind of affirmative action or economic aid, but the system as it currently exists is broken and improperly targeted. Aditionally, certain other Americans of foreign descent are more disadvantaged...such as white Albanians, or certain groups of Asians. Yet they are not eligible for the aid because the aid is too broadly targeted by race instead of by individual need. Immigrants from some Asian countries atend to be ppoor while those from other Asian countries tend to be pretty well-off. Classification by race for putposes of preferential treatment is very poorly targeted. It should also be unconstitutional regardless of which side of the coin has landed up.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I have before posted that if the problem is economic disadvantage, then that should be the basis nof affirmative action, not race. A rich upper class black does not need affirmative action. A poor white in an inner city or in Appalachia might benefit from it though. Since the real problem is economic, which spills over into education, it does not make sense to base such measures on race instead of on economic need.

[/ QUOTE ]



whenever i read something like this (which by no coincidence is my opinion also), i just try to picture a man who could read this, yet not agree. it makes so much sense, yet affirmative action as we know it still remains in place.

[CORed]

Affirmative action certainly discriminates against white men, but, in a more subtle way, I think it discriminates against the people it's supposed to help. When you, for example, add points to a black person's score for gaining admission to a University, solely because of that person's race, what you are really saying to that person is "We know you can't compete succesfully on a level playing field, so we'll give you a break." The very existence of affirmative action may create doubt about whether the minority person is really qualified. I would never claim that racial discrimination no lonter exists in the USA, but I don't think you can end racial discrimination by practicing it.

[adios]

.........................

[andyfox]

"When you, for example, add points to a black person's score for gaining admission to a University, solely because of that person's race, what you are really saying to that person is "We know you can't compete succesfully on a level playing field, so we'll give you a break.'"

No, that's not what we're saying. We're saying we know the playing field hasn't been level to this point, since you're black in a white-dominated country, and therefore we're going to try to even the playing field a bit.

The goal of affirmative action is not to end racial discrimination but to lessen its effects a bit. As Colin Powell says, where is the great harm caused to American society because a few hundred black kids get into law school that otherwise might not have?

[BeerMoney]

Black people score lower on their SAT's across all economic thresholds. In 1995 the average SAT score for black students from families making $50,000 or more was 849. The average score for white students from families earning $10,000 or less was 869.

There were 420 black students in the 27,000 that entered the top 18 law schools in 1991, but only 24 of them would have been admitted without racial preference policies. In NY in 1992, 63% of black test takers of the bar exam failed while 18% of whites did. In 1988, 51.1% of blacks, but just 12.3% of whites, failed the first part of the National Board of Medical Examiners exam.

This is awesome!!! So, you hire some lawyer cause he went to a top notch school, it turns out, he got accepted cause someone felt bad for him/her, then he had to take the bar exam a hundred times!! Yeeeha!

[BeerMoney]

Andy, in America, we're also interested in protecting the individual.. You know Yale Law school is pretty darn hard to get into. People with "perfect applications" get denied. By perfect I mean perfect GPA, perfect LSAT. These are the two topmost criteria for getting into law school. How would you feel if you did everything you could, and a black person with lesser scores was let in because someone at Yale decided this was OK?

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
As Colin Powell says, where is the great harm caused to American society because a few hundred black kids get into law school that otherwise might not have?

[/ QUOTE ]

The harm is to the students who didn't get into law school, but would have been admitted but for affirmative action. This is race-based discrimination. Regardless of the intent of the policy, that's just wrong. You can't pick and choose which races you are going to discriminate against; nobody should be excluded because of the color of their skin.

I have no problem with giving a boost to students from socio-economic disadvantaged backgrounds (which, to a large extent, would probably have a similar result as current AA policies, and produce much less resentment), but it should not be based on race.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I would never claim that racial discrimination no lonter exists in the USA, but I don't think you can end racial discrimination by practicing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your last clause cuts directly to the heart of the issue. Well-said.

[MMMMMM]

What's the harm? How about medical school? Do you really want a doctor operating on you who only "qualified" to do so because of affirmative action and taking the test umpteen times?

There was recently a truly horrible case of medical malpractice by a black doctor who objectively never should have been allowed to be a doctor in the first place. He squeaked through somehow under affirmative action, etc. He was later shown objectively to be truly incompetent. I forget the details but suffice to say it would never have happened if this guy had been held to the standards everyone else is.

For that matter, do you want ANYBODY performing professional services for you who is not truly qualified? Why should YOU have to take the risk and pay the price, when admissions, grading standards and exams are supposed to protect the public (to a reasonable extent) from malpractice? Do you want a lawyer representing you who only passed through university because of "affirmative grading"? (I think there might even be "affirmative grading" in a few institutions.) Let's get real here: relaxing standards is a dangerous concept with very bad real-world effects. Worse still, the supposed benefits are unproven.

Will a kid who gets 480 on both his SATS do well at an Ivy League school or a top technical institution? No, he won't. So admitting students who are incapable or unprepared for the course work is not doing them any favors either. They might excel at a school more their level, though.

The costs of affirmative action are both to the recipients and to the excluded--and to society as a whole, because students fail or drop out of too tough colleges (for them), or worse, graduate and wind up in some professional field as near-incompetents. That isn't doing anybody any favors. In the professions of medicine and law, it can be downright dangerous to the consumer.

[CORed]

Well, call me an idealist, but I think our goal is to create a society where you are judged on your individual merits, not your race, religion, gender, or whatever, or to quote Martin Luther King, "not by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character". I believe that continuing to make distinctions based on race, gender or other group membership criteria, no matter how well intended, are counter-productive to that goal.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really want a doctor operating on you who only "qualified" to do so because of affirmative action and taking the test umpteen times?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. But safeguards against this are put into place by the AMA. Getting into medical school is not the same as becoming a practicing doctor. The same thing with law school. If you think AA policies put consumers at risk, then you have to evaluate the employers' hiring policies and the professional associations' crediting policies, not the training schools.

[ QUOTE ]
Will a kid who gets 480 on both his SATS do well at an Ivy League school or a top technical institution? No, he won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think many people get accepted to Ivy League schools with SATs this low. Whatever the case may be, I don't think its at all clear that somebody similarly qualified would be worse off in the long run going to Harvard than a mid-range state school. It depends on the kid.

[MMMMMM]

Well, that doctor somehow managed to get through all the "safeguards" and was truly massively incompetent.

I'm not saying it is all the same thing but I do think relaxing standards more than a tiny bit is a dangerous concept.

[nicky g]

Tom,
I don't really have an opinion on reparations either way. I am sure the US has indeed come a long way. I don't have anything like enough experience of it to get too deeply invloved in this argument; just enough to say that I am not necessarily opposed to positive discriminiation if purely legal equality doesn't seem to lead to other forms of equality. I co==would suspect that is still the case in the US but I couldn't make a strong case for it.

[MMMMMM]

That's a reasonable take, Nicky.

One thing I would again caution about when thinking about things like this, is the fallacious presumption that legal equality should lead to other forms of equality. Actually, it shouldn't, because diverse groups produce diverse results even if the playing field is level. Equal results just doesn't seem to be the nature of the universe, except maybe in a scientific labratory with the simplest of organisms and systems. Everything else generally turns out to be unequal except in the sterile world of mathematics and in the human imagination.

In summation: we should strive to ensure equal human rights, but we should not presume that equal rights will produce equality of results--they won't. And by expecting them to we are being led by a fallacy.

[elwoodblues]

What if the policy was to allow preference to racial minorities where the candidates are otherwise equal. In other words, you have a pool of excellent candidates all of whom are qualified for the position. Would you still see a harm?

[ QUOTE ]
There was recently a truly horrible case of medical malpractice by a black doctor who objectively never should have been allowed to be a doctor in the first place. He squeaked through somehow under affirmative action, etc. He was later shown objectively to be truly incompetent. I forget the details but suffice to say it would never have happened if this guy had been held to the standards everyone else is.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to hear the specifics of this case. I listen to enough talk radio and haven't heard it that the existence of the story surprises me quite a bit.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Black people score lower on their SAT's across all economic thresholds...

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess these statistics just prove that genetically blacks must be dumber than whites, right? If not, then how do you explain the numbers...

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Black people score lower on their SAT's across all economic thresholds...



I guess these statistics just prove that genetically blacks must be dumber than whites, right? If not, then how do you explain the numbers...

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you explain Asians outscoring whites on math SATs?

[elwoodblues]

Greater emphasis on education (in particular the hard sciences) in asian cultures.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, I would still see harm, though to a lesser degree.

I'll briefly search for the case on google but who knows if I'll find it.

[elwoodblues]

If you find it, great. Don't worry too much about it. I'll try some searches on my own as well.

[andyfox]

The point of affirmative action is exactly that: to ensure that people are judged by their merits, not their race. It seeks to take an uneven playing field and take a small step towards evening it up.

[andyfox]

Nobody who gets into medical school or law school is unquallified. They may have lower grades or test scores than somebody who didn't get in, because they were given points in the interests of diversity (race, gender, local people, etc.), but they are not unqualified.

[andyfox]

"There was recently a truly horrible case of medical malpractice by a black doctor who objectively never should have been allowed to be a doctor in the first place. He squeaked through somehow under affirmative action, etc. He was later shown objectively to be truly incompetent. I forget the details but suffice to say it would never have happened if this guy had been held to the standards everyone else is."

Baloney. There are cases of malpractice all the time involving incompetent professionals, most of whom were not admited to professional schools because of affirmative action. You can pull out one example and say it's because of affirmative action; I can personally give you many of people who were disbarred or lost their permission to practice medicine because of incompetency. (Of course, that may just be because I live in L.A. /images/graemlins/wink.gif.)

[MMMMMM]

"Greater emphasis on education (in particular the hard sciences) in asian cultures."

Right, so it's cultural.

That blacks underscore on the SATs is, I believe, cultural too...but that doesn't mean the entire cultural effect can be attributed to past discriminations or slavery. In other words, some--maybe most--of the problem is due to modern black culture. Also, some of the performance gap is due to whites studying harder, apparently...just as Asians are outscoring whites in math by studying harder.

Eventually there has to come a point where long-past problems or injustices no longer matter much. Blacks have had civil rights, and even affirmative action, for quite some time. Are they as a race climbing, or not? If not, even given the advantage of affirmative action, then it would seem that there is some other problem holding them back. I submit that that problem is current culture. Witness the poor Asians, especially from certain less prominent Asian countries, who have arrived here and done well, by comparison, as a group. You can't blame everything on the past--especially on the long, long past.

[andyfox]

The argument for affirmative action is that the black kids who had lower test scores than the white kids would have done at least as well had they had the advantages the white kids had.

As far as the socioeconomic argument goes, all the statistics show that blacks do less well in life than whites. Categorizing blacks as being in the lower socioeconomic class fits with the statistics. If this means that occasionally a well-off black student or a not so well off white student suffers, that's the way it goes. Occasionally a well-qualified black kid doesn't get in because a white kid's father is George Bush or Bill Clinton. That's the way it goes too.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry, Andy, but this doctor was found to be unqualified, truly incompetent, after he had been mal-practicing for a while. Too bad I'm not an archivist; I'd have the article. Granted, though, it must be rare.

[andyfox]

Provdied the person that got in met the minimum qualifications that Yale had set up for admission, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. And if I had perfect scores, I'd probably get into a pretty good law school elsewhere.

[MMMMMM]

Andy, it's NOT baloney, and the guy was malpracticing on more than one person. It wasn't just "another case" of malpractice; he literally didn't know what he was doing. Sorry I can't recall much more, but it was a good while ago that I read it.

By the way, Andy, my father is a doctor, and I have heard him on more than one occasion refer to certain other doctors and to chiropractors in general, as "quacks"/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

Andy, can't you see the gross inefficiency of what you are defending?

Your argument is based on the fact that blacks on average are less well off socio-economically. Well then...target the damn aid to where it is most needed on an individual basis*; it would still mostly go to blacks anyway, right? But at least it would be truly appropriately applied, and better still, we wouldn't be replacing one form of discrimination with another.


*presuming there is going to be any such government aid in the first polace, which is another debate in itself

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
we wouldn't be replacing one form of discrimination with another

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you would. It just wouldn't be based on race.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
other words, some--maybe most--of the problem is due to modern black culture

[/ QUOTE ]

modern black culture which, to a large extent, was shaped by past discrimination.


[ QUOTE ]
Eventually there has to come a point where long-past problems or injustices no longer matter much

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely right. Some factors that I consider when determining whether past problems still matter much:

How long ago (Brown v. Board of Education was only 50 years ago --- and that only dealt with state sanctioned discrimination, not "private" discrimination.

The severity of the problem

The breadth of the problem

The extent to which the past problem still exists (old-boys networks are just one example of how institutional racism of the past is still given life today)

The extent to which the effect of the past problem still exist today.


I can't put my finger on exactly, but your position here and your position on Israel don't sit right together with me.

[BadBoyBenny]

Chris Rock made a reference in his last stand up routine about the days of slavery and white people trying to breed the strongest dumbest black men possible because they would make the best slaves. He implied that this is a reason why they dominate professional sports and lag in intellectual pursuits today.

Anyone think there is anything true to this or just a bad joke?

[BadBoyBenny]

It is discriminatory and socially wrong, but it might not be 'dumb' for the school involved. Many schools get much of their money from alumni donations and the biggest donators are probably the most likely to get their kids accepted. This money may provide the tools to have a better trained graduating class, while the legacy kids will probably drink for 4 years, graduate with a 1.2 and live off mom and dad for the rest of their lives anyway.

[MMMMMM]

"I can't put my finger on exactly, but your position here and your position on Israel don't sit right together with me."

Maybe this will help:

I have posted before that, if the American Indians or American blacks were still being severely discriminated against and oppressed, that I would then support their right to demand a separate state or states within the United States--even their own country carved out of a piece of the USA. That isn't the case, though. Blacks aren't still enslaved; they have civil rights; they even get affirmative action (;-)) Native Americans likewise now enjoy have full rights and even special privileges. Contrast this, though, with the Jew/Arab situation: Jews are still seriously discriminated against and oppressed--even legally so--in Arab societies. So they really have more of a right to their own separate state, seeing as the Arabs won't treat them as equals, and won't change their laws to give them equal rights under the law.

[MMMMMM]

True, though I think you see my point.

[andyfox]

I didn't mean that your facts about this guy were baloney, but that it is anecdotal evidence that shouldn't be used to generalize. We've all had experiences of using professionals who shouldn't have a license. And most of them weren't affirmative action graduates.

[andyfox]

It is done on an individual basis. Qualified individuals are given the extra points (or consideration or whatever) to help level the playing field which has not been level for them.

I understand what opponents of affirmative action are saying: anything that discriminates by not having exactly the same rule regardless of skin color isn't right. But the problem is that up until that moment, the same rules have not been in effect for black as for white.

[MMMMMM]

The primary problem today is economic disadvantage leading to poorer education and fewer opportunities. The primary problem today is not discrimination.

Economic disadvantage is more of a disadvantage than race today: agreed? A poor person or a child in a poor family is more disadvantaged than a well-off person or a minority child whose parents are fairly rich, right? So why keep applying affirmative action based on an outmoded model? Shouldn't the model change with the times?

If affirmative action were based on near-poverty guidelines or something similar, most of it would benefit blacks anyway. But at least it wouldn't be addressing a problem that hardly exists today (discrimination), and it would more effectively target the real issue--economic disadvantage in childhood and education and in the early years in the work force.

[ericd]

I believe GWB got into Yale this way.

[BeerMoney]

Absolutely not. Its all cultural. Blacks view education as "White." Therefore they are resistant to it. If you are a black person that studies hard and cares about school, you are called an Oreo Cookie. Black on the outside, white on the inside.

I think if you believe blacks are inferior intellectually by genetics, than that is the very definition of racism. Look at how well black people from Carribean nations do. Its all about environment.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe GWB got into Yale this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember I got my MBA from Harvard without any strings.

[ericd]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but grandpa Prescott was a big time Wall Street banker and by the way a Senator from Connecticut. Also, the Walker family name is the same Walker that the Walker Cup in golf is named after.

From what I've heard, now these could be nasty rumors spread by Democrats, your grades as an undergrad at Yale did not come close to winning any honors. In fact they supposedly were barely good enough to graduate.

Could this possibly mean that you might have been allowed into Harvard because of family connections? Notice I didn't even have to include the hand your dad may have had.