The "Diversity" Approach to Racial Preferences
 

Note to moderators and others: This thread is not a rehash of all the previous threads on affirmative action. I have a clear and defined subpoint that I am pursuing here that is different from the run-of-the-mill affirmative action debate.


There are, to my knowledge, two justifications used by advocates of racial preference programs like affirmative action:
1: The programs seek to rectify past discrimination.
2: The programs seek to increase "diversity."

We are concerned here with the second point. The word "diversity" is a holy word on most college campuses these days, but, in my experience, it is not very effectively defined. It usually seems to mean "taking people of different ethnicities and putting them in the same environment."

Here is the question, then: is the goal of increasing diversity, whatever you take that to mean, sufficient justification in and of itself to racially discriminate against members of dominant racial categories in college admmissions, job hiring, government contracts, etc?

If you think this question is purely hypothetical, consider than many of the black students at the college I attend are from Africa or otherwise outside the United States. Yet, it seems pretty clear that black people within the United States have been more severely discriminated against by white Americans than have black people in Africa...

Just something to think about. :thumbsup:

i think the silent word in all this is priviledge.

does participation in whiteness confer on certain individuals higher access to opportunities, networking, education, wealth, etc.?

If that's true, and i certainly think it is, then to do nothing is to continue the operation of white privilege, and to continue to disadvantage members of non-white groups.

is affirmative action, as currently deployed, that solution? I'm not sure. but i tend to think it's better than nothing.

you mention international diversity vs. domestic diversity, and you do raise a good point. the school i just graduated from has a strong record of internationalism, but has had to make cuts in forigien student grants in order to beef up aid to domestic students of color. we're finally getting a better atmosphere for those students, so that they don't feel quite so much like tokens, and particpate as valued members of the community. to add to that, this didn't happen just by throwing people in the pot. groups for white students to explore their idenity and position as white were key in producing these results. first time i heard the term "white idenity collective" i had visions of neo-nazis. in reality, it was a strong group working to hash out questions of what it mean to be white, and how white idenity can either contribute or work to dismantle institutional racism.

metaphorically, melting pots rarely get hot enough to melt people without first burning them...it takes more work than throwing people together to produce a diverse community.

There is NO JUSTIFICATION for discrimination. Not even the made up ones that the left likes to peddle.

Affirmative action schemes are a complete failure.

They have improved nothing for any one.

They have righted no wrongs.

They have not increased diversity.

None of these facts will ever change.

-bear

Excellent topic, Politico, and Martinquerre made some very interesting observations. I have personally benefited from affirmative action policies in the work place, so obviously I disagree with Bear's statements.

My college experiences differed greatly, but I don't claim any knowledge about the diversity policies the universities may have had. UC Berkeley was a highly diverse campus and it was a very energizing climate. University of North Texas was almost entirely white, Wonder Bread bland. My preference should be obvious. :)

What's obvious about it?

Can you please explain in more detail how you 'benefitted' from discrimination?

Thanks, :thumbsup:

-bear

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that AA has improved nothing for anyone? How about for not increasing diversity?

Fair question, Bear.

Back when the Earth was still cooling, I worked for the Big Airplane Company, an all male bastion supported by "girls." Uncle Sam decided that any company on the federal teat needed to live up to the EEOC act. When my male boss in Accounting was sent packing, I was appointed the job. It was an easy pick, because I was qualified for the position, but Big Airplane Company had a more important goal in getting their numbers right to keep it's federal contracts. Everybody won.

I'm not sure if this takes us down a well traveled road, I'm guessing it does.

I've benefitted from discrimination all my life. As a 6' 2" white male, I get the positives (see: Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, the chapter on the "warren harding error"), and I get the absence of the negatives (at airports, driving, walking downtown, etc).

Of the two, the abscence of negatives is probably better for my day to day life. The positives are better for my long term success.

cept the dude that was sent packing, I'm guessing :D


Having said that, I have no real issue with this. Unfair shit happens in life. As a recipient of the positive side of that unfairness, more often than not, I have no issue when the other side bites my ass.

No one gets to skate, methink.

[QUOTE=boatin]cept the dude that was sent packing, I'm guessing :D/QUOTE]

He had a little problem with keeping his hands off the wimmin folk. That was beginning to be looked down upon, too. :)

It sounds to me instead like you were the more qualified individual for the position and that YOU DID NOT benefit from discrimination. Instead your employer got to satifiy the government mandated quotas, usually adhered to by discriminating, without doing so...and got not only a qualified butt in the seat, but the most qualified butt.

That is indeed a win win.

-bear

It's just a hunch really that two wrongs don't make a right and that discrimination to address discrimination is ineffective.

You have any stats that show otherwise?

I'm not that keen on digging anything up...I know what I've read and you know also know what I've read. I suppose if shown something to the contrary of what I've posted, I might be inclined to refute it.

As far as diversity is concerned...we've all seen it. Sure there are more of the various groups on campus and in the work place...but they don't intermix all that much. Just like in the real world without government sanctioned and mandated discrimination.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for intergration, and I'm in favor of helping overcome the obstacles to success, like discrimination, racism, and sexism...however, it could be just me...'programs' which are nothing more then discrimination, racism, and sexism just ain't going to cut it.

-bear

jbear...it's called institutional inertia. once a system is headed in a direction (white priviledge or the good old boys network) it requires some energy to turn around.

I agree with this. You have to give it a push to get it rolling.

I didn't make any assertions, i'm not obligated to back up claims that i didn't make. I seem to remember you referring to your assertions as facts that will never change. That's a far cry from a hunch. While you're certainly welcome to your opinion, don't you think it is just a tad bit disingenuous to attempt to pass it off as having an immutable factual basis?

I find that most people are all in favor of helping overcome discrimination, racism and sexism, provided they never actually have to lift a finger to do so. It's just a convenient, empty sentiment.

As it stands, AA does help people overcome discrimination. As someone who i've seen call for "fighting fire with fire" when it comes to terrorism, i don't know how you can't understand the potential effectiveness of fighting discrimination with discrimination.

Interesting points.

I agree whole heartedly about intentions and lifting fingers. Affirmative Action, is just that, NOT LIFTING a finger. A hollow gesture that perpetuates discrimination. It is an appeasement that solves nothing, provides no advantage for anyone, and in my opinion pollutes rational thinking. Eliminating discrimintation by discriminating? Am I out in left field here?

Helping someone overcome discrimination by discriminating against someone else...is a zero sum game!

You've seen me call for 'fighting fire with fire' when it comes to terrorism? Are you sure about that?

Remember I am disliked for my anarchist tendencies, but am quite an enigma with my frequent libertarian philosophy.

-bear

i'm simply puzzled by your rhetoric here, jbear. i think you need to explain more about why you're drawing your conclusions here. you have made a series of assertions, but have neither pointed to research, experience or explained reasoning as to why you do so. i just don't know that i have enough information to go on to respond effectively. i could assume that you have similar reasoning to other AA detractors, but i don't think that's productive.

I'm not surprised by your use of the term 'rhetoric.'

None the less, Feel free to hold firm to the fantasy that using discrimination to solve a discrimination problem might some how magically become effective. Also, it sounds like an effective strategy to blame some notion of 'priveledge' that exists with white folk, and to believe that an 'old boys network' is keeping people down. I suspect you'll eventually be disappointed and find someone to blame, but that's your perogative and I'm in no position to try and persuade you otherwise.

I'm going to direct you to a black gentlemen named Walter Williams. He is a PHD and eloquent editorialist about issue effecting his community:

Many of his musings can be found here:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/w.../archive.shtml

Check out what he has to say. I doubt you will be swayed but try to keep an open mind.

Here are the titles of some of Dr Williams thoughts:

July 20, 2005 Slavery reparations
July 13, 2005 Aid to Africa
July 6, 2005 Dependency on government
June 29, 2005 Confiscating property
June 22, 2005 Do we want this?
June 15, 2005 Click it or ticket
June 8, 2005 Victimhood: Rhetoric or reality?
June 1, 2005 Destroying effective policing
May 25, 2005 Our trade deficit
May 18, 2005 Ripping off the system
May 11, 2005 How not to be poor
May 4, 2005 Only in America
April 27, 2005 The productive vs. the unproductive

Thought provoking aren't they?

I'd love to hear what you think.

-bear

Having been the victim of reverse discrimination, I agree with you 100%. AA is a sham and an impediment to equal opportunity. On my city FireFighter job, minorities shunned studying for promotional exams, boasting that they were "guaranteed" positions regardless of score. Even after hiring a black test writer, who designed a bias-free test, minorities scored poorly. The head of our Civil Service stated ,"we guaranteed a fair test...we cant guarantee results".

The problem with AA in my mind is that, if the point is to eliminate discrimination, then using another form of discrimination to acheive that goal is hypocrisy. All it does is get those being passed over angry at the ones being given the positions, and fosters more hate then otherwise would be natural.

jbear...rhetoric wasn't an insult. i could have said argument, logic, statement, or any other noun to indicate the words and thoughts you were conveying.

i'll read some of that, but you are link spamming. you could at least do us the favor of summarizing what you find most important about this gentleman's thesis.

i would resist the notion that white privilege is magical or etherial. As a white person, i notice it quite often. I'm treated differently in stores, i grew up in a setting where most people looked like me, people expect me to do well in school and to identify with academic and economic success. people don't randomly ask me if they can score some drugs. i don't get attention from police simply for being there. i know people who are professionally sucessful in their field, and we share an idenitified ethnicity.

i know i'm privileged. and i don't think these are perks just some folks should have. i think that they're crucial components to giving people the opportunity to be successful.

What I want to know is what people want to replace AA with? Everytime I see someone talk about eliminating it, I never see any suggestions to replace it. Seriously, white people, you won already. Alot of people died for equal rights, and in the '60's it seemed like victory was close, but it was an illusion and the whiteocracy is as well as it's ever been. Will people not be happy until blacks are back on plantations? Its not like AA has been that great of a boon as it is. But the fact that a black person might get something for their race outside of a traffic stop seems to send whites into a frenzy. I think if reparations were ever instituted, lynching would come back into fashion almost immediately after.

(Emphasis added)

Nobody is talking about putting black people back on plantations, so let's stop resorting to straw man arguments. In addition, the use of overbroad racial stereotypes, such as the use of the word "whites", which I bolded, is totally inappropriate. You know very well that your statement is untrue.

What do I propose in place of Affirmative Action? Nothing. Admitting underqualified minority candidates to colleges and universities isn't helping anyone. Rich people are over-represented at colleges. Women are over-represented at colleges, etc. - this does not mean that we should continue imposing discriminatory programs until every school is precisely demographically representative of the nation as a whole. The entire concept of Affirmative Action is lunacy: the program has no clear goals, no way to tell if it has succeeded. There is no "termination point" at which we will know that affirmative action is no longer needed.

I am looking for a concession from those who support affirmative action: admit that the program is definitionally racially discriminatory. Even if you think that the good results justify the bad means, I want you to admit that, yes, Affirmative Action is a form of reverse racism.

I am also looking for a return to the original question I posed in this thread, which is related to a specific part of the affirmative action debate: diversity.

1. where does the idea come from that anyone who benefits from aa is necessarily less qualified than a white guy? on what basis do the claims above regarding "reverse discrimination" operate? please do not simply repeat the claims--provide some proof.

2. on what basis, really, can you seperate aa from the history it was constructed to redress?

3. do you really believe that the united states is somehow not still a deeply racist country? on what basis? again, the claim in itself is meaningless--if you are trying to persuade folk who do not accept your politics up front that your argument is interesting or important, then you need to address the kind of questions that others consider when they think about this question. you do not control the frame of reference. you simply make an argument.

4. it seems to me that alansmithee posed an important question that politico in no way addressed...unless you really believe that there is no racial or class discrimination in the united states, the question of what you would replace aa with is critical. you cant duck it by trying to switch the terms of debate. answer the question: give your assumptions.

Politicophile,

I think you've got the cart before the horse. If you want to discuss this, you should be looking at the racial preferences approach to diversity instead of the diveresity approach to racial preferences. Diversity is the end, preferences are the means. The way you've framed this suggests the opposite which, I believe, is an unfair characterization of the AA crowd's motives.

I think this confusion of ends with means leads to your feelings about the meaning of diversity - "taking people of different ethnicities and putting them in the same environment." There isn't necessarily more to it than this, although the purpose is to find students of different cultural and experiential backgrounds, not just varied skin tones. All of the "quotas" (which aren't allowed) and preferences and whatnot are to serve this end, not the other way around. And incidentally, in the case of educational environments, it is thought that the benefit of having a critical mass (not just a jew token students) of different populations benefits everyone, including the majority students, because it provides a larger base of perspectives and views in the classroom and in social development. If you want to question something, you should question whether broader perspective should automatically be seen as a higher quality educational experience. I think it should, but would like to hear if you've got strong arguments against this idea.

1. If the minority was better-qualified than the white person, then affirmative action would not be needed for that minority. Definitionally, affirmative action is not a program in which the best qualified candidate is chosen. Obviously, you will run across cases where the two candidates are exactly equally qualified, in which case the best candidate would be chosen despite affirmative action. What should not be overlooked, however, is that there would be no need for affirmative action if members of other races where competitive with white and asian people.

2. I don't think you can seperate those two things. My question for you is this: is the best way to redress having had your distant ancestors inslaved and your more recent ancestors lynched, disproportionately jailed, pulled over, treated poorly in restaraunts and stores, etc. - to (effectively, even after Michigan) to add some points onto your college application to increase your odds of being accepted? This looks like a serious case of apples and oranges from my perspective. Is higher ed. really the place to redress these widespread social injustices? It isn't the place for minorities who never even apply to college...

3. The United States is still a deeply racist country, although the situation continues to improve.

4. I guess that I would have to know the purpose of affirmative action before I could possibly offer a substitute program that would accomplish the same goals. Can someone explain to me, please, what the specific goal(s) of affirmative action is/are? And I don't mean "increased minority enrollment in colleges". I want a deeper answer.

i'll just respond with numbers--am pressed for time at the moment....
1. so you think that there is some natural racial hierarchy, then? on what possible basis?

2. higher education is not the only space impacted on by aa. within that, i think ubertuber's post poses questions that you should take up.

i dont see what you imagien yourself accomplishing by trying to reduce the history that informed the development of aa to a question of individual inherited guilt. it seems a non sequitor.
do you know the history of the u.s. since the civil war?
do you know, within that, the history of the reconstruction period?

3. fine--but if you concede that point, then is your position that nothing can or should be done to address it?

4. i think this one is simply disengenuous. you know full well what the purpose of aa legislation was and is--you have thought about the questions that the right at least imagines important about the matter--so.

In my mind, AA is doing its best work when this sort of situation occurs. When a white person and a minority ( a person of colour, a woman, etc.) are up for the same position and are, for all intents and purposes, equally qualified for the position.

Historically, the white guy is the one who gets the job. AA seeks to rectify this and hopefully, create a different norm. Is it succeeding, depends on your definition of success.

I am not sure how I feel about the case where the qualifications are NOT equal.

In the end, I am not sure if this will show "results" or not. I think the results of programs like AA are to be seen, if at all, in the distant future.

I am not saying this to be difficult, but how again is discriminating against white men rectifying past discrimination?

By this logic, white people in America ought to be enslaved for a couple of hundred years to "even things out", but I seriously doubt you would support such a measure.

Based on what else you wrote in the thread, I would think you would support a colorblind process where sex and race are complete non-issues in the hiring process.

1. I don't think there is some sort of racial hierarchy. I do think, however, that due to economic factors, conditions in the inner cities, bad school quality, and a host of other terrible things, the average black high school graduate is not as good a college candidate as the average white high school graduate. In fact, I think that believing this makes it much easier for one to support affirmative action programs in the first place.

2. I am well aware of American History, but thank you for verifying that the public school system hadn't failed me.

3. My position is not that nothing can or should be done: my position is that I don't know what can or should be done. I do know, however, that affirmative action is not doing the job. I am unable to suggest a better alternative, although doing nothing would be preferable to continuing on our current course.

4. Nope. Nothing disengenuous about it. I am honestly asking you what the purpose of affirmative action is and how we will know when we have acheived that goal and affirmative action will no longer be necessary. I do not know the answer to these questions.

One final point: I would appreciate it if you would refrain from labeling me as "the right". I am not representing the views of anyone but myself here and prefer not to be shoved into some kind of large category that encompasses half of the political spectrum. Political life is far more complicated than "left" and "right".

It's not rectifying past discrimination. I suppose it attempts to counteract current discrimination. Of course aa isn't going to end discrimination, neither will ending aa. Ending discrimination is a completely separate issue from affirmative action.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. The funny thing about white people arguing against aa on discrimination grounds is that most of them could care less if they themselves are benefiting from discrimination. I bet if any of the most ardent opponents of aa spent half the time they usually spend sulking and spent it actually attempting to recognize and confront all the many ways in which they benefit from discrimination every day they could put a huge dent in the level of discrimination in society. It is unfortunate that most of them only abhor discrimination as long as they aren't its beneficiaries.

What I said was: I do prefer a colour blind process. If hiring committees were blind to colour (gender, disabilities, etc.) I wouldn't have a problem.

The issue is that, by and large, when people with equal stats apply for the same job, the vast majority of times it turns out that the white guy gets the job. This isn't because he is the most qualified. It just happens.

I've done a lot of hiring in the past and I have found that it is rare that any one candidate's qualifications stand out over the rest. It is usually other factors that result in the hiring. I usually went on a gut feeling in the end rather than solely what was on the resume.

I think AA, in the case I am describing above, provides a nudge to those who would hire the white guy because it's in their comfort zone (whether they are aware of this comfort zone or not).

I hope that's clearer than mud... ;)

Affirmative Action - Creating racial tention and lowered expectations since 1965.

In the medical field, AA has caused vastly inferior students to graduate as doctors. We are not talking slightly inferior, we are talking separate bell curves. I have seen this first hand on MANY occasions. As such I will not go to a minority doctor (unless they are Asian) that I do not know personally. This makes me quite angry for two reasons. The first being, the public does not deserve lower quality health care to make someone feel good, and the second being that well qualified minority doctors get lumped in with the AA crowd and its not fair to them.

I'm not a fan of AA it doesn't really solve the problem. It is like treating a disease by providing medice for the symptoms while ignoring the disease.

AA is easily abused and for some people is becoming a cruch. How is encuraging people to slack off going to help them?

Fair enough... any idea how to treat the disease?

I'd love to hear some suggestions from anyone.

well first off the change has to start within the communities. We have a mentality being propigated through the generations that it is cool to be stupid, it is cool to be waistfull, it is cool to be a gang banger. This is not acceptable, listen to any rap music and see what they are glorifying in those songs. "Where your treasure is, there to your heart will be". These people treasure the wrong values. I admire people like Bill Cosby who are standing up to a large group that is keeping the minorties down.... themselfs. I'm not saying that "white" people don't help keep them down but what I am saying is we are doing nothing to stop the minorities from keeping themselfs down.

We need to change their perspective, through education when they are young and most impressionable. We cannot simply give them a crutch and say walk with it. No we need to refuse to give them that crutch and get them to stand themselfs up. You can't help someone that doesn't want help.

If you want to know where I think the money we throw at AA should be placed I think it needs to be placed in the inner city schools and in programs directed at both parents and childern. We need to stop glorifying gang banging, violence, and drug abuse. We need to protect the childern.

Wow what a good thread. It has gone slightly off topic but I think the question posed by the thread starter is an important one. Diversity is such a buzzword these days. Its fast approaching the same status as the phrase "for our children". So overused, any meaning this word had, has become diluted. This word, like the phrase "for our children" gets repeated like a mantra whenever a politician wants to inject the appearance of some nobility into whatever self-serving schemes they are trumpeting. Its a great slogan, and great marketing for any legislation you attatch it too. Not much else. Im sure there are other good reasons for diversity in your enviroment besides greater exposure to foreign cuisine, but I have a hard time figuring out what exactly those reasons are that would justify the laws we pass to accomplish it.

If anyone has a hard time figuring out why affirmative action is wrong.. just ask yourself why we dont apply the same policy towards other criminal acts. What makes race/sex discrimination so special, that its the one crime where someones guilt is automatically presumed, instead of innocence? Mabye we should follow affirmative action to its logical conclusion, and punish any supervisor that must consider two equally qualified candidates of different races/sexes with jail time, fines, community service, and of course, compulsory diversity re-education classes before a hiring decision is ever made.

if oppurtunities are accessed largely via education and education is unevenly distributed, then why would it not make sense to address that uneven distribution? school funding should not be controlled at the local level--it should be distributed equally across all communities by the state.
without something like that, there is no plausible "level playing field" argument to be made.
without some kind of "level playing field"--at least in terms of educational opportunities---the idea of eliminating one of the few legal attempts to address anything about systematic racial and economic discrimination seems a poor one.

aa addresses effects without addressing causes.
i think it was a weak compromise that at once addressed the history of the treatment of african-americans but as it did so effectively split that treatment away from the question of class--which that history of discrimination is tightly intertwined with.
class stratification remains the great unaddressed problem in the states.
no-one--least of all the right--wants to address it.

specific proposal--maybe undertake a national-scale rethinking of how education is funded--keep aa in place while the "level playing field" becomes something that could plausibly be seen as real, and once that begins to happen, consider the question democratically of whether aa is or is not still required.

Link to school funding here


Funding has almost nothing to do with it, you can't solve this one by throwing other peoples money at it. Its about the parents and the culture.

not to be contrary, and i'm not specifically calling you this, but this statement of yours is dripping with racism. whether that was your intent or not.

AA is not causing vastly inferior students to be graduate as doctors. last time i checked, AA doesn't graduate anyone. a white student who graduates with a C average is still a doctor, a black kid (whether he got in through AA or not) who graduates with a C average is still a doctor. if they can't cut muster, then they'll fail out. but any minority that makes it through med school does it because of the work they put into it (and the intelligence they have)... not because of AA.

equalizing funding across localities is a first step to equalizing educational programs. of course it is not an end in itself.

but i find it curious, ustwo, that you would at once complain about the effects of aa--which are the effects of trying to address class stratification and its effects in education (among other things) AND that you would dismiss/trivialize any proposal to address the underlying problem...which is, from your earlier post about medicine, educational.

if you oppose both then:
a. you have a secret idea that might resolve the problems--do tell.
or
b. there are no problems of inequality in education/opportunities in either class or racial terms except those created by attempts to solve the problems or
c. you think such disparities normal and oppose anything that tampers with what you see as a natural order.

Roachboy, this is a false, er, trichotomy. There are other possibilities than the ones you mention here. I'll let Ustwo respond to your jab as he pleases, but I thought I'd note that your "a,b,c approach" is fallacious.

I ran a Kinko's Copies long ago. When I took over, the branch was 100% white male. I was talking about that with a buddy, and he suggested that anyone that wasn't a white male wouldn't apply there. He went on to say that he wouldn't encourage his younger brother (right age/experience) to apply at a store like that, because it would just be too hard to be the sole minority.

I had a hellava time getting a diverse mix of coworkers going. But I found his comments to be right on the money. 10/10 applicants when I started were white males (I interviewed everyone that gave me an application). 2 years later, after building a diverse staff, the applicant pool was all over the road. And, go figure, the number of applicants was waaaay up. This allowed me to hire better people, and turn a better product.

Unconfirmed, but I believe it without reservation: the client base changed/grew as well. We certainly became much more profitable over that period. Both gross sales and profit %.



What's that have to do with AA? In my mind, everything. The other branches were staffed the same as mine at the start, and were staffed largely the same 2 years later. Without some time of system to encourage diversity, it isn't gonna happen on it's own. Inertia is a good word.

And I wouldn't have even noticed, probably, if my college buddy hadn't given me shit about a store full of white guys until I realized *I* could change something.

This is the key right here. This is the only thing that will work...and the only thing which has worked. The perfect efficiency of a free and unfettered marketplace.

Thanks Boatin'....great points.

-bear

politico:

the underlying problem is class stratification and how it plays out in the states.
this history of class warfare (reproduction of a class system is in itself a form of class warfare) is intertwined with the history of racism in america--the two are not identical obviously--i already outlined where i think aa falls within this general scenario.
addressing the effects of these intertwined histories runs into an immediate and seemingly insurmountable problem: those who benefit from that class structure are reluctant to even consider parting with the privileges that accrue to them because of their position.

the proposal to revamp how education is funded seems a reasonable first step to address systematic inequalities of educational opportunities.
aa is a necessarily partial attempt to address these same problems, but it obviously does not go far enough because it simply compensates for uneven distribution of educational capital rather than working to dissolve that unevenness.
i think it a not unreasonable proposal--though i have no illusions about its chances for being implemented.
in response to it, there was yet another facile dismissal from ustwo,
who reduced the proposal to the usual reactionary cliche substitute "throwing money at it"....

if you actually read ustwo's post, politico, and then try to figure out what positions it leaves open for conversation, then i think you will understand why my post is as it is. if you do not choose to work out that kind of thing, there is nothing to be done--but in this case the "false trichotomy" you impute to me seems to follow from nothing other than your truncated view of context.

it seems to me that you are politically not that far from ustwo, and so would perhaps be inclined to see his post otherwise. that too is your choice--but do not pretend that you are making a logical critique when you are in fact making a political one.

in case somehow, things are still not clear to you, i'll spell it out another way:
given the premises of conversative discourse about aa--which complains about effects and says nothing--ever--coherent about causes (vouchers/private schools in no address)...the right seems to see in the existing capitalist order an unqualified good and works from a moralizing understanding of stratification. so that discourse opens no coherent ways to address cause.

if you are complaining about aa and offering no alternatives, then your position logically drifts toward a naturalization of class divisions.

Not so, sir. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that, If I am unable to offer alternatives to affirmative action, then I support the institutionalized racism that currently exists. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, in my continuing quest to find a substitute to affirmative action, I have been unable to answer the following critical question. Are you able to shed some light on it for me?

Question: What is the purpose of affirmative action?

If we are not able to answer this question with a straight-forward response (The purpose of affirmative action is [X, Y, Z, blah blah]), then not only will I not be able to come up with a viable alternative to "aa", but any justifications you have for the program's continued existence will inevitibly fail.

This is a question for everyone out there, so please feel free to respond!

I would agree. But I would also suggest that the system needs a push. In my case it came in the form of a friend busting my balls for a while. That doesn't translate real well. Not everyone has the caliber of friends I'm lucky enough to have.

I had the most profitable store in the area, with the fastest growth. My fellow managers wanted to know what I was doing, so I told them: diversity + working for my staff (doing what they suggested, and working to make their jobs easier and more pleasant).

In both areas, no one really followed. They wanted magic solutions, or something. Unless the regional manager enforced a practice, it didn't happen. This makes me insane, but I know it to be true.

So what is the enforcement/push that will change comfortable behaviors? It's clear to me that the pure profit motive doesn't do it by itself. Even though it sure should...



Consider both of my posts to be attempt to answer this question. Change isn't going to magically happen by itself. Even with profit as a driver, it isn't enough. People do what they are comfortable doing. Many need some kind of push to change behavior - even well intentioned people.

Like others in this thread, I'm open to other suggestions.

The purposes of AA as I see them:

1. To help counteract the ingrained racism/sexism that exists/has existed in many workplaces and colleges by enabling minorities/women access to those institutions. This in turn leads to

2. Helping correct the economic imbalance that is suffered by many minorities/women due to being denied free access to economic opportunities for approx. 300 years (for blacks) and 250 years (for women).


They are largely intertwined. Because white males had around a 200 year head start, even in areas where there isn't current racism the effects are gravely felt. In many ways, poverty is now seen as part of black culture. Also, because for so many years blacks weren't allowed to make their own way, it has become difficult for them to do so now.

AA isn't an answer for racism, but it is something that helps mitigate the effects of racism. It's not an antibiotic, but a painkiller. It's also why I don't take seriously people who argue against racism on the terms of it being discriminatory. These people aren't arguing against discrimination, they are arguing against being discriminated against and no longer being sole beneficiaries of discrimination.

A 30-year friend of mine teaches in a medical school, and (I'm keeping it polite here) he disagrees with you. Emphatically.

According to him, extra credit can be assigned (which if you think about it, doesn't do anything to teach what was originally required to be learned) and the inferior students are just passed along. If they're not, and the percentage of minority graduates drops, the federal money dries up.

some of the affirmative action babies screw up so badly in the real world that they either lose their licenses or wind up in an area with less litigation (like public health) but they're still lousy doctors. And they do a lot of harm before they get caught.

Yes, other students can wind up in the same situation, but speaking from thirty years' experience, my friend says the percentage of AA students having problems is MUCH higher.

That's not racism. Unless you consider it racist that the NBA is around 70% black.

i'm sorry if i don't find your friends anecdotal evidence compelling.

are only minorities being given extra credit? do all schools do this? where is this epidemic of minority doctors being having thier licenses revoked? i'd like to see some statistics from a reputable source. until then, one med school teacher doesn't hold much sway on my opinion.

I'm sorry but you are wrong here.

Minority students get into medical school MUCH easier, get extra help and need to maintain a lower GPA at least at the school I attended. In one 'program' they GOT TO SEE THE TESTS AHEAD OF TIME TO 'STUDY'. Its quite insane.

If you think people who barely scrape by taking classes over many times (they get to) and managing to squeak by with the lowest possible board scores makes them a good doctor, I have to beg to differ.

If you think my statement is dripping with racism you have NO damn clue what is going on. In fact the racism isn't on the part of people like me, I'm just following common sense, but schools who force this stigma of AA on truly qualified minority students. In college I had two hispanic friends. One was in the top of the class and didn't want any help at all, the other did horrible on the MCATS, piss poor in school, failed his board exam the first go, and barely passed it his second try. A white student would have never been accepted with his scores, his grades, or his piss poor performance in medschool. Knowing this guy personally from being in a frat together, I wouldn't trust him to give me a shave, let alone be my physician. Sadly They both get lumped together with the racism that is AA.

Do you HONESTLY think anyone would publish this sort of thing?

:crazy:

To me the racism that exists exists because the minorities keep throwing the fact they are minorities into our faces.

In America today there is no reason for a black man/hispanic/asian or woman to yell about how they are not treated fairly.

There are more blacks and women working where I do then white men. And when issues of unjustness come up the white male has had the same exact treatment and yet somehow when it happens to a female or black male or black female it's racist and sexist.

When clients are wanting meds or asking for food and if I don't jump right up, most whites are cursing under their breath.... the blacks are saying I'm racist and going to a black co-worker. When the co-worker gives the exact same treatment that I do, it's, "brother/sister, you uncle Toms don't know what it's like out there for us".

I just find it an easy excuse to cry racism/sexism than to actually work as hard as someone else to get ahead. I could cry about the fact that in the past 3 months 2 full time positions have opened and both times I held the seniority to get offered those positions and instead the company went outside and hired 2 balck males (less qualified and less credentialed) to take those positions. Is that not racism?

I don't have a racist bone in my body, I don't look at people as black and white or Hispanic or Asian but as people..... until I see that the people who are of certain ethinicities use it to their advantages and will be the first to stab you with that racism knife they seem to carry around ready to use when not given what they want.

No problem. You're of course free to go to whatever doctor/dentist/vasectomist you prefer.


No, a lot of female students used to get it as well. However, most of the ones that are there now EARNED their way in. As it should be.

And no, the historically minority schools don't do it.

By the way, as ustwo pointed out, it's not ALL minority students--some of them are highly competent. To refer to an "epidemic" of revocations is an exaggeration of what I said.

Good luck trying to get an official breakdown of license revocations by race, though. The screams from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be earsplitting. Although they wouldn't be too concerned about Asian students.

I'll also repeat that there are steps that can be taken to forestall a revocation.

hell yeah i would. i would expect that any person who wants to get rid of AA would gladly publish this sort of thing. if it's happening at a handful of places (which lets be honest, the kind of treatment described shouldn't be happening at all), then i could see people not publishing it. but if this is a rampant issue, then i'm actually shocked that no one has published it. i can't think of a better way to get AA recinded or reworked than by publishing stuff like this. i'm sure that the first person to do so might be risking his career. but if he or she takes the time to carefully document it and provide irrefutable proof, then there's no worry.

politico: i am tired of posting the same thing over and over only to get in response a reposing of the question i tried to answer. read what i worte earlier if you want my position on the question of aa.

radio roachboy now concludes its broadcast day.

I agree this sort of abuse occurs. I have seen it first hand many times.

I think it should also be said that racism and sexism does exist even if it is often mislabelled or the accusation is used to hide personal short comings...

I would argue that this has little to do with AA as I have been witness to this sort of behaviour in Canada where we do not have institutionalized AA.

With regards to AA and medical school. I can agree with the idea of giving some breaks on the admissions BUT I have to say that once there if they cannot cut the muster, they should fail. Period.

If the AMA (or whatever regulatory body decides these things) has a certain level below which a student cannot become a doctor, I do not want that student to become a doctor.

I just don't know how you can say this. There are five neighborhoods in NYC that end up being the most represented in NY state corrections. No prizes for guessing the ethnic makeup of those places.

I guess here's my challenge. If you don't think that racism really exists:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implici...attitudes.html

That's the IAT Test, and it records implicit associations. There are tests for associating minority groups with violence, or if you have a preference for lighter faces or not. I consider myself a pretty enlightened person...i was stunned to see my results when i first took one of these tests.

now, implicit attitudes alone don't make a person a racist. but what it measures is one of the unconscious underpinnings of racism...and it's given me a lot to think about. if most people out there are walking around with unconscious assumptions that are disfavorable against a group, and then most people in that group learn to expect hostility, and then most people learn to expect hostitily out of the group that expects hostility...

pan, i just don't see how you can claim that racism does not exist, or is the fault of opportunitist minorities. To me, that is a incredibly prejudicial claim, and one that i did not expect from you.

I did not say racism does not exist..... I said I have not seen it. If anything I have seen reverse racism.

If you would have read the whole post you would see my argument.

There are those who flaunt their minorities and live lives of crime because that is the environment they know...... It is NOT A RACIST problem. It is a problem of finding ways to educate, get drugs out of that environment, build self esteems, and finding ways to give hope to these people, who ARE OF ALL RACES AND LIVE IN THESE ENVIRONS.

Is Welfare the answer?

NO, been tried it was abused and while it does help some, it has been proven to promote stagnation of that life in poverty. Welfare was the slave system repeated in different ways. It was keeping the blacks and poor out of the way..... free money (barely enough to live on but enough), low rent projects = high crime, low self esteems, no desire to move upward.

Are quotas or Affirmative Action the answer?

NO, it by it's very nature promotes racism on both sides, and prevents the most qualified applicant to get the job. You show me 1 minority owned company that has to hire a white male to meet quota. I have a feeling you can't. It does not help the minorities to better themselves if they know they can get away with doing less.

So what IS the answer?

Education, Education and I repeat EDUCATION. If we spent the money on education that we spent on welfare or trying to enforce and investigate Affirmative Action cases, we would have the highest educated, most dedicated workforce in the world. (I say dedicated because with strong funded education ALL people would have the oppurtunities to advance and move upward.)

I will say this, the GOP talking heads are right, the Dems don't like to hear this. They prefer to back the Al Sharptons, Louis Farakhans, Jesse Jacksons, NOW, whatever, that continually tell us how bad minorities have it and truly do nothing to educate people out of the ghettoes.

To some this maybe racist, but I have seen it and I despise it. We do not do anyone justice by throwing money in programs like welfare or enforcing prejudicial by it's existence laws, as is the case with AA.

Now, the GOP is not innocent either, they choose to focus on the negative aspects of the failed programs and refuse to try to come up with an answer except trickle down economics.... which by it's own name should tell you something.

The GOP would want to ignore the problems and not do anything to change wxcept cut funding to ALL social programs including EDUCATION.... which is idiotic because then you have slums noone can afford to live in and no education to advance. Thus crime rates will skyrocket as will drug use and poverty.

The ONLY solution is to finance education and jobs that use those degrees to the max and help those who use the system properly to advance themselves.

Yes, there will be those using it for the wrong reasons, but far fewer than welfare allowed..... it gives a true equal playing field to all races, sexes and ethnicities because the education is there.... and it builds self esteem....

But you have to fund education equally not even ask race/sex/ethnicity questions ON any school application. Give funding equally to all and see what happens..... and I can almost guarantee all this talk of prejudice, AA, etc. will be forgotten.

BTW I don't need bullshit tests or slogans or people lecturing me on prejudices..... I judge a person on 2 things only: the respect they shows me (if they respect me as I respect them) and attitude. If I see a person tell me I owe them because of the color of their skin, their sex or whatever...... I tell them to go f-off. I owe noone anything and they owe me nothing.

However, the government owes the people to give the best education possible to all so that all may advance so that the tax burden is spread out more equally. What we spend in education the most positive resource government can give a person...... will come back in time exponentially.

pan, that's an entirely differnt post that the one i responded to.

the quote i originally cited,
That was the real kicker. I don't think my characterization of that posting is unfair. It think that statement is racially prejudiced, and that it is factually untrue. I'm more inclined to accept a few of the points you offer in your followup posting. I do think educational opportunity is the answer. But there are still cultural issues to be worked out.

The stereotypes of african americans, especially men, do not tend to identify with high performance in school. parents may have had decreased access to education, etc..

so when you put a kid who's parents were rich enough to go to grad school in with a kid who's parents are undereducated, underemployed, and whose culture is being bombarded with messages that tell that child they aren't smart...

you tell me who benifits from increased education spending. Alone, money isn't enough. It's a damn good start, but it won't even the field entirely. Head Start programs, more intervention for kids who are having problems reading, after school activities, etc...these related areas of social support are huge factors in if kids stay in school, and want to do well.

People (white, black, whatever) who are told that society does not expect them to do well on a test/school/whatever spend so much mental energy trying to get around that opposition, to outhink the test, to try to prove that wrong...that they end up harming their performance. It's called stereotype threat, and it's a very real issue in the academic performance of minority students, especially gifted and talented kids.

I didn't include that link as a lecture. As i posted with it, I've been pretty floored at the results i've gotten. It wasn't because they were good. What it tells me isn't that i'm a bad person, or a racist. what it tells me is that i live in a culture saturated with implicit racism and stereotypes. It tells me that it takes conscious effort to disrupt those cultural messages, and work to be a fair person. i don't see how we can expect to level the playing field without such conscious effort, as represented though not perfected by AA.

Whoa whoa whoa....... the use of African American, Asian American, whatever-American peturbs me to no end.

WE ARE ALL FUCKING AMERICANS FIRST, and if you have to put a label that draws attention to BS then you are part of the problem.

I will never say I am Irish-American or German-American or whatever..... Yes, my ancestors came from those places but I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN THE USA AND I AM SOLELY AMERICAN (of the US variety).

This country is not the Indians, because maybe my forefathers stole it from them.... (which is BS the earliest any member of my family on any side came to the US was in 1880's and they settled first in NYC then Ohio and as far as I know there were no Indian wars for land at those times.) Noone in my family owned slaves (and there were many blacks in Africa that did and sold them to the white man), noone in my family wore a swastika, or burned a cross or whatever..... I owe noone anything for the sins of my father.... all I can do is try not to repeat those sins and to try to make a better world for the future...... BS and negativity and the like does not make for a better world.

I am about as color blind as it comes to people until they show me I can't be.... i.e. their attitude that they have more rights and deserve more respect than I do because of their ethinicity..... I can only be called a racist 1 time by someone before I believe them to be racist..... and even then I show them the same respect I would anyone else.

I treat all people equally and with the respect I wish to be shown.

Again, by stating "To me...." is my OPINION ONLY. It is how I feel, period.

You want to end racism, get the Jesse Jacksons, the Louis Farrakahns, the Al Sharptons to shut up how badly they are treated and get out the Clarence Thomas', the Colin Powell's, the Sandra Day O'Connor's, the successful men and women who don't use freaking excuses to cry about how unfair the world is.

I forgot those are all Uncle Tom's who betray "their people" to become successful. It's bullshit..... face facts man, some people are going to use whatever excuse they can to not advance and not change how they live. And as long as we as a society allow this and feel sorry for them and give them what they want (AA, Welfare, ETC.) and
not what they need, (EDUCATION) WE CONTINUE TO FEED THE PROBLEM AND LET THE HATREDS BUILD.

Negativity only breeds negativity.

The use of color-blind logic that ignores the real effects of race in american culture perturbs me. But you don't see me using all caps and cuss words.

Nor did i mention the doctrine of sins of the father. i wasn't even going to talk about Native peoples' claim to the land, til you mentioned it. Nothing i'm talking about is in the past. The problem, now, is disproportional access to opportunity. The cause has a lot to do with the past, but hte issue is in the here and now.

And i told you i disagreed, and that i thought your rhetoric was short of facts and long on unjustified optimism. I also said that my opinion of your opinion was that it was racially prejudiced. I don't expect a reply to this, but i'm not sure what reaction you wanted by telling me that this was your opinion. I know that, you posted it, and you explained some of your logic. But so far, i haven't seen anything that changes my assessment of your original posting.

I don't really have anything else to say to the rest of it. I think it's a total strawman if you directed it me. Nothing i stated could possibly be construed to indicate that i thought that sucess identified racial minorites were race traitors or part oft he problem. I simply identified the mechanism by which some of those people do dis-identify, and the fact that popular culture (including white cultural expressions) have a major role in that process. So back off with the uncle tom stuff. It's just plain uncalled for.

And I applaud the sentiment. But tests like the one mentioned above show very real results. I'm sorry you find them to be bullshit. I can want to believe a particular way, and successfully act a particular way. But until I know the creepy crawlies deep inside, I don't believe I can successfully beat them.

I'm glad there are people like you operating at a higher level, I guess. I just figured that level could do without the swearing and all caps.

Let me say I agree with Pan (a first I think), and got what I would assume to be a neutral result in taking that test.

Ustwo...If you want to meet an asian doctor that will break your stereotype, give my uncle a ring. :P

Anyways, I think AA is a mixed blessing at best.
I am a halfie, half-korean half generic white mix (mostly irish)
I sometimes benefit from AA but it has also hurt me. At school I had to deal with alot of shit about me being the AA student the first year and thus somehow not as smart (proud to say I have a 4.0 still). AA itself I don't believe is the problem. The perception of AA is becoming the problem. I really don't know if I have benefited from it or not in truth. I really don't think about it much. I will say this, this is a rather white school (about 95 percent I think), and I wouldn't mind seeing more diversity on campus.

I never said all Asians were good doctors, I know some really crappy ones by my standards personally, but Asians tend to not benifit from AA and from what I gather they are under HIGHER standards than white students in some CA schools.

Ustwo... how many "white" doctors to you see that are lousy... honest question.

You don't wanna know :eek:

so does that make the moral of the story... 'beware of doctors... lots of them suck.' ? :lol:

So what does it matter if there are few more who just happen to not be white? :lol:

On a serious note, I'd like to see some stats about Doctor competency. Though it would likelybe counter productive I would like to see a racial breakdown in those stats... I think we might be surprised how equal the share of incompetence is...

If we assume as a starting point that it is wrong to deny opportunity on the basis of race/gender/etc., not only in government but in business as well, then we have to first know why that discrimination happens, and I can see four primary reasons:

1. Overt racism/sexism: This is the monster we all know and think of when we talk racism. The old white guy that just simply won't have one of those no good whatevers working for him, to paint a stereotype. This is a lot rarer than it used to be, in a large part because the society, including government, has made this an unacceptable position.

2. Indirect racism/sexism: This is when an employer who may not even think of themselves as racist will discriminate, sometimes unintentionally, against a certain group based on alternative rationale (not directly against the groups race or sex) but some other factor. For example, one may feel it fair to account for a 'PMS factor' as an inherent consideration when hiring women.

3. Social considerations: While an employer may harbor no ill will to or apply negatives to a group, it is human nature to form bonds with those of similar social behavior as ourselves. While the employer may not discriminate against a person, that person may suffer in consideration because they don't share various social norms such as accent, etc. with the employer.

4. Inherent inequality: Outside of an employer's control, the pool of available qualified employees may be tilted towards one group or another. For example, because of social matters not under the employer's control, the pool of good nurses is heavily female. To form a group of nurses that is evenly male and female, one would possibly have to unfairly decline a position to a female which may be better qualified than a male.

Each of these is a different problem with its own solutions. Affirmative action does a good job against the first, is partially effective against 2 and 3 and is counter-effective in cases of #4.

Josh's third point was of particular interest to me:

3. Social considerations: While an employer may harbor no ill will to or apply negatives to a group, it is human nature to form bonds with those of similar social behavior as ourselves. While the employer may not discriminate against a person, that person may suffer in consideration because they don't share various social norms such as accent, etc. with the employer.

When I took the IAT test that Martinguerre recommended, I was appalled at my results. Although I prejudge people on a number of factors, I never thought of myself as racist. I grew up in white bread suburbia in the '50's and I suspect I seek my own "kind" due to a lack of experience in a multi-ethnic community.

I think this example argues the I would have benefited from diversity.

Prejudging people and being prejudice can be 2 totally different things.

I can say that when we have a 20 something white heroin addict come in to detox, the first thing crossing everyone's mind is this is a rich white kid who got messed up and is going to be very demanding. And 9 out of 10 are, however that 10th one is very humble and is truly there to help themself.

Now is that first thinking prejudging an individual, absolutely, based on experience. However, if you focus on that prejudice and act on it and treat that client as being the rich white kid messed up and demanding, then that is what you will get.

However, if you treat that client with respect and understanding and like the 50 year old alcoholic that is living in the streets, you have a better chance of turning the stereotype, prejudged client into one who may be the humble, truly wanting to get clean kid.

It works that way in everything. If I am driving in a bad neighborhood (which just happened as I was lost in Philly last night) and I see a group of black men and I immediately turn to stereotypes and prejudices, then bad things are more apt to happen.

Contempt and fear bring out contempt and fear.

However, if I stop and put down my window and talk to them like men and ask for help, I may find them to be very nice and helpful....

Guess which I did? Had I not asked for help, I would never have found the Holiday Inn on Arch as I had turned the wrong way off the Ben Franklin and gone quite a few blocks down 5th the wrong way.

Now, say I am lost in Cape May, New Jersey and I see what appears to be a white suburban tourist and I choose to ask him for directions because he appears "safe". All of a sudden he pulls a gun takes my wallet pulls me out of my car and drives off.

The point, based on stereotypes and prejudices..... you can be very, very wrong.

The only way to judge ANY PERSON is by their actions and not what the stereotype is. You have to treat every person with respect and as an individual and in doing so chances are any fears you have hidden will be greatly eased by the respect you recieve in return.

It's far easier to train yourself to respect others for their diversity than it is to train yourself to hate. At least it is for me.
=====================================================

PS as for my rants above, I am a very passionate person and when someone is telling me that because I say I have never seen racism and that I believe reverse racism and people using their ethnicity or sex to make claims they have no right to, and that person is telling me I am wrong, it irks me. Do you know what my experiences are? Do you know what I have seen? No? Then why are you "prejudging" my statements and attacking them?

I work just as hard as anyone else (sometimes harder because I truly love my job and to me it isn't work...99% of the time) and I have no time for the games.

I am liberal in many ways. I am a proud Democrat but I have also seen too many of my Dem. brethren fall into the "labels" and the want to eradicate racism/sexism by pointing out others races and sex, when there is no need to.

If you are hiring someone, or giving someone a better chance in school, or treating an individual differently based on race/sex/ethnicity then by pointing out the difference you are being prejudiced yourself. You are prejudging that that person deserves and is owed a better chance based on criteria that should not and would not matter if you weren't pointing it out.

I think part of the problem with the number of African-American college students is not the result of overt discrimination, but rather the result of a subculture that does not promote assimilation and education, but instead espouses "thug life".

I recall seeing two african-american men interacting a few years back. The sixtysomething was well dressed in a conservative manner (sportscoat, buttondown shirt, tie, slacks, shined loafers) and the twentysomething was dressed "ghetto", a sports jersey, sweatpants, "do-rag", boots with no shoestrings, et cetera. The twentysomething came up to him and said something like "Hey, Brother." The sixtysomething said "I'm not your Brother, and you've never been part of my tribe." I spent 45 minutes afterwards listening to the sixtysomething rant to me about the twentysomething, and how the pain and suffering the sixtysomething went through to have the right to assimilate and get a good education and succeed was being "pissed on" by kids like that. The sixtysomething had literally been through hell (YOU consider what being an african-american army officer in the deep South during the late 50's-early '60s was like) and had "made it". He'd had a successful career as a military officer, been educated, owned his own business, and was by any rational measure a success. More importantly, he viewed what he and his generation did as blazing a trail for later generations, only to have those later generations turn their backs on the path that had been opened for them with literal sweat, blood, and tears.

A few days ago, I was talking to another african-american friend about how our "group" of friends seems to be spawning at an alarming rate. He's in his thirties, childless and unmarried. He told me that he didn't want to "go ghetto" and father a child out of wedlock. What does it say about a subculture when it promotes things like the men being "playahs" and the women as being "Hos" or "Bee-yotches"?

Some african-americans are quietly still on what I consider the "path to success". They're going to college, they're getting degrees, and are moving on to conventional success as responsible buisnesspeople, authors, lawyers, doctors, et cetera. But instead of them being glorified as what they are (in my book, "good people"), they're denigrated as being "uncle toms" and "sellouts" by people who consider "pimpin" to be the highest form of success.

In my book, there's something very, very wrong with that.

That's not the right question.

Although you will never, ever, be able to view such a study, what you should be asking for is a breakdown in regard to former AA students.

There ARE minority members who make it on merit.

And by having AA, quotas and whatever else "to prove we are not racist/sexist" or "to give those of lesser oppurtunities a better chance".... we cheapen those accomplishments made by the ones who made it on merit.

Rather than trying to respond to all the threads above, many of which I found very interesting, let me try to address the question of what to do to get more qualified minorities in a particular field, such as nuclear physics.

The incoming class looks to be 95% white or Asian male. The school admins decide that the class would be better served by having more blacks and more females. It can do some of the following:

1. Actively recruit in the schools where blacks are a majority, and target efforts at women.

2. Change the entrance exam so more of those groups that have applied but haven't made it will not be weeded out at that stage.

3. Leave the exam alone and lower the score needed to "pass." Then, make remedial education classes available for all that need it, knowing that the ones that scored at the level that would have failed before the adjustment will need it.

4. Offer financial incentives to blacks and women not available to white and Asian males.


I have no problem with AA in the first area--recruitment. The standards of admission are not lowered. I have a little sympathy with the fourth option, but would prefer a racially and gender neutral approach to public financing--the poor white kid in West Virginia can use that kind of help, too.


2 and 3 are both unthinkable to me. Standards for the discipline being studied must be maintained.

There are possibly other options I'm not seeing--any thoughts?

This is the part of the equation that many do not think about when discussing racism. When I was much younger, I was educated about this by one of my black friends... we were discussing race relations in general and when he brought up this brand of racism, my mind was blown. My natural instinct is the lend a helping hand... but when that hand is thrust out based on critera that has nothing to do with actual need, rather based on something like race or gender it taints the help you are offering.

Ultimately it underscores, for me anyway, that trying to fix inequity is a messy path.

As people have pointed out in this thread, there are problems on BOTH sides (really there are more than two sides to this but for sake of simplicity....) of this issue. On one hand you have the situations that joshbaumgartner desribes. Some are institutional, some are intentional but the fact remains that they exist.

On the other hand you have the issues that pan6467 and daswig describe... Argue as some will that their descriptions are racist and don't exist, the fact remains that these attitudes DO exist.

In the middle of all of this remain the group of people who just live their lives and do the right thing. They hire the most qualified (or better put the right person for the job - not always the most qualified). They recognize that there is a mainstream culture and to some extent attempt to assimilate (a black man all done up in gangsta wear applying for an office job is no different than a white guy with piercings and tattoos on his face... You want to work in an straight up office you HAVE to play the part - if you don't want to do that you have to get creative about finding work).


Ultimately, there are people in power who would like to see a lessening of inequity between the races and sexes, etc. Is AA the path to this pancea of equality and diversity? Probably not. Is it a tool that can be used to give the most stubborn a kick in the pants (especially in the way I described in about post #28 of this thread).

The fact remains that there are a lot of attitudinal changes that need to be made and these sorts of changes cannot be legislated. They take time, some solid foundation laws (i.e. laws against discrimination), integration and a lot of effort from people. The most important of which is time.

I agree with your read on this.

A question about #4. What if the scholarships were private ones? Would that make a difference?

It seems to me that this option would only make sense if being black or female made it more difficult for one to be accepted into the school or workplace. After correcting for the fact that black people are disproportionately poor, after correcting for the fact that they attend disproportionately attend inner-city schools, after correcting for the fact that they disproportionately live in poor, southern states, then you see whether a racial program makes sense. If it turns out that being from the inner city, for example, is actually what makes it more difficult for those students to be accepted, then inner-city residents should be compensated without regard to race, e.g.

Absolutely. A private individual or foundation can discriminate (within certain bounds, of course--diners can't turn away blacks anymore, etc.), and if a scholarship is established with private funds for women or minorities, I've got no kick about that.

I give that a hearty "Amen." I'd expand it include poor folks from rural American--those are both white, black and everything inbetween. The economic disadvantages in educational opportunities (and even in the attitude toward it) among some segments of our society is the key factor in perpetuating poverty within that segment. I don't deny racism still exists and is a factor, but the solution is not to treat members of our society differently, but rather to treat them the same. Giving economic help to the needy for education, regardless of skin color, makes sense in the long run--the GI Bill after WWII is a great example of that.