# Why Do Liberals Support Affirmation Action? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2012, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058 "2012-12-05T10:13:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/141 "2012-12-06T18:45:49Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I guess the first step is for me to get elected… Or you could just state right here what your alternative plan is. It wouldn’t happen to be “Ignore it, and it’ll go away”, would it? That has worked _so_ well in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/142 "2012-12-06T18:47:06Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > But AA doesn’t fix the schools or fix the out of wedlocks kids opportunities. It’s a shitty fix, well meaning maybe, but still shitty. Which was kind of my original point, you will never create equality of opportunity you need to create. You can give them entrance into top tier schools, you can even help them financially but if their progress is stymied from lack of parental support, or the fact that they start so much further behind then what kind of fix are you really providing? There is some thought that by helping a sub-set of this disadvantaged population achieve college education, the following generation might see these disadvantages alleviated. I believe the top indicator of future success is still the level of success achieved by parents. Some people underestimate the value of a network of community members that are all college educated with steady paying jobs. By building up such a network in the black community, or among women, the thought is that across generations the discrepancies we see in high school performance will be reduced. Is it the only fix? No. But liberals, in general, believe that it can be an effective tool at both promoting diversity and reducing the gaps seen in the performance of demographic groups. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/143 "2012-12-06T18:47:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Or you could just state right here what your alternative plan is. > It wouldn’t happen to be “Ignore it, and it’ll go away”, would it? That has worked _so_ well in the past. I guess my point was lost. We vote people into office. Smart people. People who we expect to tackle tough legislation. Not people to sit back and go “whoo boy, that’s tough, I’ll leave that for the next Schmo” And yes, my opinion is that eventually racism will be gone but no I don’t think repealing any and all AA legislation would be the way to go. Some of it surely would be gone if left up to me though. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/144 "2012-12-06T18:50:52Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I guess my point was lost. We vote people into office. Smart people. People who we expect to tackle tough legislation. > Not people to sit back and go “whoo boy, that’s tough, I’ll leave that for the next Schmo” > > And yes, my opinion is that eventually racism will be gone but no I don’t think repealing any and all AA legislation would be the way to go. Some of it surely would be gone if left up to me though. That isn’t an alternative plan-that’s just waving your arms and saying, “Let’s elect somebody and have them do, ummm…something.” ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/145 "2012-12-06T18:51:06Z")
> [@April\_R](#): > > Do you seriously think that because someone’s skin is darker they are dumber than someone who is white? Does intelligence go up the lighter your skin gets? Why are Asian American children statistically more successful academically than everyone else? > > I sincerely believe it’s nurture not nature in this case. The quote uses the library as an example. Of course it doesn’t say that only taking your child to the library is going to make them more successful. It says that parental involvement in a child’s academic success results in more academically successful children. Its a no brainer 😉 The study found, regardless of income, that Asian parents are more involved in their child’s academic life than other minority parents. It’s a fact that has to do with cultural expectations and not genetics. > And I am offended you are implying that because Obama’s children have some Caucasian genetics in them they will automatically be smarter than a black person. As a matter of fact you will find very few black people in the US who are 100% of direct African descent, so that argument doesn’t make any sense. We’ve been through all of this elsewhere. Let me start with the President’s children: What would prevent them from getting their smart genes from the black side of their family? Maybe the subsaharan genes that Michelle and Barack carry code for greater intelligence than any Eurasian genes that came through Ann Dunham. Don’t confuse an individual with a group average. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that if a group average is different, an individual can only be that average. The fact that men are taller–on average–than women, and that this is a biologically based difference does not mean I am taller than my wife. It’s lovely that you think differences among races are nurturing only, but unfortunately there isn’t much evidence for that, however good it makes you feel to think so. Nature doesn’t have any intention of fairness, and the various gene pools represented among “races” reflect tens of thousands of years of separation. In some of those pools, certain genes have become amazingly pervasive in very short periods of time, suggesting a marked advantage. Look up, for instance, the haplogroup D variant of MCPH1, which is in about 70% of some populations but absent in sub saharans. Look up, for instance, the putative presence of Neanderthal genes in the Eurasian genome but its absence in sub saharans. Look up, for instance, any number of phenotypic and physiologic differences (say; testosterone levels in males) for SIRE groups of whites versus blacks. It’s simply untenable to pretend there aren’t biological average differences, even at the crude level of race. Of course, if you want to hold that nurturing accounts entirely for some differences, such as average measured intelligence, it would be more persuasive if you could show that normalizing those nurturing differences normalizes the measured performance differences. Until then, I’d say the evidence is not on your side. The example I have given you is looking at SAT scores against relative advantages for educational and income level of parents. Finally, may I try to dissuade you from this sort of silliness: “…because someone’s skin is darker…” ? Genes that code for skin color are not involved in performance differences, as far as I know. Oh…on the Asian front: I believe that asians have a genetic superiority for many of the tests we use for intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/146 "2012-12-06T18:51:49Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I think you and many like you will never get the fact that keeping racism alive is what programs like these are doing. No, two things keep racism alive. The first is inferior people who want to find a reason to blame other people for their own failures. The second is a culture that hands them race as a reason. We may not be able to do much about the first one - there are always going to be people looking to avoid blame for their own flaws. But we can eliminate the culture of racism - we can make racists afraid to say or do anything racist. They may still be racist in their hearts but they’ll have to keep it hidden and they won’t infect new people. > [@Kearsen](#): > > But AA doesn’t fix the schools or fix the out of wedlocks kids opportunities. It’s a shitty fix, well meaning maybe, but still shitty. Which was kind of my original point, you will never create equality of opportunity you need to create. You have a better solution? I’ll admit affirmative action isn’t a perfect solution but it’s a partial solution. Better to fix as much of the problem as we can rather than just let it go. ---
**Author:** ![April\_R](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@April\_R](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/April_R)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/147 "2012-12-06T18:58:00Z")
Then what the heck are you talking about? Intelligence, as measured by standardized tests, is genetic? Do you realize how silly that sounds? Edit: To Chief Pendant ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/148 "2012-12-06T19:02:01Z")
> [@April\_R](#): > > Then what the heck are you talking about? Intelligence, as measured by standardized tests, is genetic? > > Do you realize how silly that sounds? > > Edit: To Chief Pendant His dedication to this single talking point spans any and all (vaguely race-y) threads. Its really quite breathtaking. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/149 "2012-12-06T19:02:11Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Of course that is one theory. As i said before the only way to defeat racism is to understand it. It’s possible my theory is incorrect. Nobody has been able to disprove it. Your theory may also be correct, but I have had different experiences. If your theory that AA “promotes racism” is correct then the US of 2012 should be far more racist than the US of 1962. That is quite obviously false. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/150 "2012-12-06T19:02:17Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I’m sorry, but your comments here are ridiculous and intellectually inconsistent. > > On the one hand you’re claiming that race is a “self-identified categorization”, but on the other you claiming that someone is “biologically white”. > > You also later claim that Navin Johnson self-identifies as “black” but is really “white.” > > Such claims are simply moronic and don’t pass the laugh test. > > Beyond that, you’re also claiming that “Hispanic” is a race as well. > > Since you apparently believe that someone can be “biologically white” please tell us what the qualifications are to be “biologically hispanic”? > > You seriously want to argue that this guy, [http://www.blackradionetwork.com/images/userfiles/andy-garcia.jpg](http://www.blackradionetwork.com/images/userfiles/andy-garcia.jpg) > > this guy, [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/\_4ynpbjsnPvk/SFBIRHkgauI/AAAAAAAAFS4/tcoiwC4rvJE/s400/david-ortiz-2.jpg](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4ynpbjsnPvk/SFBIRHkgauI/AAAAAAAAFS4/tcoiwC4rvJE/s400/david-ortiz-2.jpg) > > this woman, > [http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/D/Cameron-Diaz-9273866-1-402.jpg](http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/D/Cameron-Diaz-9273866-1-402.jpg) > > and this woman, > [http://directv.images.cust.footprint.net//photos/celebs/celebs/155494/155494\_ba\_d.jpg](http://directv.images.cust.footprint.net//photos/celebs/celebs/155494/155494_ba_d.jpg) > > are all of the same race but at the same time you’re insisting that “blacks” and “whites” are separate races? > > Now, if I’m wrong and you really don’t believe that Hispanics are a race and you made a mistake in your earlier post, please correct it and then explain what “race” the people in the photos belong to. Sigh…the term “hispanic” is a US government term. Not mine. Either you have more trouble grasping easy concepts than I am willing to correct, or you are just pretending not to understand. “Race,” as we commonly use the term, is a social construct, by definition. It has a strong correlation with genomes derived from ancestral populations whose evolution is separated by tens of thousands of years from other populations. That evolution has caused marked differences in those genome pools to arise, and those differences create average phenotypically different outcomes based on those genes. Navin is a great example of an outlier in the self-description category. He is atypical, and for that reason he illustrates the concept of a social construct. Because “race” is a self-identification, it’s ridiculous to talk about it as if were a rigidly defined biologic construct. It’s not. But when you are talking about group level averages, it’s easy to show average biologic differences because they are easily measured. Google [“creatine kinase reference level by race”](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6837521) and educate yourself a bit. And stop wasting time confusing group level averages with pictures of individuals. If I’m a midget in a tall family, my family group average might still be above normal. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/151 "2012-12-06T19:06:30Z")
> [@April\_R](#): > > Then what the heck are you talking about? Intelligence, as measured by standardized tests, is genetic? > > Do you realize how silly that sounds? > > Edit: To Chief Pendant Yes, April. The maximum potential for an individual’s intelligence, as measured by standardized tests, is genetic. ---
**Author:** ![April\_R](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@April\_R](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/April_R)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/152 "2012-12-06T19:10:31Z")
Chief Pedant You are talking about phenotypes, not intelligence or educational success. Everything you say makes sense with genetically passed traits, but what proof is there that intelligence is more nature and not nurture, on average? You could use individual examples but that would go against your whole premise that individuals do not represent a population average. ---
**Author:** ![April\_R](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@April\_R](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/April_R)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/153 "2012-12-06T19:11:33Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Yes, April. The maximum potential for an individual’s intelligence, as measured by standardized tests, is genetic. Then my parents must have adopted me. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/154 "2012-12-06T19:15:28Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > If your theory that AA “promotes racism” is correct then the US of 2012 should be far more racist than the US of 1962. Only if affirmative action were the sole factor, which it obviously isn’t. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/155 "2012-12-06T19:23:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Only if affirmative action were the sole factor, which it obviously isn’t. > > Regards, > Shodan Welcome back, bucky! By the way, you forgot to answer the question in post #19. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/156 "2012-12-06T19:39:17Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Because “race” is a self-identification, it’s ridiculous to talk about it as if were a rigidly defined biologic construct. It’s not. So then why did you so stupidly insist that even if Navin Johnson “self-identifies as black” it’s irrelevant because he’s “biologically white”. Now since you think “Hispanics” are a race, then please explain how one can be “biologically Hispanic”. > [@](#): > > Sigh…the term “hispanic” is a US government term. Since the US government has not traditionally classified Hispanics as a “race” this is a remarkably ignorant statement to make. Since you’ve claimed to be a scientist involved with admissions at universities, I would have assumed you were familiar with how Hispanics have traditionally been classified as whites by the US government. That’s why Mexican immigrants could become naturalized citizens when Chinese, Jamaican, and Philipino immigrants couldn’t. That’s also why Mexican Americans served in “white” units in WWII, and could marry white women in California and Texas when blacks and Asians couldn’t. Hispanics aren’t a “race”. They’re a nationality. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/157 "2012-12-06T19:42:24Z")
Oh, good. Another scientific racism thread. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/158 "2012-12-06T19:58:03Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > But AA doesn’t fix the schools or fix the out of wedlocks kids opportunities. It’s a shitty fix, well meaning maybe, but still shitty. Which was kind of my original point, you will never create equality of opportunity you need to create. You can give them entrance into top tier schools, you can even help them financially but if their progress is stymied from lack of parental support, or the fact that they start so much further behind then what kind of fix are you really providing? You’re providing a fix for the specific individuals who are getting into, say, a good university when otherwise they wouldn’t have. I don’t have my hands on it at the moment, but there have been recent studies showing that future success is correlated with getting through a good university, regardless of whether your qualifications were as good as everyone else when you were admitted. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/159 "2012-12-06T21:17:31Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then why did you so stupidly insist that even if Navin Johnson “self-identifies as black” it’s irrelevant because he’s “biologically white”. > > Now since you think “Hispanics” are a race, then please explain how one can be “biologically Hispanic”. > > Since the US government has not traditionally classified Hispanics as a “race” this is a remarkably ignorant statement to make. > > Since you’ve claimed to be a scientist involved with admissions at universities, I would have assumed you were familiar with how Hispanics have traditionally been classified as whites by the US government. > > That’s why Mexican immigrants could become naturalized citizens when Chinese, Jamaican, and Philipino immigrants couldn’t. That’s also why Mexican Americans served in “white” units in WWII, and could marry white women in California and Texas when blacks and Asians couldn’t. > > Hispanics aren’t a “race”. They’re a nationality. Navin Johnson is an exception to the general rule that self identification tends to follow ancestral gene pools. I might add that Navin is fictional, and the fact that his self identification is so far off base–he follows a social construct of “black” but his ancestral population belongs to the “white” self-identifiers–is part of the comedic thrust. I don’t actually give a crap about trying to classify Hispanics, other than making sure that we preserve race (and ethnic) based AA so that we continue to have some proportional representation for groups that would otherwise be non-competetive, and therefore not represented, if all we took into account was opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058/160 "2012-12-06T21:25:57Z")
> [@April\_R](#): > > Chief Pedant > You are talking about phenotypes, not intelligence or educational success. Everything you say makes sense with genetically passed traits, but what proof is there that intelligence is more nature and not nurture, on average? > You could use individual examples but that would go against your whole premise that individuals do not represent a population average. The evidence that intelligence (which is a phenotypic trait) is genetically influenced is that normalizing nurture does not normalize intelligence–at least, it does not normalize performance on quantitative evaluations. For example, if one studies how children raised within similar–or even advantageous-toward-black–environments do, the rank order of various SIRE groups is remarkably consistent. As I mentioned above, you can correct for parental education and parental income, and wealthy black children from educated parents still underperform poor white kids with undereducated parents. This is a pretty significant blow to the idea that the problem is opportunity. You can also show that the gene pools from which these groups draw are markedly different, and that many ordinary physiologic differences exist in those SIRE groups, on average. Whether or not those two things constitute “proof” is a matter of much debate on this board. I certainly find it easier to believe that there are differences. Turn on the TV to the NBA (why, hello, YWTF!) and talk yourself into lazy unmotivated white children who just couldn’t find the inclination or facilities to practice until their NBA dreams were realized, and who dropped out of the basketball pathway to sell cars instead. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-liberals-support-affirmation-action/643058.md?page=9)