xeno,
I heard about it from a (fellow) actuary who follows society working more closely than I do.
I think your assessment of the motivations is likely correct, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. I merely meant to point out that these days it is frequently the civil rights establishment which seeks to inject race as a factor into situations that might otherwise be treated in a color blind manner.
The rationale is that he is going to be giving alot of money and responsibilty to someone. If he assumes that matriculating and graduating from his university means the applicant is qualified for the position. However if the applicant was a minority and the university has AA it could mean the applicant was not qualified. Why should he take the chance? Because of the resentment he feels because of how his friend was treated by AA he is more likley to not take the chance. He has acted rationally though not morally. This is part of how AA hurts race relations.
No, he isn’t. If he is basing his hiring decisions on D’s skin color rather than, say, D’s C.V. or resume, he is most emphatically not acting rationally. Furthermore, he shouldn’t be concerned with how D did or did not get into college; he should be concerned with D’s qualifications for the job for which she is applying.
Anyway, A seems awfully intimate, or thinks he is, with how C got in.
Woah, woah, woah–now you’re changing your analogy, and to your detriment. In your OP, you said that B and C were “both borderline.” Now you say that C was un qualified. Which is it? If they’re both borderline, and C is unqualified, then by implication B is unqualified as well, and did want the slot simply by virtue of being in the majority.
Not everybody gets into their first choice. Are you telling me that there are white students who have been completely shut out from attending college by affirmative action? Horseshit.
Izzy:
But that’s only his feeling, and as I said, it might have no bearing in reality. There are many, many factors that weigh in the decision to admit or not admit someone, especially in borderline cases. No admission case is made on grades alone, nor, I’d wager, are many made on skin color alone.
You’re right, I wouldn’t, solely because I refuse to subscribe to the load-of-crap “straight white men can’t get an even break in America” line of thought that has become so popular in recent years. In any case, I highly doubt that all borderline cases are settled in favor of nonwhites, either. But if a college is down to the last few open slots for some period of enrollment, and decides between two equally shaky choices on the basis of increasing minority representation, I have no problem with that.
I sure do. If ignorant people are misrepresenting a useful process and as a result making important decisions (like, say, hiring and firing) based on bad information, you don’t scrap the process, you educate the ignorant.
Well, so what? If we’re concentrating on borderline cases (as this thread seems to be), then they’re going to be underqualified no matter what their skin color is, aren’t they? Would it provide you some comfort to know that all the admissions slots for folks with SATs in the low range are taken up by white people?
I agree with that assessment only if by “civil rights establishment” you mean certain high profile public figures (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al.) and not civil rights regulations and laws. I think possibly a large cause for popular misapprehension of AA and civil rights in general is the failure to distinguish between personal opinions and federal mandates. (This is a failure that many legislators and activists are guilty of as well.) For instance, in the case of the Soc. of Actuaries, I’m sure the relevant statistics were easily gathered from the teaching institutions, who are required to maintain the information. However, even if the demand was resolved by redirecting it to the appropriate parties, the fact that the story has been spread around indicates the perception continues to exist that the unnamed agency injected race into a colorblind process.
I explicity said that B was a better student than C.
Affirmative action has cheapened the accomplishments of D. If there was no AA than there could be no question as to his credentials.
Even if you still go to a lesser college, if your skin color keeps you out of the college of your choice you have been hurt. But what has been hurt even more is the idea that there should be equal treatment under the law.
Yes, and you said they were both borderline. If they’re both borderline, how can one be unqualified and the other not? What, one has a 2.491 and the other has a 2.501?Either they’re on the border of acceptance, or they are unqualified for acceptance. Looks like you’re trying to have it both ways.
Really? What if he was the son of a member of the Board of Trustees and skated in on that connection alone? What if his father made a large donation to the school contingent on the basis of his son’s acceptance?
But you also said they were both ‘borderline’ and this is where AA comes into play. Perhaps you believe that universities, large corporations etc. make a list of students/applicants in order and draw a line, then apply AA like a sponge and soak up a bunch from under the line and use them to displace people above the line.
What xeno and phil have been trying to explain to you is that it doesn’t work that way. For example, the State of MI civil service exams are given, say there’s 100 possible points. the applicants get placed into bands according to their point total - first band would be those with scores ranging from 100- 85, next band 84 to 70 etc. They’d take as their first option anybody in the first band. Now, will that include some folks with a score of 100 and others with a score of 85? you bet. Does this make it wrong? nope.
Generally, test scores are not considered to be an absolute. There are too many factors (person may have had an off day, was tired, was lucky on some answers etc.) to make such absolutes as ‘the person with a score of 99 is always to be preferred over the person with a score of 98’.
This is even more true with college admission criteria. They use standardized test scores (which we hope and try to make as fair and universal as possible, but don’t always succeed), and high school grade point average.
However, the high school grade point average has sooooo many variables - including -
was the person taking advanced classes or underwater basket weaving?
was the person involved in extra curricular activities? working? ill? disliked by certain teachers? etc. To counteract these potential biases, the university will often use the system I described, where you have a group of ‘marginal’ cases where other factors will be considered.
If skin color is an indcator of how qualified someone is, then it is entirely rational to hire people on the basis of skin color.
First off, I’d like to echo a very wise man:
quoth pldennison
Okay, Mr. or Ms. Gum, stick with hypothetical situations. Or get proof for some amazingly bold claims. Such as
because that smells like a load of cow pie to me. Please find a cite. And come to think of it, you aren’t exactly batting 1.000 with your ‘hypothetical’ situations.
Listen to yourself for a second, man! (or lady!) If he assumes that matricualting and graduating means the applicant is qualified, then the applicant is qualified. Matriculating and graduating and all. But if the university had AA, then matriculation and graduation are no longer good enough? you can yammer on for hours about how Affirmative Action means unqualified students are being accepted into colleges, but you are really looking for a pop in the mouth if you say that AA means unqualified (that is, utter failures) students are graduating.
If the students went to classes and took the tests and got good grades, how does it matter in any way that the college has affirmative action? You say that any student, female or minority, who graduates from a school with an affirmative action program should expect to be treated like horseshit by prospective employers? And that those prospective employers who treat them like that are acting ‘rationally’?
The most disgusting thing is that you’ve taken all the things good ol’ boys used to do when running businesses, and given them a fresh new spin. Minorities and women are expected to be inferior, or at least suspected to be unqualified. A boss who acts like this is a rational guy. Them damn minorities are tryin to take over everything.
And by the way, in regards to your last sentence, read pldennison’s above quote.
NEW SECTION
So they’re both borderline students, gum. If C, the minority, goes to State U (the lessor of the two colleges), he will have a better experience, and will be in a school “more commensurate” with his abilities. If B goes, he’s been cheated, hurt, betrayed, and has every right to be outraged and practice discrimination on his won.
Huh.
Look at it this way- switch the races and you have the current situation, or even better schools a few years ago. Where smart black people were being turned away and some pretty inferior white people were being smothered in love and goodness.
Take it one step further. If the colleges the minorities are attending have failed to prepare them for work, then the solution is to fix the schools and better prepare minorities.
Why is that so abhorrent to you?
Damn straight.
jb
And if wisdom teeth were an indicator of actual wisdom, dental records could act as resumes. Did you have a point to make here?
I think that the backlash could best be lessened by someone explaining to A and B that while this isolated incident may not be fair if they look at the broader picture they will see that the question of fairness is more complex. Perhaps they could take some comfort in the fact that they are much less likely to be harrassed by police on their drive home.
Hmm, I don’t understand one thing though
That is what affirmative action is all about. It takes close to equal applications and favors one based on skin color. Are you saying this isin’t rational?
I realize you must be far too busy to read the rest of this thread and find wring’s excellent explanation of the college selection process, and pldennison’s excellent summary of preferential selection, so I’ve provide direct links back to those posts for you. Just click on the name, read carefully, and perhaps some of your aggressive ignorance can be eradicated.
And why, exactly, should race be one of these other factors?
Suppose B and C have done exactly the same things, or at least are placed in the same ‘band’ and are reasonably similar. The admissions officer decides to flip a coin. I’m not saying that’s a good solution or that it’s likely (more often someone will just make a gut instinct decision), but why would it be better to make the final decision based on race?
While it’s often brought up that schools with large populations of one race or another may have less or more opportunities, using race as a criterion seems to ignore the more intensive task of using another more meaningful value, perhaps economic level. Not all students at the schools are of the same race anyways, and of course not all students of one race are in the same situation.
Moreover, the idea of race itself is rather ambiguous. Sure, it’s clear that a white person from Sweden can be differentiated from a black person from Zaire, but what about people who are of “mixed race”? Does someone who is considered to be only half, quarter, or eighth of a race get the same or different treatment as someone of that race? Do we have to make a determination of how much they “look like” their race to figure it out?
pldennison
In other words you agree that the truth is that two equally shaky choices can be settled in favor of the minority, and in fact condone the practice, but you dismiss the person’s feeling because it may have no basis in reality in his specific instance. Using this novel approach you might attack other problems of society as well. Discrimination? Well maybe it happens in general, but any individual claiming it might be wrong about his specific instance. No problem. Pollution? Similar approach. In all seriousness, I fail to see your point.
If educating the ignorant is likely to prevail that’s what you do. If not you may have to try something else. Good luck.
Underqualified is a relative term. A college (or employer) takes the best that’s out there. The suggestion is that the member of the favored group is underqualified relative to members of other groups.
This thread is about one specific issue relating to AA (or preferential treatment). But I’ll point out that the alternative to this practice is to have a random distribution of races, not all white people.
I think the point puddleglum is making is that while they are both borderline, the qualities of both of them are such that absent race as a factor B (or the white guy – I’ve forgotten who he is already) would be favored. This does not necessarily include only test scores, so there’s no need to keep belaboring that point. But there is a general (if imperfect) sense of who will or will not get accepted at schools.
Are you saying that no one would question his credentials? Ask George W about that sometime. Seriously, the fact that inequality exists in this world (in the form of the rich and powerful having added privileges) should not be used as an excuse to enshrine racial favoritism into a policy.
Xenophon41
I’m not sure if I agree with you. To the extent that laws demand equality of result they force an undue attention on race. But beyond this, I don’t see why you are suddenly shifting the debate to laws and mandates. If a given AA program is not mandated by federal law, is it not worthy of being discussed? There are likely many AA programs which are not mandated by law but are put in place due to public pressure, desire to do the right thing etc. As such, it does not seem appropriate to limit discussion to laws and federal mandates.
quoth IzzyR
I think the point that you are missing is that puddlegum’s situation is so completely hypothetical and unrealistic as to be useless for any fruitful discussion. C’mon, these two guys are almsot equal, in every single regard except one, or two I guess, and the white guy is better than the black guy. So based on this untenable premise, we are asked “Isn’t the white guy justified in becoming resentful and racist?”
at this point, I feel like throwing my hands up and saying “So fucking what? Don’t you think a guy whose wife was killed by space would vampires want space-vampirism to be outlawed? Let’s get those space vampires!”
IRONY AWARD
answer to question about favortism towards kids of alumni or big donors
[/quote]
Are you saying that no one would question his credentials? Ask George W about that sometime.
[/quote]
uh “killed by space vampires would want”
donno whatthefuck happened there.
jb
And if my grandmother had testicles, she’d be my grandfather. :rolleyes:
Certainly those programs are worthy of discussion, and certainly the discussion should not be limited to laws and federal mandates, but should also include misperceptions, their causes and remedies. I was not trying to limit the discussion. My reply was to your statement that “it is frequently the civil rights establishment which seeks to inject race as a factor into situations that might otherwise be treated in a color blind manner.”
If, as you say, many poorly constructed or misguided AA programs are put in place due to public pressure or desire to do the right thing, it’s incorrect to assign the blame to the “civil rights establishment” rather than to the program administrators who failed to research the appropriate legal requirements, or to avail themselves of the many opportunities for federal guidance.
More or less, yes. I’m saying that when it comes to two equally shaky cases, then the desire of the university to present as broad a student body as possible (e.g., preferring nonwhite students) is as valid a criterion as any other; and based upon our history of excluding nonwhites completely from most college admissions as recently as 50 years ago, I find it hard to get worked up if they be given preference now. I do agree with panamajack that socioeconomic status is a better criterion, but minorities tend to be disproportionately represented among the poor anyway. Given the choice, I’d rather see a borderline poor white person admitted than a borderline wealthy black person.
I’m saying that, within the constraints of puddleglum’s hypothetical, A and B are working from information to which they are not privy and making a decision to discriminate against C, D, and all who share their skin color on that basis. It was his OP; I’m just responding within the parameters of the question as posed.
My point is that people should not base decisions about how to treat other people on information that they do not have. If one assumes facts not in evidence and treats people in a certain manner based on that, the fault lies in the person assuming, not in the person about whom assumptions are being made. (Generally speaking.)
I cannot disagree more. Caving in to the ignorant is how we get bad policy.
I still say it doesn’t matter. Whether the underqualified person is a member of a favored group or an unfavored group, they are still underqualified relative to the qualified people. I’m not at all sure what you’re driving at here.
Sure, but that also assumes that the pool of applicants is similarly random, and furthermore that the pool of qualified applicants is similarly random. If that’s not the case, then I feel that the choice of a university to make their choices on the basis of diversity is a valid one.
If that’s the point he’s trying to make, he’s going about it completely incorrectly. He said, simply, “B is a better student than C.” Taken at face value, IMHO, that refers simply to grades and test scores. If puddleglum wants to generalize that to extracurricular activities, other qualities that colleges look for, etc., he should say so.
But again, I have to wonder why, given the OP, B would be favored, absent race as a quality. The OP posits cases at the borderline. How wide is this borderline? If it’s wide enough to accommodate students that are clearly not fit for that school (as puddleglum later implies that C is not), it isn’t much of a borderline at all. Given two students on the borderline, what exactly causes one to be favored over the other?
Also, I do think puddleglum tripped himself up by stating that denying admission to borderline case C, the minority, would give him a chance to go to a school where he “fits in,” while denying admission to borderline case B, the white guy, would be imjurious almost to the point of a tort.
Not at all–exactly the opposite. I was putting the lie to puddleglum’s assertion that “If there was no AA than there could be no question as to his credentials.” There are lots of things people use to question another’s credentials.
Perhaps not, but the fact that until the latter half of the 20th century, there was basically a de facto affirmative action policy for whites is a strong argument for taking steps to remedy that situation, which is exactly what AA is supposed to do.