You’re not suggesting that Harvard is using these students as, you know, tokens, are you? That they are pawns in a larger game of racial politics perpetuated by those who demand results no matter the price or confuse appearances with real change?
The same could be said for rich people too, but most people don’t seem to care that places like Harvard give a free ride to middle class people. Nobody is saying that every Black guy is worse off than every White guy. We are correctly stating that being Black is a negative in almost every circumstance, so it makes sense to account for that even if other advantages “cancel” it out.
Are you contending that ANY benefit that helps one person necessarily hurts another? Do you think that is the correct way to frame any issue, or just AA. Does church giving hurt cancer charities? Does the government discriminate against single and rich people? Is that fair?
What makes you think they don’t?
It’s not a single study. Mismatching has been studied before, and the consensus at the moment seems to be that it doesn’t have the effects people against AA think it does.
True, but an athlete presumably has other skills that is a clear benefit to the school that they can leverage. A single unqualified Black student does not, and would hurt the school is a small but measurable way statistically speaking.
Sued for what? Not using AA as generously? Besides, your theory doesn’t past muster for a variety of reasons given they get just as much shit from conservatives than they would from liberals.
It becomes illegal because its racist not the other way around. At least in our society.
In what arena is the government forcing non-government actors to implement AA?
Noone is forcing you to exercise affirmative action, its an executive order that is really only applicable to the executive branch of the USA. Some states have similar requirements of themselves but noone is forcing McDonalds to exercise AA in their hiring and promotion decisions.
So you really don’t see the difference between racism used to segregate, oppress and subjugate a population and a racial preference used to counteract the lingering effects of slavery and segregation? Its all the same ting in your eyes, racial discrimination, no qualifying adjectives necessary?
I thought we went over this. Prerences HELP whites (at least in the admissions process) MUCH more than it hurts whites. The population of blacks that get into better colleges as a result of AA where a race blind system would not is a rounding error compared to the population of whites that get into good colleges as a result of legacy preferences and white privilege.
I am applying what I observe about YOU based on your posts and arguments it is clear that you are blinded to white privilege. Like I said, not all white males are blind to white privilege but its a hard thing to see for a lot of people. Or are you saying there is no such thing as white privilege?
You don’t have to be responsible for past discrimination to benefit from it.
Once again your inability to distinguish between the racism behind 500 years of slavery and segregation on the one hand and a racial preference given to those who are the heirs to that racism on the other shows how blinded you are.
So show me an instance of some poor white dude being kicked off the ladder by a wealthy black guy. With all the outrage over AA and the constant repetition of this exact same scenario, you would think that the opponents of AA would be overflowing with examples of Theo Huxtable edging out Oliver Twist. But as far as I can tell, these scenarios are about as common as (and serve the same purpose as) Reagan’s welfare queens. They are used to generate a lot of outrage but don’t really exist in any appreciable number.
It handicaps them but their other advantages overwhelm that handicap.
Do you know where the term “grandfathering” (as in “we are changing the rules on assault weapons but we will grandfather currently owned assault weapons”) comes from? It comes from the fact that these literacy tests were not applied to people whose grandfathers could vote (i.e. white people). The poll tax was an attempt to eliminate black votes at the cost of eliminating poor white votes, they were collateral damage.
And that is not the world of today. Today, all whites enjoy white privilege. It may not be enough to overcome other factors in their life but its there.
:rolleyes: It proves that the MAJORITY of Asians approve of racial preferences that disadvantage them. And the reason they approve of it is because their perspective is more objective than yours. White privilege is obvious to them, the social discrimination against blacks is obvious to them.
Of course there is an impact, I never claimed that there is no impact. Just as AA has an impact (a much bigger impact) on Asians (see the UC enrollment demographics in 1996 vs 1998).
The best remedy is the remedy that works. If you want to eliminate preferences for whites throughout society, good luck. If you want to provide these preferences earlier on in life, I think I could support that but the preference affects so few people in the scheme of things while having a large impact on the black community that I think its the right remedy (properly applied) for now.
And if in the absence of a history of slavery and segregation and the absence of white privilege, the admission ratio would be 30 blacks and 70 whites, do you still think the whites are losing out? Or do we only count the stuff that works against you?
Right and the argument is, why so much focus on something that has such a marginal effect on admissions (AA) and so little focus on something that has an effect that is ten times larger than the effect of AA at top schools.
For example, the UC system never had a legacy preference. When they went race blind the admission rate for whites dropped by over 1000, blacks dropped by over 200. So AA was helping 200+ blacks get into the UC system and some non-legacy race conscious bias was helping 1000+ white students get into the UC system. A lot of this was at the expense of Asian applicants.
THIS BEARS REPEATING: AA was helping 200+ blacks get into the UC system and some non-legacy race conscious bias was helping 1000+ white students get into the UC system.
Whatever preferences you think AA is handing black applicants, there are environmental social preferences that are handing many more white applicants enjoy.
Like I said, you are blind to it. It is obvious to me that you are blind to it. Seriously, just read a little bit of the wiki article on cognitive biases, especially social biases.
Of course I am subject to these biases and I know that for every time I catch myself, there are probably a dozen times when I didn’t even notice. You think you are self aware enough to recognize these biases when it is clear you do not.
How is it the same?
I’m sorry that society is not race blind yet and that you want to act like it is.
And yet the admissions process has been a combination of objective and subjective since before I was born. How the heck do you think they make admissions decisions?
Of course it still exists but it is far more integrated than the rest of society.
I don’t know but I would guess that the Korean war and Vietnam draft might have had something to do with it. Only a third of the military was drafted. Of that third about a third was black. Its not like the military was trying to keep people out after WWII.
If the pie is fixed, then yes, giving a piece to one person means another person isn’t getting a piece. In the case of money issues, the economic pie grows, so who is to say what the best use of money is? But if we’re talking about promotion to a management position where two employees are contending, and one is better qualified, but gets passed up for having the wrong skin color, this isn’t right. And it definitely harms the one passed up.
I can see AA for African-Americans, because of their unique history of discrimination and slavery. I cannot see it for other minorities, because once we’re talking about the differences in being Latino in America vs. being Italian, or Indian vs. Arab, or Jamaican vs. Samoan, you’re just dealing with the everyday discrimination that is seen everywhere, all over the world. And I do know something about that, being Jewish.
But the pie isn’t fixed. The number of people who attend any school year to year varies. Even so, would it be fair to say that NASA funding hurts International aid so there are kids who die in developing countries so NASA can have rockets?
Within a given year, the money generally doesn’t grow, so why is the argument unfair to you? It the US budget for year X is Y, then giving someone a tax break is functionally the same as spending money elsewhere.
What objective criteria are fair to use?
Just to pick one example, do you think a Jamaican person gets treated much differently than an African-American person generally does? Did Amadou Diallo being from Guinea prevent the NYC police department from shooting him? Did being Haitian help Abner Louima?
What about American Indians?
I agree that garden variety xenophobia is not something we want to address with AA. Increasing diversity helps but AA is an extraordinary measure to counter extraordinary injustice.
No, but they are not subject to the same handicaps that history have bestowed upon them. Why do YOU think that black students of Carribean and African parents outnumber those descended from slaves by 2 to 1 despite the fact that they represent 1/8th of the of the black population in America?
Even a racist (or perhaps particularly a racist) would have to acknowledge that there is not some sort of genetic difference between the children of American slaves and the children of Caribbean slaves that would explain this sort of disparity.
Racial discrimination is wrong, even when it means well. It can never be right. It judges individuals based on their race, rather than their merit or character.
So, no, I don’t distinguish between “good” and “bad” racial discrimination. It’s always bad.
What a joke of an argument. You don’t know why they think what they think, nor do you know why I think what I think. Assuming what Asians and whites think is why you’re in this mess of an argument in the first place. You have no idea how objective I am, and you have no right to presume it.
And, of course, it’s still irrelevant.
It probably happens alot more than you think. Look at minority set-asides in federal contracting and you’ll see it all over the place. But it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t happen very often - it’s wrong, and it could happen under your policy. If you really want to help the poor, help the poor, regardless of race. That would eliminate that problem and not stain your policy with racism.
Don’t even try to argue that nobody is ever excluded so that others can be admitted.
Should we have AA for victims of police brutality? Make sure some white people get beaten up more often?
Yes, what about them? Shouldn’t they have AA too?
But since a large number of American Indians, even members of recognized tribes, are of mixed race, should they get full AA or just partial?
So we shouldn’t have AA for Carribeans and recent African immigrants, huh?
You keep mistaking the problem for the solution. The disparity’s causes may be clear, but that doesn’t justify the solution. By noting that not all blacks suffer from the disparity, you only undermine your own race-based policies, which assume they all do. Which is why race-based policies are wrong (duh).
P.S. on Asians approving of AA that disadvantages them:
Shouldn’t Asians have AA preferences too? They suffered from at least some discrimination in our history. Not as much as blacks, but still, more than whites. So why not? What’s the logic for leaving them out?
And what if you’re only part Asian? If you’re half white, do you get less? Or half black - are you considered all black anyway in that situation? (You don’t get to actually decide your identity, of course). Or do you get half a point?
When we finally get AA for pro golf, to make up for rampant past racial discrimination in that sport, how on earth are we going to decide how big a handicap “cablinasian” Tiger Woods gets? That’s going to be complicated.
I think in many respects they are. This is why money and nationality largely don’t matter given that a rich Black kid like Jaden Smith, and a Nigerian here in the US on a student visa will often face the same types of discrimination. Money, culture, and choices can often mitigate the amount of scrutiny one might face, but I think racial animus generally doesn’t differentiate along those lines.
Now, I think you can make a valid argument that neither of them are likely to have the immediate familial history of pathology (which can often be traced back to government sanctioned discrimination and policies) that you often see in African-American households and neighborhoods, but that is only part of the issue IMO.
Selection bias and culture. It’s not like the countries they hail from are generally doing better than the indigenous African-American population in the US.
I agree. But the above theory explains why you see a lot of success amongst recent immigrants from certain countries in the world.
That sounds like an opinion that you think is a fact.
Your method of argument, where you say things without ever backing them up is really proselytizing rather than debating. I can deduce your objectivity from your posts, you are not objective. I can deduce a lot of things about you (that are likely to be true without you telling me. I guessed you were a white male before you mentioned your race and gender (I could have been wrong, but based on your comments, the odds were heavily in my favor) because white males are particularly blind to white privilege and are most likely to be convinced that any social advantage that doesn’t go to white males is reverse racism.
We have OTHER programs to help the poor. AA is not to help the general population of poor people.
If it happens so often then give me an example? You would think that you could come up with a few of them? White anti-AA guys are always bringing up this scenario and they ca never come up with an example. Is it perhaps because it doesn’t happen as often as the hand-wringing white dudes think it does?
Like I said, you are basically crying “welfare queen” in between whines of “reverse racism”
Yes, they should.
We use the tribes’ method of determining membership.
Not really.
I think you are confusing yourself. All blacks suffer from modern day discrimination. Not all blacks suffer from the legacy of 400 years of slavery and 100 years of segregation. AA is not just to reverse the effects of discrimination, it is to reverse the effects of 500 years of slavery and segregation.
We weren’t left out, AA applied to Asians at first. But for a variety of reasons (high post AA immigrant population being high on the list), Asians caught up faster than others and AA was no longer necessary. Or are you under the impression that Asians were always so over-represented in colleges?
Tell you what, when blacks are over-represented in top colleges (or even proportionally represented), then I would be happy to throw college admissions AA for blacks into the scrap heap of history.
There is still a social bias against Asians (see cognitive biases) but that’s not really the proper subject of AA IMO.
Like I said, no AA for Asians anymore and we use the same criteria for AA among blacks as slavery and segregation did. Would the child of a octaroon slave and a white man be a slave? Would that same child be subject to segregation? Those are the appropriate tests IMO. You keep claiming that AA is unworkable and yet we have been working it for a few decades without anyone crying foul (for the most part) except a bunch of white guys whinging about reverse racism.
I don’t think you have a very good idea of what AA is or what its purpose is.
Maybe you’re the one who isn’t objective though, and your bias is clouding your judgement of me.
Your racism disgusts me.
If you heard this kind of talk about you, and how someone could tell you’re Aisan and you think like a typical Asian, you’d be disgusted too.
And I thought this kind of personal attack was warned against in this thread already.
Why not? Justify it. I dare you.
So let me get this straight - AA is about reversing modern-day discrimination? That’s hilarious.
Why did they catch up faster? Oh, yeah, Asians are smarter than blacks.
That’s not my opinion, that’s the logical conclusion from YOUR position.
Well, no, then you’d have to have AA for WHITES, wouldn’t you?
Why not? It’s discrimination, isn’t it? You can’t just pick and choose.
I’m not whining about “reverse” racism, just racism.
I don’t think you understand that racism is always wrong and can never be fair, and is doomed to backfire.
I don’t suppose a cite for the existence of this “consensus” might be forthcoming?
Nope, its you.
You apparently don’t know the meaning of the term.
Nope, this phenomenon is pretty unique to white males in America (you might find it in Arab males in Kuwait or Chinese males in China but in America its the while males that tend to have this blind spot).
Its not a personal attack. I’ve got nothing against you and I don’t think I’ve ever once called you a racist (you’ve implied I am a racist several times). I have said that you are blind because of your perspective. I’m not imputing any sort of moral judgment on you or white males generally but its just harder for white males to see these things because of their perspective (hence my constant use of the phrase blind spot) and the people who are entirely oblivious to it tend to be white males.
I thought I did. AA is not to combat social biases, its to combat the effects of 500 years of slavery and segregation. Of course some people expand the notion to include all sorts of shit.
Wait. What? I don’t think this is very relevant to what I wrote. The quoted language doesn’t say what you seem to think it says. Please read more carefully, why do I have to keep telling you this?
No, that’s just the conclusion that makes sense to you, Asians as a group may or may not be smarter than blacks but not by enough to justify the incredible disparity in results. Did you read the parenthetical in my sentence? There are a lot of reasons for the disparity in results. The majority of Asians in this country are post AA immigrants or their progeny, they are not the product of historical discrimination in this country (do you see why having a large integrated population of immigrants who don’t have this historical baggage would make a difference?). Asians in America didn’t endure the same destruction of their culture and family that black slaves did, most Asians that helped build the railroads were indentured for a number of years. You couldn’t sell their children, they could accumulate wealth, etc (do you see why this sort of thing might make a difference?). There is a HUGE fucking difference between the Asian experience and the Black experience (you do understand that don’t you?).
See, this shows that you have no idea what AA is. If the day comes when we have enslave all the white people, treat them as chattel, sell off their children, beat and rape them with impunity, and continued to do this for 400 years then after we set them free, we enact Jim Crow laws but against whites for another century then sure, we should have AA for whites.
Once again, I don’t think you understand the purpose of AA.
Here is the concept:
“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”
Its not racism. Don’t you own a dictionary?
AA is not racism, the fact that all the people who have been hobbled by a history of slavery and segregation are black doesn’t make AA racist. It makes the slavers racist.
yes, I do. I’m not here to play silly word games either. call it racial prejudice if you want - it’s what racists do, and it is WRONG.
Wow. You have all these ideas about how to judge specific people just by their race.
To judge someone by their race is a DEEPLY personal attack. Must I do it to you to show you why? Surely you’ve been a victim of it yourself and know what it feels like and how unfair it is.
I think I’ve managed to make you reveal yourself enough. You judge people by their race. You think doing so isn’t personal.
I have the audacity to assert that people should be judged by their character or beliefs and not their race. That it’s wrong to do that. How dare I?
I think you’ve shown the tragedy of thought and effect that racist thoughts (yes, I’m using the word right) lead to. It’s especially sad that you use racism in an misguided attempt to fix it. You’re not fixing anything.
I’m done with you. I won’t tolerate such personal attacks any more.
And the sad irony that you had to resort to “you think X because of your race.” Just so sad. But not surprising.
Damuri Ajashi and lance strongarm, the next personal comment from either one of you is going to receive a Warning.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
LA Times has an interesting article today about an effort to reinstate affirmative action in college admissions. And some Asian-Americans are worried about losing the gains they’ve made since Prop 209 passed.
No its not. Its like saying “cutting people,” its what serial killers do, and its wrong. Despite the fact that surgeons also cut people. The intent matters.
I don’t know how many times I have to explain why I’m not judging you based on your race. Have you even looked at the links on cognitive biases (particularly social biases)? Perhaps the reason you are offended is because its generally not comfortable for anyone to realize that they have a subconscious that affects their acts, thoughts, perspectives, etc. I’m not a psychologist but I’m not just making this stuff up out of whole cloth.
This can’t possibly be the first time you have heard the term white privilege.