Let's debate affirmative action

Recently a poster declared that affirmative action has been successful. I disagreed; no particular evidence for the success of affirmative action was offered in that thread, so I’ve starting a new thread devoted to the topic.

I read a variety of news and opinion pieces from across the political spectrum. I find that conservative sources like to talk about affirmative action a lot–National Review is leading with the topic right now–while liberal sources tend to mention it much less often. But last week Slate published The Massive Liberal Failure on Race. The second article in the series is titled It’s Time for Liberals to Admit that Affirmative Action Doesn’t Work. This is a lengthy documentation of the failures of affirmative action, but it manages not to mention the biggest reason why affirmative action is better. Salon did mention it in The Liberal Case Against Race-Based Affirmative Action. Quoting Senator James Webb:
Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.
Affirmative action is a type of racial discrimination. If racial discrimination is always wrong, then affirmative action is wrong. If racial discrimination is sometimes right, then one wonders why we hear so much about it being wrong.

Research shows that affirmative action affects who gets admitted to top schools. In some schools, blacks are as likely to be admitted as white whose SAT scores are 310 points higher. Hispanics are as likely to be admitted as whites whose SAT scores are 130 points higher, while Asians are as likely to be admitted as whites whose SAT scores are 140 points lower. The effects of affirmative action got an experimental test in 1996 when California voters eliminated it in government. To no one’s surprise, the percentage of Asians at UC Berkeley and other top schools in the state shot upwards, and the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics fell. Other states have banned racial preferences and seen similar trends.

The second reason why affirmative action is bad is that it hurts the people it’s supposed to be helping, do to a phenomenon called mismatch.

The single biggest problem in this system – a problem documented by a vast and growing array of research – is the tendency of large preferences to boomerang and harm their intended beneficiaries. Large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively – even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools.

We refer to this problem as “mismatch,” a word that largely explains why, even though blacks are more likely to enter college than are whites with similar backgrounds, they will usually get much lower grades, rank toward the bottom of the class, and far more often drop out. Because of mismatch, racial preference policies often stigmatize minorities, reinforce pernicious stereotypes, and undermine the self-confidence of beneficiaries, rather than creating the diverse racial utopias so often advertised in college campus brochures.

The mismatch effect happens when a school extends to a student such a large admissions preference – sometimes because of a student’s athletic prowess or legacy connection to the school, but usually because of the student’s race – that the student finds himself in a class where he has weaker academic preparation than nearly all of his classmates. The student who would flourish at, say, Wake Forest or the University of Richmond, instead finds himself at Duke, where the professors are not teaching at a pace designed for him – they are teaching to the “middle” of the class, introducing terms and concepts at a speed that is unnerving even to the best-prepared student.

The student who is underprepared relative to others in that class falls behind from the start and becomes increasingly lost as the professor and his classmates race ahead. His grades on his first exams or papers put him at the bottom of the class. Worse, the experience may well induce panic and self-doubt, making learning even harder.

It’s widely known that after affirmative action was abolished in the California system, graduation rates went up for blacks.

Another Straight Doper, doubtlessly with good intentions, posted this:
We can strive for equality of opportunity as much as we possibly can, and I think this is definitely what we should be doing. But considering that this is a very lofty goal that only seems to be getting loftier, AA is decent stop gap. Definitely far from perfect, but still better than nothing.
The assumption there is that affirmative action is better than nothing, but the data suggest it’s worse than nothing. Better to get rid of it then.

I generally agree with you and I oppose affirmative action on the idea that we have collectively decided that discrimination based on race is abhorrent. Therefore, why is it okay to tell an 18 year old white kid that he doesn’t get the job/college admissions slot because it was given to someone else based upon race? That 18 year old was born after slavery ended, and after Jim Crow ended. He has seen “whites only” water fountains only in history books. How is it now fair to racially discriminate against this kid?

That being said, it does make sense to give some kind of leg up to people as a whole. As LBJ said, you can’t take 400 years of oppression, free someone from that oppression and tell them that they are on their own. Some type of assistance is required. How do we give that assistance without it becoming permanent or even worse, perpetuating an underclass?

40 acres and a mule. Now we have all this compound inerest and damages.

There are several forms of Affirmative Action. You appear to wish to limit the discussion to quota systems. If that is what you meant, then you should have said so. Otherwise, you are simply cherry picking one aspect of a complex effort in order to smear the all the various forms.

I have no great love for quota systems and I am willing to recognize that they may be unfair, but when you use the phrase “Affirmative Action” and you only mean quotas, your argument is poorly based.

a quota system is bad, but wouldn’t it be worse if no minorities or only a very very few minorities were accepted to a college or to a large corporation. for the moment can we leave off exact statistics or 2014 vs 1974, just to look at the basic concept of they are both unfair but one is worse than the other?

This canard needs to be shot in the head and buried under a stadium somewhere. The language you chose to present the argument demonstrates exactly what the problem is with it. Racial discrimination isn’t always wrong. Do you similarly wonder why you hear so much about, say, violence being wrong, even though we can easily imagine cases where it isn’t wrong? No, you don’t. This is because it’s not a difficult concept, just convenient to misinterpret.

ok, i agree with you, I do! but it is kind of hard for me to wrap my head around the phrase “Racial discrimination isn’t always wrong”. or is that just another way of saying a few white people will be denied to give access to some minorities who otherwise wouldn’t get access. if i put the wrong words in your mouth you can let me know.

Seemed to work well for women.

The first part of your post argues morality, not whether it’s effective or not. Maybe the GDP (or whatever measure you want) would be better if higher education and the workplace was all Asians and whites, but that’s exactly what people who support AA want to avoid.

The second part argues it actually hurts minorities.

OK, this is what your link says about that.

They make it sound a little more complicated.

Mismatch theory makes sense. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true. But a response to that could just as well be AA needs to be tweaked, not eliminated. I’d like to see more counter-examples, but it’s hard to hold everything constant but the existence of AA.

No, that’s it. Racial discrimination means treating one person differently based on his or her race. So setting up a scholarship for minority students is race discrimination, and so is the existence of an Asian-American student center or whatever. But I don’t think those things are wrong. Not all forms of different treatment are created equal, and to act like the lesson of the civil rights era was that every single discriminatory act is equivalent because it’s discriminatory and because people used to say things like “racial discrimination is wrong” is about as cheap a rhetorical trick as there is. “A sign that says ‘men only’ looks very different on a bathroom door than on a courthouse door.”

It seems to me that the argument for race-based affirmative action goes like this:
**
(1) We should help poor people.
(2) A lot of poor people are black.
(3) Therefore, we should give special preference to black people. **

But while (2) is true, it’s frankly irrelevant to the core issue. Why not just attack the problem of poverty directly?
**
(1) We should help poor people.
(2) Therefore, we should give special preference to poor people. **

That seems to make a lot more sense to me, instead of penalizing poor whites (who do indeed exist) and giving unneeded favors to rich blacks (who do indeed exist).

I won’t give you any disagreement about the idea that poor whites need more help and are often overlooked or marginalized. But I ask about the rich black comment. To an admissions commite at a university or a hiring board at a large corporation, the problem is they are discriminating (in the cases that they are) based upon race, not race plus income level. in other words they will discriminate against rich blacks too.

I think this oversimplifies the point of AA, especially in academic settings. It also overlooks the fact that poor whites AREN’T overlooked. Colleges/universities have a number of non-merit based variables that they consider in admissions. Race and gender are just two of them. It’s not like admissions officers have no way of knowing the socioeconomic status of an applicant.

AA has never been just about addressing poverty. Women, for instance, have benefited from AA. Why should a girl be favored over her brother in university admissions, when both of them have the same socioeconomic background? Maybe she’s preferred because women are underpresented at that particular school. Or maybe she wants to be an engineer, and the school wants to have more women engineering majors. The same with race-based AA. Colleges/universities want to brag about how diverse they are.

Moreover, AA is a way of paying lip service to compensation for past wrongs. Yeah, there are plenty of middle class black people who don’t need a leg up. But perhaps if it hadn’t been for 90 years of Jim Crow, these people wouldn’t be merely middle class. They would be truly wealthy. Great grandparents and grandparents were not allowed to go to the public colleges and universities their tax dollars supported, which meant that many of them did not obtain the educations that would have allowed them to move on up as their white counterparts were able to. So there is some reasonableness in giving their children and grandchildren a preference now. No, it’s not fair. But it wasn’t fair when they were being screwed all those generations. You can’t just pretend that history isn’t important and expect everyone to forgive and forget.

It’s an imperfect stop gap, but at least it’s something. We often talk a good game about how we could fix inner city schools so that everyone’s got equal opportunity and then we won’t need AA, but there’s nothing stopping us from making everything “equal” now. Every attempt to make things “equal” are met with hysterical screams about socialism. AA is the only somewhat workable tool we have.

Also, I think both gender and racial preferences in admissions and hiring can serve a real purpose. I believe there’s value in diversity. I also think there are intangible qualities that can’t be reduced to test scores and grades and other “hard” credentials. Many people think that the low representation of male teachers explains why male students don’t perform as well academically as girls do. I think a principal should have the leeway to say, “Hey, I need to recruit some more guys” without people screaming “SEXISM!!” The same when it comes to race.

Why are they poor?

This whole conversation is a nonstarter when your argument is largely about Blacks even though we are not the primary beneficiaries of AA. The main beneficiaries of AA are White women. Most people do not question the progress women in general have made in the last few decades in large part due to these preferences. Given it has worked well for them, it seems to discount the argument that AA itself is ineffective. Even if you accept the argument that it has been bad for Blacks (I don’t), you are left with plenty of possible explanations that have nothing to do with AA.

Assuming you don’t buy that women inherently different, or more gifted than Black people, the logical conclusion is that outside influences are affecting the results. This can seen in this like the mismatching brought up in the OP. This phenomena is always presented as a matter of Black people not fitting in at a school instead of a school not serving their changing student population well. It also doesn’t speak to the fact that many minority students find it hard to thrive in these environments because they are openly hostile to them, and thoroughly dismissive of their accomplishments and abilities. There are two sides to a mismatch, yet it’s always presented as one side (Blacks) not being up to snuff. There are a lot of reasons people don’t do well in school, and most of them don’t have anything to do with raw intellect. Intimating that that is why Blacks don’t do as well at Harvard (for example) is mostly thinly veiled racism. Particularly since this issue only invokes passion in people when we start talking about race and soft quotas despite the fact that race and quotas are only a small part of this.

The argument goes like this:

Black people today live with the legacy of 400 years of slavery and 100 years of segregation. Meanwhile the descendants of slavers enjoy legacy preferences at top universities.

The above statistics point out that affirmative action seems to benefit blacks and hispanics largely at the expense of asians in the college admissions process. I suspect that asians would be better off in the admissions process if we kept affirmative action for blacks and got rid of legacies. Frankly, even with affirmative action, the black students aren’t really crowding out the asian students, but the legacies and the desire to avoid too many asians is having an effect.

You are diluting the purpose of affirmative action by turning it into a diversity initiative. It isn’t (or shouldn’t be), it is an attempt to try to level the playing field of history.

Why isn’t redress fair? Its hard to argue that AA black admissions at top schools are crowding out other applicants. While not all white students have legacy preferences, most legacy preferences are white and virtually none of them are black, their black ancestors were too busy being slaves or being dsicriminated against to attend college. Why the uproar over AA but nary a peep about legacy preferences?

What value is that? Recognizing that admission to a top school has huge effects on your life path, what benefit does diversity provide that justifies discounting merit so much?

I can see the fairness in trying to counter some of the effects of half a millenium of slavery and oppression, I can see that. I cannot see subversion of what is supposed to be a merit based system to promote diversity (or legacies for that mater)?

White women were not met with a whole lot of hostility at previously all white male colleges the way black students might have been. Sexism might be easier to overcome than racism because almost every white man had a white mother, they frequently have white wives and daughters and sisters.

However, there is something to be said for the notion that due to the lack of environmental support structure for black students, the AA preference should not be so great as it is in some cases.

what about women wanting to go into engineering or some similar field? does not AA help them in such an endeavor, even in 2014? well maybe they can get in easier now but i’m told they have ahard time being taken seriously. i dont guess AA can fix that but it is still a factor right?

I have always been bothered by these job interview questions that say, “In order to make sure we’re not discriminating, please list your age/sex/race etc.”

In order to make sure you’re not discriminating, why not just ignore all that and hire based on whoever has the best qualifications?

I understand the thrust of your question, and probably agree with it on some level, but I suspect the answer, especially in large corporations, is to measure the issue, and may perhaps be legally mandated. How many applicants of a particular race? How many successful applicants? What level of applicants from what races were turned down? etc.

The purpose of those questions is to allow the company to track how many applicants they are getting in various classes of people, and track the number of hires. Ideally, this information is asked for on a separate sheet of paper, or if collected electronically is not provided to the hiring managers. It’s a separate way to track the diversity of the applicant pool.

Which brings me to my next observation: another supposed advantage of affirmative action is to create a diverse environment. The thinking, as I understand it, is that a university (or a company) gains value from having a diverse set of students or employees, rather than a culturally homogenous one. So the value of making extra efforts to recruit and retain minority members is that the student body itself prospers by this diversity.