# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2002, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/101 "2002-12-31T21:45:31Z")
Do I thnk racism is bad? Of course-- it’s certainly not good. It’s also pretty stupid. I also think marital infidelity is “bad”. Would I support a law against it? No. I can see where you and I disagree on 2 fundamental points. 1. I don’t believe that racism, in the private sector, should be illegal. I 'm guessing that you do. 2. I don’t believe that gov’t should guarantee equality of outcome, only equality under the law. I’m guessing you won’t be satisfied until there is equality of outcome. In that case, you’ll never be happy with a capitalist system. There is no one time magic wand to get rid of racism. But the gov’t cannot get rid of racism, either. What it CAN do is address specific wrongs done to specific people. It can do it’s best to make sure it provides it’s services no better or worse to any one group. But back to your 30 million minority. Surely there are some Blacks (correct me if I’m worng, but I assume you are talking about Blacks) that make more than Whites at the same job. Do they get any restitution? Oops. There goes your class action… I guess you’re just going to have to go back to individuals. But then, groups don’t have any rights anyway, only individuals do. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2002, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/102 "2002-12-31T21:50:39Z")
**Bob Cos** – the book is something like 600 pages long, filled with charts. I heartily recommmmend it. It would be well to read it along with Gunnar Myrdal’s _An American Dilemma_. They give quite opposite POVs, which allows one to try and judge which POV is more accurate today. (Myrdal’s classic book is now quite old, but it’s still a fascinating read.) There are oodles of statistics in Thernstrom’s book – far too many for me to remember several years after reading it. **tomndebb** – I have a lot of respect for you, despite what I see as your mistaken views on many subjects. Without reading the Thernstrom’s book, you know that you cannot judge whether their statistics are fair. In answer to your question, I certainly remember a variety of economic statistics. I think there were education statistics. I cannot recall what other statistics the book included. The book certainly gives the impression that it presents comprehensive statistics, rather than a few selected ones. E.g., here’s a review from Amazon > [@](#): > > **The Atlantic Monthly** , _Glenn C. Loury_ > > **America in Black and White** is an important, learned, and searching statement on our age-old social dilemma. It unapologetically celebrates the racial reforms realized by the institutions of American democracy over the past two generations, using a before-and-after narrative to highlight how rapid and extensive the change has been. The authors’ argument, buttressed by some 2,000 footnotes, rests on an impressive review of the scholarly literature in history, law, and the social sciences. Even so, the well-crafted prose conveys mastery of the subject without lapsing into jargon. Indeed, the book often moves smoothly between commentary on current affairs and scholarly exegesis. Such accessibility is a virtue, of course, but given the authors’ evident objectives it is also a necessity. For, more than a survey of social trends or a critical assessment of public policy, **America in Black and White** is a passionately rendered manifesto preaching what can fairly be called a conservative line on the race issue. [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684844974/ref=pm\_dp\_ln\_b\_6/103-0474052-6820605?v=glance&s=books&n=507846&vi=reviews](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684844974/ref=pm_dp_ln_b_6/103-0474052-6820605?v=glance&s=books&n=507846&vi=reviews) That cite includes several other reviews. Of course, they don’t take the place of the book itself. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2002, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/103 "2002-12-31T22:05:40Z")
> [@](#): > > I also think marital infidelity is “bad”. Would I support a law against it? No. IANAL, but isn’t adultery against the law? And who cares what you would and wouldn’t support? We make laws not based on people’s opinions but because society would be an unpleasant place to live without them. Obviously, people more wise than yourself believe that racial discrimination has far-reaching effects that can potentially damage society. History has shown this to be true. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe that racism, in the private sector, should be illegal. I 'm guessing that you do. Your argument is hella confusing. Racism (or discrimination) is bad but it shouldn’t be against the law, you say. People should be able to hire and not hire anyone they want. If we’re going to allow all of these racist companies in your world, why not allow the other private businesses to use Affirmative Action? Aren’t both operating under their own rules, picking and choosing employees the way they want to? Why is AA exempt as an allowable policy? Why is racism okay but a system devised to address racism not okay? (And actually, it isn’t against the law for a corporation to be racist. They are free to do whatever they want, they just won’t receive federal monies. So this particularly point is moot.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2002, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/104 "2002-12-31T22:45:53Z")
If all we’re talking about is whether or not AA should be a voluntary choice or not, then we’re in agreement-- I think it should. I was trying to delineate between gov’t action and private sector action. And yes, it IS illegal to discrimate in the private sector workplace. Companies are sued all the time because they “discrtimate” against minority employees or customers. Remember Denny’s a few years back? Let me try to list what we agree on: Outreach programs (that do not require racial consderations in the actual selection process) are fine. Private sector VOLUNTARY AA is fine. Now, how about gov’t AA which takes racial considerations into the final selection process. Do you think that’s OK? And here I mean someone getting extra points SOLELY for the color of their skin. Not because they are poor or had some know obstable to overcome, but just because they are of a certain race. Is that OK? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2002, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/105 "2002-12-31T22:58:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Without reading the Thernstrom’s book, you know that you cannot judge whether their statistics are fair. However, if they post all the statistics in the world and try to make the claim that there was a decline in economic achievement that followed _and proceeded from_ the the civil rights laws of the 1960s, I can pretty well figure that they have engaged in the _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy implied in the last paragraph that you quoted from Sowell. I am not dismissing them out of hand; I was just curious as to the direction they ttok with their argument. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2002, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/106 "2002-12-31T23:04:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Private sector VOLUNTARY AA is fine. Right now it IS voluntary. So what are you arguing? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2002, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/107 "2002-12-31T23:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > And yes, it IS illegal to discrimate in the private sector workplace. Yes it is. From [http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html:](http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html:) > [@](#): > > What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination? > > Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; > > the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination; > > the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older; > > Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments; > > Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and > > the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens. These laws protect citizens, helping to ensure that everyone has equal access to life, liberty and the pursuit of property (or happiness). So why do you think they’re so bad? ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/108 "2003-01-01T08:53:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > \*\*\*\*No, LOTS of people who are white get LOTS more money than people who aren’t white. As a matter of fact, examining both groups as a whole, where the only differentiation is race, the gap is enormous. So, you want to punish some white people because other people with the same skin color have money? You still haven’t answered that basic question. > [@](#): > > The vague statistics you’re having trouble getting your head around are the U.S. Census data (try following the link sometime). Let me help you out. [As an example](http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/perinc/new02_001.htm), blacks 18 years and older have a mean income of $24,624, or 70% of the mean income non-hispanic whites enjoy ($35,333). Can you understand the implication of this gap? Do you understand that this is not anecdotal? The implications of this gap are that whites on average earn more than blacks on average, not that discrimination against blacks occurs or that all whites gain any advantage at all. You have failed to provide support for your claims time and again, and repeating yourself ad nauseum without providing any real argument doesn’t make it so. Rather critically missing is anything showing that being white in and of itself confers an advantage rather than that people with the advantage happen to be white. In other words, you haven’t done anything to demonstrate that being white provides some advantage rather than that there are a lot of white people with money. Bill Gates may have truckloads of money, but that doesn’t make any difference when Bill Smith gets fired because the company doesn’t want to risk being called racist for firing someone who has more diversity checkboxes. I’ve snipped out the big chunk where you keep repeating ‘people with white skin earn more on average than people with black skin, therefore people with black skin are being discriminated against’ since it’s irrelevant and simply highlights your lack of basic statistical knowledge. > [@](#): > > Wanna try again?\*\*Yeah, right, _I’m_ the racist in this thread. Gotcha. You’re the one who advocates institutionalized discrimination against memebers of a particular race, so yup you’re the racist. > [@](#): > > Do you get it yet? What I get is that you’re a racist who needs to take stats 101. > [@](#): > > Or do you want to keep believing that your narrowly worded question, which ignores broader issues and undisputed facts, actually somehow scores you a point? My simple question cuts to the core of “affirmative action” - how does penalizing one middle-class person in favor of another on the basis of how many rich people with the same skin color there are make any sense? ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/109 "2003-01-01T08:56:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > Since I have never advocated discriminating against anyone You have advocated discriminating against whites. You don’t want to admit that you’re a racist, but advocation of discrimination against a particular group on the basis of skin color pretty much answers the question for you. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/110 "2003-01-01T15:28:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Riboflavin \* > \*\*So, you want to punish some white people because other people with the same skin color have money? You still haven’t answered that basic question. \*\*This is called a straw man, in case you’re interested. Please show me where I’ve advocated this. You are assuming, in contradiction to what has actually been posted, that AA = something very particular in practice and to most (if not all) of the pro-AA posters in this thread. You have yet to demonstrate it. > [@](#): > > \*\*_The implications of this gap are that whites on average earn more than blacks on average_, not that discrimination against blacks occurs or that all whites gain any advantage at all…\…Rather critically missing is anything showing that being white in and of itself confers an advantage rather than that people with the advantage happen to be white. \*\*(Italics added.) This is amazing. See the phrase I’ve highlighted. That’s not an implication, Mr. Statistical Expert. That’s explicit in the statistics. And, um, that critically missing piece that you’re searching for _is_ the stats that show whites have an economic advantage. Most reasonable people would consider this a rather telling piece of data. Are you actually arguing that a gap like this that exists across tens of millions of people where the only differentiation is race can be expained by…by what? Give it a rip. I’d love to see your theory as to what creates this disparity. Please. Enlighten us all. > [@](#): > > \*\*You’re the one who advocates institutionalized discrimination against memebers of a particular race, so yup you’re the racist. \*\*Straw man. Show me where I’ve done this. You may or may not be a racist, but you certainly don’t know how to debate. > [@](#): > > \*\*What I get is that you’re a racist who needs to take stats 101. \*\*How old are you, pal? Did you learn your debating techniques on the playground? > [@](#): > > \*\*My simple question cuts to the core of “affirmative action” - how does penalizing one middle-class person in favor of another on the basis of how many rich people with the same skin color there are make any sense? \*\* This is called begging the question. Please demonstrate that the “penalty” is occurring and that this is what affirmative action is advocating. Otherwise your question is nonsense, just as it has been since the first time you posed it. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/111 "2003-01-01T15:34:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > **I don’t believe that gov’t should guarantee equality of outcome, only equality under the law. I’m guessing you won’t be satisfied until there is equality of outcome. In that case, you’ll never be happy with a capitalist system.** I believe that real equality under the law, when the law includes AA, would produce a roughly equal outcome. I think this is an important distinction. ---
**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:** [January 1, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/112 "2003-01-01T15:38:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by monstro \* > \*\*No, but blacks are more likely to be turned down for loans than whites, everything else being the same. As long as this is fact, the government should be acting as a watch dog. > > [http://www.sfbg.com/News/33/12/Features/oakland.html](http://www.sfbg.com/News/33/12/Features/oakland.html) > > [http://www.dispatch.com/news/special/homeloan/721176.html](http://www.dispatch.com/news/special/homeloan/721176.html) > > [http://powerreporting.com/color/63.html](http://powerreporting.com/color/63.html) > > Blacks are also more likely to be victim to predatory lending practices.\*\* Claiming that this is “a fact” is more than a little premature. You cite to three sources. In reverse order: (1) a newspaper article about senators scolding bankers over disputed statistics. I’m sorry, but Sen. Alan Dixon is _not_ a statistician; plays for political soundbites are _not_ evidence. I also note that the article says that several banking regulatory agencies – including the Fed, the Treasury Department, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency – dispute the interpretation that the statistics in question demonstrate racial discrimination. (2) an article about one loan applicant who merely _alleges_ discrimination in their home loan application, an allegation denied by the bank in question. The complaint in question is ridiculous, too: for instance, she’s complaining about the bank running a credit check on the day of closing – but that’s a common practice, which is why most home-buying guides recommend putting off major purchases until after closing. (3) A newspaper account of a study by an activist group (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)). This is the only really substantive piece of evidence you’ve provided. But there are problems here, too. First of all, it’s from an activist group, so there’s a bias – when was the last time you heard of a study from a reform group that didn’t find a need for reform?. Second, the study apparently did not control for the myriad of variables that go into a home lending decision: it just looks at skin color alone. A study that _does_ control for such factors is available [at the Federal Reserve website](http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/1997/199702/199702pap.pdf). It finds that, when critical lending factors are controlled for, there is no disparity in lending between blacks and whites _except_ for marginal applicants (i.e., those at the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder). It further states that no conclusive answers can be drawn as to the cause of the differential among “marginal” applicants. To quote from the study: > [@](#): > > This paper reexamines claims that non-economic discrimination persists in mortgage loan origination decisions. I find that racial differences in outcomes do exist, as minorities fare worse regarding debt-to-income requirements but better for loan-to-value requirements. Overall, significant racial differentials exist only for “marginal” applicants and are not present for those with higher incomes or those with no credit problems. Thus, the claim that non-economic discrimination is a general phenomenon is refuted. Further, I can say little regarding the existence of discrimination among “marginal” applicants. To conclude that such discrimination exists, one must prove that the observed differences are not due to economic factors. (Emphasis mine) We went through this same topic in a thread that died in the Great Board Crash. Suffice it to say that claims of widespread racial redlining in lending are not proven. ---
**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:** [January 1, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/113 "2003-01-01T15:40:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by monstro \* > **IANAL, but isn’t adultery against the law?** No, it is not. Grounds for divorce, certainly, but not against the law. ---
**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:** [January 1, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/114 "2003-01-01T15:50:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by monstro \* > \*\*If we’re going to allow all of these racist companies in your world, why not allow the other private businesses to use Affirmative Action? Aren’t both operating under their own rules, picking and choosing employees the way they want to? Why is AA exempt as an allowable policy? Why is racism okay but a system devised to address racism not okay? \*\* As I understand his argument, he _wouldn’t_ have a problem with a company voluntarily instituting AA on its own (i.e., as a decision not influenced by government-imposed antidiscrimination rules). Indeed, if AA increases a company’s market competitiveness, a company would be wise to institute such a program. It’s the notion of a government mandate – whether that mandate comes from statutory law, court decisions, or strings for government funds – that he’s bothered by, because the government is under an obligation to treat all its citizens in a colorblind fashion.\*\* > [@](#): > > (And actually, it isn’t against the law for a corporation to be racist. They are free to do whatever they want, they just won’t receive federal monies. So this particularly point is moot.) \*\* This is patently false. A racist company would face civil rights complaints from minorities it either failed to hire, fired, or created a hostile work environment around, and would pay the resultant damages therefrom. I’m not saying that is a bad thing, just that the federal money “carrot” is not the only issue at play here. ---
**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:** [January 1, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/115 "2003-01-01T16:04:41Z")
And just to address **tomndebb** ’s repeated protestatations about outreach programs: No one objects to outreach programs. No one. Not Ward Connerly, not me, not anyone. No one has any objections to making extra efforts to find qualified people in the minority population. That is a laudable plan. It is a good thing. The problem is, AA proponents play “hide the ball.” When challenges to AA arise, they bleat on about outreach programs, _without acknowledging that no one is challenging the outreach programs_. Every attack on AA has been an attack on either full-on quota systems, or de facto quota systems. I have some firsthand experience with this. I earned my law degree at the University of Texas. At the time I was there, the 5th Circuit ruled on an appeal in a lawsuit brought by Cheryl Hopwood challenging the law school’s admissions practices. The 5th Circuit held UT Law’s admissions process unconstitutional. I was in the last class admitted under the affirmative action regime struck down by the court, so as you can imagine the facts of the Hopwood case were discussed frequently when I was a student. The facts that emerged at trial were as follows: UT Law would take applications and sort them into three categories. They were: 1. Presumptive admit 2. Additional consideration 3. Presumptive reject Students whose undergraduate GPA and LSATs were high were put in the first group, and automatically admitted without further review. Similarly, students with low GPA/LSAT combinations were put in the last group, and were sent a rejection letter without further review. Students with borderline GPA/LSAT combos were put in the middle group, and admission officers would look at other factors (essay, personal factors, socioeconomic background, life experience, etc.) in making admission decisions. The crucial fact that came out in the Hopwood case was this: Black and Hispanic students were automatically admitted with scores that, had they come from a white or Asian student, would have yielded an automatic rejection. That’s right: they didn’t just get bumped into the “additional consideration” group, but rather all the way up to the “presumptive admit” group. That is not an outreach program. That is a quota system, any way you slice it, and a quota system that significantly lowers the bar for admisson to minority candidates. Yet AA proponents still managed to accuse opponents of trying to dismantle outreach programs. That is fundamentally dishonest. Perhaps the obvious unstated premise should be stated: when an AA opponent talks about ending AA, he or she is _not_ referring to outreach programs; he or she is only referring to those programs that are either quota-based or that act as de facto quotas. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/116 "2003-01-01T16:21:47Z")
> [@](#): > > You have advocated discriminating against whites. You are simply making up this little falsehood. > [@](#): > > And just to address tomndebb’s repeated protestatations about outreach programs: > > No one objects to outreach programs. No one. Not Ward Connerly, not me, not anyone. No one has any objections to making extra efforts to find qualified people in the minority population. That is a laudable plan. It is a good thing. > > The problem is, AA proponents play “hide the ball.” When challenges to AA arise, they bleat on about outreach programs, without acknowledging that no one is challenging the outreach programs. Every attack on AA has been an attack on either full-on quota systems, or de facto quota systems. This is as disingenuous as the “hide the ball” people. There are a number of people who pretend that outreach is not AA. They then claim that all AA is discriminatory (because they have carefully eliminated the non-discriminatory parts for the purpose of their discussions). There are also people who argue that even outreach programs are discriminatory. ---
**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:** [January 1, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/117 "2003-01-01T16:32:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*This is as disingenuous as the “hide the ball” people. > > There are a number of people who pretend that outreach is not AA. They then claim that all AA is discriminatory (because they have carefully eliminated the non-discriminatory parts for the purpose of their discussions).\*\* Please. What outreach programs are under attack? Prop 209 was not about outreach. Neither was the Hopwood case. Neither was the UMichigan case. Neither was _Adarand_. AA opponents have to use the term “AA” instead of “quota” because otherwise their opponents will simply say “oh, but we just _hate_ quotas; AA isn’t about quotas, it’s about _outreach_” while simultaneously defending programs that act as de facto quotas.\*\* > [@](#): > > There are also people who argue that even outreach programs are discriminatory. \*\* Such as? I’ll admit I shouldn’t have been so absolutist in my comments – maybe there are some fringe elements that would oppose pure outreach programs – but the _mainstream_ AA opponents certainly do not, at least so long as the outreach programs do not operate as de facto quotas. PS: My 1,000th post! Can I enter the secret cabal now? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/118 "2003-01-01T16:38:41Z")
> [@](#): > > What outreach programs are under attack? I have seen them attacked in two places: in private industry and in “philosophical” discussions such as this one. (The government does not have much in the way of outreach, to begin with, so there is little public debate on that issue.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/119 "2003-01-01T16:41:19Z")
> [@](#): > > defending programs that act as de facto quotas. I’m curious. I do not like quotas in any context, but if the issue is one of _de facto_ quotas and not _de jure_ quotas, what is your objection to them, since the government would not be writing laws to favor one population. specifically? ---
**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:** [January 1, 2003, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177/120 "2003-01-01T16:44:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*I’m curious. I do not like quotas in any context, but if the issue is one of _de facto_ quotas and not _de jure_ quotas, what is your objection to them, since the government would not be writing laws to favor one population. specifically? \*\* The objection is the same as the objection to literacy tests in the Jim Crow South: the de facto system is designed to accomplish what cannot be accomplished explicitly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/affirmitive-action/145177.md?page=7)