# Affirmative Action: Question and a small rant **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2002, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946 "2002-03-25T03:36:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/101 "2002-03-26T20:33:40Z")
‘prejudice and discrimination are bad no matter to whom they are applied’ Gee. can’t recall that **anyone** is claiming that it’s ok. THought we’d suggested that to you several times already, but here you are again trotting it out as if it’s a new revelation. I **know** that because I am white, I have **not** been subjected to the same sorts of specific things that have been noted here. Now, do you deny that people of color **are** subjected to discriminatory practices in employment, housing, effects on the criminal justice system, lending etc.? If so, please then, give an alternative explanation to the data presented by **BigGIrl**. Individual cases (such as your own personal circumstances) do **not** outweigh years and years of studies. If minorities **are** subject to discriminatory practices, then by virtue of you **not** belonging to their group, \*\*you, personally \*\* have not been subjected to it, ie, you’ve had an advantage over them. You may have been subjected to other types of bad behavior, but not that one. Ball’s back in your court. Demonstrate a viable alternative explanation to **Biggirls’s** data that indicates that the race is \*\* not \*\* the reason for the disparity. Or, bluntly state that you do **not** believe that minorities suffer from racist actions (I’ve asked you this point blank before). ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/102 "2002-03-26T20:34:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > And then I got told I was calling myself a martyr when I pointed out, ‘Hey, how can you say it’s never happened to me that I’ve been judged by what color I am. It’s happening right now.’ Piffle. Balderdash and tommyrot. And easily disproven: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by minty green_ > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by catsix_ > > No matter what I say, you’re going to insist I said something else. > > Jesus is gonna be pissed if you don’t stop trying to climb onto his cross. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by catsix_ > And on preview I see that **minty green** is now suggesting I called myself a martyr. :rolleyes: So where’s this part where you said what you now claim you said? Or maybe you’re just attributing to me whatever you feel like attributing? That does seem to be your M.O. throughout this thread. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/103 "2002-03-26T21:13:25Z")
Do you think you could be just a little bit more condescending here? Because really, I haven’t had nearly enough of the bold face font. You know, I’m not suddenly going to turn around and agree with you just because you typed it in bold. What I ‘feel like’ obviously has jack spit to do with anything here, because at least two of you have already said that it doesn’t matter if I’ve ever been discriminated against, and even if I was, it wasn’t because of what color I am. You can’t claim based on the color of my skin that I have never, ever been subject to racial discrimination. Not possible, sorry. Hate to burst your bubble, but it’s just not possible for you to know with 100% certainty that because I’m white, I’ve never faced racial discrimination. No matter how many times you repeat to me that I haven’t, or how much bold type you use, you’re not going to be right. You made assumptions based on no information other than my race. How is it OK for you to do this? Second, specifically for **minty green** over there. You made the Jesus crack after I said that I guess it doesn’t matter what I really said here, because some of you are bound and determined to try to claim I said something else. This is after I complained about being characterized as privileged and rich just because I’m white. And if you had some other intent in the whole ‘Jesus is going to be pissed’ thing, perhaps you ought to explain it. Because it really looked a lot like ‘Stop trying to pretend you’re the martyr on the cross.’ I never said I was a martyr, nor do I want to be one. What I do expect is that people stop judging me by what color I am. And you have been when you keep telling me that I better just admit to being privileged because I’m white. Well guess what? I am white. I’m not privileged. I don’t ‘not ever face discrimination’ just because I’m white. I lived in a neighborhood where I got to face the racist crap, and a whole pile of threats, just because I was white. So please take your assumptions somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/104 "2002-03-26T21:33:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > **Because I’m telling you that if you can look at someone and tell by what color they are what level of privilege they’ve had in their life, then your deductive powers are far, far above mine.** I can tell by the color of a person’s skin whether or not a taxi will likely pass them in the street in order to pick up a more desirable fare. I can tell by the color of a person’s skin whether they’ve been called a stupid nigger or not. I can tell by the color of a person’s skin whether he’s ten times more likely to be arrested for drug use or not. It doesn’t take great powers of deductive reasoning to figure these things out. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\* > Here’s exactly what my gripe is, and why I said that racism and prejudice are just as bad no matter who they’re applied against._\* This is your gripe? Funny, it’s my gripe too. So how did we end up on opposite sides of a debate? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\* > Instead of seeing people, you see ‘white people’. Because every argument against me has been ‘you can be sure because of the color of your skin that it wasn’t racism that affected you.’_\* I’m not quite sure what your getting at here. Because I have pointed out the discriminatory practices in some of this country’s major institutions, it means I only see “white people”? I have given you cites and statistics showing the inequalities of these major institutions while you have denied, equivocated and rationalized every figure given to you. The only reason you give for denying these facts is that you are white and you didn’t have it easy. Um, right. The light has dawned-- there is no discrimination in the US because **catsix** had to work hard for what she got. Whatever. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\* > And then I got told I was calling myself a martyr when I pointed out, ‘Hey, how can you say it’s never happened to me that I’ve been judged by what color I am. It’s happening right now.’_\* Well **I** never said that. You have been judged by your color. The problem is that the judgement reached by most people is that it is your merit will define your worth. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\* > I’m not crying about it, and I’m not going to be all bitter. But there is a double standard here. You looked at me, and you saw a color (because I said what it was to illustrate a point) and you made assumptions. You don’t really know if they’re true or not, and I can’t prove that I did get hassled in my old neighborhood for being the wrong color and walking down the sidewalk or standing on the porch, but the thing is they were assumed. Based on nothing other than what color I am._\* Yeup, I made assumptions based on your color. I assumed that most people don’t think that your race is inherently dumb, that you most likely get the healthcare you pay for and that the hassles you had to deal with are not compounded by your race. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\* > And as for rejecting cites based on demographics, I’ve got good reason to not assume a basis behind numbers. Because I was one of 3 females graduating with a class of 30 in my field, and because a difference in numbers like that doesn’t mean inherent discrimination. If you can prove those numbers were definitely caused by discrimination, that’s one thing. But you can’t just throw out some numbers and say ‘these numbers exist because of discrimination therefore they are proof of discrimination.’ \*\* So the fact that DOJ has numbers that show that even though blacks drug users make up .84% of the population they make up 35% of the people arrested for drug use. But this doesn’t prove discrimination because you were on of 3 female graduates in your field. The fact that HUD showed the devistation in minority neighborhoods due to predatory lending targeting minorities neighborhoods is not proof of discrimination because you had a hard row to hoe. You explain these numbers then. Oh wait, I’ve already asked haven’t I. What was your answer? Oh, yeah. I remember: > [@](#): > > Prove to you that I personally did not sit around soaking up privilege just because of the color of my skin? > > I think not. ---
**Author:** ![MrO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@MrO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrO)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2002, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/105 "2002-03-26T23:27:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrO \* > **It’s my impression that the main benefactor of Affirmative Action is the society at large.** (Not that it matters much at this point, but I posted late last night and then went to bed. Many posts by others followed. When I woke up just now, I realized I wrote “benefactors” instead of “beneficiaries.” My bad.) (Also, if I implied that I was turned down for that program I mentioned only because I was white, my bad again. It is just possible that some dark-skinned woman with a red spot on her forehead is actually smarter than me, or more qualified. Maybe a black man is, too.) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **In particular, pushing a student into an inappropriate college is apt to be more of a burden than a benefit.** In the short term, perhaps. And the reason is that often this person (the beneficiary of AA-style programs) has not had the opportunity to become qualified. The purpose of the program is to give him or her a chance to try. Eventually, ideally, such levelling devices will not be necessary. But one generation? That’s a pretty short time, considering the time it took to create the problem. **catsix** , no one is saying that you’ve walked an easy path because of being white. Also, no one can deny that it probably would have been a lot rougher if you had been black, all other things being equal. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. I’d just like to ask this: Are you entrenched and defending your position, right or wrong, or are you allowing for the possibility that your views are skewed, and open to learning something? I for one don’t have much interest in talking to someone who isn’t even _trying_ to see the other perspective. ---
**Author:** ![MrO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@MrO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrO)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/106 "2002-03-27T00:14:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Honesty \* > **When I got accepted my mother plainly said, “Baby, I’m happy for you but I can’t afford it” and I knew that. Time I’ll finish, I’ll be thousands of dollars in debt and I can only hope and pray that I’ll come out even in the end.** You know, I completely forgot the main reason I decided to join this thread in the first place. Just wanted to say, **Honesty** , that you _will_ come out even, or rather, you’ll come out ahead. It is hard, but it will be worth it. I borrowed a lot too, and I paid it off, and you can too. Apply for grants and scholarships, borrow when you have to, and work when you can. And study–concentrate on this one paper, or this one test, and before you know it, the goal will be in sight. It will be worth it. My dad, who didn’t finish high school, chuckled when I told him I was going to college. He thought I was joking, because he knew there was no money to pay for it, and he never had that much respect for “educated idiots” anyway. Yes, there are some educated idiots, but they don’t bother me as much as uneducated smart people whose potential goes to waste. My education didn’t make me rich, but it got me off the assembly line and into an indoor job with no heavy lifting, and I’m happy every morning when I put on a clean shirt and a tie to go to work. Growing up, I never thought I’d do that. In case I don’t have much more time to participate here, I just wanted to add that. You have come a long way, and you’ll go farther still. And it won’t be a free ride–you’ll earn it. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/107 "2002-03-27T00:19:57Z")
You know what, that’s great, don’t continue to try to convince me. Because I really am not interested in being a guilty apologist for privileges I never had. Have a lovely day. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/108 "2002-03-27T01:14:08Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally posted by Collounsbury > > What is the bit about “ideological” diversity kemo sabe? That’s your little chesnut, not mine. > > Well, typically proponents of “diversity” tout it as a means of bringing a wide cross-section of viewpoints together into the academic village. Which is really the only plausible argument for “diversity”: if changing the rules to admit more blacks doesn’t add something to the educational value of the university, then the “diversity” argument really is shallow. Well, this is interesting. I did not realize that in your world diversity of viewpoints boils down to ideology. Perhaps that’s the root of your problem, an impoverished understanding of the issue. I have made a “somewhat” – read your ideological argument is impoverished – broader argument in regards to the value I see, from my actual business experience. I refer you back to it rather than repeating it. I would also add good economic reasons for remedies for concentration in under-education for the positive externalities such efforts produce in re greater overall productivity on average. I would say your conceptual framework here is rather shallow. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > How are you weighting the costs and benefits? Have you applied objective standards, or are we off in anti-AA assertion land? > > Look, a classroom can only proceed at the pace of its slowest member. Ah, I see it is the later. It has always been my understanding, ex-race discussions which is what this is, that a mixed ability classroom has education benefits, thinking to arguments in re secondary education. In any case, as far as I experienced in non-legal studies up to the graduate level, college classes tend to plow ahead, only being slowed down when the aggregate level is brought down. Perhaps law school is structured rather differently, certainly the grasp of research and argumentation has always struck me as different, me being trained in socio-political research and economics. Now if it is your fear of the odd individual, I should hope you are also equally excited about legacies and donor related admissions, and in fact one would think that regional balancing for representation should also be terribly objectionable. > [@](#): > > When the university allows less-qualified candidates to take seats at a university, it by definition slows the pace of the transfer of knowledge. That is, objectively, a bad thing. Well, I find your _definition_ to be of an arguable nature to start with, so objectively we need some decent objective data. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Further, what policies, if any would you suggest, and please do be explicit in regards to the actual remedies. > > As I’ve noted before, remedial programs are fine so long as, at their conclusion, the applicant meets the ordinary admissions standards of the institution. I also think that outreach programs to inform minorities of opportunities and encourage them in taking advantage of those opportunites are a good thing. And frankly, to be blunt, I think there are important cultural values that need to change in the black community – studying shouldn’t be derided as “acting white.” Fair enough at a certain level. Of course insofar as ordinary admission standards are bent for many reasons, it strikes me that so long as bending for one factor is allowed, then one should allow for others, within a reasonable magnitude. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s nice to make that claim, but in my mind the piss-poor state of pre-college education in this country, the disturbing patterns on a national basis of poor funding for minority schools etc strike me as barriers to entry, fundamental ones at that. > > For starters, tragically, the racial gulf in academic performance extends beyond the inner city, so underfunded schools cannot be entirely to blame. No, but then you’ve made the nice elision between inner-city and black. Certainly there are widespread patterns of underfunding of minority schools rural, urban or suburban. Further, we can point to signs of active ‘down-tracking’ of black children in non-inner city schools. Now, I don’t disagree at all, and indeed raised the issue, that an ugly cancer in the black community is the ‘acting white’ issue in re academics, I am sure with non-trivial impact. > [@](#): > > Secondly, this is a little like explaining a prospective ballplayer’s lack of ability as related to the fact that there was no Little League program where he grew up. Maybe true, but that ought not obligate the New York Yankees to put him on the field. The answer isn’t to bring down the quality of the majors, but rather to invest in expanding Little League programs. Really, you should stay away from the analogies, they’re not a strong point. Certainly it strikes me as MG noted, that it is entirely in the character of our sporting experience for start ups being given an odd chance if the coach sees some underlying athletic talent, despite initial poor performance. Given the success of AA in opening doors to subsequently successful and ultimately greater value folks, to cite, e.g., our dear S of S, it strikes me that there are clear signs that coaches taking a chance on some potential stars has paid off. I add, in regards to the issue of underachieving, that the creation of a Powell, Rice etc core of well-educated individuals, who not so incidentally benefited from AA by their own accounts, is a tool to leverage a change in community attitudes. And one more susceptible to national policy than the change in little league, which in our federal system is really non-touchable by national policy. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Yes, and if you come from certain backgrounds such as child of funder, legacy you get preferential access, in many systems. > > > > Clearly ethnicity and race are not the only exceptions to ‘academic standards’ – indeed there even regional balancing used in some systems. > > Clearly, there are other preference programs in place, but they are in no way as widespread as the preference programs for race. Legacy preferences don’t affect that many students; indeed, I’d wager that most legacies, coming from presumably wealthy backgrounds (which correlates strongly with academic success), don’t need the preference in the first place. No way as widespread as (academic) preference programs by race. Well, do we have data? Or are we in assertion land? Is there data? I don’t know, but I’m reluctant to Now, in re high income, yeah high income correlates with success in school. Resources, brother. My dear schoolmate, next in line to head up a certain major corp – I’m tempted to name names, but I think it would be inapprop – had decent grades. But dumb as a post. Bucks buy training, buy tutoring, buy my services in helping the dense friend in over break prep. Is that merit? Not in my book. Perhaps we have different understanding of merit. It rather looks like the same thing we try to avoid in re corp governance etc. > [@](#): > > Regional preferences are an odd duck. Let’s make one thing clear: they do weaken the academic quality of the student body at a given institution. Hmm, my Ivy schools practice them as well, I don’t see them as weakened, rather strengthened by it. Else elite East Coast schools serve the East Coast. But perhaps we have a question of balance. > [@](#): > > Generally, they exist at state universities where the state legislature plays a role in funding the school. The idea is to provide educational opportunities for citizens of the state, since their tax dollars pay for the school. The state has made a conscious decision to trade off academic excellence in favor of ensuring its own citizens are well-educated. I generally dislike these preferences, though I understand the political calculus behind them. You seem however to have an impoverished understanding of the underlying economic calculus, and I would argue the actual effect in re academics. I should dig up some recent data on the positive externalities in re wide provision of education to a population. In fact, I rather think we need some hard data on success rates in re regional diverse admissions. School leaving perhaps, 10 year down the road record might be nice. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I would note there is no small amount of controversy regarding the nature and depth of the relationship. > > As noted above, SAT+HSGPA correlates with various measures of academic success. Yes, they do, imperfectly. > [@](#): > > The single most accurate predictor of law school success is one’s LSAT score. Even pro-affirmative action researchers like Bowen and Bok recognize that these measures are valid predictors of academic potential. Certainly they have some validity, but neither are they the whole game. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No it’s to take into account differing backgrounds, rather more like the training camp manager, if we are to continue with strained analogies, deciding to give a set of players who look like potential prospects but haven’t had the opp to play right a shot on the field. > > Look, if you want to send a kid to remedial classes and then see if he meets the admissions standards, fine. If you want to send him to a lower-tiered university (the equivelant of the minor leagues) and, after doing well there, transfer to a more competitive school, fine. But you don’t drop a kid who can’t hit a curveball directly into the majors. Why not? Sometimes you get a real star. E.g. my friend on a rapid rise up the banking ladder. Shitty HS record, shitty first year. Then things clicked. In any case, it has been my understanding that is how things work for all but a minority of students aiming at elite (if only on regional basis) schools. I’m for the coaches and managers having the freedom to gamble on getting the odd star, if they know their game they’ll get a decent return on their investment. If not, well, some risky projects fail. The ones that don’t often pay off big. > [@](#): > > Yes, a few large systems do indeed meet that wonderful scarecrow: however if I recall correctly if one scratches the data one finds low actual spending per pupil, versus admin overhead and other bullshit. Ah, the NYC school system in all its horrors. > > Given of course that (a) local schools are beyond the reach of national policy (b) the depth of the problem is so great, I see no problem in some level of balancing above all as I question the degree of ‘unpreparedness’ in this connection. Unless you are discounting primary and high school education entirely as important to future academic success, your position is fallacious. [/quote] Fallacious? Ah, you have not oft argued with me. No, no my dear fellow just rather more subtle than your legal pad. It is my experience, by observation that some percentage of not fully prepared students, through no fault of their own but through defective education systems, can be brought through the system. This regardless of race questions which so excite this topic. The fallacy rather depends on your set of bleak assumptions which I don’t see as holding. > [@](#): > > If a kid hasn’t learned the basics of writing, mathematics, science, etc in high school he will not be prepared for the college environment. This is doubly true for academically competitive colleges, where there is less time spent going over old material and the classes move at a rapid clip. Well, who’s talking about not having ‘the basics’ – it strikes me that you’re running for the extremes of the spectrum rather quickly. My experience in universities which I am told are the top in the nation, we could call them moderately competitive for the non-legacy, suggests to me that your picture is far blacker than what I witnessed, and that more than a decade ago (ouch.). > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Yes, we have a case. Now, one data point in my statistical training does not give us a characterization of the entire picture. > > > > I should be very happy to revise my opinion in regards to the straw man statement if you have a valid data set which adequately samples college and university admissions across the USA. > > One need only look at the systems that were in place in California and the system under challenge in Michigan to see other examples of how these systems operate. The great advantage of the Hopwood case is that, thanks to the attorney’s right to discovery, there was precious little room for the kind of obfuscation one ordinarily hears from admissions offices when the specifics of their admissions policies are questioned. Eh. I remain unmoved. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And frankly, one does not need to look at many individual cases to see that similar systems must be in place elsewhere. Consider: in a November 1997 article, The American Lawyer reported that of all law school applicants in 1996-97, only 103 blacks and 224 Hispanices had a college GPA of 3.25 or better and a LSAT at or above the 83.5 percentile. Only 16 blacks and 45 Hispanices had a college GPA of 3.50 or better and an LSAT at or above the 92.3 percentile. Now consider that, for that same year, the average applicant to UC-Berkely’s law school had a college GPA of 3.74 and an LSAT at the 97.7 percentile. May I be so forward to inquire as to the percentages? Gross numbers don’t tell me much. Although I do begin to see the source of the point of irritation for you. In that connexion, I don’t particularly feel the bizarrely rigid structure of Law School application process as a general statement in re larger University admissions. > [@](#): > > Berkely is a top ten school. I’m sure the top ten had more than 1.6 blacks and 4.5 Hispanics each (and note that even only accepting those would represent some dilution of standards). Where do you think they got them? Off your reject shelf? Or perhaps from a view to a wider set of standards in re the student body and experience with dealing with a diverse socio-cultural environment? I suppose that the wavelength of this later observation will not quite fit through the refraction by which this is judged in certain quarters. BTW: Catsix, acknowledgement of reality, yes reality is usually considered an adult characteristic. You may ponder this. My own dear ancestors, fairly privledged by any standard, dispossed folks. I am well aware of that. White-washing my history does me no good, but I don’t feel guilty about it. It isn’t question of feeling personally guilty it’s a motherfucking question of understanding society, its structures and developing critical thinking. As I said, I feel no guilt about my familial past, only a desire to learn lessons about how to build a wealthier, more productive society so that me, my own and society at large will be better off. Now, I’m afraid as I noted in another thread that I gots me to do two pitches in the upcoming weeks in re a scheme or two I have me fingers in, so I gotta disappear. And if I give in and return, you all have to tell me to piss off and get to work for me own good, cause these numbers ain’t gonna come out without mucho travajo. Ciao ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/109 "2002-03-27T01:23:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Biggirl \* > \*\*So the fact that DOJ has numbers that show that even though blacks drug users make up .84% of the population they make up 35% of the people arrested for drug use. \*\* **Biggirl** , I don’t know if you mistyped this, but if you didn’t the statistic is meaningless. You purport here to compare the number of black drug users in the _general population_ with the number arrested for drug use. And appropriate comparison would be the number of black drug users compared to the total number of drug users, or perhaps the number of blacks arrested for drug offenses compared to the total arrests for drug offenses. You have to compare apples to apples. A discussion of the meaning of black arrest figures might be interesting, but first let’s be sure we’re making valid statistical comparisons, OK? ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/110 "2002-03-27T01:49:59Z")
6.4% of 12% of the population representing 35% of the people arrested for drug abuse crimes. My math sucks so the numbers may be off, but they are not a misrepresentation of the facts. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/111 "2002-03-27T02:30:06Z")
Good on you, **Collounsbury** , for being privileged. But that doesn’t mean all white people were or that anyone has the basis to generalize such a large group as ‘they’re all privileged because they’re white.’ Doesn’t work that way. White skin is not a guarantee that someone’s been privileged or never faced discrimination. That’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning, and what I always will say because it’s true. If you want to imply that I’m not adult because I’m sick of the ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ type of tactics that are being used here, great, go right ahead. You’re only adding to the reasons I should ignore all of it. I wasn’t privileged, I am not privileged now. Therefore I cannot answer the question ‘When are you going to admit that you are privileged because you’re white?’ to anyone’s satisfaction here. And it is pointless to have a debate about AA with people who hold blatantly prejudiced views about a particular race. It serves to further absolutely nothing in the interest of actual discourse, but it sure does seem to make people feel good to point a finger and tell a white girl to admit that she’s so privileged. Only problem is that I can’t and won’t admit to something that isn’t true. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/112 "2002-03-27T02:48:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*Well, this is interesting. I did not realize that in your world diversity of viewpoints boils down to ideology. Perhaps that’s the root of your problem, an impoverished understanding of the issue. > > I have made a “somewhat” – read your ideological argument is impoverished – broader argument in regards to the value I see, from my actual business experience. I refer you back to it rather than repeating it. I would also add good economic reasons for remedies for concentration in under-education for the positive externalities such efforts produce in re greater overall productivity on average. > > I would say your conceptual framework here is rather shallow.\*\* You are engaged in some serious sophistry here. Call it ideology, call it differing viewpoints, call it whatever you want. The point of the “diversity” argument is that having black faces around adds to the conversation in the academic village – that is, a diverse university is a better university. A proponent of the “diversity” argument needs to be able to prove that this point is true. Otherwise, you’re just adding black faces for the sake of adding black faces. The last sentence of your second paragraph above is so jargon-filled and clumsily written as to be practically undecipherable. I _assume_ you’re saying that AA will help promote economic growth and possibly remedy disparities in income. Two fallacies as to the latter: first, it assumes that all blacks are poor in the first place, and second, it begs the question as to why AA should not be based on socioeconomic status rather than race. As to the former, there is no additional productivity stemming from AA: _somebody’s_ going to be sitting in that seat, and thus eventually adding to economic growth. \*\* > [@](#): > > Of course insofar as ordinary admission standards are bent for many reasons, it strikes me that so long as bending for one factor is allowed, then one should allow for others, within a reasonable magnitude. \*\*Ahh, the “two wrongs make a right” defense. How very novel. :rolleyes: \*\* > [@](#): > > Certainly there are widespread patterns of underfunding of minority schools rural, urban or suburban. Further, we can point to signs of active ‘down-tracking’ of black children in non-inner city schools. \*\*Cite? Citey McCite Cite? \*\* > [@](#): > > Certainly it strikes me as MG noted, that it is entirely in the character of our sporting experience for start ups being given an odd chance if the coach sees some underlying athletic talent, despite initial poor performance. > > Given the success of AA in opening doors to subsequently successful and ultimately greater value folks, to cite, e.g., our dear S of S, it strikes me that there are clear signs that coaches taking a chance on some potential stars has paid off. > \*\* You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I believe university admissions officers should never look outside of numerical measures of talent to find exceptional individuals. That is not the case. I believe that an _individual_ who exhibits skills not measured by the SAT, LSAT, etc., should be given due consideration, and a person who has undergone unique difficulties in his life should have those things taken into consideration. What I _don’t_ think is appropriate is to presume those special qualities based solely on an applicant’s skin color. \*\* > [@](#): > > No way [legacy programs are] as widespread as (academic) preference programs by race. Well, do we have data? Or are we in assertion land? Is there data? I don’t know, but I’m reluctant to \*\* Well, I don’t know what you’re reluctant to do, but if you have statistics that show that legacy programs are as widespread as racial preference programs, and that they engender the same dramatic qualification gaps, then I’ll happily get on board and denounce them with equal voice. But you’ll need to provide some evidence (you brought it up, after all – the proponent of an argument is responsible for defending it). Oh, and let’s recognize at the outset that this is yet another example of the “two wrongs make a right” defense. \*\* > [@](#): > > Hmm, my Ivy schools practice them [geographical quotas] as well, I don’t see them as weakened, rather strengthened by it. Else elite East Coast schools serve the East Coast.\*\* Cite? Citey McCite Cite? I’ve never heard of a non-state school formally favoring one region of the country over others. Indeed, my impression has always been that the Ivies made efforts to attract a geographically diverse student body. \*\* > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > As noted above, SAT+HSGPA correlates with various measures of academic success. > > Yes, they do, imperfectly. \*\* So what? We make decisions based on imperfect correlations all the time, because very few if any correlations are truly “perfect” in the metaphysical sense. The only question is whether the correlation is strong enough for us to act upon. The data I provided earlier certainly makes a strong case for the SAT as a predictor of success. \*\* > [@](#): > > Eh. I remain unmoved.\*\* Taking the “hear no evil” approach, eh? Well, I can understand why _Hopwood_ and cases like it would make you uncomfortable. \*\* > [@](#): > > May I be so forward to inquire as to the percentages? Gross numbers don’t tell me much. Although I do begin to see the source of the point of irritation for you. In that connexion, I don’t particularly feel the bizarrely rigid structure of Law School application process as a general statement in re larger University admissions.\*\* Well, [this year](http://www.thetartan.org/96/7/news/756.asp) 60,000 kids will take the LSAT, up from 45,000 last year. (This is news because law school applicants – and thus LSAT test takers – have been down for the past few years prior). So basically, 16 blacks and 45 Hispanics had LSATs at or above the 92.3 percentile out of roughly that number of test takers in 96-97. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/113 "2002-03-27T02:51:11Z")
Well, how charming. A chip on the shoulder and poor reading and comprehension skills as an added bonus. I rather thought I might get through to you, although evidently that was an exercise in the sheerest optimism insofar as you either lack the desire, which is sad, or the present capacity for whatever reason, to actually read and process what people have been telling you through this thread. Rather, we see some quite tedious bursts of anger. Pity that. A free bit of advice. Future advancement often requires one to step outside of one’s own skin and take a critical look at the world. Further, many employers feel the ability to read and respond to actual text, as opposed to pre-existing prejudices and opinions, to be a valuable skill. Lack thereof, as demonstrated through this thread, tends to result in highly circumscribed opportunities. I might add, to set the record straight, that personally I did not grow up with much privilege for a variety of reasons rebounding on some poor choices made by grandparents and the like. I worked quite hard to get where I have gotten to, and took no advantage of relations or the like. However, my point had been in regarding the familial past, and certainly some embedded advantages – generations of college going is helpful even if one’s objective circumstances are less than privileged. Now I know this is a point rather to subtle to make it through the wall of anger and spite, but perhaps the audience other than you may profit from reflecting on it. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/114 "2002-03-27T02:58:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Biggirl \* > \*\*6.4% of 12% of the population representing 35% of the people arrested for drug abuse crimes. My math sucks so the numbers may be off, but they are not a misrepresentation of the facts. \*\* I need some labels to follow this. I’m _guessing_ this is the case, please correct me if I’m wrong: 12% = % of blacks in the overall population (e.g., every man, woman and child, whether law abiding or not) 35% = Number of blacks drug arrests as a percentage of total drug arrests. 6.4% = ??? Actually, if you’ve got a link to the DOJ numbers, it might be clearer. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/115 "2002-03-27T03:00:09Z")
Ah, **Collounsbury** , to whom is your last post addressed? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/116 "2002-03-27T03:09:13Z")
Not you. This one is for you. Last one, else I will be in deep doodoo. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > You are engaged in some serious sophistry here. Call it ideology, call it differing viewpoints, call it whatever you want. Well my dear old lawyer, I rather call diverse life experiences and ideology two bloody different things. If you don’t, well, we gots us more problems than I thought. > [@](#): > > The point of the “diversity” argument is that having black faces around adds to the conversation in the academic village – that is, a diverse university is a better university. A proponent of the “diversity” argument needs to be able to prove that this point is true. Otherwise, you’re just adding black faces for the sake of adding black faces. Well, as you may know there is research on this very point. I have to defer the citation game, I really need to get to work. However, black faces, in the non-ideological world, imply rather more than just black faces, as society isn’t the homogenous thing you appear to imply. > [@](#): > > The last sentence of your second paragraph above is so jargon-filled and clumsily written as to be practically undecipherable. I _assume_ you’re saying that AA will help promote economic growth and possibly remedy disparities in income. Meaning you didn’t follow me. Large positive externalities – how to explain, large positive yet unpriced economic benefits. Understood that my dear lawyer? Fairly standard economic theory. > [@](#): > > Two fallacies as to the latter: first, it assumes that all blacks are poor in the first place, and second, it begs the question as to why AA should not be based on socioeconomic status rather than race. Not really, a pure socioeconomic status play ignores concentrations of poverty based (_gasp_) on societal barriers and impediments, adjusting to account for both is actually the ideal solution, but just like we can’t always replace a tarriff for a subsidy, sometimes one gets a 2nd best solution. > [@](#): > > As to the former, there is no additional productivity stemming from AA: _somebody’s_ going to be sitting in that seat, and thus eventually adding to economic growth. That’s a broad assertion. Ahhh. Economic theory. Well, the concept to which I was referring and with which you are evidently unacquainted was in regards to drags on efficiency in re segments of the population being effectively excluded for whatever historical and present reasons from the “market.” Well, in any case, further explanation of my thinking is (a) going to be lost on you (b) require more time than I have. Perhaps flowbark or one of our other economically literate folks can explain my line of analysis. > [@](#): > > Ahh, the “two wrongs make a right” defense. How very novel. Well, frankly I don’t see this as two wrongs make a right, of course in the framework you’ve constructed it’s rather another matter. > [@](#): > > Cite? Citey McCite Cite? When I get done with current work I shall work it up, you really need a cite that minority schools are under-funded, in general? Baraka. > [@](#): > > You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I believe university admissions officers should never look outside of numerical measures of talent to find exceptional individuals. Mistaken as based on the thrust of your argument? Perhaps, or perhaps you’ve actually argued along these lines so far. > [@](#): > > Well, I don’t know what you’re reluctant to do, but if you have statistics that show that legacy programs are as widespread as racial preference programs, and that they engender the same dramatic qualification gaps, then I’ll happily get on board and denounce them with equal voice. But you’ll need to provide some evidence (you brought it up, after all – the proponent of an argument is responsible for defending it). Frankly I don’t know if there is objective data. My raising the issue is on the factor. We both know it exists, I know no aggregate study of this. > [@](#): > > I’ve never heard of a non-state school formally favoring one region of the country over others. Indeed, my impression has always been that the Ivies made efforts to attract a geographically diverse student body. Think carefully my dear lawyer. Think carefully. Balancing by geography. Larger number of applications from East Coast urban centers, less number from Mid-West etc., etc. By sheer weight of numbers, if one goes on stats alone, one will end up with an overrep of ECU students. Balancing. Well, I’m getting tired of this and have to work. Fear not, once the pitching is done and I am liberated from excel, I shall be happy to continue. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2002, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946/117 "2002-03-27T05:25:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*Well, as you may know there is research on this very point [how diversity benefits the academy]. I have to defer the citation game, I really need to get to work. \*\* Well, I look forward to seeing this research.\*\* > [@](#): > > However, black faces, in the non-ideological world, imply rather more than just black faces, as society isn’t the homogenous thing you appear to imply.\*\* Look, I’m not saying that being black doesn’t color one’s views, personality, and general life outlook. I’m just saying that lots of other things color those areas as well. The real question is, why is race an appropriate proxy to use for those things? Why not evaluate applicants as individuals?\*\* > [@](#): > > Meaning you didn’t follow me. Large positive externalities – how to explain, large positive yet unpriced economic benefits. Understood that my dear lawyer? Fairly standard economic theory.\*\* Look, I work with dense, complex language for a living. I can tell the difference between complex language set forth because the topic covered is inherently complex and complex language set forth as an exercise in BS. This sentence: “I would also add good economic reasons for remedies for concentration in under-education for the positive externalities such efforts produce in re greater overall productivity on average.” is an example of the latter. What you seem to be saying is that there are intangible economic benefits to AA. To which I reply: such as?\*\* > [@](#): > > Not really, a pure socioeconomic status play ignores concentrations of poverty based (_gasp_) on societal barriers and impediments, adjusting to account for both is actually the ideal solution, but just like we can’t always replace a tarriff for a subsidy, sometimes one gets a 2nd best solution.\*\* Look, if AA is a remedy for the problems of poverty – underfunded schools and the like – then there is no reason to bring race into it. Indeed, it is insulting to, say, a poor white kid in Appalachia that the sons of wealthy black doctors and lawyers get preferential admissions treatment while he gets none.\*\* > [@](#): > > Well, frankly I don’t see this [justifying AA on grounds that legacy programs exist] as two wrongs make a right, of course in the framework you’ve constructed it’s rather another matter.\*\* So, you see legacy programs as a good thing? Why?\*\* > [@](#): > > When I get done with current work I shall work it up, you really need a cite that minority schools are under-funded, in general? Baraka.\*\* Well, I would like to see data supporting your assertion that such underfunding extends to “suburban and rural” black schools (a rural predominantly black school?). Also for your “down-tracking” comment.\*\* > [@](#): > > Mistaken as based on the thrust of your argument? Perhaps, or perhaps you’ve actually argued along these lines so far.\*\* Of course, you deleted the following, where I explain my position in greater detail: “That is not the case. I believe that an individual who exhibits skills not measured by the SAT, LSAT, etc., should be given due consideration, and a person who has undergone unique difficulties in his life should have those things taken into consideration. What I don’t think is appropriate is to presume those special qualities based solely on an applicant’s skin color.”\*\* > [@](#): > > Frankly I don’t know if there is objective data. My raising the issue is on the factor. We both know it exists, I know no aggregate study of this. \*\* So, basically, you’re winging it. Legacy programs exist, but until someone shows they are as widespread and represent the vast merit gap represented by AA, I prefer to pursue the greater evil.\*\* > [@](#): > > Think carefully my dear lawyer. Think carefully. Balancing by geography. Larger number of applications from East Coast urban centers, less number from Mid-West etc., etc. By sheer weight of numbers, if one goes on stats alone, one will end up with an overrep of ECU students. Balancing.\*\* Now you’ve entered the realm of the absurd. If more east coast students choose east coast schools, that alone does not represent an active effort by east coast schools at ensuring east coast students, not in the same vein as admissions-office geographic preferences at state universities. One might as well say a community college is expressing a “preference” for local students because all of its students come from the local community. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-action-question-and-a-small-rant/99946.md?page=5)