# Affirmitive Action... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 27, 2002, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177 "2002-12-27T16:43:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Harmonix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Harmonix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harmonix)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/21 "2002-12-28T20:27:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Can anyone present FACTS for why it isn’t living up to its purpose Maybe not facts, but having cracked a few numbers myself.(I am definitely not a statistician) I found it interesting how at least in the UC(univeristy of california) system post-1998(banning of affirmative action in california) blacks, chicanos, latinos and american indians dropped off sharply in their admitted/applied ratio(seemed like a valid statistic if we assume all races have normally distributed intelligence curves with equal means). I concluded (with the presumption that intelligence is normally distrubuted …) that either 1) the admission system was biased, or that 2) the education system pre-college was sub-par for blacks, chicanos, latinos and american indians. Since the admission system has nothing to do with race it seems 2) would be the natural conclusion. It is my view that affirmative action covers up the real problem; bad High Schools. This effect is doubled when you look at the retention/graduation rates pre-1998 blacks, chicanos, latinos and american indians on average drop out more often. Thus Making many unqualified admissions moot. (although I admit I could not find any post-1998 statistics to compare them against, but hardly seems to matter to me. As it would only be evidence for wether or not there are equal race intelligence curves) ---
**Author:** ![Cessandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cessandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cessandra)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/22 "2002-12-28T21:00:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by monstro \* > **And also explain this: Why is it that blacks–out of all the minority groups that are targeted by AA–are always the ones who are consistently bashed on the head when it comes to debates on this subject? What about white women, the biggest beneficiaries? What about disabled people? Or people from non-Anglo backgrounds like Hispanics? Why is it that time and time again, folks like Tbone2 must drag BLACK PEOPLE AND IRREVELANT STATISTICS INTO THE DISCUSSION!!!** Just to make you feel better: I am a white woman, and a baptised Roman Catholic. (Not practicing anymore, but no one ever asked if I went to mass on any application.) When I was applying to college, there were plenty of opportunities for me to gain an advantage via Affirmitive Action. I didn’t have great grades, and didn’t have a whole lot of money, but frankly, I felt that if I didn’t get in on my merits alone, I didn’t deserve to get in. BTW, I did go to college. I got in to a decent four year state school and paid my way with savings and student loans. I got one scholarship, but it was for a different school that I chose not to attend. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/23 "2002-12-28T21:19:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > That said, I would favor cutting some slack in the interests of “diversity”. That has to be very elusive and subjective, but if you look around at your school and its 95% white bread, well, maybe a bit of outreach is in order. Maybe a lot. \*\* Outreach **is** important, and some places (universities) that can no longer use quotas or race as a factor have such programs to try and boost their minority enrollment. University of Florida has done that, after Gov. Bush instituted the One Florida program and prohibited the use of race as a factor in college admissions. At the beginning, the minority enrollment dropped, but now it is again going up (little by little), thanks to outreach programs with different high schools throughout the state. The programs have not affected the average GPA or SAT scores of the incoming students, and even with the quotas, UF had a high incoming freshmen GPA and SAT scores. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/24 "2002-12-28T22:28:06Z")
> [@](#): > > MONSTRO, > If you are “a little tired of this topic and the stupidity that it always seems to attract”, please allow me to be the first to invite you to feel free to glide right past this thread. I’m waiting for an intelligent discussion, one where people present information–not just than opinions or feelings–to support their stance on AA. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but I’m thinking that I may just see that develop in this thread. > [@](#): > > It is my view that affirmative action covers up the real problem; bad High Schools. I agree. I think often the causes of disparities–rather than the disparities themselves–are often neglected, and AA aids in this neglect in some cases, like in education. > [@](#): > > Just to make you feel better: I am a white woman, and a baptised Roman Catholic. (Not practicing anymore, but no one ever asked if I went to mass on any application.) When I was applying to college, there were plenty of opportunities for me to gain an advantage via Affirmitive Action. I didn’t have great grades, and didn’t have a whole lot of money, but frankly, I felt that if I didn’t get in on my merits alone, I didn’t deserve to get in. Um, why would this make me feel better? My problem is with people who turn AA into a platform for their anti-black feelings. Along with crime, welfare, teenage pregnancy, and AIDS, Affirmative Action has become yet another thing that can be blamed on black people. And I’m mighty sick of it. See what I mean? > [@](#): > > I always list myself as " Black" on any application. Does **Chanticleer** list himself as “female” too? Somehow I don’t think he does. When I was in college, I was given a scholarship for being a woman at a predominately male institution. But I was given no scholarship for being a black person at a predominately white institution. Yet, for many people, when they think of AA, their minds automatically go to race. And many of those people would have no problem granting a female an engineering scholarship but would get riled up about granting a black person with the same thing. Why? Because for many, AA is something that benefits someone else, someone mean and incompetent and undeserving. I think the effects of AA are over-exaggerated by both sides. Those who are vehemently against it over-exaggerate its faults and its unfairness. Those who laud its accomplishments can’t see that many of them are superficial. I don’t know enough about the program–it’s federal form or wannabe policies–to know whether or not it’s as bad or as good as people say it is. That’s why I’m wishing someone–perhaps the OPer–will educate us better about Affirmative Action. I’m sure non-American dopers would also appreciate this. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/25 "2002-12-28T23:29:15Z")
“However, failing to recognize that people are still denied opportunities because of their ethnicity regardless of their economic situation means that such efforts will help poor whites at the expense of other groups.” This may be true in certain situations but not in the case of college admission which seems to be the most controversial AA issue. I don’t think anyone believes American universities are biased against admitting blacks or Hispanics. ---
**Author:** ![Chanticleer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/65b543/32.png) [@Chanticleer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chanticleer)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/26 "2002-12-28T23:31:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by monstro \* > [ > Um, why would this make me feel better? My problem is with people who turn AA into a platform for their anti-black feelings. Along with crime, welfare, teenage pregnancy, and AIDS, Affirmative Action has become yet another thing that can be blamed on black people. And I’m mighty sick of it. > > See what I mean? > > Does **Chanticleer** list himself as “female” too? Somehow I don’t think he does. > \*\* No I don’t list myself as female. Obviously if I did and were challenged, I would lose. However there is no test of proof as to ones race except by appearance or proclamation so any challenge would be non-sustainable. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/27 "2002-12-28T23:39:18Z")
There will always be inequality? This is written, is it, in the Great Books of Final Truths? Really would like to have a look at that book. ---
**Author:** ![Chanticleer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/65b543/32.png) [@Chanticleer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chanticleer)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/28 "2002-12-28T23:54:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\* > Oh, piffle. No one has been allowed to even _ask_ about ethnic background on any job or housing application in over 25 years. If you are really putting down black on the after-approval paperwork, you are simply being spiteful. \*\* Oh piffle, ( don’t hear that one much now do ya?) Take a look and you will find it on most. That is how data are gathered for AA programs. It is not mandatory that it be filled in but many promotions are given on a tiered system taking a percent of the highest exam scores but insuring a number of minorities. This makes it possible for a minority candidate to be promoted even though the applicant wasn’t in the highest group on the promotional exam. This guarantees 2 things, one is that a minority is promoted just because of their race or gender and secondly that someone is not promoted solely on the basis of their race or gender. If you still hold to your “oh piffle” argument please check with the Indianapolis Police Department regarding their promotion policy. This is by no means a singular example with these type of practices. I work for a governmental ( state ) agency and there is absolutely a place on the application for employment for race. The choices to be checked listed as " Race or Ethnicity"are Caucasian Black Mixed American Indian Pacific Islander Asian Hispanic Other or unknown Again this section is voluntary but where else would they get information for the States AA program? Sorry I got a bit wordy…and "oh piffle gave me a chuckle.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2002, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/29 "2002-12-28T23:55:56Z")
Come now, **'lucy** , surely there will always be inequality. There will always be someone smarter than me, faster than me, stronger than me, less handsome than me. Or did you mean economic, social and ethnic inequality? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2002, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/30 "2002-12-29T00:45:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Take a look and you will find it on most. I’d be curious to see it on any _applications_ (not the forms that are filled out after the job offer is tendered). Having filled out several dozen of those suckers in the last few months, I note that there was no place on the initial application to record anything regarding ethnicity. This is consistent with the forms we were issued (in two separate companies) in the late 1970s (when I was the one handing out such forms) along with the instructions that we were not to ask about ethnicity until after an interview had been granted, (and were we to use any code to record ethnicity when meeting an applicant in person). ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2002, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/31 "2002-12-29T01:07:31Z")
I disagree Tom. Every job application that I have ever had to fill out had a space for ethnicity. And yes, those were the applications. However, they always had “optional” in parantheses next to the section, letting us know we didn’t have to mark anything. I generally refused to state. ---
**Author:** ![Cessandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cessandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cessandra)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2002, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/32 "2002-12-29T04:26:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Um, why would this make me feel better? My problem is with people who turn AA into a platform for their anti-black feelings. Along with crime, welfare, teenage pregnancy, and AIDS, Affirmative Action has become yet another thing that can be blamed on black people. And I’m mighty sick of it. Um, it would make you feel better because I’m not doing that? ---
**Author:** ![TBone2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@TBone2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBone2)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2002, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/33 "2002-12-29T16:13:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*Do you have cites to support this? Here, I offer two cites that note that affirmative action is not interpretted to mean quotas in general. Quotas have been imposed as consent decries by judges only in extreme cases where there is evidence of ongoing and persistent discrimination that is not being alleviated by less extreme measures: > > [http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-aaquotas.htm](http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-aaquotas.htm) > [http://www.hr.ucdavis.edu/FAQS/SAAD/001/004a](http://www.hr.ucdavis.edu/FAQS/SAAD/001/004a) > > Again, I’d like to see a cite. [This cite](http://christianparty.net/incarceration.htm) suggests that in order for this claim to be true, at least three fourths of the murders would have to be committed by blacks, which sounds dubious to me. (Even that would get the murder rate committed by whites down to ~2 per 100,000 which would still put it ahead of Poland, Czech Republic, England, France, Cyprus, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, and Japan, among others.) \*\* First, I’ll give you the actual text of Title VII, the original Civil Rights Act of 1964. [http://www.aristotle.net/~hantley/hiedlegl/statutes/42usc2ke.htm](http://www.aristotle.net/~hantley/hiedlegl/statutes/42usc2ke.htm) Sections 703(a) and (d) explicitly prohibit discrimination against any person. Section 703(j) is the language adopted by Congress in response to those who argued during the bill’s consideration that it would necessarily be done with quotas. Seems pretty cut and dried, right? As to what the judges then did with this seemingly clear language, I could give you a dozen cites, but this one is probably the best I have. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=443&page=193](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=443&page=193) The judges found the wiggle room they so desperately sought in Section 703(j), which prohibits the government from instituting quotas, _but doesn’t expressly prohibit anyone else from doing so._ The argument is that employers, unions, etc. may “voluntarily” institute quotas without violating Title VII. It doesn’t take much reading to see that the true, ironclad prohibition of quotas isn’t in 703(j) at all, but rather in 703(a) and 703(d). But since those sections afford no latitude at all, the judges simply ignored them and concentrated on the tiny chink they found in 703(j). For those without time or inclination to read the entire cites, the case was one in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legality of a racial quota system agreed upon by an employer and the steelworkers’ union. As for my statistics, :smack: I hereby apologize for the wanderings of my somewhat arthritic calculator fingers. The actual figure is 8-to-1, that is a black person in the U.S. is roughly eight times more likely to murder or be murdered than is a non-black person. The actual percentage of all murders is not “three fourths,” but around 52%. My numbers came from the federal Justice Department, and if someone twists my arm hard enough, I’ll come up with a link. **monstro** , fer Chrissake, _I_ didn’t drag blacks into this discussion, _Congress_ did that forty years ago! And for what it’s worth, **Bob Cos** opened the door on statistics. Sheesh! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2002, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/34 "2002-12-29T16:31:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > \*\*Come now, **'lucy** , surely there will always be inequality. There will always be someone smarter than me, faster than me, stronger than me, less handsome than me. > > Or did you mean economic, social and ethnic inequality? \*\* I’ve always wondered about that, too. Why the materialism fetish among socialists? Why not force smart people to tutor dumb people? ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Belowjob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2002, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/35 "2002-12-29T23:33:28Z")
No, TBone2, bringing erroneous statistics about black crime rates into a discussion about affirmative action is simply racist. Your posts reflect the anti-black hostility which motivates much of the opposition to AA. There are some sound, non-racist arguments against AA, but most AA opponents fail to make them. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/36 "2002-12-30T01:47:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > > 1. Whites (those society perceives as whites, if you’d prefer) continue to enjoy the privilege of their race. How, exactly, does someone with the same skin color as me having a bunch of money constitute me ‘enojoying the privilege of my race’? I asked this in the last pro-racial-discrimination GD thread, but no one cared to actually explain how that worked. Surely it’s not just that the people talking about AA or “Diversity” are racists? > [@](#): > > 1. We should all be disturbed by this circumstance. I’m disturbed that people advocate racist solutions such as punishing people based on what other people with the same skin color have done. > [@](#): > > 1. Until someone has a better solution, I support affirmative action, despite the fact that it may occasionally be applied unfairly. Why don’t you honestly say what you mean instead of using euphamisms? It’s not really ‘affirmative action’, it’s ‘hiring using race as one of the criteria’ - or do you mean something else? ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/37 "2002-12-30T01:53:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Belowjob \* > No, TBone2, bringing erroneous statistics about black crime rates into a discussion about affirmative action is simply racist. Your posts reflect the anti-black hostility which motivates much of the opposition to AA. Ah yes, of course, if you oppose racism directed against whites, then you’re anti-black! If you oppose hiring people based on their skin color, you’re a racist! Or do you have a cite for your claim that much of the opposition to AA is motivated by anti-black hostility? Especially nice would be one showing how much of the support for AA is motivated by anti-white hostility. > [@](#): > > There are some sound, non-racist arguments against AA, but most AA opponents fail to make them. Are there any non-racist arguments **for** AA? They have this odd tendancy to boil down to ‘we should punish these people because of what someone else with the same skin color has done’. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/38 "2002-12-30T04:00:10Z")
I’m sorry, but when I see people whining about “punishing” people for being white, it causes me to erupt in uncontrollable giggles. There is no question that a relatively small number of whites have been harmed when quotas have been used in a few areas (generally in education). Those policies are wrong and they should be stopped. However, the the number of non-whites who continue to be denied jobs, promotions, or housing is all out of proportion to the number of whites who may have been harmed. I fully support any white who has suffered discrimination to seek redress. Trying to portray AA as some great juggernaut that is harming most (or even many) whites is ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/39 "2002-12-30T04:19:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\*I agree. Affirmative action should be based on economic indicators not race. Since blacks are disproportionately poor they will still be helped. Class-based affirmative action will also probably be more popular and breed less resentment than its race-based counterpart. > > ``` > More generally the real solution lies in tackling the vicious problems which afflict the poor in America: crime, drug abuse , illegitimacy, rotten schools etc. These problems are complicated and government money alone won't solve them (though it helps) but it's shocking how little attention they receive in the public discourse. ** > > ``` I think this is really well stated. I was poor and white growing up in Massachusetts and never understood why Senator Brooke’s children should receive preferential treatment to me. Making admissions based on class, income, first one from the family to go to college, etc. would have the same effect and be much less controversial. On another note, I hate it when college admission officials talk about “diversity”. Are all people who belong to a particular race supposed to have the same experience and opinions? How alike are a Unitarian from New England, a Catholic from Chicago, and a Southern Baptist from Missisipi? How about an Eritrean immigrant, a Cuban American from Florida, and a kid from Harlem? If colleges were interested in diversity they would have to take into account your religion, political party affiliation, taste in music, whether you were a vegan, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2002, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/40 "2002-12-30T04:29:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > I’m sorry, but when I see people whining about “punishing” people for being white, it causes me to erupt in uncontrollable giggles. It’s pretty sick that you giggle over institutionalised racism as long as it’s directed at one certain group, but I’m not really suprised by it. > [@](#): > > There is no question that a relatively small number of whites have been harmed when quotas have been used in a few areas (generally in education). Those policies are wrong and they should be stopped. However, the the number of non-whites who continue to be denied jobs, promotions, or housing is all out of proportion to the number of whites who may have been harmed. Cite please? Or does asking for even the most basic support for your assertions magically turn me evil? > [@](#): > > I fully support any white who has suffered discrimination to seek redress. Of course, that’s why you giggle at the concept! Not only are you a racist, but you’re a liar too. > [@](#): > > Trying to portray AA as some great juggernaut that is harming most (or even many) whites is ludicrous. Considering that your entire ‘argument’ that AA is not institutionalized racism consists of giggling and unsupported assertions that, even were they true, would not absolve the charge of racism, I’d have to say that your charge above is simply absurd. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177.md?page=3)