I wasn’t sure whether or not to place this question here, but knowing how debatable this issue is, I figured it was the safest place.
There are a lot of people who say that they are against quotas and set asides, and yet, still for affirmative action. This confuses me, because if you take out things like, so and so company must hire x% minorities or so and so college must admit x% minorities, or colleges and universities must give 5 extra points to minority enrollments, what’s left?
What’s left is outreach programs to get increased applications from minorities to either schools or companies. The theory being that if you increase the pool of applicants, you potentially increase the numbers admitted/hired without explicitly setting any quotas. That’s actually how AA got started under Nixon, IIRC.
Admittedly, I don’t live in the States, so my interpretation may be way off, but I always thought the spirit of AA went something like “All else being equal, accept/hire/choose the ‘minority’ person over others”.
“All else being equals” meaning, to me, say in a work environment: You have 5 candidates for a position, of which 3 meet or exceed requirements to do the job. In that case, instead of a die roll, select the “minority” applicant.
This also means, conversly, that AA should never be construed as license to demand that “minority” applicants/candidates for anything should be let in without meeting requirements!
I think this take on AA makes it possible to be pro-AA and anti-quota at the same time. (I also think this kind of policy actually makes sense, too, but I suppose that’s a different debate)
Dani
The first AA Executive Order was issued by Kennedy, but it is true that it didn’t become widespread practice until after the 1968 election.
Interestingly, it got a big boost from some corporations that were not (yet) under any government pressure to act. Gurstenburg of General Motors issued a policy that for every job above a certain grade level, his managers had to provide evidence that they had made a sincere attempt to find a qualified minority candidate. Lots of managers sandbagged the effort, of course, but it got the ball rolling and several other corporations picked up on the idea.
Quotas did not even enter the picture until (I believe) the early 1970s when several courts looked over the hiring practices of several government agencies (usually fire, police, sanitation, or similar departments) and determined that blacks and women had been so rigorously and systematically excluded that using mere outreach programs would effectively leave the departments too exclusionary for decades to come. By the end of the 1970s, the Supreme Court was already rolling back some of the quota decisions, beginning with Bakke.
A good example of effective AA was practiced at my old employer in the late 1970s and early 1980s. When recruiting for new programmers, the old management had simply gone to Kent State, James A Rhodes Junior College, and Lakeland Community College. When a new managment team came in with an AA mandate, they began extending their recruitment visits to Ohio University, which is predominantly black, and to Bowling Green State University, which (at the time) had a very high percentage of women students in the Computer Science program. When it came time to hire, they did not change their entrance requirements or lower their standards in any way, but by having “reached out” to places that had a more diverse student population, they attracted applicants from a broader spectrum and wound up hiring good people that they might have missed if they had stuck to the old boys network. (I have no idea what proportion of students fit any “minority” category at the named schools these days.)
Here is a list of 10 myths about affirmative action. The tenth one is most relevant to the subject at hand.
I’ve heard of outreach programs, but was never quiet sure what they were exactly. Anyway, that seems fair and logical.
While in theory the idea may have been, all things being equal, hire a woman or minority, in practice, it’s usually something very different.
In the last few years law suits have been won on reverse discrimination cases (my apologies for people who don’t like that term, but that is how discrimination against white men is refereed to by most people) and there has been a backlash in a few states against affirmative action because, despite what it was intended for, it has, in a lot of cases, turned into a hire the woman/minority over the white male despite qualification.
Thanks, I’m looking at the link right now.
I’m not saying that hasn’t happened, but could you cite please?
Do you think that Harvard University should continue to lower its admission standards to keep the student population gender balanced?
About backlash?, how about California’s Proposition 209 for one thing?
or are you asking about a cite on reverse discrimination?
Also, as far as university standards, no, I don’t think they should be lowered. To me, it seems like a knee jerk reaction when less women and/or minorities get into colleges and universities to focus attention only on them, and force them to admit more students.
To me, what needs to be done is look at all possible reasons why this is happening. If women/minorites aren’t able to pass admissions tests, look at the high schools they came out of, maybe they’re failing their students and changes need to be made. Maybe it’s an attitude problem on the part of the woman/minority students. Maybe the enrollment numbers are low because there are so few of them. And maybe, it’s discrimination on the part of the college/university.
So to me, seeing low woman/minority enrollment in colleges and universities and forcing them to drop their standards is wrong. If the reason women and minorities aren’t getting in is because of poor education in K-12, for example, then that’s where the problem needs to be tackled.
Also, as far as university standards, no, I don’t think they should be lowered. To me, it seems like a knee jerk reaction when less women and/or minorities get into colleges and universities to focus attention only on them, and force them to admit more students.
Is Zoe referring to this, or the practice, alleged at some universities, of lowering standards to admit more men?
I’m pretty sure Zoe is talking about lowering the standards to admit more males.
Females are a majority of college students, and they are widening the gap.
However, I pretty much agree with Master Control’s response, even though he assumed Zoe was talking about women and minorities. You just have to change the gender he was talking about.
If the reason males “aren’t getting in is because of poor education in K-12, for example, then that’s where the problem needs to be tackled.”
The elementary and secondary school systems in this country are failing males, and we need to figure out why and change it.
Nightime & Belowjob2.0
Can we have some cites for this?
I was under the impression that males have scored higher on both math and verbal SAT scores for the last 40 years or so.
I’m certainly up for being corrected.
Cites?
Harvard doesn’t have an actual “quota” system, but I do recall seeing a report on 60 Minutes a couple of years ago about an affirmative action policy for men because the women were actually qualifying at a higher rate.
The Harvard Undergraduate Admissions Committee considers other criteria besides test scores – although I haven’t checked to see how well women are doing in comparison to men on math and verbal SAT’s in recent years.
Harvard, and I assume a growing number of schools, consider such things as
I don’t think that we should lower standards for anyone. It’s a myth that we have to. Just let people know what the standards are. If they can live up to them, they will.
Aside: (There have been some interesting studies (over a decade ago) about the differences in the way males and females are treated in the classrooms. (The guys were called on more often, etc.) Our school system resolved to do something about it and to instill pride in female students. At the same time, they came out with their short list of people to be considered for the position of Director of Metro Schools. All ten of them were males. :rolleyes: )
MasterControl: I was not asking you to cite for the “backlash,” but for this:
I will check your link to see if it gives examples. Of course, there are a gazillion examples in the other direction through history.
MasterControl, I clicked on your link. The male attorney claimed reverse discrimination. From your link:
the raindog, the latest info that I checked on SAT scores was from 2003 and the gap in scores is still there with males scoring higher on both math and verbal skills.
I did find some interesting information and an opinion here
And
This was an eye-opener too:
There are studies that show that girls feel more engaged and motivated in the classroom and more often believe their teachers listen to them.
More girls go to college, take advanced classes, have higher academic goals, plan to attend college, and more girls take the SATs (which, incidentally, explains any advantage boys have in SAT scores. Only high-achieving boys take the test, while even low-achieving girls have the self esteem to feel they can take the SAT and go to college).
Meanwhile, far more boys kill themselves, take drugs, drop out of school, settle for mediocre academic goals, etc.
Clearly boys need help. But most people aren’t even aware of the problem. These facts get almost no attention at all.
Nightime said:
First, Cite?
Second, How does that relate to the earlier point made by both you and Belowjob2.0 of,* “the practice, alleged at some universities, of lowering standards to admit more men?” * The SAT is the most widely accepted objective criteria in establishing who gets admitted, in the first place, right?
Third, If males have higher SATs (and have had then for decades) in what objective way are the universities lowering standards to enroll males.
Lastly, who are these universities? Cites?
Prove that only high acheiving boys take the test. Please provide valid cites.
I’d ask for cites, but before that I’m wondering how that is pertinent to preferential treatment in enrollment practices or the OP…
What facts? I’ve only seen conjecture. Help me out, especially as it relates to males vis a vis affirmative action and enrollment policies at universities.
As I see it, you’re talking about two different problems.
One problem is this idea that one type of candidate (racial group, gender group, whatever) is NOT qualified or NOT passing minimum standards, and is being hired or admitted anyway. That’s taking “unqualified” people or “dropping standards.”
I don’t think that’s what Harvard is doing. And I really don’t believe many employers are doing that either. What organization wants to hire someone who can’t do what is expected? Sounds like organizational suicide to me. It’s a different problem, with different questions involved, and different remedies to consider.
Harvard has a different sort of problem. Its admissions (and hiring) is highly competitive. It has a pool of well-qualified candidates, but within that pool certain groups shine more than others on some measures. Relying on those measures is going to favor one kind of candidate. Relying on others will yield them a different mix. In other words, if women applicants tend to have SATS even higher than males, then any admitting scheme which relies heavily on SATS is going to lead to more women than men being accepted.
Harvard is an extreme example, but I think many employers and institutions are in the same boat.
I have heard this point made by some keen-eyed sociologists and psychologists and educators–that we focus on girls, for some of the right reasons, actually, but we’re ignoring some troubling issues with adolescent boys-- and I think they are valid.
However, I am not familiar with the “studies” and facts you are mentioning. As others have said, please, some cites!