# Affirmative Action's (Confusing) Logic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2002, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448 "2002-04-13T16:34:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2002, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/21 "2002-04-15T02:22:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CrankyAsAnOldMan \* > So it sort of comes down to what you feel should be counted in what makes a candidate more “qualified” than others. A lot of critics appear to believe test scores are an absolute, and no student with a lower test score should ever be admitted over a candidate with higher scores, regardless of circumstances. I can understand that view, given that we’ve invested a lot of faith in test scores. But many colleges don’t feel that way. As one example, here is how Bryn Mawr College explains what they look for in applicants. (I tried looking first at Haverford, which is the alma mater of **kimstu** and myself, but I couldn’t find any description of what they were looking for from Haverford’s admissions office.) > [@](#): > > The Admissions Office at Bryn Mawr looks for applicants who are intensely curious about the world around them, passionate about ideas and motivated to search for answers and solutions — women who relish a challenge. We do not limit this search with arbitrary criteria that specify, for example, certain cut-off scores on standardized tests or a minimum class rank. > > Have you taken fullest advantage of what was available to you in your school and community? Have you elected to take a challenging set of courses, even when it meant risking a lower grade? Are you prepared both to contribute to and profit from a college community that thrives on testing new ideas and sharing old ones? If you are able to answer “yes” to these questions, you are probably a realistic applicant for admission to Bryn Mawr. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2002, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/22 "2002-04-15T04:12:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* Would you be able to share relevant information about the schools where you worked, such as differences in aver SAT scores, graduation rates, science and engineering majors, etc.? \*\* Not to be coy, but I can’t. I no longer have access to the hard data where I used to work, and where I am now, any research I do in that area is only at the behest of our counsel and is attorney-client priveleged. That’ll be the only time in my life I can ever say anything as intriguing as that. LOL At any rate, I am sorry to hear that you have seen instances where AA has gotten students into schools that were “inappropriate.” It probably does happen, but hopefully those schools and programs soon realize that they are doing more harm than good when they ignore basic qualifications and readiness for college work. I’ll remain hopeful that such instances are the exception. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2002, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/23 "2002-04-15T07:12:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cosmopolitan \* > \*\*What about non-racial/ethnic minorities? Like…physically disabled folks? 🙂 \*\* In ca at state schools theres all kinds of programs for disbled students such as if your on social security you dont have to pay the unit fee you can get special seating helpers ect Now I dont know how it works at private universities but theres probaby scholarships and the like ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2002, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/24 "2002-04-15T16:36:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by monstro \* > Case in point: medical research has been historically biased towards males. [Data](http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/paper.shtml) gathered from predominately male subject pools are typically extrapolated to the entire population, even though females and males often react differently to such things as stress, drug use, and heart disease. I have read that this claim is completely bogus and has never been true. I know for certain that it is not true today. My wife is a bio-statistician. Part of **Prof. december’s** professional responsibility is making sure that this sort of sampling error does not occur. Medical journals do publish papers with this sort of error. > [@](#): > > Science doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to certain members of society. For black Americans, the [Tuskeegee experiment](http://www.tubioethics.org/connections/tuskegee/generalbackground/0002.htm) is still a fresh wound. This atrocity is represented as a “fresh wound” for political purposes. The Tuskegee Experiment isn’t “fresh.” It ended 30 years ago in 1972. It would be hypocritcal of a Jew to fault activists for using past injustice for political purpose. Our use of the Holocost initated the practice. However, please don’t include an attack on science in this mix. An enormous amount of medical research has benefited minorities. My wife works in the inner city. She is one of thousands of scientists who work long, hard hours, and who have provided incalculable benfit for all ethnic groups. If a typical feminst agitator were given a copy of my wife’s publications, she wouldn’t know what to do with it. She’d probably fold it up and use it as a sanitary napkin. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2002, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/25 "2002-04-15T17:18:19Z")
Say, those of you with an interest in this issue might be intrigued by this opinion piece. It’s called “The Myth and the Math of Affirmative Action” and ran in the Washington Post yesterday. It talks about the Michigan case, but mostly attempts to make the point that Affirmative Action doesn’t hurt whites as much. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41620-2002Apr12.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41620-2002Apr12.html) ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2002, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/26 "2002-04-15T18:12:14Z")
How about we end admissions based on anything but SAT/ACT/GPA? Sounds cool huh? Well there goes most of the athletes, children of alum, folks who don’t test well but write a hell of an essay, some artists and poets, and all of those who volunteer of do extracurricular activities to make up for lack of testing. What about international students? Well since they don’t take any of the standardized tests, and who know how to equilibrate their GPA? Let’s boot them too. It would make for a very bland University experience. One of the funny things about this is; if you look at the article that **Cranky** posted below, you’ll see that a white student denied admission to U of M is suing because she’s blaming AA. However, this is the same University who in the 80s admitted to preferencial admission of out-of-state and international students bacuse they pay so much more in tuition. No one sued over that! Let’s face it, University admissions are subjective. So stop picking on the minorities. ---
**Author:** ![ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2002, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/27 "2002-04-15T18:53:27Z")
I find it rather sad that people of privilege for whatever reason have to harp on the fact that others get “breaks” they don’t get. Consider that a minority student has a general disadvantage at every step of the way. Before we get into exactly WHAT the disadvantages are, I suggest you check out this: [http://www.horizonmag.com/4/jane-elliott.asp](http://www.horizonmag.com/4/jane-elliott.asp) All one has to do is simply be treated as if they are a minority…to soak up the general vibes…in order to have a huge effect on their life. They have a disadvantage because of this prior to pre-school. They have a disadvantage because of this in kindergarten. The disadvantage continues to accrue throughout their academic and test-taking career. You, on the other hand (I’m assuming) have no such hurdles that you were born with and carry with you throughout your life. I would never suggest that affirmative action policies don’t need some work. I think we should continue to evaluate them and consider improved ways to level the playing field. However, this seems to be a pet topic of whites whining, “Why don’t _I_ ever get a break.” The answer to that question is that you HAVE a break on the basis of your skin color alone. Affirmative action doesn’t affect you much because you ALWAYS have other opportunities. If you’re so tremendously concerned about the poor minorities and how all this big bad affirmative action is harming them, why don’t you suggest other means of levelling the playing field, rather than complaining about our current means? Get involved in Head Start, be a mentor to a minority student, tutor kids for free. I don’t believe AA policies are a conspiracy theory to keep minorities down. I believe they’re simply our first attempt to create equality in education. Go ahead…have another crack at it. L ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2002, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/28 "2002-04-15T23:06:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SexyWriter \*You, on the other hand (I’m assuming) have no such hurdles that you were born with and carry with you throughout your life. Are you addressing me? It’s not relevant, but I’m the son of a Jewish immigrant from Poland. At the time I applied to college, there was some degree of selection against people from the NYC area. There were no anti-discrimination laws. It was believed that many colleges discriminated against Jews. That’s what the word “quotas” meant in those days. (Come to think of it, affirmative action quotas still have the impact of limiting the number of Jews in attendance.) My first job in 1968 was with a company so prejudiced that it took them 170 years to have a corporate officer who wasn’t a white male Protestant. Many Jewish actuaries began their careers with State Insurance Departments, because most companies practiced religious discrimination. I feel fortunate_not_ to have had AA available to me. I’m lazy enough as it is. > [@](#): > > If you’re so tremendously concerned about the poor minorities and how all this big bad affirmative action is harming them, why don’t you suggest other means of levelling the playing field, rather than complaining about our current means? I have suggested school vouchers. Education isn’t a game; it’s learning. When a public school isn’t working for a student, she ought to have an alternative. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe AA policies are a conspiracy theory to keep minorities down. I believe they’re simply our first attempt to create equality in education. Go ahead…have another crack at it. I agree that AA was well-intentioned. I think AA may have been valuable at first. However, I hate it as a permanent policy. Unfortunately, AA turns out to be wonderful politically. I’m afraid we’ll get rid of it. You’re comment about AA being a “first attempt” is just naive. E.g., back in the early twentieth century, programs were designed for educationally deprived immagrant minorities. They were far more effective than AA. It’s a scandal that they’ve been dropped. The process is described in this hiighly recommend book: **Left Back : A Century of Battles over School Reform** by Diane Ravitch. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/29 "2002-04-16T13:29:02Z")
> [@](#): > > The answer to that question is that you HAVE a break on the basis of your skin color alone. When I wanted into engineering school I had to fill out a form with my SSN and GPA (from my first 2 years of university) on it. As long as the GPA was above the minimum, the SSN was added to the list of registered engineering students. So how was my skin color a ‘break’? ---
**Author:** ![ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/30 "2002-04-16T13:53:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*So how was my skin color a ‘break’? \*\* It was a “break” because you had an the advantage of being caucasion (I assume from your question) at every step of the way through your education. You were treated as if you were a member of the ruling class. Teachers expected more/different things from you. You were more likely to live in higher income homes with more educated parents. You had an easier time attaining that GPA than someone with the disadvantages of a minority skin color. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/31 "2002-04-16T14:24:24Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > I have read that this claim is completely bogus and has never been true. I know for certain that it is not true today. My wife is a bio-statistician. Part of Prof. december’s professional responsibility is making sure that this sort of sampling error does not occur. Medical journals do publish papers with this sort of error. \*\* It’s not bogus, and if you think it is please post an appropriate cite that responds to the one I posted. I’m sorry, but your “knowing” doesn’t qualify as a cite. And also note that I said “historically”, meaning “back in the past”. Gender bias in medical research–while still present in some degree–is not nearly as bad now as it was a couple of decades ago. But this doesn’t dispute my point that diversity–in this case, gender-wise–is important. \*\* > [@](#): > > It would be hypocritcal of a Jew to fault activists for using past injustice for political purpose. Our use of the Holocost initated the practice. However, please don’t include an attack on science in this mix.\*\* I don’t get what you saying at all, **december**. Clarify? Not surprisingly, I think you have missed my point. The Tuskeegee exeriment is a perfect example of scientists incorporating the biases of their times into their hypotheses and methodology. They thought they were doing “good” science, and the government thought so too. And yet it’s clear they were not. Perhaps if black people had been represented in both the subject pool AND the Ph.D’s doing the so-called “study”, the Tuskeegee experiment would have never happened. I was saying this in response to an earlier poster who questioned the need for diversity in science. What was YOUR point? There’s a tendency to objectify human subjects in scientific research. This objectification is heightened when those being studied and those doing the studying are somehow “different”, either in terms of gender, ethnicity, or race. A simple perusal of the history of science would shed light on this. Do you deny this, **december**? I can dig up some recommended literature if you don’t believe me. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/32 "2002-04-16T14:55:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SexyWriter \* > \*\* > > It was a “break” because you had an the advantage of being caucasion (I assume from your question) at every step of the way through your education. You were treated as if you were a member of the ruling class. Teachers expected more/different things from you. You were more likely to live in higher income homes with more educated parents. You had an easier time attaining that GPA than someone with the disadvantages of a minority skin color. \*\* You know all of these things based on nothing other than skin color? Wow. You must possess amazing skills of perception. Either that or they’re generalizations that are silly to make because they assume that **every** white person has all of these advantages, which is no more true than saying every black person is disadvantaged. I’d hardly call a student at Pomfret Preparatory Academy disadvantaged based on his being black, nor would I call a student at a tiny, crumbling school in Appalachia advantaged based on his being white. But I guess it’s easier to just look at a person’s skin and assume their life must’ve been a certain way. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/33 "2002-04-16T16:14:11Z")
You’ve asked me for cites. Fair enough. I will make the same request of you. > [@](#): > > Gender bias in medical research–while still present in some degree–is not nearly as bad now as it was a couple of decades ago. I’d like a cite that it’s still present to some degree. I’d like a cite that it ever existed – someone more reliable than a fibbing feminst. > [@](#): > > This doesn’t dispute my point that diversity–in this case, gender-wise–is important. Certainly it’s important in study subjects. And, it’s important in hiring. > [@](#): > > I don’t get what you saying at all, **december**. Clarify? I’m saying the Jews have used the horror of the Holocost to claim victim status, in a a way that was politically useful. E.g., it played a role in the UN’s decision to create the State of Israel. > [@](#): > > Perhaps if black people had been represented in both the subject pool AND the Ph.D’s doing the so-called “study”, the Tuskeegee experiment would have never happened. This all makes sense to me. (Although, much of this objectificaiton isn’t racial at all. Researchers may objectify all their subjects.) > [@](#): > > I was saying this in response to an earlier poster who questioned the need for diversity in science. What was YOUR point? My point was that medical research as a whole ought not be judged on a few horrible examples. Medical research has done enormous good for all of us. Furthermore, a great deal of medical research today is done in areas that will benefit minorities disporportionately. > [@](#): > > There’s a tendency to objectify human subjects in scientific research. This objectification is heightened when those being studied and those doing the studying are somehow “different”, either in terms of gender, ethnicity, or race. A simple perusal of the history of science would shed light on this. Do you deny this, **december**? I can dig up some recommended literature if you don’t believe me. I would be interested in your cites, although I don’t doubt your point. My wife has been a member of her school’s Institutional Review Board. Every medical research institution has an IRB. The IRB reviews all research involving human subjects to guard against this sort of objectification. I cannot swear that they’ve always been successful, but I know they’re trying. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/34 "2002-04-16T19:21:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by monstro \* > It’s not bogus, and if you think it is please post an appropriate cite that responds to the one I posted. I’m sorry, but your “knowing” doesn’t qualify as a cite. OK here’s a [cite](http://www.iwf.org/news/010417.shtml) > [@](#): > > 1. Myth: Women have been shortchanged in medical research. > > Fact: The National Institutes of Health and drug companies routinely include women in clinical trials that test for effectiveness of medications. By 1979, over 90% of all NIH-funded trials included women. Beginning in 1985, when the NIH’s National Cancer Center began keeping track of specific cancer funding, it has annually spent more money on breast cancer than any other type of cancer. Currently, women represent over 60% of all subjects in NIH-funded clinical trails. > > (Essential reading: Cathy Young and Sally Satel, “The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine,” Washington, D.C.: The Women’s Freedom Network, 1997.) Here’s [another](http://www.aei.org/ra/rasate010308.htm) > [@](#): > > Last week the National Institutes of Health, which had stated in 1997 that “women were routinely excluded” from its research, issued a retraction of this claim. The Institutes’ recognition of this error (made in two letters to a Rockville, Md.-based advocacy group called Men’s Health America) is most welcome. > > But don’t expect the women’s health lobby–the network of public “offices of women’s health” that exist on the state and federal levels, and the university-based “women’s health centers”–to admit it any time soon. For these groups must make women appear embattled and shortchanged if they are to gain government support, raise funds and justify themselves in the eyes of the public. > > The NIH retraction comes a few months after the publication of a study by Curt Meinert and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University. Writing in the journal Controlled Clinical Trials, Mr. Meinert debunks an enduring feminist myth: that there is gender bias in medical research. His review of major medical journals in 1985, 1990 and 1995 found that female subjects outnumbered males at a rate of 13 to 1 across all cancer trials, with the vast bulk of the women participating in trials specifically for breast cancer. ---
**Author:** ![ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/35 "2002-04-16T19:39:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*But I guess it’s easier to just look at a person’s skin and assume their life must’ve been a certain way. \*\* Yes, and it’s also easy to ignore differences in treatment of humans based on the color of their skin. Yes, the child who’s white and goes to a poor school STILL has the privilege of being white. The black who goes to Harvard STILL can’t get a cab after 10 pm. There are still assumptions made about people based on skin color that give people with white skin an advantage. Please see the link I included above. Having dozens of generations of people who feel a certain way about themselves behind you means that YOU are likely to feel that way too. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/36 "2002-04-16T19:59:00Z")
Exactly what privilege is that? And hypothetical situations about who can and can’t get a cab, unless you can back them up with some kind of credible study and concrete data are not going to cut it for proof of ‘privilege’. ---
**Author:** ![Cosmopolitan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/94ad74/32.png) [@Cosmopolitan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cosmopolitan)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2002, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448/37 "2002-04-16T21:12:43Z")
Originally posted by nightshadea > [@](#): > > In ca at state schools theres all kinds of programs for disbled students such as if your on social security you dont have to pay the unit fee you can get special seating helpers ect > > Now I dont know how it works at private universities but theres probaby scholarships and the like This is true. This isn’t, however, the issue I commented on/the issue that furt asked me about. I think. The issue is/was: Do college admissions boards employ the category of ‘disability’ in the AA sense? In other words, do they use it as the deciding factor when selecting applicants from pool of equally prepared disabled & non-disabled people? Did that even make sense? If you need clarification, ask me & I’ll try it again. 🙂 Anyway, having an “edge” at acceptance time isn’t the same thing as being an already enrolled disabled student receiving services (interpreters, special desks, etc.) to help you complete your equal workload successfully. Nor is it the same as getting a voucher for your textbooks or part of your tuition from the state or something of that nature. All this comes after you’ve been accepted. And take it from one who (regretfully) knows; even if you’re accepted from amongst equally qualified non-disabled folks because you’re disabled, only good grades are gonna keep you there. That’s why I’m 23 & haven’t finished my B.A. yet 🙂 (no offense to older students…I just wish I’d been less of a slacker so I coulda done it in four) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmative-actions-confusing-logic/103448.md?page=1)