posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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).
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's just my math/science background, but I've never seen someone's race bring anything special to the table.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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]
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
