# Can Democrats perform better with white voters?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261>\
**Category:** Politics & Elections\
**Created:** [October 25, 2019, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261 "2019-10-25T01:34:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 10\
**Page:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![str8cashhomie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7cd45c/32.png) [@str8cashhomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/str8cashhomie)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261/181 "2019-11-16T02:59:08Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> If the societal cost of racial preferences are predominantly going to be borne by a politically weak minority like asian americans, and there is no practical way to limit the benefits, then what do you think is the right answer?
> 
> When the overwhelming majority of the beneficiaries of race based affirmative action are black immigrants and hispanics and the burden of this racial preference is borne predominantly by another minority, how do you justify the practice?

I think the only two policy options are keep AA or eliminate it and the happy middle ground where you keep the good elements and throw out the bad don’t work, because colleges aren’t allowed to have a formula to determine how they factor race into the equation.

Since we have to choose the least bad option from imperfect options, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that wanting to continue Affirmative Action is racist (I also wouldn’t say wanting to eliminate it is racist).

I personally think the pros outweigh the cons, but if we actually reached the point where Black and Latino people were over-represented I would likely think that AA had outlived its usefulness.

> [@](#):
>
> Everything is race blind and then you add affirmative action preference at the end. We are not asking people to “self identify” as black. We are asking “were a quarter of your ancestors American slaves” (or whatever other formula you want to devise to determine who qualifies for the preference).
> 
> The number of african and caribbean immigrants prior to WWII is trivial and is very sparse before the civil rights movement. Pre civil rights era - not a lot of blacks immigrating to the USA. Post civil rights era - a lot more black immigration to the USA. 1960 is not that long ago as far as records are concerned. If you can’t prove that your ancestors were in america before 1960, then they probably weren’t.
> 
> American indian tribes have registries of tribe members. They take that shit seriously, I would take their word for who qualifies and who does not.

An example of how this wouldn’t work [is the Coahuiltecan people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coahuiltecan), an indigenous tribe that exited in an area that would now span across both the US and Mexico, and that has been essentially wiped out as a distinct ethnic identity. So a large number of Latinos could have ancestry from this tribe, but it would be almost impossible for anyone to know.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261/182 "2019-11-16T04:38:24Z")

</div>

> [@str8cashhomie](#):
>
> I think the only two policy options are keep AA or eliminate it and the happy middle ground where you keep the good elements and throw out the bad don’t work, because colleges aren’t allowed to have a formula to determine how they factor race into the equation.
> 
> Since we have to choose the least bad option from imperfect options, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that wanting to continue Affirmative Action is racist (I also wouldn’t say wanting to eliminate it is racist).

I think it’s racist to continue to support affirmative action when you know that it oppresses a minority group.

It’s not racist against blacks and hispanics, and for some people that’s the only type of racism they find offensive.

It’s one thing to say that discrimination against whites isn’t racism because whites have all the power and while you can discriminate against people more powerful than you, so you can’t actually be racist against them. It’s another thing to say that you can discriminate against asians without being racist because asians are successful. That would also justify discriminatingt against jews and any other model minority.

> [@](#):
>
> I personally think the pros outweigh the cons, but if we actually reached the point where Black and Latino people were over-represented I would likely think that AA had outlived its usefulness.

Blacks are slightly overrepresented at harvard. 14.3% at harvard 12.7% in the general population.

> **[Admissions Statistics](https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics)**
>
> Harvard welcomes students from across the country and all over the world, with diverse backgrounds and far-ranging talents and interests.

> **[Demographics of the United States | Race](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race)**
>
> The United States Census Bureau collects racial data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification. Many other countries count multiple races based on origin while America compiles multiple dozens of ethnicity groups into skin color grouping them together. The racial classifications and definitions used by the U.S. Census Bureau are:
> 1.White: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europ...

Most of those black students are black immigrants or the descendants of black immigrants.

So, how are you measuring the pros and cons?

> [@](#):
>
> An example of how this wouldn’t work [is the Coahuiltecan people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coahuiltecan), an indigenous tribe that exited in an area that would now span across both the US and Mexico, and that has been essentially wiped out as a distinct ethnic identity. So a large number of Latinos could have ancestry from this tribe, but it would be almost impossible for anyone to know.

How did America oppress them? AFAICT, they were decimated before the Louisiana purchase.

There might very well be other corner cases.  
Heck, there might be an emancipated slave sometime in history that returned to africa or escaped to the caribbean and had descendants that came back to america as african/caribbean immigrants. Should we extend affirmative action to the entire continent of africa?

For the most part we can fairly well identify who we owe that moral debt to and that debt is generally not owed to hispanic immigrants.

Hispanics are 12.2% of harvard and 17.6% of the general population. So hispanics are underrepresented but not as underrepresented as whites

Whites are 36% of harvard and 61% of the US population.

Ultimately, I don’t think proportional representation should be a driving factor or even much of a consideration beyond a threshhold amount.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![str8cashhomie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7cd45c/32.png) [@str8cashhomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/str8cashhomie)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261/183 "2019-11-16T05:07:16Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> Blacks are slightly overrepresented at harvard. 14.3% at harvard 12.7% in the general population.
> 
> [https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics](https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics)
> 
> [Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race)
> 
> Most of those black students are black immigrants or the descendants of black immigrants.

Overall, black people are still underrepresented in colleges, and black people who go to college are more likely to have to go into debt to pay for their college education (see post 79). Harvard is a single example that isn’t representative of colleges as a whole.

> [@](#):
>
> How did America oppress them? AFAICT, they were decimated before the Louisiana purchase.

I’m not exactly sure what your personal criteria are for including descendants of slavery and Native American genocide but this group and their descendants is historically oppressed and disadvantaged, and couldn’t easily be separated into a Latino/non-Latino designation.

In any case, just looking at a list of extinct Native American languages in the United States, lists countless examples of tribal identities that no longer exist, and have been absorbed into other ethnic groups: [List of extinct languages of North America - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_languages_of_North_America#United_States)

> [@](#):
>
> There might very well be other corner cases.  
> Heck, there might be an emancipated slave sometime in history that returned to africa or escaped to the caribbean and had descendants that came back to america as african/caribbean immigrants. Should we extend affirmative action to the entire continent of africa?
> 
> For the most part we can fairly well identify who we owe that moral debt to and that debt is generally not owed to hispanic immigrants.

This is an argument for simplifying what people report, not asking everyone to trace back obscure family history.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261/184 "2019-11-16T16:49:57Z")

</div>

> [@str8cashhomie](#):
>
> Overall, black people are still underrepresented in colleges, and black people who go to college are more likely to have to go into debt to pay for their college education (see post 79). Harvard is a single example that isn’t representative of colleges as a whole.

OK so when discussing the harvard lawsuit, you say that blacks are under-represented. I show they are not underrepresented at harvard but you concede nothing about harvard’s discriminatory admissions practices.

You say that blacks are underrepresented at colleges generally.  
42% of whites and 34% of blacks ages 18-24 attend college. This does not seem like a gross disparity when you consider the higher poverty rates among blacks and how poverty rates correlate to college attendance. This is apparently an SES driven factor not a race driven factor.

You say that blacks take out more college loans.  
Noone has to take out loans because they are black, they have to take out loans because they are poor. You can argue about whether they are poor because they are black but ultimately this is another SES driven factor.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m not exactly sure what your personal criteria are for including descendants of slavery and Native American genocide but this group and their descendants is historically oppressed and disadvantaged, and couldn’t easily be separated into a Latino/non-Latino designation.
> 
> In any case, just looking at a list of extinct Native American languages in the United States, lists countless examples of tribal identities that no longer exist, and have been absorbed into other ethnic groups: [List of extinct languages of North America - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_languages_of_North_America#United_States)

Did you take a look at those languages? Most of them:  
(i) were absorbed by other existing recognized tribes that would qualify for affirmative action. e.g. [Abenaki language - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenaki_language) absorbed into the Penobscot tribe (federally recognized)  
(ii) people just stopped speaking the language and it died out. or  
(iii) they died out without any oppression from america [Adai language - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adai_language) there is no record of americans meeting an indian that actually spoke this language

Show me a significant population of american indians that are not part of a federally recognized.

> [@](#):
>
> This is an argument for simplifying what people report, not asking everyone to trace back obscure family history.

Wait. So we can add all sorts of complexity to promote affirmative action but we should not add any complexity and increase the impact of affirmative action and its negative affects on asians to make things simpler? How difficult is it to identify ancestry back to 1960? Why would you confer these benefits that come at the cost of discrimination against asians to people who other american indians will not accept as being american indian?

You don’t seem to be placing a whole lot of significance on the burden this places on asians when you promote a broad affirmative action policy that might pick up some hypothetical descendant of someone that was oppressed by the USA while definitely including a TON of people who were not (e.g. anyone from central or south america and most of mexico).

This disregard for the cost of this policy on asians would cause outrage on the left if we adopted a similar disregard for policies that had a negative affect on blacks or hispanics.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![str8cashhomie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7cd45c/32.png) [@str8cashhomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/str8cashhomie)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261/185 "2019-11-16T17:51:32Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> OK so when discussing the harvard lawsuit, you say that blacks are under-represented. I show they are not underrepresented at harvard but you concede nothing about harvard’s discriminatory admissions practices.
> 
> You say that blacks are underrepresented at colleges generally.  
> 42% of whites and 34% of blacks ages 18-24 attend college. This does not seem like a gross disparity when you consider the higher poverty rates among blacks and how poverty rates correlate to college attendance. This is apparently an SES driven factor not a race driven factor.

It’s not a gross disparity, in part because affirmative action is used in most colleges and has the effect of reducing the disparity. It’s obviously tough to separate race and class, but poverty rates among Black people is an aspect of systemic racial barriers in the US that can’t be discounted. In any case my previous link supports that black and latino people with 3.5 or higher high school GPAs are more likely to go to community college than white people.

> [@](#):
>
> You say that blacks take out more college loans.  
> Noone has to take out loans because they are black, they have to take out loans because they are poor. You can argue about whether they are poor because they are black but ultimately this is another SES driven factor.

I don’t know what SES stands for but yes, this is generally a refutation to the inaccurate criticism that affirmative action ends up meaning that rich/privileged black people end up disproportionately going to college.

> [@](#):
>
> Did you take a look at those languages? Most of them:  
> (i) were absorbed by other existing recognized tribes that would qualify for affirmative action. e.g. [Abenaki language - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenaki_language) absorbed into the Penobscot tribe (federally recognized)  
> (ii) people just stopped speaking the language and it died out. or  
> (iii) they died out without any oppression from america [Adai language - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adai_language) there is no record of americans meeting an indian that actually spoke this language
> 
> Show me a significant population of american indians that are not part of a federally recognized.

I happened to find another wikipedia article that listed known peoples in what is now the southeast of the USA: [Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Southeastern_Woodlands#List_of_peoples)

The list of known peoples was over 100, and there are now 20 federally recognized tribes.

One example on that list are the [Guale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guale) who had contact with both the Spanish and British before being wiped out primarily by disease and the British and being absorbed into many indigenous groups, absorbed by Spanish missions and may have been absorbed by an African American subculture/subethnicity.

> [@](#):
>
> Wait. So we can add all sorts of complexity to promote affirmative action but we should not add any complexity and increase the impact of affirmative action and its negative affects on asians to make things simpler? How difficult is it to identify ancestry back to 1960? Why would you confer these benefits that come at the cost of discrimination against asians to people who other american indians will not accept as being american indian?
> 
> You don’t seem to be placing a whole lot of significance on the burden this places on asians when you promote a broad affirmative action policy that might pick up some hypothetical descendant of someone that was oppressed by the USA while definitely including a TON of people who were not (e.g. anyone from central or south america and most of mexico).
> 
> This disregard for the cost of this policy on asians would cause outrage on the left if we adopted a similar disregard for policies that had a negative affect on blacks or hispanics.

The part about AA that is not complex is that most people know which race they identify as (BTW another simple aspect of AA is that people are not required to identify their own race if they think it will hurt them). The thing that I don’t think would work is trying to piecemeal things- I think the net result is either that you require a standard of proof that arbitrarily excludes a large number of people who are intended beneficiaries, or you keep letting people self-report, but on unknown aspects of their own history.

I haven’t disregarded the negative effects of this policy - I keep saying there are negative effects and we have to choose the least bad of imperfect options.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2019, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261/186 "2019-11-16T23:36:49Z")

</div>

> [@str8cashhomie](#):
>
> It’s not a gross disparity, in part because affirmative action is used in most colleges and has the effect of reducing the disparity.

The only colleges that really need to implement affirmative action are the more selective ones. What happens when you eliminate affirmative action is not that these students don’t go to college, they go to less selective colleges.

You seem to be arguing in good faith, you have an opinion, but you seem to be open to new facts. So to the extent facts matter to you, I present the case of california and prop 209.

Prop 209 prohibits the consideration of race in california public college admissions.

California has a 3 tier state college system.

At the top is the university of california system (including the flagship berkeley and ucla campus). These college generally admit students in the top 10% of their graduating class.

Next is the california state university system. These colleges draw from the top 33% of their graduating class

Finally is the california community college system. These colleges are open admissions to any student with a high school degree or equivalent.

After the passage of prop 209 the greatest impact was seen at the university of california level where the percentage of black students went from 3.8% of the student body in 1997 (the year before prop 209 took effect) 2.9% in 1998 (the first year prop 209 took effect). Today blacks are 4.1% of the freshman class as the uc system started to use ses and other non-race based preferences. The admission rate at berkeley and ucla are still low but these students were absorbed elsewhere in the system.

In the california state university system, the effects were much smaller with about a 10% initial drop in enrollment.

Graduation rates, and the rate of graduation with honors among black students went up significantly since prop 209 was implemented. Black students were no longer filling up the bottom of the curve at many schools.

The primary obstacle to college access for black students is not race, it is money. Poor black students have the same sort of obstacles to attending college as poor white and asian students but more black students are poor.

There is no lack of access to college based on race. Black women have the highest rates of college attendance in the country [Black Women Now the Most Educated Group in US](https://www.theroot.com/black-women-now-the-most-educated-group-in-us-1790855540)

> [@](#):
>
> It’s obviously tough to separate race and class, but poverty rates among Black people is an aspect of systemic racial barriers in the US that can’t be discounted. In any case my previous link supports that black and latino people with 3.5 or higher high school GPAs are more likely to go to community college than white people.

It’s not that tough to separate race and class. Just apply preferences by class rather than race. An SES based system will probably benefit blacks at 3 times the rate it will benefit whites and would do so without being racist.

Blacks and hispanics with 3.5 GPAs attend community college for several reasons. Primary among them is money. California community college los angeles costs a couple thousand dollars a year to attend, UCLA is about 30K if you commute from home. Once again this is entirely a wealth thing. not a race thing.

Show me some significant group of students getting top 10% SAT scores (1350+) going to community college. I bet the disparity shrinks to near nothing. It’s just not happening because with high GPAs and SAT scores, money stops being an issue for poor people attending college unless the student needs to work or take care of family.

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t know what SES stands for but yes, this is generally a refutation to the inaccurate criticism that affirmative action ends up meaning that rich/privileged black people end up disproportionately going to college.

Who said that affirmative action ends up meaning that rich/privileged black people end up disproportionately going to college? My criticism has been that the black beneficiaries of affirmative action have mostly been black immigrants and the children of black immigrants.

SES=socioeconomic status

You are also conflating two issues. Affirmative action, which really only applies to selective colleges and college affordability. There is no need for affirmative action and most colleges, the bigger obstacle is money.

Blacks are not attending colleges at significantly lower rates than anyone else, they take on more debt to do so because they poverty rate among blacks is higher.

> [@](#):
>
> I happened to find another wikipedia article that listed known peoples in what is now the southeast of the USA: [Indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Southeastern_Woodlands#List_of_peoples)
> 
> The list of known peoples was over 100, and there are now 20 federally recognized tribes.
> 
> One example on that list are the [Guale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guale) who had contact with both the Spanish and British before being wiped out primarily by disease and the British and being absorbed into many indigenous groups, absorbed by Spanish missions and may have been absorbed by an African American subculture/subethnicity.

“Guale society was shattered by extensive epidemics of new infectious diseases and attacks by other tribes.”

So how do the gaule = modern day hispanic population?

If you keep digging, I’m sure you can find corner cases. But you are justifying discrimination against asians to pay for some moral debt owed by america to some hypothetical tiny sliver of the hispanic population. You are supporting real and actual discrimination against asians to pay for some national debt to hispanics that you have to squint to see.

At this point I have to ask. Are you looking for the right answer or are you simply trying to find reasons to stick to your guns? This is at least the 5th time I have responded to your “yeah, but what about…” questions.

And each time I respond, you come back with a more and more remote scenario.

Do you have an open mind about this because I am really only doing this to convince you, I am not using this conversation with you as a proxy to convince a larger audience that may be lurking out there. The rest of this board has already seen this conversation and anyone that can be convinced with whatever facts and argument I have to present have already been convinced to one extent or another.

> [@](#):
>
> The part about AA that is not complex is that most people know which race they identify as (BTW another simple aspect of AA is that people are not required to identify their own race if they think it will hurt them). The thing that I don’t think would work is trying to piecemeal things- I think the net result is either that you require a standard of proof that arbitrarily excludes a large number of people who are intended beneficiaries, or you keep letting people self-report, but on unknown aspects of their own history.

Who is excluded by my arbitrary standards? The descendants of american indians whose heritage is so diluted that other american indians do not recognize them as such? Blacks who can’t figure out where their ancestors were in 1960?

If, as I argue, affirmative action results in discrimination against asians, then unless you are saying that asians should pretend not to be asian, we must limit the scope of affirmative action to those whom we feel reasonably confident a moral debt is owed.

Is that what you meant by “BTW another simple aspect of AA is that people are not required to identify their own race if they think it will hurt them” That asians should disguise their asian heritage. Because that is a pretty racist thing to suggest.

I don’t think you would suggest jews should hide their jewish identity to get a fair shake. There is already a pretty disturbing tendency for some asians to distance themselves from their heritage and culture.

> [@](#):
>
> I haven’t disregarded the negative effects of this policy - I keep saying there are negative effects and we have to choose the least bad of imperfect options.

And discriminating against asians to give preferences to hispanics (the vast majority of whom have no moral claim against america) seem like the least of all evils to you?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![str8cashhomie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7cd45c/32.png) [@str8cashhomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/str8cashhomie)\
**Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261/187 "2019-11-17T01:00:48Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> The only colleges that really need to implement affirmative action are the more selective ones. What happens when you eliminate affirmative action is not that these students don’t go to college, they go to less selective colleges.
> 
> You seem to be arguing in good faith, you have an opinion, but you seem to be open to new facts. So to the extent facts matter to you, I present the case of california and prop 209.
> 
> Prop 209 prohibits the consideration of race in california public college admissions.
> 
> California has a 3 tier state college system.
> 
> At the top is the university of california system (including the flagship berkeley and ucla campus). These college generally admit students in the top 10% of their graduating class.
> 
> Next is the california state university system. These colleges draw from the top 33% of their graduating class
> 
> Finally is the california community college system. These colleges are open admissions to any student with a high school degree or equivalent.
> 
> After the passage of prop 209 the greatest impact was seen at the university of california level where the percentage of black students went from 3.8% of the student body in 1997 (the year before prop 209 took effect) 2.9% in 1998 (the first year prop 209 took effect). Today blacks are 4.1% of the freshman class as the uc system started to use ses and other non-race based preferences. The admission rate at berkeley and ucla are still low but these students were absorbed elsewhere in the system.
> 
> In the california state university system, the effects were much smaller with about a 10% initial drop in enrollment.
> 
> Graduation rates, and the rate of graduation with honors among black students went up significantly since prop 209 was implemented. Black students were no longer filling up the bottom of the curve at many schools.
> 
> The primary obstacle to college access for black students is not race, it is money. Poor black students have the same sort of obstacles to attending college as poor white and asian students but more black students are poor.
> 
> There is no lack of access to college based on race. Black women have the highest rates of college attendance in the country [Black Women Now the Most Educated Group in US](https://www.theroot.com/black-women-now-the-most-educated-group-in-us-1790855540)
> 
> It’s not that tough to separate race and class. Just apply preferences by class rather than race. An SES based system will probably benefit blacks at 3 times the rate it will benefit whites and would do so without being racist.
> 
> Blacks and hispanics with 3.5 GPAs attend community college for several reasons. Primary among them is money. California community college los angeles costs a couple thousand dollars a year to attend, UCLA is about 30K if you commute from home. Once again this is entirely a wealth thing. not a race thing.

According to a 538 analysis of the aggregate of states that have banned affirmative action, there actually is a gap for research university attendance both among Black and Latino students, so there are noticeable AA effects outside of the most selective schools, and the bar between going to a university and either not getting any higher ed or going to a school such as a non-research college or community college (while they didn’t delineate specifically on community college) is affected by AA.

> **[Here’s What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action In College Admissions](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-what-happens-when-you-ban-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/)**
>
> UPDATE (June 23, 11 a.m.): On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court voted 4-3 to uphold the affirmative action program of the University of Texas at Austin. The p…

FYI, as [this blog](https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/no-black-women-are-not-the-most-educated-group-in-the-us/) explains, the data that article by theroot cites is actually that black women are the most educated within their race - in other words black women’s educational achievement is a higher proportion of black people is higher than women of any other race.

> [@](#):
>
> Who said that affirmative action ends up meaning that rich/privileged black people end up disproportionately going to college? My criticism has been that the black beneficiaries of affirmative action have mostly been black immigrants and the children of black immigrants.

It was a response to the statement that most Black Harvard-goers are African immigrants which implies that AA doesn’t actually help underprivileged minorities, but actually helps this privileged group of rich people who exploit the system, which was I thought what your point was.

> [@](#):
>
> “Guale society was shattered by extensive epidemics of new infectious diseases and attacks by other tribes.”
> 
> So how do the gaule = modern day hispanic population?
> 
> If you keep digging, I’m sure you can find corner cases. But you are justifying discrimination against asians to pay for some moral debt owed by america to some hypothetical tiny sliver of the hispanic population. You are supporting real and actual discrimination against asians to pay for some national debt to hispanics that you have to squint to see.

In the wiki article, it mentions that there is a modern day group of African Americans that may have some ancestry, and that there were multiple waves of refugees the fled to Spanish missions and other areas controlled by Spain. The important part is that none of their descendants could know. This is one example of a multitude of similar situations that occurred with Native American tribes.

> [@](#):
>
> If, as I argue, affirmative action results in discrimination against asians, then unless you are saying that asians should pretend not to be asian, we must limit the scope of affirmative action to those whom we feel reasonably confident a moral debt is owed.
> 
> Is that what you meant by “BTW another simple aspect of AA is that people are not required to identify their own race if they think it will hurt them” That asians should disguise their asian heritage. Because that is a pretty racist thing to suggest.
> 
> I don’t think you would suggest jews should hide their jewish identity to get a fair shake. There is already a pretty disturbing tendency for some asians to distance themselves from their heritage and culture.

I don’t care if people report their race or not. I don’t want there to be a system where any minority group doesn’t get a fair shake, but unfortunately there is no system that is fair to everyone. AA simply has the advantage that it asks people to identify something about themselves they readily know and doesn’t distinguish between who can actually trace their family tree back several generations.

> [@](#):
>
> And discriminating against asians to give preferences to hispanics (the vast majority of whom have no moral claim against america) seem like the least of all evils to you?

I can’t choose a system that leads to no bias. This is why I don’t think either side of the AA discussion is racist.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [November 17, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261/188 "2019-11-17T18:14:15Z")

</div>

> [@str8cashhomie](#):
>
> According to a 538 analysis of the aggregate of states that have banned affirmative action, there actually is a gap for research university attendance both among Black and Latino students, so there are noticeable AA effects outside of the most selective schools, and the bar between going to a university and either not getting any higher ed or going to a school such as a non-research college or community college (while they didn’t delineate specifically on community college) is affected by AA.
> 
> [Here’s What Happens When You Ban Affirmative Action In College Admissions | FiveThirtyEight](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-what-happens-when-you-ban-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/)

You are moving the goalposts. Again.

We are talking about blacks at harvard and you say that you won’t be satisfied until blacks are no longer under-represented. I point out that blacks are over-represented at harvard. So you move the goalposts and say you don’t want blacks underrepresented in colleges.

I point out that there is no race based obstacle to college attendance and the obstacle we see is largely financial.

Now you say that it’s not enough that blacks have access to colleges, they have to have proportional attendance at public research universities.

At this point you seem to be saying that you simply want equality of outcome and are not really all that interested in equality of opportunity if it does not result in equality of results. You are further fairly dismissive of (or at the very least minimizing) the cost of these policies on asians.

> [@](#):
>
> FYI, as [this blog](https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/no-black-women-are-not-the-most-educated-group-in-the-us/) explains, the data that article by theroot cites is actually that black women are the most educated within their race - in other words black women’s educational achievement is a higher proportion of black people is higher than women of any other race.

Did you stop reading after the second paragraph? Here is an excerpt from the 4th paragraph:

Black women attend college at higher rates than any other group.  
“By both race and gender, a higher percentage of black women (9.7 percent) are enrolled in college than any other group, topping Asian women (8.7 percent), white women (7.1 percent) and white men (6.1 percent).”

At this point I can’t help but wonder if you have predetermined your conclusions and are simply resistant to facts that contradict your predetermined conclusions.

> [@](#):
>
> It was a response to the statement that most Black Harvard-goers are African immigrants which implies that AA doesn’t actually help underprivileged minorities, but actually helps this privileged group of rich people who exploit the system, which was I thought what your point was.

I think you are jumbling and conflating issues in your mind. I thought our discussion was about aa as an avenue for paying off america’s moral debt. I was arguing that we should limit who we credit with that debt because for every kid that gets an preference, there is another kid who is being denied opportunities they have earned. And when the kids being denied are disproportionately asian, we should not be extending the preference to a group as large as hispanics in order based on some hypothetical populations of extinct american indians that might form some small percentage of the genetic ancestry of hispanics as a whole.

> [@](#):
>
> In the wiki article, it mentions that there is a modern day group of African Americans that may have some ancestry, and that there were multiple waves of refugees the fled to Spanish missions and other areas controlled by Spain. The important part is that none of their descendants could know. This is one example of a multitude of similar situations that occurred with Native American tribes.

If your connection is so attenuated and remote that you cannot substantiate the link, then how do you justify extending such a profound preference to hispanics generally over asians?

I think race based aa is so profoundly counter to the principles of fairness and equality that it cannot be applied to a general population based on these remote corner cases absent substantiation.

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t care if people report their race or not. I don’t want there to be a system where any minority group doesn’t get a fair shake, but unfortunately there is no system that is fair to everyone. AA simply has the advantage that it asks people to identify something about themselves they readily know and doesn’t distinguish between who can actually trace their family tree back several generations.

And that is inherently unfair to asians and somewhat racist.

> [@](#):
>
> I can’t choose a system that leads to no bias. This is why I don’t think either side of the AA discussion is racist.

I can (and have) pointed out how your position that all blacks and hispanics should get a preference at the expense of asians is racist. Can you explain how my position that requires a fairly low threshold of substantiation is racist.

I don’t see my position as advocating for the elimination of aa preferences. But aa as it is practiced today is racist.

BTW, I think this might be the first time I have heard people say that hispanics generally can piggyback on the suffering of american indians to access aa preferences. Your position seems to be to make access to aa as simple and easy as possible.

I see no attempt to try and balance the burden aa places on asians with the benefits it provides to achieving the goals of a fair aa policy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\
**Post date:** [November 21, 2019, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261/189 "2019-11-21T18:39:55Z")

</div>

> [@FlikTheBlue](#):
>
> I The only thing Republicans have to do to win over naturally conservative minorities is to stop being racist. Democrats, on the other hand…

You might as well suggest that Republicans stop breathing. Racism has been a kingpin of Republican strategy since 1968, when Nixon won with his Southern Strategy. Suppression of minority voting is a major focus of their statehouse and national legislative agendas. If they stop being racist, they lose the most of the alt-right vote which they depend on. If Republicans return to being “The Party of Lincoln” they can kiss the South and much of their northern rural support goodbye.

Racism isn’t just bad behavior of the Republican party, it is baked into their DNA.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [November 25, 2019, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261/190 "2019-11-25T14:15:57Z")

</div>

> [@Kevbo](#):
>
> You might as well suggest that Republicans stop breathing. Racism has been a kingpin of Republican strategy since 1968, when Nixon won with his Southern Strategy. Suppression of minority voting is a major focus of their statehouse and national legislative agendas. If they stop being racist, they lose the most of the alt-right vote which they depend on.

And who would they vote for? Or would they just stay home?

> [@](#):
>
> If Republicans return to being “The Party of Lincoln” they can kiss the South and much of their northern rural support goodbye.

So the south would go blue?

> [@](#):
>
> Racism isn’t just bad behavior of the Republican party, it is baked into their DNA.

Republicans had been around for a century before the southern strategy and they have changed their spots several times in that period. Same with the democratic party. As both parties race to their respective extremes, I wonder if there is an appetite for a third party. We have had period of our history when there was deep division between the parties when third parties have risen up and claimed the middle.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-perform-better-with-white-voters/842261.md?page=9)