In order to keep the debate focused I am speaking about affirmative action in college admissions. Consider the following scenario:
Three students A, B, and C. A is one year older than B and C and is the best student. B is not as good as A but better than C. C is a minority. All three want to get into a prestigous university. A applies and is accepted. The next year B and C apply to the same university. They are both borderline but since the university is trying to increase diversity C is accepted while B is turned down. A is dissapointed his friend A did not get in but thinks he should have studied harder. B is disappointed but has been admitted to a less prestigous university and decides to attend there.
B finds out that C is going to the university he wanted to attend and since he knows he is a better student he feels he has been discriminated against. He resents C because he feels he took something that belonged to him.
When A finds out that C has been admitted while B has not he is resentful that his friend will not be joining him. He resents C for taking the place of his friend B. He begins to think that most of the minorities are not qualified to be there and he resents that too.
When C enters the university he finds he is less prepared academically than most of his classmates. He struggles in class while most of his classmates seem to be having a much easier time. When someone tells him that the school is institutionally rascist and is sabotaging him, his experiences lead him to believe it. He can tell that students such as A resent him and he resents them back. He also resents the university and feels a minority like him will never get a fair shake.
So in the end Affirmative Action has taught three young people who never thought much about race before to be suspiscous and resentful of other races.
Or how about, instead of considering scenarioes involving three alphabetically identified hypothetical students, why don’t we examine the goals of Affirmative Action, and the likely consequences were those goals to be actively pursued by all institutes of higher learning?
Let’s suppose that, through decades of strict attention to diversity, outreach to public schools and community recruitment efforts, and without any lowering of admission standards (since they are IN NO WAY called for by Affirmative Action), American colleges succeed in totally eliminating underrepresentation of women and minorities in their graduate programs.
Degreed professionals in all fields become so representative of the population that people begin to forget there was ever any unbalance, or that people ever felt there were differences in intellectual capabilities between whites and minorities, or between women and men. Children give their grandparents blank looks when they hear “Back in my day, I was passed over by Princeton in favor of some black boy.”
After a long enough time, there are 17-part retrospectives on PBS, with quaint 2D film footage of the times showing civil disobedience and reenacting the 20th Century and early 21st Century debates over desegregation and affirmative action, and those words are so unfamiliar to most viewers that historians have a hard time explaining why they were so important to those for and against the concepts of civil equality.
Or… we could see universities, colleges and local governments cave to regressive propoganda and misinformation, eliminate all affirmative action and forget about taking real steps to rise above our past as a nation.
And therein lies the problem, the feeling by A and B that that admissions slot “belongs” to B by virtue of his being the same race as A.
Otherwise, everything xenophon said.
Or perhaps, the real problem is attitudes such as yours. puddleglum made clear that B felt he deserved the slot because he was a better student, and his hypothetical scenario envisions a case in which this is true. You have decided to delegitimize this (hypothetical) person’s feelings by arbitrarily and illogically declaring that they are race-based. All the more reason to be resentful.
Though it is hypothetical the story happens all the time. I am sure that Affirmative Action is well intentioned. But examining intentions is not helpful because everyone thinks their intentions are good. It is better to examine the consequences than the intentions because the consequences are real and the intentions are only ideas.
Lets suppose affirmative action is banned. Admissions people do not know which race an applicant is and make their judgements based on qualifications. People are treated as individuals and are expected to assume responsibilty for their own destinies. People who like to play at social engineering play video games instead of going into government. Race relations improve until black/white animosity makes as little sense as German/Irish animosity. While watching history documentaries people are amazed that there was a time when people thought you could build an egalitarian society by government sponsored discrimination.
For xenophon41: Instead of quibbling over semantic issues over the term “affirmative action” and whether it includes preferencial treatment of minorities, why not just confront the issue of preferential treatment directly. Do you think it would have the impact described by the OP or not? If yes, than defend it without resorting to “the real affirmative action is…”, and if not than address why not.
I love it when Izzy reduces the desire that words be used with precision and accuracy to “quibbling over semantics.”
Gadarene:
Oh, is that what it is? I thought it was the desire to defend outreach and recruitment, rather than preferential treatment (which the OP was about). But let’s leave this for xenophon41, and discuss instead your new-found love for me (or at least my posts). I’m having a Sally Field moment!
[hijack]
Actually, you should be having a Sally Field moment; I’ve really enjoyed your posts lately, though I don’t agree with all of them. You’re good people, Iz, past differences aside.
[/hijack]
You’re still wrong here, though, in pronouncing xeno’s post to be evasive of the issue. I’ll be back in a bit to respond further.
Let’s be quite clear here: puddleglum said that “B is not as good as A but is better than C,” but he also said, “B and C are both borderline.” So it isn’t, apparently, a case where one is clearly more qualified; it’s the difference between, say, a 2.5 GPA and a 2.7 GPA. That being the case, I would feel perfectly justified in deligitimizing B’s feelings that he was the shining star student betwixt the two.
If academic achievement were the only criterion on which colleges base their enrollment, then B would, I suppose, be the clear choice. But it isn’t–I have friends who work in college admissions, and they want a lot more than just grades and SAT scores. Maybe C was president of the Key Club, lettered in football and track, and did a lot of charity work; while B spent all his time goofing off with buddy A. Furthermore, all colleges have a target market from which they want to draw students. Unless their market is “white kids,” they’re going to want to present a diverse student body to prospective students, and by taking minorities from among all the borderline cases, they can do that.
puddleglum:
Lets suppose affirmative action is banned. Admissions people do not know which race an applicant is and make their judgements based on qualifications.
Black students continue to make up a disproportionate number of students in poorly-funded (and therefore, poorly-performing) schools. They find themselves getting into fewer and fewer colleges. The disparity between black and white enrollment goes back to its pre-AA days. Resentment is increased. Yeah, good plan.
Let me give you a different ‘minority’ perspective.
In high school, despite top honors in science and math classes, my ‘guidance’ teacher told me that “women don’t become research scientists. Wouldn’t you like to take some education courses in a nice local college instead of competing for an Ivy League slot?”
When my interests–in an Ivy League school–turned to electrical engineering, despite my grades and years of practical, hands-on experience with circuits and soldering irons, I was turned down for an entry level engineering job because: “State law says we have to put a couch in the restroom for women in case they feel faint, and ours isn’t big enough, so we can’t hire you.”
After I studied for and passed the FCC First Class Radiotelephone Operator’s exam, and spent two years fixing impossibly complicated equipment for a major television network, I was told “You only have this job because they had to hire a woman.”
When I was chairperson of the board of directors of a broadcast station, I called in one day to speak to the chief engineer and heard his tech assistant tell him “Hey, John, there’s some broad on the phone for you.”
The name for these attitudes is sexism, just like the name for believing that some people, because of the color of their skin, are not as qualified as others, is racism. Because of the effects of sexism and racism, society determined that some anti-racism and some anti-sexism was in order. As a white person who hears what other white people say in private, I can tell you that racism is alive and well in this country. Racists don’t use the old derogatory slang words as much, but they’ve got their little vocabulary to describe the people they’re not going to hire or accept. “Underqualified.” “Wrong kind of background.” “Doesn’t seem like he or she would fit in.”
You know that phrase “not exactly a rocket scientist”? I saw a fabulous person, a woman who had put herself through engineering school after being in the Air Force and working as a satellite tracker for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (in other words, ACTUALLY a rocket scientist), turned down for an entry level programmer’s job because of those sexist reasons. She had every credential going, but she was short, black, and female. Instead, a certified-male doofus was hired.
I understand that in your hypothetical, you believe that B is “better qualified” than C. But the problem is, who’s making that judgment? The same kind of folks who told me I couldn’t ever be a scientist or an engineer? MY ACTUAL, not hypothetical, experience is that “less qualified” is a bunch of horse exhaust. Colleges consistently accept less qualified persons for certain non-academic reasons (Gore and GW Bush leap to mind here…) The argument that we couldn’t possibly take a black candidate whose gradepoint was 3.612 when a white candidate with a 3.734 was available—without considering the other facets of character and accomplishment–doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Affirmative Action is beginning to repair the ravages of racism and other forms of discrimination. So far, the only white guys I’ve seen who were disadvantaged by AA have been ever so mildly frustrated by not getting their own way immediately. They’ve still got the old boy network to hire them; they’ve still got the cops and courts on their side; they’re still running the vast majority of corporations and the top jobs in government. And here’s an idea: maybe A should work on getting to know B instead of resenting him. Maybe C should quit worrying about what he’s entitled to, and just accept the fact that he can do pretty well all on his own without displacing B. Sheesh!
In the scenario if AA is not present C does not go home to live in poverty he would be accepted at the university that accepted B. He would have attended a school whose rigor is more comensurate with his academic record. He would then be in a better position to have a succesful college experience.
If the schools the minorities are attending have failed to prepare them for college then the solution is to improve the schools. If minorities fail to acheive the standards that are set, then the solution is to better prepare minorities not to create different standards.
I beleive that some of the discrimination that Aunt Pam chronicled could be as a result of AA.
Lets take the scenario a little farther. D who is a minority is just as good a student as A. He is accepted into the university on his own merits. When it is time for graduation he asks A for a job. Because of his experience with B and C, A thinks D must have been an Affirmative Action entry and does not give him the job. D’s accomplishments have been cheapened by by Affirmative Action.
The rocket scientist you mentioned, is she flipping burgers somewhere or has she gotten a job at a company where the hiring people are not dumb. If she has then the company has an advantage over the company that hired the doofus. If she is flipping burgers she can sue the company for discrimination which is illegal. Incidentally where did the doofus go to get his male certification? It sounds like it would come in handy.
*Originally posted by puddleglum *
I beleive that some of the discrimination that Aunt Pam chronicled could be as a result of AA.
Lets take the scenario a little farther. D who is a minority is just as good a student as A. He is accepted into the university on his own merits. When it is time for graduation he asks A for a job. Because of his experience with B and C, A thinks D must have been an Affirmative Action entry and does not give him the job. D’s accomplishments have been cheapened by by Affirmative Action.
No, D’s accomplishments have been cheapened by the unwarranted assumptions of a bigoted moron who, rather than examining D’s record and qualifications, assumes that D only got where she is because of all that PC affirmative action garbage.
The problem is not with affirmative action; it’s with idiots. Don’t blame the process for people who have defective reasoning capabilities.
Gee, leave for a business meeting for an hour an’ look whahappens.
original by IzzyR
Instead of quibbling over semantic issues over the term “affirmative action” and whether it includes preferencial treatment of minorities, why not just confront the issue of preferential treatment directly. Do you think it would have the impact described by the OP or not?
Sorry, I can’t comment on the impact described by the OP, since I don’t know Mr. A, Mr. B or Mr. C. This is not an evasion, IzzyR; I’m stating that the hypothetical situation is not representative of the process. Do some people, through a poor understanding of college admission practices, form a resentful attitude toward AA? Sure, no question about it. Does it foster a general attitude among white students that they are being disadvantaged? No, AA doesn’t do that; people who spread disinformation do that. Does AA foster an attitude among women and minorities that “the system” is set up unfairly? No again. The weight of history supports that attitude; AA attempts to correct the flaws in the system that have historically made it unfair to women and minorities.
original by puddleglum
Lets suppose affirmative action is banned. Admissions people do not know which race an applicant is and make their judgements based on qualifications.[sup]1[/sup] People are treated as individuals and are expected to assume responsibilty for their own destinies.[sup]2[/sup] People who like to play at social engineering play video games instead of going into government.[sup]3[/sup] Race relations improve until black/white animosity makes as little sense as German/Irish animosity.[sup]4[/sup] While watching history documentaries people are amazed that there was a time when people thought you could build an egalitarian society by government sponsored discrimination.[sup]5[/sup]
(see numbered notes below)
-
So you’re saying if AA is banned, colleges won’t notice what race each applicant is? This will be accomplished… how?
-
Sorry; your conclusions don’t seem to derive from your premises. In what way does banning AA translate into no preferential treatment of applicants? What about children of alumni, children of donors, etc.?
-
Nope. We’ll always be drawn to politics.
-
See 2. above. How does this magical transformation take place? It seems to me Phil’s analysis is more likely.
-
While watching history documentaries people are amazed and ashamed that there was a time in this country when a movement to achieve true egalitarianism was dismantled and abandoned in favor of fear and ignorance.
Also, what AuntPam and pldennison said re: idiots, good old boys and faulty reasoning.
pldennison
That being the case, I would feel perfectly justified in delegitimizing B’s feelings that he was the shining star student betwixt the two
Star student? No. But his feeling is that but for the color of his skin he would have been accepted in place of C. Not a pleasant feeling, as many minorities can testify. If only star minorities were accepted and all borderline issues were settled in favor of the whites, I don’t think you would be as dismissive.
I don’t consider the fact that much of the cheapening of the accomplishments of minorities is a result of ignorance (or "bigoted morons) to be of overriding importance. Ignorance is a part of the world that is very difficult to eradicate, and consequences that result from it cannot be ignored. Furthermore, much of you deride as ignorance is merely ignorance of a particular situation. No one can expect to become an expert in every other person in the world’s abilities, and some generalization may be justified in some cases. However the larger picture will remain true. If preferential treatment is given to minorities the logical outcome of this is that there will be a disproportionate percentage of minorities who are underqualified. To deny that is ignorant.
xenophon41
This is not an evasion, IzzyR; I’m stating that the hypothetical situation is not representative of the process. Do some people, through a poor understanding of college admission practices, form a resentful attitude toward AA? Sure, no question about it. Does it foster a general attitude among white students that they are being disadvantaged? No, AA doesn’t do that; people who spread disinformation do that
Well, I don’t know if it is representative of the process or not. What I’m discussing is the impact if it does happen. If you want to agree with me that to give preferential treatment to minorities does have the impact described by the OP, but merely to deny that it actually happens, I won’t argue with you. But be clear where you stand on this issue.
As an aside, The Society of Actuaries gives actuarial exams which are graded by people who don’t see the names or any other personal information. At one point, some agency demanded that they produce statistics showing the percentage of minorities being passed. They protested that they don’t collect or even know that information. I’m not sure how or if it was resolved.
[small hijack]
Is it really common for white kids to never think “much about race” until they’re hit college?
[/small hijack]
I agree that what A did in not hiring D was wrong. But how was he to know that D was really qualified to get in to the university he is a businessman not a private investigator. He is responding rationally. After all he has first hand experience with Affirmative Action favoring the unqualified. He is trying to get the best man for the job should he take a chance and bet his livelihood that D might be qualified or hire someone he knows is qualified?
. Do some people, through a poor understanding of college admission practices, form a resentful attitude toward AA? Sure, no question about it. Does it foster a general attitude among white students that they are being disadvantaged? No, AA doesn’t do that; people who spread disinformation do that.
Yes, it does because there are white students who have been hurt by AA.
Does AA foster an attitude among women and minorities that “the system” is set up unfairly? No again. The weight of history supports that attitude; AA attempts to correct the flaws in the system that have historically made it unfair to women and minorities.
Yes it does, because if the system is set up fairly why the need for AA. AA exists because the system is seen as unfair.
- The school will not know the race of its applicants unless it asks. The admissions board will have set of applications and if there is no check box for race they will not know which race the applicant is.
- Preferential treatment based on race will be eliminated. If a school wants to give preferential treatment based on parents that is an entirely different matter.
- If MLK can dream, why can’t I?
- When people are not treated not by race but as individuals, race will be less important.
- But people will be heartened to know that egalitarianism won out and Affirmative Action was abandoned.
As an aside, The Society of Actuaries gives actuarial exams which are graded by people who don’t see the names or any other personal information. At one point, some agency demanded that they produce statistics showing the percentage of minorities being passed. They protested that they don’t collect or even know that information. I’m not sure how or if it was resolved.
Interesting. (Don’t suppose you can find mention of it anywhere on the 'net, do you?) It’s hard to say without knowing the specifics, but it sounds like they were asked for the statistical tracking required for measuring the effectiveness of AA, rather than for any change in their grading methodology.
by puddleglum
I agree that what A did in not hiring D was wrong. But how was he to know that D was really qualified to get in to the university he is a businessman not a private investigator. He is responding rationally.
He’s responding “rationally” by basing his decision on the color of the applicant’s skin rather than his documented qualifications?!! Well, I can see why you have problems with AA if you think that passes for rationality.
[sarcasm]Yeah, let’s get rid of all this AA reverse discrimination crap and go to a system where rational businessmen can accept or reject applicants based on their impressions of race and gender; that’s not discriminatory![/sarcasm]
Carry on.