Why Do Liberals Support Affirmative Action?

[sqweels]

@Knorf

But this totally ignores the fact, for example, a black student is more likely to have been educated in a poorer school district that is strapped for resources…

It also ignores the culture of repression and discouragement–not to mention outright suspicion and hostility from police and authority in general, not to mention affluent whites–that blacks have to face daily, as a legacy of slavery and latency racism.

I guess the question comes down to whether it’s the responsibility of employers (or one’s job competitors) to compensate for these broader inequities rather than simply be colorblind within their own purview.

With this broader awareness of reality in mind, it is arguable that the conservative position of ignoring race in school admissions is not an argument for “equality of opportunity,” but a retention of the status quo which continues to keep minorities (especially blacks) away from opportunities more readily available to whites.

It’s going to take some convincing before I’ll agree that conservatives are deliberately trying to preserve the racial status quo rather than rejecting responsibility for it.

[athelas]

@you with the face

You insist on framing things in terms of net benefit, which is a quantity that I don’t know with respect to Asians. As I pointed out, they may be in disadvantaged in certain areas. But they may be helped in others. You’ll need to provide some stats to support that they suffer overall as a result of AA.

If you took the time to read my first link, you would be much the wiser.

AA gives Blacks the equivalent of a 230-point bonus on the (old, 1600 max) SAT, Hispanics get 185, whites get 0, and Asians get a deduction of 50 points. (Legacies get 160 and athletes 200) They conclude that the real losers from AA are not whites but Asians - 80% of seats that Blacks and Hispanics now gain from AA are at the expense of Asian candidates, who would have been admitted to those seats if purely merit-based admissions was practiced.

AA is not a zero sum game, where one group has to always lose and one group has to always gain. If you think otherwise, again, it’s time to put up some cites.

Of course it is a zero sum game. If someone gets a preference in hiring or admissions, that pushes a more qualified candidate down. Quibbling about group definitions and different situations does not change this fact. It amazes me that people on this board can believe that international trade is zero (or negative!) sum and affirmative action is not.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@FinnAgain

Well Damuri, welcome to the Dope. You’re new here, but you should know that we are (mostly) rational, and above all, skeptical folks who love epistemology, proof, refutation, and proper methodology.

There’s a reason that “Cite?” is the unofficial battle cry of the boards.
Simply because something is “widely accepted” means, well, nothing. Other than that lots of people think something.

With that being said, even if the largest number of those who benefit from AA are women, that still doesn’t tell us all that much. Groups are notoriously finicky beasts, and their construction often random and/or haphazard.
If, for instance, gender is the preferred selection criteria in most AA hires, that still doesn’t tell us if it’s white women, black women, Asian women or Navajo women. Women are no more a unified, fungible group than Hispanics or Jews are. And even if white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA, it is still horribly sloppy language that would say, then, that “whites” are. If a policy benefits 51% of a ‘group’ and disadvantages the remaining 49%, it’s beyond odd to talk as if it provides a benefit for the group-as-a-whole

I did a google search for “greatest beneficiary of affirmative action” and the results are not bulletproof but…

http://www.google.com/search?q=greatest+beneficiary+of+affirmative+action&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SUNA

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

Which, if any, of the following statements is false-[ul][li]Group X as a whole has suffered discrimination in the past[*]Group X as a whole has an average IQ score about one standard deviation below the average[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan

Am I missing something or did you just reply to a claim that there is such a thing as race by asking if blacks are dumb? Is the idea that the prejudice is actually against dumb people?

[Ocean_Annie]

@FinnAgain

And if for instance, a certain percentage of AA hires come at the expense of marginally more qualified individuals (or as the cases of Texas and California have shown, dramatically more talented individuals), how does it help those individuals to be passed over? Whether or not it benefits society as a whole is, as you admit, something to be taken on faith. But whether or not it harms someone not to get into a good college or to get a good job is easily quantifiable. How much disadvantage for some, through no fault of their own, is too much? If an Asian man misses out on attending Berkeley, and doesn’t make contacts he’d need later in life, and ends up getting a job that’s below his skill level, what then? How much hardship is enough? What if he makes 5K less than he would have otherwise? 10? 30? What if he has to put off having a family and children for an extra five years so that he can save money? What if it’s ten years? What if he can never afford to have children and give them a decent life?

If programs like AA do harm sometimes, and they do, we’ve seen that they tend to keep Asians out of the best schools for higher education at a disproportionate rate… then don’t we at least need to show that it’s doing a hell of a lot of good, and not just take it on faith?

Here are some numbers to consider.

While Asian-Americans account for 5 percent of the population in the United States, they account for greater numbers at prestigious institutions like Harvard (18 percent), Stanford (24 percent), and the University of California at Berkeley (46 percent). At Princeton, they accounted for 13 percent of undergraduates last year, and make up 14 percent of the current freshman class. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/education/23princeton.html

UVA student profile – 10.8% Asian, 64.8% White, 8.5% African American Link

Duke student profile – 28.8% Asian/Pacific Island, 9.3% African American, 57% White Link

MIT student profile – 26% Asian, 9% African American, 38% Caucasian Link
NYU –student profile – 27% Asian, 3.7% African American, 51.3% Caucasian Link

 --Median income of African American households in 2006: $31,969

-- Median income of Hispanic American households in 2006: $37,781

-- Median income of White American households in 2006: $50,673

-- Median income of Asian American households in 2006: $63,900

[U.S. Census Bureau. Aug. 2007] [Link](http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/010583.html) 

Are there any real numbers to support the claim that Asians or White males have been economically damaged by affirmative action?

[brazil84]

@unconventional

Are there any real numbers to support the claim that Asians or White males have been economically damaged by affirmative action?

For starters, your own numbers:

Stanford (24 percent), and the University of California at Berkeley (46 percent).

Stanford and Cal are similar in many ways. They are both highly ranked and located near eachother. Many many people apply to both schools. The big difference is that Cal is public and Stanford is private. As a public university in California, Cal is no longer permitted to practice affirmative action; thus their extraodinarily high percentage of Asian students. (A google search confirms that enrollment of Asian freshman at Cal has jumped dramatically since affirmative action was banned at Cal.)

Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude that in the absence of affirmative action, Asian enrollment at Stanford would be a lot closer to the figure for Cal. It follows that there are a good number of Asians out there who were rejected from Stanford because of affirmative action. Is that an economic harm? I would say it probably is. It’s a lot easier to get a high-paying job or gain admission to a top professional school if you went to a place like Stanford. Certainly it seems likely that if top schools discriminated against blacks, most affirmative action supporters would agree that there would be economic harm.

[Shodan]

@Damuri Ajashi

Am I missing something or did you just reply to a claim that there is such a thing as race by asking if blacks are dumb? Is the idea that the prejudice is actually against dumb people?

You’re missing something.

The idea is to establish if “race” is a valid category. Many on the SDMB deny that it is, at least in some circumstances.

Would you like to have a crack at it?

Which, if any, of the following statements is false-[ul][li]Group X as a whole has suffered discrimination in the pastGroup X as a whole has an average IQ score about one standard deviation below the average[/li][/ul]

Regards,
Shodan

[you_with_the_face]

@athelas

If you took the time to read my first link, you would be much the wiser.

I already acknowledged that Asians may be negatively impacted by AA in college admissions, so this is not the gotcha ya moment you might have been wishing for.

If someone gets a preference in hiring or admissions, that pushes a more qualified candidate down.

Not it doesn’t, or at least, not necessarily. If you want to assert that this happens with respect to admissions, okay, at least you brought a cite. But AA doesn’t always push more qualified candidates down. It simply allows other criteria (like race, gender, etc) to be factored in the decision process when all other things are equal or sufficient. To assert otherwise, requires some cites.

[Shodan]

@you with the face

But AA doesn’t always push more qualified candidates down. It simply allows other criteria (like race, gender, etc) to be factored in the decision process when all other things are equal or sufficient. To assert otherwise, requires some cites.

Actually, Maeglin has already provided some abstracts that say the opposite -

Overall, we find that Affirmative Action does redistribute jobs, university admissions and government contracts away from white males towards minorities and females, though the overall magnitudes of these shifts are relatively modest. We also find that Affirmative Action shifts jobs and university admissions to minorities who have weaker credentials, but there is little solid evidence to date of weaker labor market performance among its beneficiaries.

So the abstract seems to be saying that jobs and admissions are being shifted even when all other things are not equal.

So the burden of proof remains with you.

Regards,
Shodan

[brazil84]

@Shodan

Actually, Maeglin has already provided some abstracts that say the opposite - So the abstract seems to be saying that jobs and admissions are being shifted even when all other things are not equal.

Nice, Shodan.

Now . . . how about a cite for the fact that the Pope is Catholic.

[you_with_the_face]

@Shodan

So the abstract seems to be saying that jobs and admissions are being shifted even when all other things are not equal.

So the burden of proof remains with you.

Let’s go back to what I just wrote a few minutes ago.

@ywtf

But AA doesn’t always push more qualified candidates down. It simply allows other criteria (like race, gender, etc) to be factored in the decision process when all other things are equal or sufficient.

…

Here’s a newsflash, ladies and gentlemen. The US has never been a meritocracy. Networking has always been used to give folks an unearned advantage. Qualifications have always been more than numbers and letters on a sheet of resume paper. It is only when we talk about Affirmative Action that the reality of business as usual is ignored in favor of unrealistic ideals.

My main quibble in this thread has been the overemphasis of blacks when we talk about AA. Women–white women in particular since they make up the largest body of people who benefit from AA–hardly even merit an honorable mention in threads like this. Two pages in and we still haven’t seen anyone defend why blacks are deserving of all the scrutiny.

I’m not interested in debating AA as a practice. I’m just pointing out that the more the anti-AA brigrade complains about blacks stealing all the jobs and admission slots–without expanding their attention to women and other ethnicities…including white males that get a handup through social networking and legacy admissions–the more they look like the very people the program was intended to counteract. Don’t like this opinion? Tough. Consider it constructive criticism.

[brazil84]

@you with the face

Two pages in and we still haven’t seen anyone defend why blacks are deserving of all the scrutiny.

Maybe it’s because the OP specifically asked about affirmative action for blacks?

[you_with_the_face]

@brazil84

Maybe it’s because the OP specifically asked about affirmative action for blacks?

What makes blacks so special that they need to be singled out? Not just this time, but essentially every time the AA question is raised?

[Shodan]

@you with the face

Let’s go back to what I just wrote a few minutes ago.

Well, OK, let’s.

@ywtf

But AA doesn’t always push more qualified candidates down. It simply allows other criteria (like race, gender, etc) to be factored in the decision process when all other things are equal or sufficient.

Followed by a couple of paragraphs having nothing to do with your allegation.

I guess I will have to assume that you feel yourself to have been adequately refuted, and are now willing to concede the point. If not, maybe you could actually address it, rather than merely repeating it.

I’m just pointing out that the more the anti-AA brigrade complains about blacks stealing all the jobs and admission slots–without expanding their attention to women and other ethnicities…including white males that get a handup through social networking and legacy admissions–the more they look like the very people the program was intended to counteract.

Don’t like this opinion? Tough. Consider it constructive criticism.

Actually, it sounds a bit more like dodging the question.

I am not quite sure of your point here. You seem to be including white males using networking and so forth as an example of AA, but you then say that this is what you want to see “counteracted”. So apparently AA is OK for minorities but not for white males. Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that AA in the form of networking only happens “all other things being equal”?

Not clear here.

Regards,
Shodan

[brazil84]

@you with the face

What makes blacks so special that they need to be singled out?

That’s a question for the OP, not me.

[you_with_the_face]

@Shodan

I am not quite sure of your point here. You seem to be including white males using networking and so forth as an example of AA, but you then say that this is what you want to see “counteracted”. So apparently AA is OK for minorities but not for white males. Is that what you are saying?

AA is intended to counteract institutional sexism and racism, and their vestiges.

When folks decry the unearned benefits that AA gives blacks, while ignoring, pardoning, or denying the unearned benefits given to other white people (either AA for women, legacy admissions, networking…all of which disproportionately help whites) then that paints the impression that a troubling anti-black bias underlies the anti-AA movement. This impression becomes even stronger when Latinos–yet another group that outnumbers blacks and receives unearned benefits through AA–aren’t put on the chopping block, either. (And in fact sometimes treated like one of AA’s victims!) The focus is always on black people. And when folks like me ask why and receive no good answers, that impression only becomes cemented.

Of all the things being argued in this thread, no one has argued that I’m wrong about the black fixation thing. Could it be that we all agree on something for once?

[brazil84]

@you with the face

Of all the things being argued in this thread, no one has argued that I’m wrong about the black fixation thing. Could it be that we all agree on something for once?

No, I don’t agree with that. My general sense is that peoples’ focus in discussing affirmative action depends more on the context. For example, in the context of things like math and science professorships; law firm partnerships; and certain other jobs, I hear a lot of people complaining about affirmative action towards women.

[LonesomePolecat]

YWTF raises an excellent point. Preferential treatment for blacks isn’t the only reason AA should be abolished.

Why should a Mexican whose family has never before been north of the Rio Grande be able to come to Georgia and benefit from AA?

Why should Iraqis and Syrians who just got off the plane be able to use AA to qualify for small business loans from the government?

Why should a Jamaican or a Somali whose family has never set foot in America before his arrival be given prefential treatment in government employment or for a government contract?

AA and other minority set asides are a racial spoils system imposed on America by the left. That’s the reason it should be abolished.

[Maeglin]

@LonesomePolecat

YWTF raises an excellent point. Preferential treatment for blacks isn’t the only reason AA should be abolished.

Why should…

Why shouldn’t they?

[Eonwe]

Ok, a few points here.

First, a number of folks have said something along the lines of “there’s no such thing as race.” Whether or not that is scientifically and/or genetically true I’m not equipped to argue. But when we talk about blacks, asians, latinos, or whomever, we are talking about fairly easily defined groups who are defined based on appearance and to some small degree cultural background. To claim that race doesn’t exist as some sort of argument against AA, or to score some sort of gotcha ya point against AA supporters is silly.

Second (and I see that you with the face has already mentioned this), the idea that people get jobs and into colleges based solely on quantifiable attributes is just plain wrong. Almost never has that been the case. If that were so, we’d never need admissions departments in colleges, and HR departments could run job applications through a calculator and hire that way. To assume that people with better numbers are being robbed of jobs by AA is wrong, because people with better numbers lose out because of qualitative reasons all the time.

Third, and maybe most importantly, does anyone here actually know how AA works? I sure don’t. Is it applied differently at different organizations? I ask because there seems to be an awful lot of supposition about how AA works that just doesn’t ring true. I imagine that in some people’s minds a typical new hire decision might go like this:

Well, Smith has a stellar resume, has won accolades in his field, is funny, thinks on his feet, and is just the man for the job. Too bad that Jenkins also applied. He was fired from his last job for laziness, doesn’t have training or experience in our software, and seemed like an asshole, but he’s black, so we have to hire him instead.

. . . and I just don’t buy it. Even if that sort of thing happened occasionally, or at one specific place that had a piss-poor implementation of AA, I don’t think that anyone in their right mind is arguing in favor of that situation.

I’m a white male, and have mixed feelings about AA. In general, though, I feel that it’s a good thing. Most of the upper and middle class in this country are white. I feel that that is a huge problem because it is in everyone’s best interests that the opportunity for wealth, success, and stability be as readily available as possible for everyone. Helping a group that is clearly disenfranchised in this regard, for whatever reason, can only benefit society as a whole.

And so, the black vice-principal (who is definitely qualified for the job) might be a better choice because he can stand as an example of success for a group of kids who might not really know what success looks like, or who might never have imagined that sort of success being something possible for them to achieve.

I do agree with those who feel that economics plays a big part in this as well, but in the interests of providing a stable and self-sustaining middle-class black community, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing if AA benefits black people who already come from privileged backgrounds.