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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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’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).
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.
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?
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!
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.
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?
I’m disturbed that people advocate racist solutions such as punishing people based on what other people with the same skin color have done.
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?
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
Cite please? Or does asking for even the most basic support for your assertions magically turn me evil?
Of course, that’s why you giggle at the concept! Not only are you a racist, but you’re a liar too.
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.
