There is nothing that can be done to fix the damage done, unless you want to find every black person and compute what they would have done if they had been given a fair shake and then find every white person who benefitted unfairly and make the white person pay the black person the difference in what their incomes should have been versus what it actually was. Discriminating against the offspring does nothing to fix the damage and it is hard to imagine an ethical system where doing so would be justified.
However a field can be leveled and a more equitable system erected overnight. Just stop discriminating on the basis of race. The field is now level and the system is now more equitable.
Again, that doesn’t fix the problem. Simply going blind doesn’t help minority groups who haven’t been able to enjoy the (oftentimes unfair) head start that others have. You need to be able to target the disadvantaged without helping those who don’t need it (otherwise you’re not really closing the gap), but unfortunately, as someone else in this thread correctly stated, AA primarily helps white women.
Except that’s clearly not true. If SAT scores are correlated with parental income, and income is correlated with college attendance, then past discrimination against black parents will inevitably result in lower college admissions rates for their kids.
Ah - didn’t see that one.
Thanks.
If I’ve understood the news correctly, this particular case in Texas involves a law that covers the top 10% of high school graduates. Something like being in the top 10% at a high school means you will be accepted at a state college. “Fisher” in this case was not in the top 10% but went to a, supposedly, much harder school and so felt she was being penalized for being in a mostly white school.
My feeling is that the top 10% students, white or black, are the very people that can do without affirmative action. The bottom 10% are the ones who need help.
I wasn’t aware that the government requires universities and colleges to report race statistics. In regards to your anecdote, why didn’t your office separate the demographic data from the application? For example, send the demographic data to another office while the admissions committee examines applicants without regard to race. What reason is there to couple an applicant to their racial designation? In my opinion, there’s an elegant way to solve the problem but it’s more convenient to blame racial preferences than ensure college admission procedures are indeed race-neutral.
- Honesty
Nonsense. The 10% plan was implemented specifically as a race-neutral measure. The primary reason white people have a problem with it is that was successful (see welfare in the 70’s and 80’s - same play, different cast). Why would you give preference the bottom 10% rather than the top 10%? I don’t get that. The bottom 10% of graduating seniors are likely ill-prepared for coursework at the university level. Those at the bottom would get admission at their local community college.
- Honesty
Ah, good old “institutional racism.” Tell me, how do you determine whether IR exists in general or in any particular institution? How do you determine whether any particular person has been harmed pr benefitted by IR?
It seems tl me that IR is said to exist simply because there are outcome disparities among people of different races and some people can’t accept that without saying that some form of racism must be the cause.
I didn’t say anything about the bottom 10% of students being admitted to anything. I question the usefullness of affirmative action laws that target students that have already shown themselves to be exceptional.
I guess this is only semi- on topic, but I think that in context, that was one of the most offensive statements to issue from the Court in a while. That whole opinion pretends to rest on the shoulders of Brown, and then he has the audacity to say that’s the big lesson.
How can anyone seriously claim that on the subject of racial discrimination in schools, what Brown stands for is that schools aren’t allowed to notice whether they are or are becoming racially segregated? And if racial discrimination exists, what on earth gives you any confidence at all that blocking anti-discrimination measures will solve it?
Strange, because it seems to me that you can’t accept that you got where you are in part because you benefited from institutional racism.
If you question whether IR exists in general, you’re deluded. As to whether IR exists in any particular institution, that’s irrelevant. It’s clear that it did exist, and that minorities are still being harmed by it.
If the general thrust of your question is that affirmative action must have an endpoint, I absolutely agree. At some point, either past and continuing inequity have been corrected, or any further effort is futile. However, demarcating that point is for the legislatures.
I suspect the admissions committee might figure out that Steve is black when he shows up for his interview. Anyway, who is supposed to ensure that the demographic data is being sent to another office and not to the admissions committee, or even being shared with certain committee members by people in the other office, and so on?
It exists, but attribution is difficult.
This has been the fuel for ongoing debate in the other thread about anti-Asian discrimination in college admissions
I’m pretty sure this is untrue, as I’ve heard the argument that affirmative action is needed because, without it, persons or individuals of certain races would simply never rise above whatever status they were born into.
Or that “some people” believe that there are few, if any, inherent differences in ability and potential among races. The existence of outcome disparity cannot therefore be attributed to racial superiority or inferiority, and thus “some people” are unwilling to simply “accept” outcome disparity with a shrug and a wry smile.
Correlation is not causation, if you look at twin studies the correlations between parent’s educational attainment and children’s educational attainment are very small once you factor out genetics. Here is a PDF study on one such study http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/sempapers/Sacerdote.pdf
Texas does have a 10% rule but the U of T also considers the race of its students in awarding admission. It is the consideration of race that is being litigated, not the 10% rule.
So, you can’t answer my questions? You seem to think that IR exists simply because you believe it exists. Where’s your proof?
So, if it isn’t some form of racism that causes the disparity, what is it?
I notice you say “outcome disparities among people of different races”. I think a good first step is to clarify this statement: Are you saying that the disparity is strictly between people (i.e. they are strictly a result of personal choices), or do you agree there is a general outcome disparity between races (i.e. race is a factor, but not because of institutional racism)?
So how long do we continue to “not be equitable” in order to be equitable?
Do you deny that it exists?