daswig

The best solution is simply to remove race as a category for everything.

Now before you freak out, don't you make me get my big badassed book of Frederick Douglass quotes out on you....

Manx

The solution in question is no more unconscionable or repugnant than the problem that it, to some degree, remedies. So unless you do have an alternate solution, to propose that AA be removed is to welcome an increase in repugnance. Hence, it does work that way.
Everything is imperfect, even more so when you are speaking of an initiative implemented on a large scale by a large organization such as the government. I'm open to improvements to AA that do not limit its effectiveness and I'm open to entirely different methods of dealing with the general discrimination that society contains. I am not open to removing any protections against discrimination simply because those protections may or may not contain various degrees of imperfection.
Yes it is. And in this thread I have already demonstrated the linked nature of AA and discrmination.

Manx

We have other, also imperfect, solutions to stealing, lying cheating, etc. AA is our imperfect solution to discrimination.

Come up with something better. We are constantly altering the legal system to improve it. I don't see many people suggesting we abolish the legal system because there are occassionally some innocent people convicted. So why do you want to remove the only institutionalized protection against discrimination?

raveneye

There have been many alternatives suggested by many people of many races. One possibility is affirmative action based solely on economic status, race neutral. Would this satisfy you?

FoolThemAll

No, it's a bit more repugnant when wrongdoing is backed by law. Whatever the motivation. It is wrong to require preferences based on skin color. Even if other people do it too. Two wrongs really don't cancel each other out. There would be a decrease repugnance, because one wrong would have ceased.

It's not a matter of imperfection. It's a matter of immorality. It's not a valid way to deal with the problem.

Yes it is. And in this thread I have already demonstrated the linked nature of AA and discrmination.[/QUOTE]

Show me why one can't believe that racism exists and also believe that AA is wrong. That's the claim I'm disagreeing with.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Manx

As a replacement for AA, it would not satisfy me or, more importantly, the problem. As something we should implement to address an altogether different problem, the one of class discrimination, yes, it would satisfy me. But as is the case with AA, you'd see a lot of rich people complaining about being "discriminated" against because they are rich. To which I wouldn't shed a tear.

Delimiting based on economic status does not address race or gender discrimination except via proxy. A proxy solution is no solution at all. AA is here to teach us that we are discriminatory. By only going through the proxy of the disparaties in economic status, itself a problem produced by racism, is to ignore the real problem.

raveneye

I see. Even if it equalized the overall socioeconomic status of the races, it still wouldn't be enough. Certain races would still need a leg up at the expense of other races.

Noted.

Manx

It's wrongdoing to convict an innocent man. It is not wrong to require preferences based on skin color to deal with the issue of discrimination based on skin color. This is not an issue of two wrongs, it is an issue of equalization. Decreasing AA will result in an increase in discrimination. AA is something we can adaptively control. Racism is something we cannot legislate out of existence if we so choose. AA is not repugnant. Racism is repugnant. You need to stop confusing the two.
When there are no other ways of dealing with it, the only option that is available is the option that must be taken. It would be more immoral to remove this method of checking racism, thereby allowing racism to flourish.
Because by fighting to remove AA you are fighting to increase racism. As I have already posted. Go back and read my first couple of posts in this thread if you want more information.

Manx

Please. If that's what you think I said, you need some assistance with reading comprehension.

That some races are in much lower economic status levels than other races is NOT a product of race. It is a product of RACISM.

Adding an economic adjustment to these CLASSES is not going to address the issue of RACISM, it will only address the issue of wealth. Focusing on the economics means you want to hide the racism. You won't be addressing the racism, only the symptoms of racism. Racism continues, but you get to pretend it doesn't exist. Until you wake up one day and all the black people live in secure gated communities and all the white people live in secure gated communities, and never the two races mingle. With a perfect economic adjustment, we would end up with a bunch of races that all have the same money but never hire another race. The racial divides in this country would continue to exist.

You want to address the economic disparity? Good. So do I. But don't confuse it with the racial divide and racism.

raveneye

That's a very interesting response, Manx. So you're saying that even if AA by income equalized the socioeconomic status of the races, then that still won't be enough. Some races will still need a leg up at the expense of other races. Because otherwise whites and blacks will be living in separate gated communities.

Right?

irateplatypus

now you're just making stuff up.

no. the suspicion of your merit comes from the truth. you see, AA paints minorities into a corner. this time it isn't igorance, or bigotry, or hate that drives suspicion. this time it's the TRUTH that a minority isn't necessarily equal with his peers that drives such thought. the dignity of all minorities is demolished when it is the truth that vindicates suspicion... the right is no longer on your side.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Manx

Wrong. Try again.

raveneye

I'm not being flip, I'm seriously trying to understand what you're saying. But if you don't want me to, then fine.

Manx

Since you show interest, it would probably be beneficial for you to understand. You repeated your analysis of my statement, almost word for word. That is why I suggest trying harder to understand.

But I will give it a third try:

Remove income from the equation. Income disparity that is broken down along racial lines is a symptom of racism. There is no value in treating symptoms and ignoring causes. AA is not about giving one race a "leg up", it is about demonstrating to society that your car is oversteering and until that problem is fixed, we will need to counter steer.

jorgelito

Raveneye,
I think what Manx is trying to say is that the two issues (socio-economic & race) while related, are separate in his AA statement.

In his argument,the institution is racist, separate from income status in and of itself. So for him (Manx, correct me if I'm wrong in interpreting your position), it's two issues. Getting rid of one does not necessarily fix the other.

EX: A socio-economic neutral application would not resolve racism.

EX: Racism exists outside of the socio-economic sphere.

jorgelito

Raveneye,
I think what Manx is trying to say is that the two issues (socio-economic & race) while related, are separate in his AA statement.

In his argument,the institution is racist, separate from income status in and of itself. So for him (Manx, correct me if I'm wrong in interpreting your position), it's two issues. Getting rid of one does not necessarily fix the other.

EX: A socio-economic neutral application would not resolve racism.

EX: Racism exists outside of the socio-economic sphere.

So, while he agrees with your position on socio-economic parity as one component of a separate issue, he disagrees with you that it would resolve the institutionalized racism that he believes exists.

raveneye

OK, let's take this one step at a time.

"Remove income from the equation" plus

"We still need to counter steer"

directly implies that we still need racial AA preferences even if incomes are all equalized among the races.

raveneye

In other words, it's a simple logical question. Which of these two statements would you agree with, Manx:

(1) If the mean incomes of all the races were equalized, race-based AA preferences will still be necessary.

(2) If the mean incomes of all the races were equalized, race-based AA preferences will no longer be necessary.

Do you agree with either one of these?

Manx

I'm trying to explicitly imply it. I've tried 3 times to explicitly imply it by using 3 different methods of saying it.

Because income disparity is not the problem. Racism is the problem. Income disparity is born of racism. Address the problem of racism and by default you are addressing the symptom of income disparity. Consider it a bonus, but the ultimate goal is to address racism.

In regards to 1 or 2 - the answer is 1.

Manx

Pretty much exactly. Though I would clarify that income disparity between races is predominantly due to racism. So in the utopia of a non-racist society, there is basically no income disparity between races. But in the utopian society of non-disparate income between races, there is still racism.

FoolThemAll

Not necessarily, unless you think that all people in charge of hiring are racists. If you don't believe that, then there will be many circumstances in which AA is, indeed, racism. Circumstances where AA will take a specific situation in which there was no favoritism towards a particular race and turn it into favoritism towards a particular race. Racism. That's the second wrong I'm talking about.

Even assuming that racism absolutely will increase with the removal of AA, that's not proof that AA opponents don't believe racism exists. I'm not particularly interested in looking through your other posts to find an explanation for your leaps.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

raveneye

Well (1) is almost exactly what I stated the first time, and you denied that it was true.


OK so now it's clear. Even if all the races had identical socioeconomic status, you believe that some races still:

(1) need preferential admission to college,
(2) need to be preferentially hired and promoted,
(3) etc.,

even though those being preferentially treated have the same socioeconomic status on average as those who are not being preferentially treated.

SO here's the next question: in this scenario where all the races have equal socioeconomic status yet AA is still necessary, how do you decide which race(s) deserve the preference?

Keep in mind that, as you pointed out earlier, every human being on the planet is racist.

Manx

Ha. If you're not going to read my other posts, how exactly can you claim I am making a leap?

Ya know, I had a whole response written to the other portions of your post, but then I read the portion quoted here and it became clear that I was wasting my time. If you are not going to read the posts I make in a thread, you shouldn't be responding to them with the nonsense that you have come up with.

Manx

#1 is not even close to what you said the first time. Which was this:

Certain races would still need a leg up at the expense of other races

I take exception to the phrase "a leg up" and to the phrase "at the expense of". Neither of those two phrases are contained or implied in #1, which was this:

If the mean incomes of all the races were equalized, race-based AA preferences will still be necessary.

The fundamental area that you are wrong is that you are unable to differentiate between those two statements, which are quite clearly very distinct.

The secondary area that you are not comprehending is that AA is beneficial to ALL races in that it decreases the negative affects of racism. Hence, there is no race that suffers an "expense", as you claim.
Yes.
Population density.

Manx

As an aside, it is telling that in almost all discusions of AA, even though the majority of beneficiaires are based on gender, the topic of race is dominant.

FoolThemAll

I'm not responding to your other posts, I'm responding to this post. And I don't believe there is an explanation in your other posts. Prove me wrong. I'm not going hunting for something that may or may not be there.

Or give up. I can live with either choice of yours.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Ananas

Now that's an interesting observation. I'd like to see if the posters' responses would be similar if the topic of AA was solely about gender.

The bottom line is there would be no need for AA if racism AND sexism did not exist. Obviously, someone recognizes that a problem exists which has a detrimental effect on the society as a whole. The remedy may not be palatable to certain segments of that society, but one must remember that the illness itself was not palatable to certain segments of society. Some people were sickened and weakened by others' actions, they need to be treated for being made ill.

chickentribs

Manx, way to hang in there...

First of all, Affirmative Action programs do not use Federal Money (except for a bit channeled in grants that states may or may not use - insignificant).

Second, 90% of the slots aren't taken from general university population for AA, the goal is to create additional slots for these qualified individuals. People getting shut out of schools because of AA is a myth. You didn't get in the school because of what you brought to the table - the slot wasn't taken from you. AA is a great excuse for your buddys and to get sympathy from your family and girlfriend, but the slot wouldn't have been there for you if AA didn't exist either. Like a reserved parking spot you can't use anyway.

Third, there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. Please stop saying that. (Gasp!) Discrimination is the action of using authority and power to manipulate those without authority or power into even lesser positions. By definition the reverse cannot exist. Racism is the belief system that causes the action of discrimination. You can have reverse racism, but that just means the black person doesn't like you because you were a racist to begin with, which is pretty fair. These definitions are not interchangable if we are going to understand each other and be consistant.

To repeat, unless your government carte blanche kicked enough white people out of schools and boardrooms and replaced with minorities to a level that EXCEEDS overall population demographics, there is no reverse discrimination. You're safe from being a victim. There is no "White Man's Burden" you all seem to wear on your sleeve. Quit trying to sell it.

If you really need proof that racism is alive and well today, look at the the faculty of your schools, the presidents of your universities, the Board of Directors at your companies. Then look at our prisons. I know - it's not your fault. Fine. Your off the hook. But there is a real problem with our society and the "why" of this mess that somebody has to address. As Manx was patiently repeating - money doesn't solve the problem. We have to create opportunities within our social structure that don't currently exist to lift up the possibilities and the idea of a young woman or minority so they can have the same conviction you had growing up that if they work hard, society has a place waiting for them. When you have seen that everyday of your life on TV, in the neighborhoods you grew up in, the schools you got to go to... you are blind to the value of having real possibility to believe in.

If your father, and your brother were sitting in jail, it's a short road for you to get there too. Believe it.

Anyway - I'm tired and out.

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

raveneye

Perhaps you can be more specific. Are you saying that the race with the lowest population density is the race that receives AA preferences?

Which race(s) would that be?

raveneye

The only reason I'm even referring to race is that race has been your perspective all along. AA favoring women is much harder to defend (if anything) than AA by race, given that women in the U.S. outnumber AND outperform men in just about every university in the country.

If anybody here wants to defend AA by gender, go ahead. My responses here have been entirely reactive.

raveneye

Just to summarize my position at this point.

(1) The purpose of AA is to equalize the socioeconomic status of different groups in society, primarily racial minorities but also women.

(2) The purpose of AA has never been to eliminate racism or sexism, nor is it even capable of doing so.

(3) Racism and sexism will never be eliminated from human society.

(4) AA is a form of government legitimized racism and sexism.

(5) A non-racist and non-sexist response to inequities in socioeconomic status is more just and fair than the reverse.

(6) One such response would be a race and gender-neutral AA based solely on socioeconomic status, coupled with more aggressive enforcement of anti-discrimination law.

raveneye

The purpose of AA is to give a particular race or gender assistance. If it doesn't provide any assistance, then it is not doing anything. Assistance is the "action" in "affirmative action." A synonym for assistance is "leg up".

If there is only a finite number of positions (students accepted or jobs offered by a company) then members of the group that is not receiving assistance is placed at an immediate disadvantage; i.e. their probability goes down of getting approved for that limited number of openings (at Harvard or at Microsoft, etc.). Thus they are at a disadvantage, because not receiving the job or spot in the university is an immediate disadvantage.

Now you may argue that overall, AA is just, and that's fine, but that's a completely different point. The fact is that in any instance in which AA actually performs an action, it increases the probability of socioeconomic advancement of one group, and decreases the probability of socioeconomic advancement of another group.

If it did not do that, then what would it ever accomplish?

smooth

What am I making up? Everyone can look at my photos to determine if I look like a minority (and I am), and I've looked at yours (and you certainly look white to me). And then you said this:

So what exactly am I making up? My presence on your campus would expand your racial horizons. How does that demean your educational experience?

You accept things you didn't earn all day long just by virtue of your whiteness.
Your attitude comes across as sanctimonious, especially when you rail against all the things about AA illustrating to you my unworthiness of being where I am. I think those kinds of comments are very telling of your character.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

lol, surprise, surprise, many white males are opposed to programs that help minority races and women!
The very groups they've held political, economic, and social power over for extremely long times.
...and then deny that their opposition stems from their race or gender

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

raveneye

Another pertinent point that needs to be made in any discussion of AA: "race" per se is nonexistent. Researchers in the field of human evolution have rejected the entire concept of "race" as applied to human biology.

That doesn't mean that people don't discriminate based on what they believe are racial differences. But the fact is that the construct "race" has no biological basis. Rather human beings occupy a broad biological continuum with absolutely no evidence of any lines of division anywhere. The genetic differences that people psychologically associate with "race" are caused by just a few genetic loci that control trivial, superficial traits like melanin production. These loci are shared by the entire human population, and any person could have gotten any of these alleles from anywhere on the planet.

I can dig up over a dozen research articles on this if anybody is interested.

But the point I'm making here is that, if race is meaningless biologically, then "racial diversity" also is of questionable meaning. How can you have a diverse racial presence if separate races do not exist? What "racial diversity" really means, in the context of biological differences, is just a diverse mixture of genetic alleles controlling trivial, superficial physical traits. Those alleles could come from anywhere on the planet, they aren't owned by any particular "race."

So racial diversity is really just diversity in some superficial human traits that somebody recently decided are important. Those traits don't translate necessarily into any other kind of diversity. That includes cultural diversity, religious diversity, linguistic diversity, socioeconomic diversity, geographic diversity, intellectual diversity, political diversity, or any other kind of diversity that one might want to have on a college campus or working environment.

So, for example, you could achieve a full, complete "racial diversity" by sampling 100% from middle-class, English-only-speaking, Protestant, Republican, SUV-driving, Jeopardy lovers who like Maroon 5 and video games all entirely living now in Bloomington Indiana. That group, however, wouldn't be the best you could put together if what you were looking for was cultural diversity.

There are many many many more similarities than there are differences among the so-called "races". There are many many many differences within each so-called "race" than there are differences between them.

We need to look beyond the superficial if we're ever going to treat each other like we're all from one human race.

raveneye

What somebody's skin color or gender is should not be relevant in evaluating the arguments they are making.

But for the record, you should realize that there are many women and non-white people who are opposed to AA quotas, for many reasons.

uncle_el

raveneye, while i don't disagree with your sentiments about the biology of race (i in fact agree with you), but it still stands that people make differences based on what they see, i.e. phenotype.

while the philosophical argument of what race is or isn't, or does it even exist, is a great topic... it does nothing to answer the question of necessity of affirmative action programs. if anything, it says that race doesn't exist, and thus affirmative action programs shouldn't exist... but women and minorities will continue to be shunned and exlcuded from certain arenas.

i said it earlier in the thread, and i'll say it again:

the simple fact that a man like george w. bush can graduate with a c average, attend business school at harvard, become governor after many failed business ventures (oil, getting rid of sammy sosa), and then become president shows, in my eyes, that affirmative action programs are indeed necessary. getting into a post graduate school with a c average?!?!?!?!?! i don't think anyone can argue that it was anything but privelege that helped him get into business school at harvard.

i have a hard time imaging that a woman or a historically underrepresented minority could get into business school at harvard after having a c average in an undergraduate institution. should an affirmative action program change that. no. what it should do is allow people who have the credentials a seat at the table.

what many people seem to think is that affirmative action programs allow people who aren't qualified in the least bit, a position/seat at an institution. this is hardly the case. rather, people who tend to be ignored are now looked at.

are all administrators/board of directors/human resource managers/those in charge of hiring/admission committee members racist?!? i wouldn't think so. but are there things that may cloud their judgement/taint their view? sure.


for instance, the university of chicago and mit had a study using resumes, those with unique names/names typically associated with African-American names, and names that seemed to be culturally/racially neutral... the outcome was that even though the resumes were the same, people in positions of power tended to choose the resumes with culturally/racially neutral names (1/10 name neutral resumes received a response versus 1/15 of racially/culturally associate names)...

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
http://boston.bizjournals.com/kansas...s7.html?page=1
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...03dnews-01.asp
http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/...rimination.asp

were those in charge of hiring racist? were the decisions unconscious?

the study's aim was to see whether or not there was a difference with just a name... and it seems quite clear that there is a difference, at least with hiring employment.

one can only imagine what occurs with admissions to college/universities.

edit: here's the paper in pdf format: http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

__________________
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of inprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. - Malcolm X

FoolThemAll

I think that kind of racial diversity would still have some value, in that it would give some useful exposure to other races that would clear up preconceived notions and embedded stereotypes much more effectively than just saying, "All black people are not alike" or what have you.

But it's not of anywhere near enough value to justify affirmative action.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

raveneye

Certainly this is true, as I said clearly in the post you are responding to. My comments on the biology of race were specifically within the context of the questionable value of the goal of "racial diversity" not discrimination per se.

So in other words, I am saying that AA used for the purpose of promoting "racial diversity" is of very dubious value, since in practical terms it comes down to little more than diversity in nose width and skin melanin production.

I would say it is relevant to the question of the necessity of AA, if the purpose of any particular AA implementation is to capture something that is biologically imaginary.

If the purpose of an AA implementation is to increase the socioeconomic status of a disadvantaged group, I would say that is a good and worthwhile purpose, regardless of the reasons the group is disadvantaged (e.g. because of biologically imaginary traits). I am questioning, however, whether AA as currently used is the best (fairest, most beneficial in the long term) way to do this.

AA was started in 1965, when George W. Bush was only 19 years old. It certainly didn't prevent money and influence from getting him pretty much whatever he wanted. I don't see your logic here.

And that is still happening, 40 years after AA was started.

Well I don't know about Harvard, but that is certainly happening not uncommonly in schools all over the country, due to AA or similar "diversity" initiatives in some schools.

I served for 7 years on the Graduate Admissions Committee of a major university, and I can tell you from personal experience that you are wrong here. We admitted people routinely who self-identified as "black" whom we never would have admitted if they were white. About half of those students dropped out within a year.

Everybody is biased in one way or another. Like Manx said, we all feel more comfortable around familiar faces. On the other hand, some people I've noticed feel competitively threatened by people they identify as the "same race". Which way the bias goes depends on who is there at the helm making these decisions. The committee that I was on was very sympathetic to minorities, except for one Chinese professor who was very negative toward Chinese applicants. Other committees that I've seen have not been sympathetic to minority applicants.

I'm sure that's rampant, but my purpose here has never been to deny that. I'm just questioning whether AA as currently implemented is the best way of dealing with it. I have thought about this a lot and I believe as of now that it is not.

I'm open to argument, however, with anybody of any gender or race

Ilow

Without delving too much into my personal position on AA, which is most likely skewed due to my being a white male, I had another question. Could someone explain the descrepancies in bar pass rate described in the article. Assuming that he was speaking of similarly talented students who attent an elite and non-elite school, why would the non-elite school student actually do better on the bar? Assuming that they both had equal abilities, and the elite school is supposed to be superior, can the difference be explained soley on the negative self-efficacy feelings of recieving C's rather than A's?
For the record, even if AA's only significant contribution is to eliminate the "legacy bias" then that to me is grounds to keep it in place. It is tough to hear stories about white male students with markedly superior grades being passed over for minority students with somewhat less stellar grades. However, since they may not have attended the same school (i.e. different grading or racial prejudice), and given the recently questioned racial bias in standardized tests, maybe it's not as bad a thing as it's made out to be.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris