You can always tell when liberals are losing an argument. They start demanding definitions. If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, semantics is the first.
jb_farley
Do you also think that black people who complain about losing the promotion/job etc. due to race are to be dismissed on similar grounds? It is very difficult for anyone to know conclusively why a particular person was accepted/hired/promoted. (Many people will in their own minds be sure of this anyway). But people see the larger picture, and will see again and again borderline minorities being given preference, and in this their judgement will be the correct one. The extrapolation to their particular case may be in error, as you say. But even in this, it is important to bear in mind that the question is a practical one, and a realistic view must be taken of the practical impact of any program that is being implemented. To insist on a harmful program being implemented because the damage that it may cause will result from ignorance (as pldennisonis advocating) is high-minded pie-in-the-sky idealism gone awry.
xenophon41
When I refer to the civil rights establishment, I am referring to the attitudes and methods that are commonly accepted among civil rights activists, officials, and general all-purpose progressives.
pldennison
Should or shouldn’t, they will.
The college has 1000 slots. 800 applicants are shoe-ins. The other 200 slots have 500 applicants. These 500 applicants are less qualified than the other 800. But they are not unqualified by any absolute standard. So your statement that “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?” is not valid.
Borderline just means that a person at this level might or might not be accepted at the college. This as compared to shoe-ins or hopeless cases. But that does not imply that all such people are indistinguishable. So it’s quite broad.
Okay, but no reason to add another. In many cases this will be the only question about his credentials.
Sorry, what I meant was that the negative aspects should not be belittled because of the existence of similar negative aspects elsewhere. (The issue of whether AA has positive aspects that outweigh the negative is another matter, and one that is extraneous to this thread).
When college admissions are being done there are many factors that go into college admissions. Those factors are well known and include SAT scores, GPA, and extracurricular activities. Those wishing to improve their standing may study harder, take SAT prep courses, or join the band. If race is a factor there is nothing the applicant can do change his race. Black people can not become white and white people can not become black. Furthermore skin color does not equate to intelligence, drive or leadership ability. If a borderline case does not get in absent AA he should blame himself for not improving. However if race was a factor in his being rejected it is not his fault he was born with his skin color.
One way Affirmative Action works is if the applicant checks the right box under the race heading it is like he was captain of the debating club. The difference is being captain of the debating club is a qualification that tells the university of the fitness of the applicant. Checking the correct race box is not a qualification.
The situation is hypothetical but it is very true to actual events I have witnessed.
Absolutely wrong. If the applicant checks a box under the race heading it tells the college administration whether or not the applicant is in an underrepresented group. This is supposed to come into play if, and only if, the applicant is neither clearly qualified nor clearly underqualified for acceptance, and other criteria (such as the applicant’s contribution to diversity of the student population) must be considered in choosing between candidates. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
The fact that college admissions are determined by fallible individuals who sometimes base their decisions on emotion and perception is entirely irrelevant to a discussion about the effects of AA. A certain percentage of denied applicants will always feel that they were unfairly denied based on preferential treatment of other applicants. They will feel this way whether or not AA exists.
All AA does is insist that equality of opportunity be worked toward in college admissions, that diversity by worked toward in the college rolls, and that college administrations establish good faith numerical goals (not quotas) to correct underrepresentation. Those good faith goals need not, and indeed must not be met through relaxed admission standards for protected classes, or through any other “extra” considerations based on the race, gender, religion, etc. of the individual applicants.
Equality of opportunity means that everyone has the same opportunity to be considered for admission. If you have one set of standards for everyone this goal is achieved. Different standards for different races is the opposite of equality of opportunity.
Izzy you know, even before AA, there were people out there that were ticked off at not getting the job/promotion etc. That reality is going to happen, no matter what.
Employers, universities etc. rarely give specific reasons to those people they’ve rejected. Especially with the college applicant, sure there’s a point where the college says ‘no more students’, but the person who was last selected will never know they were the last selected, nor will the first person not selected know where they ranked. and certainly will never know the specific reasons why. AA is a convenient excuse.
When you’re talking about employment/promotions etc, generally, you’re talking small numbers of new hires/promotions at a time. Yes, sometimes a company may be in the position to hire a couple hundred folks at a time, but generally, it’s only a few at a time. With Universities, however, each year, they’re accepting up to a several thousand new applicants. (for example, MSU has in 1998, Michigan State University accepted nearly 7,000 new freshmen - here ) So, while the difference to each individual will be immense, the sheer numbers involved allow for a great deal of flexibility. So, the criteria used for selection will include all sorts of things including factors which people have some degree of control over (grades, club participation) as well as a host of other criteria over which argueably the person has little or no control (daddy’s bank account - ie the Gore/Bush factor; name recognition - such as the child of the University President may get a slip in; prowess on the basketball court; a certain level of genius; and yes, racial and ethnic background)
So, what do you find inherently objectionable for a university to attempt to achieve a mirror effect (that the student population mirrors the society from which it draws)? Especially considering the fact that they draw their vast quantities of students from pools of available and qualified applicants.
I believe that when the University of Michigan was sued, they were able to demonstrate sufficiently to the court’s satisfaction, that having a racially diverse student population was adventageous to all students. That would make it a legitmate goal.
Believe it or not, there are more poor whites in America than poor blacks. They face much the same sort of obstacles as poor minorities. They often have to overcome a culture of poverty (i.e. a local community in which destructive behavior has become the norm), class and ethnic prejudice (“Let’s not hire that redneck, those people are stupid and drink too much”), poor education, police harassment, etc. to make any headway at all. Not everyone who’s white has the connections to get into a prestigious university or get a comfy job in a Fortune 500 company. And the ones who are trying to make it out of that mess bitterly resent every obstacle that’s placed in their way in the name of “equality.”
As someone who’s had to struggle (and is, in some ways, still struggling) against those obstacles, I feel a strange mixture of disgust and amusement when I read the various half-baked defenses of AA I’ve seen on this thread and plenty of other places. The automatic, unthinking assumption most of these guys have is that * whites always have the advantage, no matter what their circumstances as an individual may be.* The possibility that a poor or working class white might actually be disadvantaged relative to a middle class or wealthy black, Hispanic, etc. is an idea that seems literally never to have occurred to them. (Hell, the idea that lower class whites deserve at least as much respect as you’d show anybody else doesn’t even seem to have occurred to ‘em. Many people who would never use words like “nigger,” “spick,” or “kike” think nothing of throwing around words like “redneck,” “hillbilly,” or “trailer trash.”)
It’s all very well to talk about “looking at the big picture” when it’s not YOUR interests and well-being that are being sacrificed for so nebulous a concept as “equality.” There is no good reason whatsoever that a low-income white should be penalized in favor of a middle or high income black.
Right, thank you. Good thing AA specifically orders that standards shall not be different based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
Duh. Since blacks represent only 12% of the population, taken in raw numbers, there are more whites of any category or description than there are blacks. As a percentage of their population, blacks are, however, disproportionately represented among the poor.
Um, your strawman is on fire. I specifically said, just a few posts up, “Given the choice, I’d rather see a borderline poor white person admitted than a borderline wealthy black person.” In fact, I don’t think anybody on this thread has suggested what you claim here.
My mother’s boyfriend calls himself a “redneck” and calls black people “niggers.” What conclusions can you draw from that?
Yes before AA people got upset over things and they will do so after AA ends. But because of AA they get upset over race. If you work hard for four years and are unjustly passed over in favor of some university president’s son, you will get upset at families of university presidents. If you are unjustly passed over in favor of someone of a different race you get upset at the members of that race. This leads to worse race relations on campus in particular and in society in general.
AA specifically mandates different standards for different groups. That is why such measures as CCRI are labeled anti-affirmative action.
Did you read the rest of my posting??
You wouldn’t know that a minority ‘got your spot’. You would only know that you didn’t get in. It is the individual who has not been selected, making the assumption that they weren’t selected because of their race.
Doesn’t make it true. It’s a convenient scapegoat and allows the person to believe that they were unjustly treated instead of having to focus on some potential failing on their part.
Or maybe they get upset over race and use AA as another excuse for their bigotry.
Cite please. I’m getting pretty sick of seeing this bullshit in post after post, and I’m getting tired of politely refuting it in post after post. Put up or shut up. Show us where Affirmative Action “specifically mandates different standards”, or stop spreading ignorance.
Here is a site that has the text of the Anti-affirmative action CCRI.
http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209text.htm
Here is a site in which the heads of admissions for several colleges discuss affirmative action. In it they admit that because of AA that whites and asians have a harder time getting in to colleges. The head of admissions at Vassar explains “In order to eventually treat people equally, one must treat some people specially”
http://www.dalton.org/groups/Daltonian/past_years/95-96/Issue_6/6.7_affaction.html
wring
True, but these don’t have to do with race relations. Race relations are the focus of this thread. People may not know conclusively in their vcase. But they can make reasonable judgements based on patterns that they see in larger society. I people see classifications of borderline people, of whom the minorities have a easier time of it getting admitted to college and the like, they can become resentful
pldennison
What is practiced, as a practical matter?
What conclusions do you draw from it? (The only conclusion that I can think of is that you must have some interesting conversations with your mother’s boyfriend.)
xenophon41
I’ve mentioned earlier that I am myself unsure about college admission practices. But I haven’t seen you refute anything at all, beyond your assertions.
So maybe answer the question directly. Do you believe that a moderately qualified minority has a significantly better chance at getting into Harvard (or any elite university) than a similarly qualified white? Whatever your answer is, please provide some evidence. Bear in mind that there is a conventional wisdom which says that the answer is yes. this may be wrong, nut so might you.
In all honesty, I don’t know, although I suspect the answer is far more complicated than either of us realizes. Which do you think?
I’m going to e-mail a friend back home who has worked as an admissions officer at several colleges, including the extremely liberal Oberlin College, to see if he can offer any insight into the process. Firsthand information is, after all, better than speculation.
**
You completely overestimate my desire to have conversations with my mother’s boyfriend! 
The only conclusion I draw from it is that he’s an ignorant schmuck.
Let’s see if we can track this so you understand my point.
Before AA
Person B (from OP) applies to the University and isn’t accepted. Person B is saddened, complains about whatever to explain why they didn’t get accepted.
After/During AA
Person B (from OP) applies to the University, isn’t accepted. Person B then assumes it was because of AA and not some shortfalling on their part and complains about AA being the source of the problem. Now, the letter from the university would have said something like “thank you for your interest, but we’ve decided to not extend the opportunity to you” sort of thing, there’d be no evidence that AA was in any way related to their non acceptance. Hence, the feelings of rage against AA etc are simply coming from the Person B, based on no evidence.
And, since Univesity applications are not available to the public, I don’t know where these hypothetical people are getting the information you claim they possess. So, they look at the campus and see (wonder of wonders) a variety of ethnic backgrounds, and assume that all of those people weren’t qualified?
It seems more likely that they keep listening to other people complaining about gee’ they promoted that guy over me’ type of thing. Frankly, the ‘reverse discrimination’ suits I’ve heard about have spelled out stuff like “I got an 85 on the test and the person they hired got an 84, so therefore they based the decision on race”, when that also ignores all the other possabilities (a one point difference in scores on any of those things is not sufficient cause to claim they were ‘more qualified’)
pldennison
Can’t say for sure, but I would guess that race is a bigger plus than disadvantaged financial status. But I’m interested, if your friend has any info.
wring
Here’s another scenario. (After AA) Person B does not get in. Neither do most of the numerous other white people he knows who are at his level, in terms of scholastic and other achievement. Of the many minorities he knows who are at around that level, the majority get in. Person B is, as mentioned, a borderline case in terms of getting accepted, but he is not a total moron. He is therefore capable of figuring out that minorities are getting (in this regard, at least) a better deal.
Here is more evidence for seperate standards:
In a study of 500 students from one high school in Kansas Thomas J Kane found that
Here is a link that contains info on the above.
http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb009/pb9.htm
You sure you want to quote from that study, because that’s a pretty selective quote. From the very first paragraph (all emphases mine):
“But, contrary to the assurances of many of its opponents, racial preference does not do more harm than good for minority youth. Rather, selective institutions seem to enhance the earnings prospects and raise the college completion rates for both minority and nonminority youth who are admitted. Although this need not mean that the benefits of affirmative action exceed the costs, ending affirmative action is not likely to be a painless step for minority youth. Rather it is likely to lead to some redistribution of social benefits away from them. Finally, we discuss reasons why the perceived costs of racial preferences may be exaggerated and describe the conditions under which racial preferences could be an appropriate remedy for labor market discrimination.”
Farther down:
“For example, at Harvard, only about one in ten applicants is accepted to the undergraduate college. Many of the rejected applicants (and many more of those who did not bother applying) may falsely believe that they would have been accepted at Harvard if there were no racial preferences. Yet only 15 percent of the undergraduate student body is made up of blacks and Hispanics. Even if racial preferences ended and all of these students were forced to surrender their seats (this is clearly an overstatement, since some of these students would have been admitted without racial or ethnic preferences), the college would make room for only one or two more students for each one hundred that apply. If more than one or two of the ninety that were originally denied admission are convinced that they would have been admitted without racial preferences, then the perceived costs will overstate the true costs of reserving the space.”
This is not the only open thread discussing Affirmative Action, so I’ve lost track of the many places where I’ve posted links. I find it very suprising that you and puddleglum presume to argue about AA (or anything else for that matter) from a position of such ignorance that you don’t even know what AA actually says, and that you’re apparently not motivated to research it your own damn self to find out.
Here is a link to Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity (Affirmative Action). Here is a link to the EEOC. Here is a link to an AA fact sheet at the Dept. of Labor
My answer is I believe a marginally qualified minority probably has a better chance at getting into any elite university than does a similarly qualified white, due entirely to Affirmative Action. This does not contradict anything I’ve said, and in fact Phil and others have said several times in this thread that this is not something that we find outrageous.
Let’s be clear here: The same standards for acceptance are applied to all applicants. Where there are more qualified applicants than there are slots available, other considerations come into play. These other considerations include not only the level of underrepresentation of minorities and women in the school, but can also include the socioeconomic backgrounds of each applicant and a host of other social and academic factors, which wring and others have described and which I’ve already linked back to within this very thread.
How many times must the same answers be given? What standard of “proof” do you want; the Voice of God® confirming our information in your ear?