This is topic Affirmative Action: give the abbreviation back to Alcoholics Anonymous, please. in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:Out of sheer curiousity, is anyone here in favor of affirmative action as a means of combating racism?
The opinions I encounter up to this point in my life have been unanimously "No." There were a few dissenters in the two social sciences classes I took a while back, but they couldn't get very specific as to why beyond the standard newspaper hype, and by the end of the discussion became part of the unanimous "no" crowd.
I'm curious to see if anyone does actually view affirmative action as a positive step against racism, and why.
(kmbboots, thanks for your e-mailed response!)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
From kmbboots (posted from an e-mail she sent me, at her request):
quote:One reason is that I think that society as a whole benefits from affirmative action in education. Hiring a woman or a minority professor, for example, gives minority students a role model rather than reinforcing a negative stereotype. It also combats prejudice for white students to have female or minority professors and fellow students. If a student sees only white, male professors and students it is only going to reinforce negative ideas about women and minorities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
ersomniac, could you post what I emailed to you (or email it back). I,(as usual) forgot to save it. It was pretty much what I had to say. Thanks.
edit: nevermind (you are so way ahead of me today)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It also combats prejudice for white students to have female or minority professors and fellow students.
In such cases where it is know that the person would not have their position if it were not for their minority status, I wonder how much it combats, and how much it reinforces, such prejudices.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't have time for a really long post at the moment.
But to answer Dags' question in the other thread, I don't believe affirmative action deals with the root causes of racism. Moreover, I am against it in the workplace, and even in education I think it is best to combine it with another measure of socioeconomic status and family history (i.e., is this the first generation (or second) going to college).
However, I support it as one of several measures used to choose among qualified candidates for a school that has far too many qualified candidates for available slots (such as UCLA and the other UC's).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't know how affirmative action would offset racism; I know that I support it as a way to help people who may have suffered from the accumulated cultural weight of racism in America.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think that, while it may not be necessary now, it was a decisive and necessary step when first introduced. It's worth remembering that there was a time when universities just didn't hire women. Affirmative action was certainly heavy artillery, but it did break that monolithic defense line - perhaps also by giving people a good excuse. Even a quite liberal hirer might have hesitated to go against social pressure; with affirmative action, he could say it wasn't his fault.
Now that the deadlock is broken and women have a definite and undisputed presence in academia, it might be possible to remove the restriction. In fact, going back to my artillery metaphor, one could argue that the artillery is now shelling the hole in the enemy lines where our own troops are trying to march through. But at the time, yes, it was definitely needed.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I support the elimination of affirmative action. I also support the elimination of getting into school as a legacy, or because your parents bought a gym, or any other reason than merit. And I support the elimination of discriminatory hiring practices so that employers always hire the most qualified person no matter what the race.
However, as long as those conditions are still lacking, I'll grudgingly accept affirmative action as a useful but potentially harmful method of acclimating society to the acceptance of minorities.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
To take Dag's question a bit futher, I'm wondering if affirmative action actually exacerbates the root causes of racism as it attempts to compensate for the effects of racism.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It also combats prejudice for white students to have female or minority professors and fellow students.
In such cases where it is know that the person would not have their position if it were not for their minority status, I wonder how much it combats, and how much it reinforces, such prejudices.
An affirmative action program does not inherently mean that every minority professor got their job only because of their minority status. That's an additional assumption that someone would have to make in order to reinforce their prejudices.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Chris, precisely!
twinky, it is an assumption that a great many people seem to make, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Before this discussion proceeds much farther, we need to define affirmative action. I will list a variety of programs I am familiar with, all of which have been called affirmative action:
1. A requirement that jobs or educational opportunities be advertised in minority-specific media and locations.
2. A requirement that recruiters go to schools w/ a high minority concentration.
3. A requirement that recruiters go to schools w. high minority concentrations in disproportion to the representation of such schools in the recruiting area.
4. A requirement that standardized tests with disparate impact (lower minority scores than majority scores) be curved separately for minorities or otherwise adjusted to account for the difference.
5. A requirement that minorities receive additional points simply for being a minority.
6. A requirement that minority status be used as a tiebreaker between otherwise identical candidates.
7. A requirement that a certain number of percentage of minorities be accepted/hired.
8. The use of race as one factor among many in deciding who to accept.
9. The reduction of minimum standards for minorities.
10. Financial aid available to minority students not available to other students.
11. Incentives not available to other applicants to attract qualified minority applicants.
12. A hard look at criteria that create a disparate impact to see if they are truly related to performance.
13. Requiring a higher level of proof of relatedness for criteria w/ a disparate impact.
14. Special counseling and assistance programs to people several years away from applying only available to minority students.
Also, we need to consider whether college admission should be based solely on some concept of merit. A hard "yes" to that question will require evaluating each of these methods in a different manner than a "no" would.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:To take Dag's question a bit futher, I'm wondering if affirmative action actually exacerbates the root causes of racism as it attempts to compensate for the effects of racism.
Generally, the people I've talked to previously have agreed that it does. I view affirmative action as a way of highlighting the fact that people are NOT equal, and rubbing it in everyone's face.
(Having started the thread, I do have more to say on the subject, but the thread is moving too fast for me to type a lengthy post while I'm trying to work at the same time.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:An affirmative action program does not inherently mean that every minority professor got their job only because of their minority status. That's an additional assumption that someone would have to make in order to reinforce their prejudices.
I didn't say it was.
But there are situations where a person is giving a position that they would not have received were it not for their minority status. If that is known, would having that person in their position combat prejudices at all? Would it reinforce them at all?
I wasn't speaking of the general case in which it is not known. But Rivka is right -- with some types of AA in place, many people will wonder if a minority member only got their position becuase of AA, somewhat undermining the effects of their accomplisments.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ...with some types of AA in place, many people will wonder if a minority member only got their position becuase of AA, somewhat undermining the effects of their accomplisments.
I think that tells you more about people than about affirmative action, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We need to combat racism by saying that some races are more deserving of job and college positions than others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: We need to combat racism by saying that some races are more deserving of job and college positions than others.
WAIT A MINUTE
this makes no sense!!!!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think that tells you more about people than about affirmative action, though.
Perhaps, but it doesn't really matter whose fault it is. I was only addressing the idea that AA effectively combats prejudice. If it doesn't, because of what people are like, then that needs to be taken into account.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that tells you more about people than about affirmative action, though.
Affirmative action is justified, at least in part, by its effect on people, so this doesn't exactly weaken MPH's argument.
In fact, Clarence Thomas spoke extensively about hating people assuming he was in on affirmative action and wouldn't be there without it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But there are situations where a person is giving a position that they would not have received were it not for their minority status.
I think that it gives people a position that they might not have received due to discrimination.
quote: But Rivka is right -- with some types of AA in place, many people will wonder if a minority member only got their position becuase of AA, somewhat undermining the effects of their accomplisments.
I believe that affirmative action is supposed to be used as a tie-breaker more than anything. That is, if Person A and Person B have the same achievements, but A is a white male and B is not, then you should hire B.
Edit: In other words, I agree with twinky. I have problems with affirmative action itself, but the fact that people have misconceptions about it doesn't mean that it's flawed.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
1. A requirement that jobs or educational opportunities be advertised in minority-specific media and locations. No problem.
2. A requirement that recruiters go to schools w/ a high minority concentration. No problem.
3. A requirement that recruiters go to schools w. high minority concentrations in disproportion to the representation of such schools in the recruiting area. Don't like it.
4. A requirement that standardized tests with disparate impact (lower minority scores than majority scores) be curved separately for minorities or otherwise adjusted to account for the difference. Nope. "Standard" means "standard." However, I'm very against using only the results of those scores to determine school funding (different argument)
5. A requirement that minorities receive additional points simply for being a minority. Don't like it.
6. A requirement that minority status be used as a tiebreaker between otherwise identical candidates. Really don't like it.
7. A requirement that a certain number of percentage of minorities be accepted/hired. I can accept this in certain very specific situations, such as a penalty for employers who have been proven to use discrimatory hiring practices, or in situations where it has been shown that belonging to a minority class is somehow essential to the job.
8. The use of race as one factor among many in deciding who to accept. Don't like it.
9. The reduction of minimum standards for minorities. Really, really don't like it, as that mananges to do a disservice for everyone involved.
10. Financial aid available to minority students not available to other students. Not in general purpose aid offerings. I have no problem with specific financial aid packages offered alongside other, similarly restricted offers that seek to benefit a particular class (only for Christians, or only for students seeking degrees in biology, or whatever).
11. Incentives not available to other applicants to attract qualified minority applicants. Again, only in jobs where minority membership is somehow essential to the job. Not a lot of those but I'll concede they exist.
12. A hard look at criteria that create a disparate impact to see if they are truly related to performance. Sure.
13. Requiring a higher level of proof of relatedness for criteria w/ a disparate impact. No.
14. Special counseling and assistance programs to people several years away from applying only available to minority students. I would have no problem making this available to financially needy students, of which minorities may form a alrge part, but not with minority status as a deciding factor. I favor assistance programs to alleviate class inequalities.
This is tricky business...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I believe that affirmative action is supposed to be used as a tie-breaker more than anything. That is, if Person A and Person B have the same achievements, but A is a white male and B is not, then you should hire B.
Check out the list of affirmative action examples listed by Dag.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For both admissions and hiring at this university, standards are not lowered for minority students. I would say that of Dagonee's list we employ 1, 2, and 6* (though I would say "policy" rather than "requirement"). 4, 7, and 9 we do not. The rest, I'm not sure. Financial aid is need-based here but there are merit awards as well. These are based on "whatever the donor wants", so they may be related to race. They may also be related to a zillion other things.
By the mere fact of minorities being here and students interacting with them, there is more knowledge. Thus less racism.
*bearing in mind that there are seldom "identical" candidates.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:7. A requirement that a certain number of percentage of minorities be accepted/hired. I can accept this in certain very specific situations, such as a penalty for employers who have been proven to use discrimatory hiring practices, or in situations where it has been shown that belonging to a minority class is somehow essential to the job.
Amen. We've been keeping white rappers down for way, way too long.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Having a diverse group of teachers and students – different races, genders, nationalities, socio-economic backgrounds, etc – enriches the learning environment. This enrichment is to the benefit of all the students, no matter what anyone thinks about how any of them got there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks for the detailed analysis, Chris. Are the "don't like its" part of what you will "grudgingly accept" while the conditions you described last?
I agree with most of your reactions. I'm in favor of 13, but really as the method for implementing 12, but it's a very lawyer-particular kind of response.
10 is tricky. Are you assuming the specific packages are privately funded?
I tend to agree that the more that can be done based on class - or, even better, made available to everyone, resources permitting - the better off we are.
With respect to your answer for 7, this is about the only time quotas are allowed. However, in many circumstances, mere disproportionate treatment acts to shift the burden of proof to the employer - he then has to prove he isn't discriminating. This results in a large number of de facto quotas among federal contractors especially, where they make sure they are meeting that minimum percentage to avoid a suit where they have the burden of proof.
I'm sensing a pattern to your responses (and to mine), but I think I'll see if anyone else replies before trying to voice it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I think that tells you more about people than about affirmative action, though.
Affirmative action is justified, at least in part, by its effect on people, so this doesn't exactly weaken MPH's argument.
Sure. I wasn't offering it as a counterargument, just an observation.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Re: 10 - yes. Aid packages from the government and from the schools themselves should not discriminate on the basis of race in any manner. Private grants and packages from foundations should still be permitted to discriminate on the basis of what the donor wants, as kmbboots said.
And no, the "grudging acceptance" was on the concept of affirmative action. Here, where you thoughtfully broke out specific instances, I voted my preferences.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Since I've already defended skinny, attractive, and rich people in the last few days, I guess no one will be too surprised when I come out against AA. I'm really not as WASPy as you think.
I just hate the idea of an opening going to someone who's not the most qualified, simply to fill some arbitrary quota. Especially when the whole system, it seems to me, is designed to say, "Sorry about keeping down minorities all these years. Does this make it right?"
Great idea, bad execution, in my opinion.
Much like Chris, all I'd like is for people to be admitted based on their qualifications and merits, and leave skin color out of it. I realize that's still a little ambitious, but I feel confident we can get there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I just hate the idea of an opening going to someone who's not the most qualified, simply to fill some arbitrary quota.
The point of my list is that what you object to is a tiny portion of affirmative action. For example, at least one of the things Chris objects to does nothing to increase the chance that a less qualified person will be taken. And quotas have been disfavored for years now.
With respect to universities, is merit the only appropriate criteria? If so, what is merit? The ability to do well in class grade-wise? How much the person will benefit society if they are admitted?
What I like about AA discussions is that they can't be done right without examining some very basic and usually unstated assumptions.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I support the elimination of affirmative action. I also support the elimination of getting into school as a legacy, or because your parents bought a gym, or any other reason than merit. And I support the elimination of discriminatory hiring practices so that employers always hire the most qualified person no matter what the race.
I support all of that as well. But I oppose anyone being forced to do any of it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
With a large pool of equally but not identically qualified applicants, it is not about who is more deserving - they are all deserving. It is about what they bring to the university. Diversity of race, gender, experience, experience is an asset to the university.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
To preface my views on affirmative action, I need to explain that in present day America, I'm against any restrictions on judging applicants based on any criteria (read: I think if a business or a school only wants to admit/hire good looking Buddhist caucasians, I think they should be allowed to without legal consequence). In that sense, I find affirmative action very counterproductive and restrictive, but I'll stick to my own original point: whether affirmative action is beneficial or detrimental to combatting racism.
1. A requirement that jobs or educational opportunities be advertised in minority-specific media and locations.
Yes. While it could conceivably be possible for an institution to have other legitimate reasons why they do not want to advertise in a given area, this is a good play-it-safe measure.
2. A requirement that recruiters go to schools w/ a high minority concentration.
Yes. See my reasoning for #1.
3. A requirement that recruiters go to schools w. high minority concentrations in disproportion to the representation of such schools in the recruiting area.
Yes. Same reasoning.
4. A requirement that standardized tests with disparate impact (lower minority scores than majority scores) be curved separately for minorities or otherwise adjusted to account for the difference.
Absolutely not. To allow for such adjustment would be an open admission to viewing a minority group as posessing lower/higher than average intelligence/ability.
5. A requirement that minorities receive additional points simply for being a minority.
Absolutely not.
6. A requirement that minority status be used as a tiebreaker between otherwise identical candidates.
Absolutely not. This is the area where I absolutely cannot stand affirmative action; when race is the deciding factor between otherwise identical candidates.
7. A requirement that a certain number of percentage of minorities be accepted/hired.
Absolutely not. See #6.
8. The use of race as one factor among many in deciding who to accept.
Nope. Same reasoning.
9. The reduction of minimum standards for minorities.
Nope. See #4.
10. Financial aid available to minority students not available to other students.
Iffy. If the institution is providing the financial aid out of money derived from tuition, general donations or taxes, absolutely not. If the money is from private donations specifically earmarked to aid students of a specific demographic, then yes.
11. Incentives not available to other applicants to attract qualified minority applicants.
See #10.
12. A hard look at criteria that create a disparate impact to see if they are truly related to performance.
Same as Chris' answer here.
13. Requiring a higher level of proof of relatedness for criteria w/ a disparate impact.
See #12.
14. Special counseling and assistance programs to people several years away from applying only available to minority students.
Again, if funded privately and earmarked specifically for the minority students in question. Otherwise, no.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Twist on number 4. Tests are used to predict performance. They are validated (that might not be the right scientific term) by comparing results on the test with subsequent performance.
What if all the scientific data shows that the predictive power of a test is exactly the same for minorities and majorities if you scale the minority scores by 10 points? That is, what if they can prove that the predicted performance for a black person who scores 90 is the exact same as the predicted performance for a white person who scores 100?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For both admissions and hiring at this university, standards are not lowered for minority students. I would say that of Dagonee's list we employ 1, 2, and 6* (though I would say "policy" rather than "requirement"). 4, 7, and 9 we do not. The rest, I'm not sure.
It makes sense you don't use all of them. Some of these I took from hiring programs and adapted them.
And I agree with your caveat on "identical."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:With a large pool of equally but not identically qualified applicants, it is not about who is more deserving - they are all deserving. It is about what they bring to the university. Diversity of race, gender, experience, experience is an asset to the university.
I wholeheartedly agree, but how do you determine whether unidentically qualified applicants are equally qualified, and how can you ascertain that the desire to fuel diversity isn't admitting unqualified applicants or denying qualified ones?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Twist on number 4. Tests are used to predict performance. They are validated (that might not be the right scientific term) by comparing results on the test with subsequent performance.
What if all the scientific data shows that the predictive power of a test is exactly the same for minorities and majorities if you scale the minority scores by 10 points? That is, what if they can prove that the predicted performance for a black person who scores 90 is the exact same as the predicted performance for a white person who scores 100?
That's a really difficult question to answer. I think it would really depend on the specifics of the studies involved, which would likely be subjected to far better scrutiny than I can offer.
Even if the studies are validated post-scrutiny, I'm not sure how I'd feel about it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: With a large pool of equally but not identically qualified applicants, it is not about who is more deserving - they are all deserving. It is about what they bring to the university. Diversity of race, gender, experience, experience is an asset to the university.
You're at least the second person in this thread who has said something like this, and it seems to be a common argument, yet I've never seen any facts to back it up. Are there any studies that have shown that students benefit from having teachers of different races and both genders? What about countries with very racially homogeneous populations? Are their universities at a disadvantage because they don't have racially diverse faculty?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Quotas are a myth, as the public sees them. They are a punitive action that is only instituted when a company (I was explained this in my IBM "diversity" orientation) cannot prove that they have spent an effort to recruit a minority in proportion to their presence in a community in which the company has a physical presence. Note the emphasis on effort; they don't have to have hired the same precentage of people, but they need to at least try. There is no formal method, that was told, to actually go about this. The companies are free to choose their own method.
If a company institutes a quota pre-emptively, that's just a lazy HR department, not a problem with AA. AA not only fights "hard" racism, but it also combats the fact that people have a natural predisposition to be more comfortable with those like them. How else do you explain this report: Study suggests bias against 'black' names on resumes I don't assume racism is involved here, but a familiarity thing. --
I'm not a huge fan of the particulars that some institutions use to implement their AA policies, but AA is really a system that eventually has no impact once it isn't an issue. In other words, when you are actually recruiting fairly, it isn't something you need to take into account.
Just remember AA is NOT quotas. Quotas are a punishment for not satisfying (or properly documenting, I suppose) AA policies, which ultimately seem pretty straightforward to me.
-Bok
[ July 12, 2006, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:With a large pool of equally but not identically qualified applicants, it is not about who is more deserving - they are all deserving. It is about what they bring to the university. Diversity of race, gender, experience, experience is an asset to the university.
I wholeheartedly agree, but how do you determine whether unidentically qualified applicants are equally qualified, and how can you ascertain that the desire to fuel diversity isn't admitting unqualified applicants or denying qualified ones?
For admissions? We always end up denying qualified applicants. There are always more qualified students than we can admit. There is no real way to discern very subtle differences.
For hiring? Mostly professors are hired in terms of their research and our teaching needs. When two professors both fit our needs and have stellar research, being a minority candidate is considered a bonus - an additional something that he or she brings to the university.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: With a large pool of equally but not identically qualified applicants, it is not about who is more deserving - they are all deserving. It is about what they bring to the university. Diversity of race, gender, experience, experience is an asset to the university.
You're at least the second person in this thread who has said something like this, and it seems to be a common argument, yet I've never seen any facts to back it up. Are there any studies that have shown that students benefit from having teachers of different races and both genders? What about countries with very racially homogeneous populations? Are their universities at a disadvantage because they don't have racially diverse faculty?
It is based on the idea that exposure to different kinds of people will make someone more comfortable with and less likely to be prejudiced toward minorities. A university is a place where students should be exposed to all sorts of different experiences.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Two reasons:
1) I don't think that we should get rid of the role of legacy, or networking, or nepotism, or biasing for high schools, or colleges or churches or the ADA. Shooting for a triple-distilled, 200 proof meritocracy isn't the most laudable goal if it means that we have to dehumanize society. Hell, if we were serious, we'd forget state boundaries, and elect the top 100 vote-getters to Senate or the top 435 to the House, that would solve the problems of gerry-mandering in a hurry.
The best we can hope for is to throw all of these factors in, including affirmative action, and hope that the results are decently fair.
2) Weighing the problems of group think against merit is tricky business: six ghetto crackheads with an elementary school education could have foretold the problems of installing a free democracy in Iraq, and all they would have had to do was look out on their own streets. Instead, we had the brightest minds in the administration overlook the problem of rebuilding Iraq. If one of those crackheads had been in the room when the decision was made to go to war, maybe the admin would have thought more about the problems that go along with rebuilding.
In medicine, we constantly have issues where tge brightest surgeons want to cut and a mediocre outlying hippy generalist wants to investigate other approaches. The number of C sections that are being administered without thought of the physical and psychological toll of the surgery is evidence for this.
In general, I don't think that we really respect the severe problems that go along with ideological homogenity. I think it's because we praise efficieny so much, and homogenity is a way to increase efficiency. The problem being that it's an awful way to pick your goals to begin with, even if homogenity is the most efficient means to bring them about.
Was it GE who proudly promoted the straightest whitest people they could find for reasons of efficiency. They only had to deal with one set of cultural vices.
[ July 12, 2006, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:For admissions? We always end up denying qualified applicants. There are always more qualified students than we can admit.
I understand this, but if you're using minority status as a qualifier with the condition of candidates being otherwise "equally but not [necessarily] identically qualified," how can you determine that the qualifications other than minority status are being given equal, primary consideration? ARE they the primary consideration?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What if all the scientific data shows that the predictive power of a test is exactly the same for minorities and majorities if you scale the minority scores by 10 points? That is, what if they can prove that the predicted performance for a black person who scores 90 is the exact same as the predicted performance for a white person who scores 100?
I would not skew the test. Rather, I would be fascinated as to why the results were what they were, and make that the focus of the next test...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
See, I think injustice should be addressed and fixed when it is found, but I do not think we should put in any policies that promote or admit based on anything but merit. If you can show me that someone was denied a job because he was a minority - and can prove that he was MORE qualified than a non-minority hiree, then the company should be punished and the minority should be compensated for what he was unfairly denied.
But I do not think that policies should be in effect that require a company to hire or give preferential treatment to minorities. In my husband's fire department, they maintain two separate promotional lists - one for white candidates and one for black candidates. They promote exactly fifty percent from each list. Now, the lists are determined by points, points are awarded based on experience, education, tests, interview results, etc.
Let's say, hypothetically that we are promoting ten captains. If we had one list, my husband was number 8 on that list. He would get promoted. But, remember that only five white captains can be promoted, so he isn't - because we have to take the top five scorers on the minority list, no matter where they would have fallen if the two lists were merged.
I think that's wrong. And, in fact, the firefighter's union filed suit saying it was discriminatory against white firefighters because a review of the last five years or so of promotions saw many white firefighters denied promotion, when they would have been promoted if the lists were merged.
I say, if you promote based on points, you should promote the top ten in points, period. If the top ten names are all black, then you have ten black captains. If they're all white, you have ten white captains. But that is not how it's done.
Punish wrongdoing where it's found and can be proven. But do not give perferential treatment to any class of citizen, promote based on merit.
Like ersomniac, I have no problem with private organizations or private money being restricted - if I want to set up a scholarship for white girls with freckles who graduate from a St Clair County high school and it's my money I should be able to do it. But public money or policies should never give preference to someone because of ethnicity or religion. Economic status - yes, I don't see why you can't have aid programs for people based on economic need as long as it is available equally to both minority and non-minority students with need.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I found some thoughts I posted on college selection criteria in another thread. It's appropriate here:
quote:In colleges, people seem to have a default expectation that the "right" person is the one with the best grades or the highest test scores or the best extra-curricular activities. This isn't really the case. Even the slightly better criteria, "who will do best in college," won't necessarily admit the "right" person, even if it could be measured perfectly. College is not a reward for past performance nor a self-contained, self-measuring program. Education is useful to society because of the type of people it produces. Truly successful colleges should be measured by how their alums contribute to society. I admit I have no practical means of making such a measurement. But the mere fact that colleges aren't about how well students do in college means that we shouldn't necessarily consider policies that reject "better" students as automatically bad.
quote:Say person X will contribute 1000* to society without college, and 1100 to society with college. Person Y will contribute 400 to society without college, and 900 with it. The college doesn't contribute as much to society by admitting X over Y. I don't think every admissions decision has to be made like this, but I don't think people examine the whole situation when they speak of merit-only admissions policies. *Remember, I don't actually think this is reducible to a single number. Also, I think that some people who start at a higher "society contribution" measure will gain even more in college compared to some people who start with a lower measure. This was one example only.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:For admissions? We always end up denying qualified applicants. There are always more qualified students than we can admit.
I understand this, but if you're using minority status as a qualifier with the condition of candidates being otherwise "equally but not [necessarily] identically qualified," how can you determine that the qualifications other than minority status are being given equal, primary consideration? ARE they the primary consideration?
Things like test scores, class rank, essays, recommendations etc. are looked at first.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Let's say, hypothetically that we are promoting ten captains. If we had one list, my husband was number 8 on that list. He would get promoted. But, remember that only five white captains can be promoted, so he isn't - because we have to take the top five scorers on the minority list, no matter where they would have fallen if the two lists were merged.
Is your husband's fire department divided exactly (or even reasonably close to) halfway in racial balance between blacks and whites? Otherwise, I have no idea how this makes any sense to anyone.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is based on the idea that exposure to different kinds of people will make someone more comfortable with and less likely to be prejudiced toward minorities.
I understand the idea that it's based on, but I'd like to know if it's ever been proven to have merit.
quote:A university is a place where students should be exposed to all sorts of different experiences.
I disagree with this, or at least with the generalized way you presented it. And anyway, we're talking about more than just universities here. Has anyone ever demonstrated that diversity in a workplace actually helps that workplace in any way?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
erosomniac, the logic is that the population served is majority African-American and the fire dept should reflect that, so this half and half policy was included to up the number of African-American officers.
Personally, I live in a 98% white town, and I wouldn't care if every firefighter were African-American, I just want the best qualified firefighters, because when I have a medical emergency or my house is on fire, the skills and experience and training of the responders matters a whole lot more than their skin color.
The people who came up with this policy apparently think it's more important for the dept. to reflect the racial makeup of the community than to have the best firefighters in leadership positions. And I think that's sad, and a bit scary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is your husband's fire department divided exactly (or even reasonably close to) halfway in racial balance between blacks and whites? Otherwise, I have no idea how this makes any sense to anyone.
It's sounds like a remedial measure imposed by the courts. This was specifically upheld by SCOTUS in a case against an Alabama police department; it wouldn't surprise me if the same mechanism is in place in a fire department in Alabama.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
kmboots,
Hiring Professors is even trickier. At my undergrad, students knew that if you studied Math or Economics, you had a 50/50 chance of getting a Graduate Student Instructor straight off the boat from Russia or Asia who didn't speak a lick of English. The criteria they had for picking graduate students had similiar qualities of Greek Gods, all outstanding in their ways but wholly incompatible. The best teacher is not going to be the best researcher, who is not going to be the one with the best historical knowledge of the subject, who is not going to be the one who gets along with the existent faculty the most. The problem is if you pick someone who is stellar at one of these catagories, the person's deficiencies are going to be terribly obvious, and if you pick someone who has all of the qualities, but none of them spectacularly, you'll just end up with some forgettable milk toast white guy towing the university line.
[ July 12, 2006, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is based on the idea that exposure to different kinds of people will make someone more comfortable with and less likely to be prejudiced toward minorities.
I understand the idea that it's based on, but I'd like to know if it's ever been proven to have merit.
It has had an effect on me. As I get to know people of different backgrounds I discover they are all, in fact, human. But that only works as I get to know individuals ... it doesn't work if there are competing groups on campus with different cultures and a feeling of alienation between them; those situations only serve to reinforce racism, in my opinion.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is based on the idea that exposure to different kinds of people will make someone more comfortable with and less likely to be prejudiced toward minorities.
I understand the idea that it's based on, but I'd like to know if it's ever been proven to have merit.
quote:A university is a place where students should be exposed to all sorts of different experiences.
I disagree with this, or at least with the generalized way you presented it. And anyway, we're talking about more than just universities here. Has anyone ever demonstrated that diversity in a workplace actually helps that workplace in any way?
Jon Boy, I think that the more we know about something, the less likely we are to make wrong assumptions about it.
I was talking about universities. And to answer your question, it depends on what your goal is. If we think that reducing racism is a benefit to society (which I do) then it is helpful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What if all the scientific data shows that the predictive power of a test is exactly the same for minorities and majorities if you scale the minority scores by 10 points? That is, what if they can prove that the predicted performance for a black person who scores 90 is the exact same as the predicted performance for a white person who scores 100?
I would not skew the test. Rather, I would be fascinated as to why the results were what they were, and make that the focus of the next test...
What if it will take 10 years to create a better test? We can use the current test unadjusted for 10 years, which will be 10 years of unfairness to minority applicants. We can use no test, which will deprive us of a useful selection criteria. Or we can perform the adjustment.
I'm very uncomfortable with the third option. But I don't like either of the other two at all.
P.S., I hope I'm not being too annoying with the questions. We're exploring the boundaries of some very tricky issues, and I'd like to get as close to the edge as we can.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:P.S., I hope I'm not being too annoying with the questions. We're exploring the boundaries of some very tricky issues, and I'd like to get as close to the edge as we can.
I'm lovin' it.
quote:What if it will take 10 years to create a better test? We can use the current test unadjusted for 10 years, which will be 10 years of unfairness to minority applicants. We can use no test, which will deprive us of a useful selection criteria. Or we can perform the adjustment.
I'm very uncomfortable with the third option. But I don't like either of the other two at all.
Until we have a good idea of why the results are what they are, is the test a useful selection criteria?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Until we have a good idea of why the results are what they are, is the test a useful selection criteria?
I'd love input from someone with real test design experience on this. But I thought that sufficient correlation is what makes a test useful, even if we don't understand why the correlation exists.
So, if we can document a .75 correlation between the test and GPA for both minority and majority students, but only if we do the adjustment, it would seem to still be useful.
Again, experts welcome. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Bok,
I actually think that anyone who makes a business case for diversity is barking up the wrong tree. Most benefits that are going to be associated with a diverse workforce are going to be accidental as long as the primary measuring stick is the bottom line.
Edit:
Everyone else, before you get all excited about designing a newer and more predictive test, shouldn't there be a consensus about the aims of an education? The big assumption is that the best student for the school is the student who is going to excel the most while attending the school.
This assumes that the school is a sort of perfect procedural institution, and I'm not sure that's the case, nor do I believe that even the faculty at a given school would admit that that's the case.
Take Mario Savio, for example. By the numbers, Savio was a mediocre student and a drop out. He also used everything he learned in school to launch the free speech movement from the Berkeley campus, serving as an icon for a generation. Did Berkeley make a mistake by accepting him?
Lastly, affirmative action's role in reducing racism is only a minor good, in my esteem. The major benefit to affirmative action is the potential for improved public policy and national character.
[ July 12, 2006, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Oh, I have no opinion on that front, but I did a little google searching, and that was the most pertinent result in the first page or two.
BTW, it's "milquetoast" not "milk toast".
-Bok
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is based on the idea that exposure to different kinds of people will make someone more comfortable with and less likely to be prejudiced toward minorities.
I understand the idea that it's based on, but I'd like to know if it's ever been proven to have merit.
Warning! Annecdotal evidence ahead: I went to elementary, jr. high, and high school in schools that had no significant non-white population. There may have been one African-American in my graduating class, I don’t remember for sure. I went to a Midwestern land grant university that was probably over 90% white. I know there were racial minorities and international students present, but the numbers were not high enough that I had any significant interaction with them. Then I went to grad school at a small school that made a point of encouraging racial and international diversity. In every class I interacted with people from other cultures and races. It was immensely valuable to me, not primarily because of any effect it may or may not have had on my comfort level around racial minorities, but because of the different perspectives brought by the different people.
Based on my experience, I will make it a priority to live where my child(ren) can go to a diverse school. And I support a school’s right to value creating such an atmosphere when making decisions about hiring faculty and accepting students. In my opinion it serves a legitimate educational purpose.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Bokonon: Thanks for the link. That's exactly what I was talking about.
Kate: I wholeheartedly agree that reducing racism is a good thing. However, I remain pretty unconvinced that affirmative action has done anything to reduce racism. I won't knock its intentions, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Everyone else, before you get all excited about designing a newer and more predictive test, shouldn't there be a consensus about the aims of an education?
I can't solve every problem at once. Just assume the test is a perfect predictor of whatever criteria you want to use, with the same disparity. It's a useful device for the discussion.
quote:The big assumption is that the best student for the school is the student who is going to excel the most while attending the school.
I posted about this on the preceding page, although I think you've seen both quotes before.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think AA is more to try to mediate systemic inequalities due to past and ongoing racism/bias, both overt and surreptitious, JB. Not solve, nor equalize, but mediate.
I look at it this way, the type of bias AA is instituted to combat is an economic externality that has been shown to be unsolvable in economies of our scale through market forces. It wasn't like there weren't progressive individuals/companies prior to AA (or even during the height of slavery) that tried to hire the best and brightest, without regard to a bias. That said, they weren't enough to actually cause racism (or the lack thereof) to become an economic issue. In fact, I don't know if it is the case today, even. It's rather easy (and probably cheaper!) for a smallish company to recruit into the groups best known to them, and assuming the group is large enough, to get decent enough employees to be profitable.
One side effect of this, though, is that it can lead itself to an institutionalized, if even unintentional, bias/racism to assert itself, with little penalty to those with power to change it. Furthermore, I don't think you can realistically ask those individuals negatively affected by this system to try and fix it, if you think it is worthwhile to do so.
I think requiring comapanies/institutions to make a good-faith effort (which is essentially what AA boils down to) is a reasonable, if not perfect, solution. I think it can be tweaked a bit, but I don't think that AA itself is that nefarious, and I think it renders itself meaningless as it becomes more successful.
-Bok
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I posted about this on the preceding page, although I think you've seen both quotes before.
I have and I agree.
Erosomniac,
I actually think the most interesting discussion about Affirmative Action has to do with Asians. Here we have a minority group as poor as any other group, they don't blend in, and their test scores and business savvy is off of the charts. In a generation, they've become better at WASPy christianity than WASPs, better at WASPy education than WASPs, and better at WASPy business practices than WASPs. The only reason Asians don't hold the highest eschelons of power in this meritocracy is because we also live in a democracy and there aren't enough Asians to muscle the vote, yet.
It's a story of a people who do everything right by the book and still don't get much respect. It's sad. And since I'm not Asian, I can afford to have a bit of distance and a good sense of humor about it. It's like my buddies who hated engineering, but studied it anyway because they were told that they would be rich, then when the bubble burst and jobs started being shipped overseas, they felt deeply, deeply betrayed. If it weren't just a little bit funny, it would be terribly sad.
[ July 13, 2006, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I found some thoughts I posted on college selection criteria in another thread. It's appropriate here:
quote:Say person X will contribute 1000* to society without college, and 1100 to society with college. Person Y will contribute 400 to society without college, and 900 with it. The college doesn't contribute as much to society by admitting X over Y. I don't think every admissions decision has to be made like this, but I don't think people examine the whole situation when they speak of merit-only admissions policies. *Remember, I don't actually think this is reducible to a single number. Also, I think that some people who start at a higher "society contribution" measure will gain even more in college compared to some people who start with a lower measure. This was one example only.
This idea doesn't quite sit right with me. I can think of a number of problems that could occur if this were actually used (unless the end goal would be to create mediocracy).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:his idea doesn't quite sit right with me. I can think of a number of problems that could occur if this were actually used (unless the end goal would be to create mediocracy).
I don't think it could ever be implemented, of course. But, especially for public universities, the goal has got to be more than just individual success.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I posted about this on the preceding page, although I think you've seen both quotes before.
I have and I agree.
Erosomniac,
I actually think the most interesting discussion about Affirmative Action has to do with Asians. Here we have a minority group as poor as any other group, they don't blend in, and their test scores and business savvy is off of the charts. In a generation, they've become better at WASPy christianity than WASPs, better at WASPy education than WASPs, and better at WASPy business practices than WASPs. The only reason Asians don't hold the highest eschelons of power in this meritocracy is because we also live in a democracy and there aren't enough Asians to muscle the vote, yet.
It's a story of a people who do everything right by the book and still don't get much respect. It's sad. And since I'm not Asian, I can afford to have a bit of distance and a good sense of humor about it. It's like my buddies who hated engineering, but studied it anyway because they were told that they would be rich, then when the bubble burst and jobs started being shipped overseas, they felt deeply, deeply betrayed. If it weren't just a little bit funny, it would terribly sad.
Being part of the demographic in question, I have a lot to say on this subject, but my thoughts are extremely disjointed and I'm not sure where to begin, especially without offending anyone (or sounding ridiculous to myself).
Suffice it to say that Asian Americans often suffer direct negative results from affirmative action. We're a demographic that, by popular stereotype, is generally regarded as having above average intelligence, ability and work ethic. We immigrate and in a single generation become solid middle class. There is a comparative lack of blatantly pejorative stereotypes about Asians; at least, of the variety that result in affirmative action for blacks and latinos.
As a result of this, the number of jobs/admissions we typically qualify for is disproportionate to the portion of the population we represent. We're overrepresented in the student bodies of top universities around the nation, and very heavily over-represented in the fields we traditionally excel at: business, computer-related fields, the sciences, etc. It seems to me like a circular pattern: the stereotype results in overrepresentation, and the overrepresentation reinforces the stereotype.
More disjointed thoughts to come, inevitably.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:his idea doesn't quite sit right with me. I can think of a number of problems that could occur if this were actually used (unless the end goal would be to create mediocracy).
I don't think it could ever be implemented, of course. But, especially for public universities, the goal has got to be more than just individual success.
Yes it does, at least to my understanding of public education. Also, the equation could work the other way. I'm not so sure that's the role of colleges and universities. What if the effect was exponential rather than simply linear? Then training people with only very high initial abilities would make sense. I just don't like the roads that this kind of reasoning leads down.
However, your point is definately taken about the purpose of public universities being more than just an individual level.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Maybe it's just my math/science background, but I've never seen someone's race bring anything special to the table.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We're a demographic that, by popular stereotype, is generally regarded as having above average intelligence, ability and work ethic. We immigrate and in a single generation become solid middle class. There is a comparative lack of blatantly pejorative stereotypes about Asians; at least, of the variety that result in affirmative action for blacks and latinos.
Asians just have an opposite stereotype. Whereas blacks are considered intractable, Asians will do what they are told, when they are told to do it, with a serious attention detail. Now depending on who you talk to, those last three clauses are all pejoratives.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have no problem with using AA in a thread that is about Affirmative Action and not Alcholics Anonymous.
Also, Asians are disproportionately hated by all the other minorities (why were Koreans looted after the Rodney King verdict?) and still experience housing and and service discrimination. But then, in areas where housing discrimination goes on, so do Jews and Catholics etc. In greater Chicago, the populace is "sorted" by the realtors so everyone goes in a pigeonhole.
I skimmed the thread a bit fast, so I hope this isn't a repeat. But I heard on a telecourse that when California dropped affirmative action, no black students made it into medical school that year. I'm not sure what happened after that. But medical school acceptance is particularly important not just for them to be examples to the rising generation, but to provide service to their communities. But I've seen firsthand how white people who couldn't get into the med school of their choice groused about affirmative action. :sigh: White people get mad about not getting the one they choose, as opposed to not going at all. [/reverse discrimination]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Also, Asians are disproportionately hated by all the other minorities (why were Koreans looted after the Rodney King verdict?) and still experience housing and and service discrimination.
quote:But L.A.'s black community was primed to explode by an earlier incident. Several months prior to the King-beating verdict, Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old black girl, was shot and killed by a Korean grocer in an altercation over a bottle of orange juice.
I was living Southern California at the time and the video of the shooting was all over the news. It was a good sized primer for the riots.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)