There is no such thing as “equal skill”.
While there are other issues, the primary concern is that people of some ethnicity(s) have difficulty obtaining positions of employment in which they can thrive and advance: the system in general seems to be stacked against them, and attempting to remedy this through Affirmative Action has resulted in some amount of resentment and anger.
So if most in the given group(s) struggle because the positions the can readily get are less rewarding, then the system ought to be rebalanced to mitigate the effects of having to get by with what the system is willing to offer. In other words, instead of imposing quotas, perhaps the solution is to impose a tax-and-credit structure that makes accepting a less desirable position not be the path to ongoing poverty. Which, of course, would involve taxation that some or many would describe as a penalty, but the way to avoid or reduce the “penalty” would be better treatment of, well, everyone.
I totally disagree. I believe that neither the government nor private business should be forced to take a person’s race into consideration in hiring, college admissions, or anything else. I laid out my position in this thread last year. Everyone I’ve seen who opposes affirmative action thinks the same; I’m unaware of anyone it is not okay to discriminate against whites but is okay to discriminate against other races. I think you should provide a cite showing that someone believes that, or else retract what you said.
The group that’s hurt most by affirmative action is a racial minority: Asian Americans. In college admissions, being Asian American is equivalent to dropping 140 SAT points. So anyone who supports affirmative action should begin by explaining why they want to discriminate against Asian Americans. I have never seen anyone willing to do so.
Affirmative action also hurts blacks and Hispanics. When California abolished it in public universities, graduation rates for blacks and Hispanics rose.
Affirmative action is bad for members of all racial groups, and good for no one. Why support it?
That is true. That is why I said “I tried to give simplified answers to describe my basic view on the topic…”
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand what you mean.
Well, if this case is not an Anomaly or some mistake correlation/causation situation then we need to abandon AA. Wait, it says graduation rates rose. What about Admission rates?
Links are cited so you can read them. From the link:
Throughout these crises, university administrators constantly fed agitation against the preference ban by emphasizing the drop in undergraduate minority admissions. Never did the university point out one overwhelming fact: The total number of black and Hispanic students receiving bachelor’s degrees were the same for the five classes after Prop 209 as for the five classes before.
How was this possible? First, the ban on preferences produced better-matched students at UCLA, students who were more likely to graduate. The black four-year graduation rate at UCLA doubled from the early 1990s to the years after Prop 209.
Second, strong black and Hispanic students accepted UCLA offers of admission at much higher rates after the preferences ban went into effect; their choices seem to suggest that they were eager to attend a school where the stigma of a preference could not be attached to them. This mitigated the drop in enrollment.
Third, many minority students who would have been admitted to UCLA with weak qualifications before Prop 209 were admitted to less elite schools instead; those who proved their academic mettle were able to transfer up to UCLA and graduate there.
of course
… university officials were unable or unwilling to advertise this fact. They regularly issued statements suggesting that Prop 209’s consequences had caused unalloyed harm to minorities, and they suppressed data on actual student performance. The university never confronted the mismatch problem, and rather than engage in a candid discussion of the true costs and benefits of a ban on preferences, it engineered secret policies to violate Prop 209’s requirement that admissions be colorblind.
Basically, instead of imposing Affirmative Action as quotas and requirements, effect it through incentives, credits and taxes. Given the fact that it will take a long time to move toward fairness, might as well remove the burdens of discrimination from those who still experience while we patiently await a better culture.
Isin’t it funny how two people can read the same article and reach such drastically different conclusions? My interpretation of the article is not that AA, as a general principle, is unfair or detrimental, but that putting students into classes/colleges that they were not prepared for was what was detrimental. Applicants should still be within close ranges of the academic standards of the school. I was not aware that it did not work that way, that under prepared students were accepted into top level schools.
Ok, I understand a little better now but my ignorance of economics and taxes makes it hard for me to completely understand how your proposal would work.
I do not have a concrete proposal, per se, just a vague notion that we should maybe figure out economic means for disincentivizing (all forms of) discrimination. It would probably be very difficult and complicated, so fuck it, racism is easier, we might as well stick with what we can handle.
are you basically saying this:
That you would not outlaw automobiles that got 15 miles to the gallon but you would tax such an automobile an extra $400 each year?
Did you not see the word “complicated”? To extend your analogy, if one person drives a minimalist hybrid that gets 50mpg and almost never has passengers, their fuel economy would not be better than that of another person who gets 15mpg but almost always has four or five passengers. It is a defect in the concept of a system of code that counts commas and parses phrasing to the letter: every given situation is unique, we should have an effective system that accounts for that.
I realize its complicated I was just trying to express a basic idea.
If only one law school were to implement a policy requiring that 10% of every class be black, there might be enough qualified black applicants to make that happen at that one school. On the other hand, if every law school in the country puts such a policy in place, there won’t be enough black applicants who are qualified. Admitting underqualified black applicants will quickly become the norm. That’s what has happened.
People want a solution for the shortfall in black and Hispanic representation at colleges and universities, which leads to an underrepresentation in many areas. I have no solution to offer, but clearly we should start by eliminating affirmative action, which does more harm than good.
No, we should start by reforming AA
I see where the article Terr linked to was the subject of a strong academic counter that seriously questions its methodology. Oddly, the counter-article was written ten years ago, so it would seem that this material is just a rehash, almost like the cliché, if you earnestly repeat a lie often enough, people will start to think it is the truth.
Thanks, I’m reading it now
Most people who oppose affirmative action aren’t saying, “Let’s discriminate against the dark-skinned people!” They’re saying, “Let’s not discriminate for or against anyone on the basis of race.”
Robert, I hired mechanics for over 40 years. I made it a point to stay above the minimum when it came to races because I believed that blacks have been at a disadvantage and have suffered from some discrimination. Had I just hired based on qualifications I would have been far below the minimum. I had a very hard time finding blacks in the truck mechanic field with even basic qualifications. Many of them did develop into good mechanics after some training so I don’t regret giving them a chance.
Maybe they are not. I am probably too biased and stubborn to really answer objectively. What I feel I can state objectively is that result matters the most. I place utility, results, above ideals and principles. So if you get rid of AA then women and minorities will be discriminated against.
Thank you for your input, I know it is a complicated situation but it seems like you made a very good effort to handle the situation properly.