Most debates about Affirmative Action usually revolve around minorities which for all intents and purposes really means black people, as if they are the only beneficiaries of AA. Why aren’t women included in these discussions or debates? Why the focus on black people when women of all colors have benefited equally from AA? Are women in this country become so marginalized that they are not even included in the debate about AA?
Moderator, can you fix my title to read “Black people”? Thanks.
Blacks appear most prominently in the debate because they’re the most vocal about it.
Jeff
I don’t know if what you’re saying is accurate or not in the country at large ElJeffe, but I think here, on the SDMB most of the debates aren’t the result of Blacks being the most vocal about it.
Because they’re the ones who know how to best use it to their advantage, since most employers know that racism vs. blacks is a far more sensitive issue than any other racism, or sexism for that matter.
They have been, as far as I’ve read. I’ve seen at least three threads that dealt with the number of women aided by AA, among other minorities. Of course, the problem is that issue was quickly dropped to talk about blacks. But I won’t leave you guessing who switched the subjects back again: anti-AA people.
So I guess we’ve all got questions.
The last time I read statistics on AA, I found white women gained the most from the program. I’ll try to dig up a cite or two.
Could be because AA often comes up in the context of college admissions, (like the U of M cases) and I don’t believe in that context that AA benefits women. In fact, both plaintiffs in the two U of M cases pending before SCOTUS right now are women, apparently AA is not benefiting them.
Some schools, particularly engineering schools and those who specialize in the hard sciences, definitely have outreach, AA-type programs for females.
Women have almost certaintly benefitted from AA. As well as Hispanics, Native Americans, and even Pacific Islanders (like Fillipinos). But for some reason, AA always equals black. It’s a bit frustrating, really.
Are there still an AA programs for women in colleges (other than the odd tech schoold or something)? I don’t think so.
While I agree that Blacks tend to be the major focus of debates, the two recent AA related threads had lots of posts about the Native American and Hispanic angle.
But let’s face it, Blacks are still the largest minority. Hispanics are closing fast, but Native Americans are only something like 1% of the population, and probably declining due to intermarriage.
The U of M scheme only give Blacks, Hispanics and N.A.'s the 20 pt kicker. That tends to be the basis for most of the AA discussions, since it’s so topical.
The answer is easy - because racial AA is the one that is always in the limelight. Because whenever AA is brought up, someone always mentions racial discrimination, rarely gender, except as an afterthought. Because the recent lawsuit that prompted a lot of the debates recently have to do with racial preferences (and since the plaintiff is a female, she can’t very well complain about gender AA now can she?).
cough Actually, Hispanics are now the largest minority in the United States (although there is some overlap between ‘Hispanic’ and ‘black’).
it’s for the same reason that reagan was able to use the image of the black ‘welfare queen’ to good effect during his political carer, or jesse helms using the ‘white hands’ spot on tv during his. a lot of people have a tendancy to dislike/distrust/hate/fear black people, and it is easy to turn that prejudice into a position against anything that is seen as giving them a ‘priveledge,’ whether the case is valid or not.
And it’s just as easy to use the rantings and fear-tactics of racists to smear everyone who takes an opposition to your policy, whether the case is valid or not.
Neurotik- i assume that was aimed at my response. Frankly, I think that there are several good arguments against AA, and have seen many of them on these boards.
But you can’t deny that a lot of the political/media spin is often aimed at black recipients in general, whatever the numbers say about the true beneficiaries of the program, and despite the efforts of the pro-AA crowd to move it away from that issue.
The black/AA connection is constantly drummed upon by the anti-AA crowd- and they would not do it if it didn’t sell. the reason it sells- there is a sizeable subset of the population that, for whatever reason, dislikes black people. i think that this was briefly touched upon during the Michigan State U thread.
As i said, i’m not really talking about the SDMB, rather public dialogue (which is what i assumed that the OP was referring to).
Super Gnat , thank you for the cite. I was going to point out that fact if no one else did. 
Er. In another thread, I very clearly mentioned both sexism, and racism, in the discussion about affirmative action and diversity. Does diversity improve the quality of education? Don’t mind me, I probably screwed up the coding.
But I agree with Verminous. It’s probably because race is still actually a defining issue. Women don’t have as many “disadvantages” as minorites do, I would think. Or at least that’s one explanation, and the first that popped into my head.
I’m not quite sure what made you think it was anti-affirmative action people who switched the topic, erislover, if you’re referring to the thread I posted above as one of the three threads you mentioned. The topic of the thread was diversity, not affirmative action, if I remember correctly. Colleges have a much better male-female diversity rate than race, at least as far as I’ve seen. That would apply for the thread above, but obviously affirmative action affects all races, and both sexes.
Mention “racial issues” in the US and most people will assume it’s a black/white thing. Historically, that has been the main issue. It’s also a lot easier work with just 2 parameters. I’m not saying it’s right, just that it doesn’t surprise me.
I’ve heard people complain about workplace AA just as much as college AA. UofM didn’t start the fire by a long shot.
I suppose another question is why all the focus on colleges? AA extends to other facets of our lives. When governments request for bids, what do they say? Women and minority-owned businesses encouraged to apply. The same with hiring for job positions. My department is currently looking to fill several spots, and the selection committee is looking a little bit harder at qualified women than equally qualified men. Why? Because our student population is overwhelmingly female. It was be nice to have more than a couple of female professors.
(Men are often the beneficiaries of AA-like policies too. My father is an educator, and he has told me that men teachers, being rare, are swooped up faster than equally qualified female teachers. In fact, they are often fast tracked into leadership positions. I imagine the same goes for such professions as nursing and social work.)
Yeah, it was directed at you, but obviously it was something of a miscommunication. I thought that you were implying that people were only opposed to AA due to their fear of blacks and other minorities. Not the case, though, so sorry.
I agree with what you are saying, though. Some of the anti-AA crowd are fearful bigots, and some arguments are indeed based on racial distrust, etc. I don’t think that anyone can seriously argue that these aren’t factors. But a lot of the time the focus is on race simply because that’s where the focus tends to be during AA discussions. One of the first arguments that proponents will often make is that it is needed to make up for Jim Crow laws and past injustices and will imply blacks in general are the focus, then the whole thing gets bogged down in racial arguments.