Affirmative Action

[Falstaff]

Regarding the discussion dealing with Bush's standpoints on Affirmative Action (which I agree with - a race-neutral standpoint) specifically in the case of Michigan State and other universities being discussed, do you think that Affirmative Action is still a necessary "program?"

Is Affirmative Action really necessary anymore - should the "race/nationality" blank be taken off of college applications, job applications, and other applications permanently, making race a completely non-issue in the most early stages of any application process?

This is my belief - if we live in a society where jobs and education are supposed to be indiscriminatory, should the question: "WHat is your race?" even be asked anymore? I would say "NO." THis is not to say that racism does not exist, but that racial discrimination, which should not be an issue in any application process, is only further propogated by that simple, quite unnecessary question.

[Rallymama]

No, they shouldn't. Continuing to collect the data means that some flunkie somewhere will find something to do with it, and there are far too many people out there (of many demographic categories) who are just looking for a reason to be offended.

Does this neutrality extend to gender, as it should? The implication of all this is that all forms for any federally- (or state) supported position have to replace the first-name line with a space for an initial. Anymore, few names are completely gender or race transparent.

[Elios]

I don't think it should be continued either. I think it causes a lot more problems that good. I've had a couple friend get passed up for a job because the employer had to fill a quota. I had a friend who had a masters, but lost the job for a minority who only had a bachelors.
But I think it goes the other direction, and will continue to do so. There are a lot of other places were people will not get hired because of their race. I know, I lived in one of those areas of the US for several years.
Wouldn't it be great if someone really could get hired based on their qualifications?

[Erebus]

Well I myself disagree, because in the college acceptance is dependedant on a certain point system in which everything counts. Such as money and so on. And, it seems that you lose some points if you are Asian! doesn't seem too fair does it?

[joacqin]

I am principally against affirmative action as the best candidate for each position should get it and race/gender/religion/sexual orientation should never enter the discussion at all. But sadly it does so, without affirmative action people are being discriminated on basis those things. Therefore I think we are more or less stuck with 'positive' affirmative action for some time yet. Atleast until we have achieved a more equal society where it is no longer needed.

[chevalier]

Disregarding visible natural differences in the name of and for the sake of political correctness is a sign of mental weakness. Unless if it serves political aims and playing on human stupidity. Heheh, what if they remove the 'race' rubric from dating/matching agencies questionnaires?

[Darkwolf]

Discriminating against one group to make up for discrimination against another group is wrong.

It is pretty stupid if you get to looking at it.

[Jack Funk]

Any preference based on race is wrong. If individuals in the racial minority are having difficulty getting admitted to universities or getting jobs, then we should treat the cause of the problem, not the symptom.
I am glad that Bush had the courage (especially after the Trent Lott debacle) to take a stand against a policy that is clearly racist and discriminates against individuals who meet the academic criteria but are not in a racial minority.

[Rallymama]

Did any of you see the statistics that job applicants with "white-sounding" names are 50% more likely to get through resume-screening and get an interview than those with "black-sounding" names? Food for thought...

[Laches]

There used to be a thread revolving around this disucssion, it has disappeared I guess. I'll say here what I did there -- the talk about "affirmative action" is complex and should be grounded in concrete examples.

What you mean by affirmative action and what someone else means may well be different. For example, some people, usually opponets of "affirmative action" talk about quota systems. Well, quota systems are illegal in the United States. They have been for a long time. The problem is that the leading case with regards to affirmative action is the Bakke case which was a plurality decision. For all of its failings though Bakke made clear by a slim majority that quota programs are illegal. It is also clear that any program which takes race into account is measured by strict scrutiny -- the most intense judicial scrutiny -- and that program must serve a compelling governmental purpose and it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose.

Some people don't have quota systems in mind though. Some people are thinking of programs like the Harvard University program which was specifically mentioned in approval in the Bakke case.

There are good reasons for not wanting to talk about affirmative action out of context; not only are we not sure what others mean but it is also difficult to gauge a potentially confusing subject when it is divorced from reality. I think affirmative action is still necessary for various reasons and I'll try to give an example below.

The CDC (center for disease control), AMA (american medical association) and individual medical schools have determined that certain neighborhoods in the United States are underserved by the medical community. This makes treatment more difficult to access than it is for the typical middle class or upper class community. The ramifications of having difficulty accessing medical care are obvious but the results can be particularly dangerous for pregnant mothers who need pre-natal care. The fact is that if you have to spend at least an hour up to hours on buses to just get to a doctor then the odds of you seeing the doctor are drastically reduced.

One of the Pennsylvania medical schools (something like Eastern Penn I think, sorry I'm working on memory here and its been a long time) thought that since they received federal funding they had the obligation to try to help assure that the citizens of its state had access to medical care regardless of financial background or race. The most compelling duty of a government is to safeguard the protection and health of its citizens and it can do so not only via the military but by assuring that all members of society have the chance to see a doctor. This is a compelling governmental interest. (edit-- Supreme court has made this clear in other contexts such as abortion.)

The Pennsylvania school noted that in its state those who were underserved by the medical community were most often poor and most often African American. So, they started a scholarship program, offering to pay for medical school for those who after graduating would go work in one of these porr African American neighborhoods for a certain amount of time in order to pay off their medical school. The program was an abject failure. It turns out since doctors in the U.S. make huge amounts of money they were more willing to shoulder the cost of medical school through loans, get out of school and go work where they wanted (usually a more affluent area) and make enough money to quickly pay off their own bills. So, the ability of the poor, usually African Americans to see a medical professional wasn't helped in the slightest by this program. The medical school tried, it didn't work.

So, the medical school instead began an "affirmative action" program. Here is how that program works: take the college G.P.A. and multiply it by 2. Add this number to the score on the M.C.A.T. If the student scores above a certain number the student is automatically offered a seat at the medical school. If the student scores below a certain number the student is automatically rejected as a potential medical school student. What about the students who fell between the two numbers? The medical school then asked for detailed applications from these students. The medical school wanted to know the type of charitable events the students were into, their outside interests, important moments in their life, etc. etc. etc. and, yes, they wanted to know race. Students who fell between the two numbers were judged then based upon all of their criteria and one of the many elements taken into consideration was race. This was their "affirmative action" program, hardly a quota system. What were the results of the program? The number of medical professionals who were minorities increased and guess what, the number of medical professionals serving underrepresented (poor African American areas typically) skyrocketed almost 100%. Now, those areas are still drastically underrepresented but the medical school had finally succeeded in making a difference by using a program that acknowledged race while their race neutral attempts had failed. Evidence of honest race neutral attempts to achieve a compelling interest is evidence that a program is narrowly tailored. (edit-- why this result has been debated but the obvious and unflattering and most often deduced reason is that white people don't particularly want to go work in a poor black neighborhood while black people who are more likely to be from similar neighborhoods feel a moral obligation to do so. compared to "white flight.")

So, what about the above "affirmative action?" In my opinion it is not only necessary it is a good thing. People now see doctors who otherwise couldn't. Are there examples of "bad affirmative action?" Of course there are, but I'd recommend we talk about it in context and take into account the breadth of things "affirmative action" can cover.

[ January 16, 2003, 16:24: Message edited by: Laches ]

[Darkwolf]

Rally,

I am afraid that you are running into an unfortunate fact of human nature. We want to be surrounded by those that we feel are like us. I doubt that the majority of the cases were truly intentional bigotry. I would be willing to bet that if you ran the same study but sent out the resume's to businesses that were primarily owned by minorities, you would find a positive bias toward the minority group to with they belong.

I am not saying this is right, and I do perceive that this problem is on a downward trend. Unfortunately there is not quick cure that is not just as bad as the disease. The only forms of affirmative action that can be considered fair are ones where the best candidates get the benefit (job, school, whatever).

Any time a person gets a benefit over someone else who is more qualified just because of their race, ethnicity or sexual preference, an immoral discriminatory act has occurred. This includes when a member of a minority is receiving the benefit over a more qualified person who is not considered a part of any minority group. Unfortunately, too many forms of affirmative action do just that, including the one the President was speaking of.

[joacqin]

I dont think affirmative action really picks people less qualified for appointments. In all cases I have heard it is that if two people have the same qualifications the one that comes from a discriminated group should get the place. I have seen many examples on where 10 people applied for a proffesorship, 8 of them were female, all had more or less the same qualifications the place went to a man. This is consistant and not something that only happens now and then.

[Darkwolf]

Joacqin,

In the that was the catalyst for this thread, minorities are given 20 extra points on an entrance exam for at an state university. The maximum score on this test is 160, so they are receiving a 12.5% bonus for being a minority. So if I wanted to attend that University, and lets say I score a 120 on the test, and a member of a minority group scores a 101 before adjustment, I don't get to go. Does that seem fair?

It gets even worse in some other schools. Some schools require that a certain percentage of minority students be admitted regardless of qualification. Lets say that a school accepts 10,000 new students per semester. 20% of those students must be from a recognized minority group. Now lets say that the university receives 14,000 qualified applicants, but that only 1,500 of those are from minority applicants. The school is mandated to admit 2,000 minority students. So the school must admit 500 students, all minority students, who did not qualify. This means that 500 otherwise qualified students, are not allowed to go to that school because they were guilty of the crime of being born to parents of European descent. This scenario actually is played out in California public schools every semester.

[Laches]

Well, under your first scenario Darwolf, it isn't clear that the minority candidates are less qualified. People conveniently overlook the fact that the average African American is significantly less afluent than the average white American. Being less afluent usually means you have a poorer education. I'm a good example in that my geography education throughout highschool was piss poor and my knowledge of the subject to this day is significantly deficient. Likewise, I had a law professor who stayed in an inner city neighborhood in Chicago during the white flight phenomenon of our nation (which continues to a lesser extent today.) He has noted that as the schools he attended began to have more African Americans the quality of education went down and he notices everyday things that his colleagues know that he does not because he suffered from a poor highschool education. So, the added points aren't necessarily giving an unfair advantage but rather making up for the failings of our public education system. These are public universities right?

The second scenario is clearly unconstitutional and I'm surprised they continue. Can I see some cites out of curiousity?

[chevalier]

Political, economical, civil and any other 'official' or social (in the meaning related to 'social circles') discrimination is plainly wrong, but preferences will exist and they are not wrong as long as the differences are true. I shall take my humble person as an example: I generally prefer on physical basis tall slim long-haired white girls. Every criterion being equally important. Are you going to call me a racist? Do. Oh, sorry, actually one criterion is 'more equal' and the only one w/o exceptions: slim. It's almost a fetish. Heheh, am I discriminating anyone more? Anyway: It's stupid to neglect nature. It's stupid to pretend we're all the same. We're unique and it's just the way God meant us to be, if my views are concerned.

[Capstone]

Ideally, race should not enter into qualifications at all. However, as Laches has pointed out, racial divisions can be used to help the poor receive the advantages they need to achieve middle class. The African-American ghetto society is a legacy of our country; unfortunately, the problem seems too big for us to tackle directly (which would be the optimal solution), so we use these racial discriminations as workarounds. Maybe someone should come up with a brilliant scheme for cleaning up racial division in the ghetto. After all, you are so willing to talk about how unfair it is when a minority gets preferential treatment at a school or university or public job -- what about the glaring racial divide amongst the poor? Doesn't anyone care about that?

[chevalier]

No preferences for minorities. That's racism too. Power-ups for the poor and uneducated regardless of race, but in terms of help and guidance, even material help, but not giving them additional rights.

[Amon-Ra]

Personally, I'm opposed to affirmative action. To me, it's putting a bandaid on a gushing wound.

What you say about "affluence" is a little shaky, Laches. So a poor African American kid doesn't get as good of an education as a poor White kid? And even if the white kid DID get a better education, that's exactly the point-

The child that is better educated, smarter, is more prepared to go to college, become further educated, and succeed in life. It's not a matter of convenience [that implies some kind of intent to disregard], it's a matter of truth. Rich kids get better educations. Smarter kids get to go to college. I went to a pretty damn horrible high school, ranked in the bottom 20% of all high schools in the state, in California, no less, the state with possibly the worst public school system. But- I'm white. There's my dilemma. I came from a lower-middle class white family, went to a crappy high school, and I had to work until my knuckles bled to overcome the notion that since I was white everything was handed to me. I spent my summers at community colleges learning the things my teachers were leaving out. A few of us huddled together as a group of intellectual elite, and we made it into the college world, to Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley [my school], MIT, and others.

It's moot now, I'm in college already, having a blast at one of the funkiest schools in the world, what am I complaining about? I'm complaining because I'm exhausted. The last five years I've been breaking myself to get to this point, circumventing my pathetic schooling and teaching myself or squandering summers at a local college. I bent myself out of shape to get straight As, to stay on the varsity track team, to keep captaining our academic team, to have a job to show responsibility and do volunteer work at a handicapped pool, because I thought, in addition to its obvious merit, these things would help me get into college. But where were my bonus points? I could have used them to lighten the burden. Oh yeah, I'm white. I don't deserve to be examined on a case by case basis, just lump me into a generalization and assume I'll manage because of the color of my skin.

Amon-Ra

[ January 20, 2003, 11:54: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

[Laches]

First, I think you're being a bit disingenuous by implying that coming from a poor background couldn't be advantageous and you are lumped in with other white kids who are better off financially when it comes to college applications -- Universities do give you bonus points for this and increased aid is available, I have first hand experience here. I worked my way through 4 years of undergrad and 3 years of law school in the Alaskan fishing industry doing 140 hour work weeks, I'm sorry, but the bloody knuckles bit isn't going to get much sympathy because I know that as a white in America I have things easier than the average black kid no matter my economic status. The point rallymama made evidences this.

Here is a question for Amon and anyone else: what is the purpose of a University such as the Univ. of Michigan?

[ejsmith]

Whoops!

Forgot this was Teh Alley.

Affirmative action is like a bandaid on the problem. Rather than that, I'd like to take it to the next step.

Requiring those young, black/red/green/purple/yellow males and females to go to college; books, classes, fees, tutors for every single class, not excepting underwater basketweaving or wine tasting.

Time for the next level of advancement.

[ January 20, 2003, 17:28: Message edited by: ejsmith ]

[Amon-Ra]

White kids inherently have it better than black kids, so we should give black kids a boost up in admissions, even if individual cases don't fit that description? Bullsh*t.

I'm attempting to discredit the generalization that white people are handed everything and don't have to work for it. What if, for some individual case, the opposite was true? Hypothetically, a black and white student of equal social class, equal education, and equal qualifications apply to a school under an Affirmative Action program. The black student innately gets the spot, based on all of those criterion. Is that fair? Or simply because it's so rare of an occurence, it's not worth considering? My point is that I was such an occurence, and I'm not the only one who feels a little cheated.

I'm sorry your life was so difficult, Laches. Oh, wait, no I'm not. I couldn't care less. I'm not looking for your sympathy or anyone elses.

You failed to address the point entirely, or even respond to my points, you simply dismissed my hard work because you think you worked harder. When we are talking about Affirmative Action, we aren't talking about money. Yes, I got government sponsored aid so that I could come here to Berkeley. So did practically everyone else of my socio-economic status. I also EARNED grants and scholarships because of my scholastic acheivements.

The topic here, however, is admissions. Berkeley does not, nor does any public university in California, to my knowledge, give any consideration to economic status beyond financial aid. How do I know? Nowhere in my application was I required to log the earnings of my parents, only in a financial aid statement I filed AFTER I was excepted did I have to disclose this information. But it doesn't matter if I'm rich, white, protestant, and male, on none of those characteristics should I be given a boost or discriminated against. And by offering positions to members of other categories and not extending me the same consideration, that is exactly what they are doing. They are giving weight and favor to certain races. If they did that for other aspects of a human being: religion, sex, hair color, etc. there would be a major outcry. If males got points for being males, and males for some reason [this isn't true, just an example, ladies] were generally thought to be smarter, than Feminists everywhere would burn and pillage. But there is this notion, which you voiced ever-so-elegantly, that white people inherently have it better in this country than anyone else, but further, as a result, we don't have the rights that all the other peoples have to voice our opinions when injustice is being done. We just keep our mouths shut because at the end of the day, apparently ALL white people have it better than ALL black people.

Untrue, and sickening. Find a better solution.

[ January 23, 2003, 09:31: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

[Laches]

Amon, you're misreading what I typed. I don't think my life has been difficult, I think it has been great, I love it. I was just pointing out that you being a self proclaimed member of the "intellectual elite" who volunteered, was on the track team, got A's etc. seemed designed to elicit some type of sympathy or support for your argument that I didn't see as particularly persuasive. Now, with that out of the way....

Nowhere did I say that "All white people have it better than all black people." You're putting words in my mouth in order to make it easier for you to argue with me, that's a strawman. I did say, that on average, white people are much better off economically than African-Americans and other minorities.

According to the U.S. census figures, the average white household in 2001 made $44,517 while the average black household made $29,470. See: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income01/inctab1.html

So, because of a racist history the average African-American begins at an economic disadvantage relative to the average white American. Meritocracy demands a level playing field but the playing field has never been level for African-Americans. It goes far beyond mere economic status as well. A poor white person has a better chance of rising in economic class by virtue of being white. Rallymama's statistics are just one indication of this.

From the Kerner Study:

The study finds an employment gap between whites and minority graduates that is worsening. When factors like grades, internship experience, the quality of the journalism program and other variables are held constant, the study finds that although gender doesn't seem to affect whether a new graduate gets a job offer (actually, women do slightly better), race does.

The effect is worst among black graduates, the Becker team found. Hispanics also had a tougher time getting jobs than whites, while Asian-Americans seem least affected by the race factor.

So, yes, I'm sorry to say, it is readily apparent that the average African-American has a tougher go of it than the average white American and the cases you hypothesize of a white American not getting accepted to a University in favor of an African-American who receives an undeserved bonus are few and far between I assert.

Also, I am certain that Universities DO give preference to those who originate from a lower economic status during the admissions process. The fact that you are not required to disclose your income did not preclude it. Harvard has a well known program which takes into account a person's economic status -- see the Bakke case for details.

So, first, I didn't assert what you said I did. Second, on average African-Americans have it much tougher than white Americans. Third, economic status is a consideration that helps when seeking admission to at least many Universities.

Also, you didn't answer the question: what is the purpose of a public University?

[ January 23, 2003, 19:40: Message edited by: Laches ]

[Nutrimat]

I am personally opposed to Affirmative Action. It's a simplistic solution for a complex problem, as ejsmith said.

People complain that businesses do not have enough minorities, based on the percentages of employees. BUT not all people are created equal. For example, I am a mainframe computer programmer by trade. Over the past 10 years, I have worked with very few black programmers, because there just aren't that many out there. Now, if the government determines that my company is required to hire, say, 35% black people for programming positions, (based on the percentage of the population of Pittsburgh that are black) the quality likely is going to suffer because there are not many black people in programming, and many black programmers will be hired based on thier race, rather than thier qualification to do the job. I would like to see equality, I would like to see companies hire more black programmers, but forcing companies to make xx% of thier work force black is not going to work.

And Laches, the "quota" system was used here in Pittsburgh when Heinz Field, the new Steelers stadium, was built. They were required to hire a certain percentage of minority and female owned businesses. Good points otherwise though.

I don't know what the solution is that will make everyone happy (I suspect there isn't one), but affirmative action definitely is not it.

[Laches]

I would imagine that one of the reasons there are so few black computer programers is that on average a much smaller percentage of black families can afford computers relative to white families. So, black children are less likely to grow up with them and this combined with the fact that they are less likely to obtain a higher education = fewer programers.

Here is a high profile problem though: black football coaches in college and the NFL. There are 117 Div I-A college football programs. Working from memory here, about half of all college footbal players are black (much higher numbers at the BCS conference schools.) Before the year started, there were only 4 black head coaches and only 12 coordinators. So, 4/117 and 12/234. This while 1/2 of all players are black.

A primary reason why there are so few blacks in high positions is fundraising. There was an article in SI or ESPN quoting anonymous sources from AD departments as saying that they had been told by rich alumni that hiring a minority would result in a decrease in revenue.

The point of all this is that I think some people don't realize that they are at a competitive advantage in life in the U.S. if they are white. Even whites from poor economic backgrounds stand a better chance of economic success than similarly situated African-Americans.

Affirmative action is an acknowledgment that the playing field isn't level and an attempt to balance it on a large scale. Affirmative action also encompasses many types of programs. I'll say it again, quota systems are illegal and have been for quite some time in this context.

In my opinion, the UM program was poorly designed which is surprising considering they are supposed to have a strong law school. I would've erred on the side of caution and put the Harvard plan in place.

A holding that the UM program is unconstitutional does not me all forms of affirmative action are. It's actually long past time for the Supreme Court to speak up since thusfar the Court has provided virtually no guidance.

[Amon-Ra]

Thanks and bravo, Laches: first, on catching the strawman, and second on playing party to a devil's advocate.

It's just been a long while since I've heard a truly convincing argument for it that wasn't coated in shouting, "Racism Racism, let's march and rally". Your first address to my post was merely a shutdown of my psuedo-plight [I'm a child of a middle-middle class suburban family, not trailer trash] and I was looking for a little more substance. Sorry if I got nasty, it was meant to elicit a coherent and logical response.

I'm attend UC Berk, I got in on merit, practically a free ride, do you really think I'm all that much against Affirmative Action? It hasn't hurt me any.