Support NeoGAF

[Stephen Colbert]

And because of these same quota systems...

So Asian American applicants to private universities must score 450 points higher than blacks, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 140 points higher than whites on the SAT.

And that's not even taking into account the unique challenges faced by Asian Americans in poor families, first generation immigrants growing up in gang ridden neighborhoods.

Not only do these Asian Americans have to deal with challenges due to race, their name, their accents...

they also have to deal with challenges stemming from growing up in poverty, in a poor neighborhood with failing schools...

and on top of that, they have to deal with the challenges caused by the quota systems stemming from AA policies that expect them to score 450 points higher in the SATs than black students growing up in the same neighborhoods as them, going to the same schools, for no reason other than because of their skin color.

For this reason, and for the many previous reasons I mentioned in my earlier posts, it only makes sense to base AA policies on socioeconomics.

Asian americans were used essentially as slave labor to build the railroads, they had their possessions seized and were locked away in internment camps by the US government, it doesn't make sense to have a AA inspired quota system that disproportionately punishes them more than any other race.

Basing AA on socioeconomics rather than skin color addresses all of this.

 

[captmcblack]

One of that 57%.

Should be merit or need based. If more minorities need help then more power to them. A poor white person should not get fucked over for financial aid because of their skin color.

I still want to know where "poor (non-minorities) get fucked over" with affirmative action.

Somebody, anybody - please tell me why affirmative action is always assumed to hurt non-minorities by default? Affirmative action exists ONLY to help level the playing field and assist similarly/equally-qualified minorities in receiving placements for things. Is there some proof that it doesn't do that?

 

[Mumei]

For this reason, and for the many previous reasons I mentioned in my earlier posts, it only makes sense to base AA policies on socioeconomics.

No, it doesn't. You are making a good argument for why we should be concerned with socioeconomic class in addition to race. You are not making a good argument for why we should be concerned with socioeconomic class as a replacement for affirmative action for race.

 

[Margalis]

Why is the assumption that affirmative action only - or even mostly - benefits unqualified people?

AA secures a spot for someone who would otherwise not be qualified were their race not taken into account. That is the entire purpose - anyone who was going to make it in already based on other qualifications did not benefit from AA.

That's what it does. Whether or not that is right or wrong is a question - does some sort of institutional bias make sense to counteract some sort of societal and historical bias? But call a horse a horse - the whole purpose of AA in college admissions is to qualify otherwise unqualified people on the basis of race - or in the case of asians, to disqualify someone who is otherwise qualified.

Note that that is very different from something like the NFL rule where you have to interview a black guy for head coach. That expands the candidate pool but presumably the person finally selected is the most qualified regardless of race, at least in theory.

Now to be fair college admissions are a fucking joke in general and if you are going to complain about AA you should also complain about geographical preference, alumni preference, etc.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

No, it doesn't. You are making a good argument for why we should be concerned with socioeconomic class in addition to race. You are not making a good argument for why we should be concerned with socioeconomic class as a replacement for affirmative action for race.

At the very least, we can agree that we need to take a step towards that direction

First and foremost, socioeconomics should be made a major factor (if not THE major factor) when establishing AA based quota systems. Race can be taken into account as well, but using race as the sole factor and ignoring socioeconomics as many schools currently do is idiotic.

The policy as it's currently practiced stacks the deckagainst impoverished white americans and stacks the deck even harder against impoverished asian americans and indians who have to deal with racism, discrimatory practices by the govt in the past, as well as race based quotas.

 

[Wafflecakes]

I still want to know where "poor (non-minorities) get fucked over" with affirmative action.

Somebody, anybody - please tell me why affirmative action is always assumed to hurt non-minorities by default? Affirmative action exists ONLY to help level the playing field and assist similarly/equally-qualified minorities in receiving placements for things. Is there some proof that it doesn't do that?

At some point there is a line where a person who is white would not get as much as a person who is not. Thats the point of affirmative action. Sure maybe if both are in the bottom 1% they will both get help. What if they are both in the bottom 15%? 25%? Eventually you will find a point where it is no longer possible to get support if you are white. Same goes for acceptance into programs and grades.

What are you going to tell those students? "I know you come from just as shitty of a situation as the black students...but your rejection is important to even the playing field so too bad....your future is the price we pay for progress."

 

[Wolves Evolve]

No. There are some problems with the disadvantaged indigenous populations but despite what the media might paint Australia is a fairly non-racist country. We don't have entrenched racial advantage/disadvantaged like the US.

Very subjective, I'm afraid. Australia is quite racist systematically and culturally racist in ways that matter. What you don't see is the street racism of Australia, but our national attitudes to race are pretty appalling. Scratch the surface of the asylum seeker debate you find just what most Australians think of Indonesians, Arabs and Asians.

 

[ReBurn]

I still want to know where "poor (non-minorities) get fucked over" with affirmative action.

Somebody, anybody - please tell me why affirmative action is always assumed to hurt non-minorities by default? Affirmative action exists ONLY to help level the playing field and assist similarly/equally-qualified minorities in receiving placements for things. Is there some proof that it doesn't do that?

Not to support one position or the other, but you really can't prove that something like that doesn't happen. It would make sense, at least anecdotally, that if there is one job and two candidates and the deciding factor turns out to be race that one person was helped because of their race and the other person was hurt because of their race. It doesn't matter what the races are.

 

[empty vessel]

AA secures a spot for someone who would otherwise not be qualified were their race not taken into account. That is the entire purpose - anyone who was going to make it in already based on other qualifications did not benefit from AA.

That's what it does. Whether or not that is right or wrong is a question - does some sort of institutional bias make sense to counteract some sort of societal and historical bias? But call a horse a horse - the whole purpose of AA in college admissions is to qualify otherwise unqualified people on the basis of race - or in the case of asians, to disqualify someone who is otherwise qualified.

That's not really true. A person may be qualified to attend Harvard without securing a spot. You are confusing qualifications with the scarcity of resources. Harvard does not have the resources to provide an education to all who are qualified to go there. Sorting ensues.

 

[captmcblack]

AA secures a spot for someone who would otherwise not be qualified were their race not taken into account.

No, that isn't true at all.

You mean to tell me that AA puts C students into Harvard just because they're black, or makes a guy with an associates in Creative Writing a project manager over the guy with an MBA just because he's hispanic? C'mon, son.

If you've got proof of this, I'd love to see it.

People: Affirmative action doesn't get you the food. Affirmative action just helps get more minorities to the table with a fair chance to eat it. If you didn't get a job/get into the college of your choice and some colored person did, it wasn't some nebulous quota system or some crazy disregard of your future.

 

[Miletius]

At the very least, we can agree that we need to take a step towards that direction

First and foremost, socioeconomics should be made a major factor (if not THE major factor) when establishing AA based quota systems. Race can be taken into account as well, but using race as the sole factor and ignoring socioeconomics as many schools currently do is idiotic.

Most schools don't do this. It's silly to assume that schools only take into account race when offering selection bias.

In short, admissions officers at both private and public universities have been doing exactly what Justice Powell, in the landmark 1978 decision, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, said that they should be allowed to do: pursuing “race-sensitive” admission policies that entail considering race among other factors. They have been weighing considerations that are both objective (advanced- placement courses taken in high school, for example) and subjective (indications of drive, intellectual curiosity, leadership ability, and so on). And they have been selecting very well. According to all the available evidence, minority students admitted to academically selective colleges and universities as long ago as the mid-1970s have been shown to be successful in completing rigorous graduate programs, doing well in the market-place, and, most notably, contributing in the civic arena out of all proportion to their numbers. (Note 6)

Minority candidates are, of course, by no means the only group of applicants to receive special consideration. Colleges and universities have long paid special attention to children of alumni, to “development cases,” to applicants who come from poor families or who have otherwise overcome special obstacles, to applicants who will add to the geographic (including international) diversity of the student body, to students with special talents in fields such as music, and, especially in recent years, to athletes. Some readers may be surprised to learn from Reclaiming the Game that recruited athletes at many selective colleges are far more advantaged in the admission process (that is, are much more likely to be admitted at a given SAT level) than are minority candidates.

More at the Link

 

[Zaptruder]

No, it doesn't. You are making a good argument for why we should be concerned with socioeconomic class in addition to race. You are not making a good argument for why we should be concerned with socioeconomic class as a replacement for affirmative action for race.

The flipside is we award spots to rich black students. Seems to go against the grain of what we're trying to do no?

Minorities already disproportionately represent people in the lower socio-economic classes; as a result Blacks, Hispanics are 'disproportionately' favoured, in line with original intention of AA, but with more lee-way for making the right calls in edge cases.

 

[pigeon]

At the very least, we can agree that we need to take a step towards that direction

First and foremost, socioeconomics should be made a major factor (if not THE major factor) when establishing AA based quota systems. Race can be taken into account as well, but using race as the sole factor and ignoring socioeconomics as many schools currently do is idiotic.

Even if, as Mumei noted, we admit that we should be concerned with SES in addition to race, your conclusion here does not follow. Should I also assume that you have no evidence to back up your arguments, since you have failed and continue to fail to provide any?

That's not really true. A person may be qualified to attend Harvard without securing a spot. You are confusing qualifications with the scarcity of resources. Harvard does not have the resources to provide an education to all who are qualified to go there. Sorting ensues.

Not directly a reply to this, but I think it's instructive to consider Tim Harford's argument that selecting people by preexisting academic achievement is not the correct way to perform college admissions at all:

It all depends on what you want from your universities. The implicit model of people who complain about Mr Clegg’s proposals seems to be that university is a kind of prize for the best performance so far – along the same theory that the Wimbledon Girls’ title is awarded to the player who beats her opponents, rather than the player regarded as most likely to win the Ladies’ title in future. But that is a little hard to justify. More reasonable alternatives are that university places should go to those most likely to excel in the future, or to those most likely to benefit from the education.

http://timharford.com/2012/05/an-ed...d&utm_campaign=Feed:+TimHarford+(Tim+Harford)

 

[watershed]

At the very least, we can agree that we need to take a step towards that direction

First and foremost, socioeconomics should be made a major factor (if not THE major factor) when establishing AA based quota systems. Race can be taken into account as well, but using race as the sole factor and ignoring socioeconomics as many schools currently do is idiotic.

The policy as it's currently practiced stacks the deckagainst impoverished white americans and stacks the deck even harder against impoverished asian americans and indians who have to deal with racism, discrimatory practices by the govt in the past, as well as race based quotas.

I cannot think of a single college or university that does this. You seem to be confusing what you think Affirmative Action is with what it is in reality.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I cannot think of a single college or university that does this. You seem to be confusing what you think Affirmative Action is with what it is in reality.

Many schools use race based quota systems.

If they fill up the quota will upper income african americans or upper income asians, that still counts and they tout it as "diversity"

When people look around campus brochures for diversity they see skin color and in college websites, they often tout their race percentages, but how many colleges do you see talking about how many poor kids they admit? I've yet to see one.

 

[pigeon]

Many schools use race based quota systems.

Name three.

 

[Margalis]

That's not really true. A person may be qualified to attend Harvard without securing a spot. You are confusing qualifications with the scarcity of resources. Harvard does not have the resources to provide an education to all who are qualified to go there. Sorting ensues.

This is a distinction without a difference. If a bunch of people are qualified but because of sorting some get in that is functionally exactly the same as those who are sorted out as being not qualified.

If you are qualified to go to Harvard but someone else is accepted in your place because of their race the fact that you were qualified is functionally identical to not being qualified. There are limited spots in an institution, what matters is who gets in, period. The fact that some people would didn't get it maybe could have gotten in some alternate universe is completely irrelevant.

You mean to tell me that AA puts C students into Harvard just because they're black

What I mean to tell you is that people who would otherwise not get into Harvard because on other merits they were not as good as their peers get in once their race is taken into account - that is the definition of AA in college admissions. It's not "just because" they are black but being black does push them over the threshold that they would not be pushed over were they white.

AA in college admissions accepts people who, were their race not taken into account, would not be accepted. That is THE ENTIRE POINT. Otherwise having AA would be exactly the same as not having it. (Were the sets of people accepted with and without the same)

And again, that is very different from something like NFL hiring where the pool of applicants is expanded but who is ultimately picked is done based solely on merit.

I am not opposed to AA in admissions - I just find it silly to pretend that it doesn't raise or lower the requirements threshold based on race when that is THE ENTIRE PURPOSE.

 

[ReBurn]

Many schools use race based quota systems.

If they fill up the quota will upper income african americans or upper income asians, that still counts and they tout it as "diversity"

When people look around campus brochures for diversity they see skin color and in college websites, they often tout their race percentages, but how many colleges do you see talking about how many poor kids they admit? I've yet to see one.

That works the other way, too. SC State University has a predominantly black student body where only 3% of the student body is white, yet there are poor white kids there who would not have been able to afford to go to college had it not been through racial diversity programs rooted in affirmative action.

 

[midonnay]

Malaysia has affirmitive action based on socioeconomic factors.....for the ethnic majority.

not just in education (I think may have ended "officially") but also in civil service, government contracts etc.

it was instituted after race riots 40/50 years ago due to jealousy of the wealth of other ethnic groups.

Now compare the malaysian economy to its more meritocratic neighbours like Singapore, South Korea etc. (who don't have the benefit of natural resources to mask underlying problems).

I don't think its a system that should be embraced in a globalised society.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Even if, as Mumei noted, we admit that we should be concerned with SES in addition to race, your conclusion here does not follow. Should I also assume that you have no evidence to back up your arguments, since you have failed and continue to fail to provide any?]

Again, you're the one making claims that race based AA works better than SES based AA in improving diversity. You have yet to offer up a single shred of credible evidence supporting your claim.

Furthermore, your definition of diversity is narrow and outdated. A group of people from variable socioeconomic classes provide a wide range of diversity of thought and experience, more so I would contend than a group of people from a number of races that all grew up in upper income homes in suburban neighborhoods.

But you repeatedly advocate for diversity (for the purposes of Affirmative Action) being based solely on skin color, rather than a definition of diversity that takes into account life experience including race, socioeconomics, and growing up from a range of different communties and settings.

It's well past my bedtime. I'll follow up on your response after work tomorrow, so take your time in explaining to me what your thought process is. Judging from your past posts, you repeatedly come off as though you dont' think SE factors contribute to diversity and shouldn't be taken into account for the purposes of Affirmative Action. And if that's your belief, I would love to hear your justification why that is.

 

[Zaptruder]

Malaysia has affirmitive action based on socioeconomic factors.....for the ethnic majority.

not just in education (I think may have ended "officially") but also in civil service, government contracts etc.

it was instituted after race riots 40/50 years ago due to jealousy of the wealth of other ethnic groups.

Now compare the malaysian economy to its more meritocratic neighbours like Singapore, South Korea etc. (who don't have the benefit of natural resources to mask underlying problems).

I don't think its a system that should be embraced in a globalised society.

I hope you realize that there are far more factors to the success of those economies than just affirmative action or lack thereof.

Also, those two nations in particular have some pretty shitty lifestyles for working class people - with Singapore posessing some of the highest rates of socio-economic inequality in the world.

Indeed, much of Singapore's success comes from virtue of the fact that it is a bustling port city. A simple fact that is often forgotten by most people talking about its success.

 

[Margalis]

People really need to to distinguish between different forms of "AA."

That's why I keep bringing up the NFL hiring rules. Programs that expand the number of applicants or widen search parameters are very different from programs that change search results or operate via hard or soft quota.

College admissions alters selection criteria on the basis of race and operates on what is basically a soft quota.

 

[cousins]

And there it is.

Sucks that it's always the same people that point things like this out. Not that I don't appreciate those people, but you'd hope other people would realize, too. Oh well.

 

[pigeon]

Again, you're the one making claims that race based AA works better than SES based AA in improving diversity. You have yet to offer up a single shred of credible evidence supporting your claim.

My claim is less extraordinary than yours and my evidence is more impressive (because, you know, it exists). All you've done so far is say you don't believe it. You've gone from "SES based AA is better than race-based AA even though I have no evidence for it," a question that would require a study of some sort, to "lots of schools use quotas even though I have no evidence for it," a question that would require maybe five seconds of Googling or the bare minimum of familiarity with Supreme Court decisions on the question of affirmative action. I think it's your turn to provide some evidence, pilgrim.

Furthermore, your definition of diversity is narrow and outdated. A group of people from variable socioeconomic classes provide a wide range of diversity of thought and experience, more so I would contend than a group of people from a number of races that all grew up in upper income homes in suburban neighborhoods.

But you repeatedly advocate for diversity (for the purposes of Affirmative Action) being based solely on skin color, rather than a definition of diversity that takes into account life experience including race, socioeconomics, and growing up from a range of different communties and settings.

No, I don't. As I've noted repeatedly, and you've disregarded, there are ALREADY programs that provide for diversity in terms of SES in educational settings.

 

[captmcblack]

AA in college admissions accepts people who, were their race not taken into account, would not be accepted. That is THE ENTIRE POINT. Otherwise having AA would be exactly the same as not having it. (Were the sets of people accepted with and without the same)

But why wouldn't they be accepted? In a perfect world, the answer to that question would always be a function of pure merit or scarcity...but this isn't a perfect world, and it's disingenuous to pretend that the issue isn't that "why" part.

AA is designed to prevent the answer to the bolded question from being "because they're [insert non-majority group here]". That is truly the entire point.

 

[midonnay]

I hope you realize that there are far more factors to the success of those economies than just affirmative action or lack thereof.

Also, those two nations in particular have some pretty shitty lifestyles for working class people - with Singapore posessing some of the highest rates of socio-economic inequality in the world.

Indeed, much of Singapore's success comes from virtue of the fact that it is a bustling port city. A simple fact that is often forgotten by most people talking about its success.

AA is a big factor in it.

Singapore and South korea's economy is built around technology and biotechnology.

Malaysia should be a bridge between the islamic world, the english world, the indian world and the chinese world due to language and culture.

Why aren't they able to replicate their neighbours' success using these advantages?

 

[Miletius]

This is a distinction without a difference. If a bunch of people are qualified but because of sorting some get in that is functionally exactly the same as those who are sorted out as being not qualified.

If you are qualified to go to Harvard but someone else is accepted in your place because of their race the fact that you were qualified is functionally identical to not being qualified. There are limited spots in an institution, what matters is who gets in, period. The fact that some people would didn't get it maybe could have gotten in some alternate universe is completely irrelevant.



What I mean to tell you is that people who would otherwise not get into Harvard because on other merits they were not as good as their peers get in once their race is taken into account - that is the definition of AA in college admissions. It's not "just because" they are black but being black does push them over the threshold that they would not be pushed over were they white.

AA in college admissions accepts people who, were their race not taken into account, would not be accepted. That is THE ENTIRE POINT. Otherwise having AA would be exactly the same as not having it. (Were the sets of people accepted with and without the same)

And again, that is very different from something like NFL hiring where the pool of applicants is expanded but who is ultimately picked is done based solely on merit.

I am not opposed to AA in admissions - I just find it silly to pretend that it doesn't raise or lower the requirements threshold based on race when that is THE ENTIRE PURPOSE.

That's not exactly true. AA allows an institution to consider race as a factor in their admissions process. It does not guarantee that race becomes a deciding factor for students who get admitted not does it allow otherwise unqualified persons to "leap over" students who are also qualified. The belief that AA shunts out equally deserving non-minority students is a miasma that ought to be dispersed because it's a) universally untrue, and b) contrary to everything we understand about how the process works.

 

[cousins]

http://www.theroot.com/views/real-affirmative-action-babies

 

[Verano]

I support affirmative action because I support meritocracy.

no wonder USC is becoming a pre-dominant asian campus. I wish more latinos went to USC oppose to UCLA
:/

 

[malingenie]

My stance on affirmative action has changed because of good debates here in neogaf. I guess when I was anti-affirmative action I wanted to believe we are all in equal footing and could achieve the same things with the same effort. Sadly, this not the case. And until then, affirmative action can mind the gap.

 

[captmcblack]

Still waiting for 3 schools with a proven "race quota", as per pigeon's post above.

I'm curious!

 

[Opiate]

To those who feel that affirmative action does not foster a meritocracy:

It is an undeniable fact that Blacks in america perform less well in school and are less likely to enter college. Do you feel that this represents their true merit, and that black people simply aren't as intellectually vigorous as other races?

That is an honest question. If your answer is "yes," then you are explicitly a racist. If your answer is "no," then I'd be interested in hearing why you think this achievement gap occurs. To get you started: my answer is persistent cultural racism.

 

[A.E Suggs]

I'm not trying to be a smartass here... but it's hardly shocking that the majority does not approve of minority protections... which is why we protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

?

And seriously, as frustrating as these topics can be sometimes, it's always nice when someone says that they had their mind changed or that they learned something from them.

Now if only this happened outside of the internet in real life . Its to easy to fake like you care over the internet which is why I'm not fond of debates held over it.

 

[Davidion]

I'm kind of wondering why people are using Asians being "hurt" by Affirmative Action as an example ? Do any Asians here know of other Asians or themselves complain about AA as something that's damaging to them? I sure don't. I won't speak for South and other regional Asians, but when us yellow folk note issues with institutionalized imbalances that works against the community; outside of actual racists, we ain't bitching about the Blacks and the Latinos getting too much handed to them.

I'm all for AA. I'm near certain that pretty much everyone here spouting out the whole quota=evil line have zero justification that most, if any, implementations of AA across any major institutions actually work this way. I mean honestly, AA THIS simple can be implemented in an excel spreadsheet; I'm going to assume that people generally understand that there's a bit more to that working in the background.

 

[Mumei]

My stance on affirmative action has changed because of good debates here in neogaf. I guess when I was anti-affirmative action I wanted to believe we are all in equal footing and could achieve the same things with the same effort. Sadly, this not the case. And until then, affirmative action can mind the gap.

And seriously, as frustrating as these topics can be sometimes, it's always nice when someone says that they had their mind changed or that they learned something from them.

 

[ReBurn]

Still waiting for 3 schools with a proven "race quota", as per pigeon's post above.

I'm curious!

They're not coming. No sense fanning the flames.

 

[harSon]

It may be an unpopular opinion, but has there been discussion on the differences between the white lower class and black lower class experience? I've personally lived within neighborhoods representative of both demographics, and while they're both going to place one growing up within it at a disadvantage in terms of potential economic growth, impoverished black neighborhoods are so much more suffocating.

 

[zoku88]

It may be an unpopular opinion, but has there been discussion on the differences between the white lower class and black lower class experience? I've personally lived within neighborhoods representative of both demographics, and while they're both going to place one growing up within it at a disadvantage in terms of potential economic growth, impoverished black neighborhoods are so much more suffocating.

It's been noted in other threads (usually brought up against people saying that all poor people are treated poorly equally.)

It usually get ignored, though...

 

[cousins]

It may be an unpopular opinion, but has there been discussion on the differences between the white lower class and black lower class experience? I've personally lived within neighborhoods representative of both demographics, and while they're both going to place one growing up within it at a disadvantage in terms of potential economic growth, impoverished black neighborhoods are so much more suffocating.

Poor white people seem to have more generational wealth. I've met plenty of rednecks that have inherited old houses, cars, etc. Things are evening out as the rest of our families can build up that kind of base, but it's coming slowly and it's actively being suffocated in the south and in the midwest.

 

[pigeon]

AA is a big factor in it.

Singapore and South korea's economy is built around technology and biotechnology.

Malaysia should be a bridge between the islamic world, the english world, the indian world and the chinese world due to language and culture.

Why aren't they able to replicate their neighbours' success using these advantages?

No offense, but I think there are some seriously problematic ideas about saying that affirmative action has damaged Malaysia because it hasn't accomplished what you think it ought to have been able to, especially given that part of the reason Singapore is doing better than Malaysia is that it was expelled from Malaysia for reasons of racial strife! It's also worth noting, despite claims in this thread, that Malaysia was significantly further behind other countries economically until it embarked on its largest affirmative action programs in 1970, which interestingly enough coincide with a period of sustained economic growth.

 

[The Technomancer]

While I still think that from a purely financial standpoint AA based on income/wealth would serve low-wealth minorities as well as helping low-wealth white students, I have also come around to the idea that racial AA is important for cultural reasons.

 

[Opiate]

Malingie's post here is a good one. I'll just emphasize again the racist implications of believing that a system sans AA is "meritocratic."

Let's say I believe that a system without affirmative action is purely meritocratic, and that everyone gets exactly what is "merited" to them or what they "deserve" based on their intelligence and work ethic.

Now, consider again that Blacks in America perform noticeably worse in aggregate than Whites or Asians in High School, and are significantly less likely to go to college, even when we consider socioeconomic status. Again, if I believe everyone is showing their true "merit" and that everyone gets what they deserve, then I am implicitly arguing that black people are inferior. It's the only logical conclusion, if I begin with the premise that my society is a truly meritocratic one. Black people simple don't deserve as much "merit."

However, if I instead assume that my society is not inherently meritocratic, and that black people perform worse because of persistent, cultural biases against them, then if we want a meritocracy, something has to be done to un-tilt the table and create as reasonable a facsimile of real meritocracy as we can.

That "something" is Affirmative Action. If you have a better solution to help balance the system, I'm all ears. Balancing by socioeconomic status helps to a degree, but it does not address the problem of racism, which is still very significant and persistent in our culture.

 

[ezrarh]

It may be an unpopular opinion, but has there been discussion on the differences between the white lower class and black lower class experience? I've personally lived within neighborhoods representative of both demographics, and while they're both going to place one growing up within it at a disadvantage in terms of potential economic growth, impoverished black neighborhoods are so much more suffocating.

One guess would be the disproportionate number of arrests made on blacks than whites has something to do with it.

 

[Margalis]

That's not exactly true. AA allows an institution to consider race as a factor in their admissions process. It does not guarantee that race becomes a deciding factor for students who get admitted not does it allow otherwise unqualified persons to "leap over" students who are also qualified. The belief that AA shunts out equally deserving non-minority students is a miasma that ought to be dispersed because it's a) universally untrue, and b) contrary to everything we understand about how the process works.

No.

If something is a factor then in some cases it is a deciding factor - those are the cases where the person would not have made it in were they a different race. If AA were never a deciding factor it would be functionally nothing.

Here is a thought experiment:

Person A has a 3.2 GPA and a 1300 SAT, etc
Person B has a 3.2 GPA and a 1300 SAT, etc

Person A is asian, person B is white. I take person B, all other things being equal. Now what was the "deciding factor"?

Now take the case where person A, the asian person, actually has a HIGHER GPA, and person B still gets in. This does happen all the time. (You can also substitute "is the child of an alum" or "is from Nebraska")

If race were never the deciding factor then AA would be pointless. In the case it would not alter who was admitted and may as well not exist.

The belief that AA shunts out equally deserving non-minority students is a miasma that ought to be dispersed because it's a) universally untrue,

Not only is it true, it is the entire point. (Although I would replace "deserving" with "qualified based on non-racial criteria) There are two scenarios here:

1. The set of people getting into a college are exactly the same with and without AA - in this case AA is pointless.

2. The set of people getting into college is different with AA than without - in this case race was a deciding factor for EVERY person who made it in with AA who would not have made it in without.

If you compare the set of people who would make it without AA to the set of people with AA where those sets differ is by definition people where race was the deciding factor.

 

[Byakuya769]

To all the proponents of AA based on socio-economic standings only: wouldn't that scheme cause particular racial groups to be affected adversely? If you accept that as true, why is the implicit reaction to explicit history of racial bias okay, while the explicit response is unconscionable?

This question is of course based on your beliefs of quotas existing and zero sum outcomes.

 

[midonnay]

No offense, but I think there are some seriously problematic ideas about saying that affirmative action has damaged Malaysia because it hasn't accomplished what you think it ought to have been able to, especially given that part of the reason Singapore is doing better than Malaysia is that it was expelled from Malaysia for reasons of racial strife! It's also worth noting, despite claims in this thread, that Malaysia was significantly further behind other countries economically until it embarked on its largest affirmative action programs in 1970, which interestingly enough coincide with a period of sustained economic growth.

a kind of success...Malaysia is considered middle of the road compared to its neighbours...but built on the back of natural resources. What happens when it runs out?. The malaysian government has been furiously investing in knowledge based economies like its neighbours without the payoff. This hasn't been helped by the brain drain of chinese moving to other countries due to societal inequalities.

how far behind was japan or south korea after their wars? Singapore didn't start off as a rich nation either after being chucked out.

 

[IHaveCandy]

I am Eritrean. My family moved here in the early 80's from Ethiopia. My father had to work and study his way through multiple colleges to eventually settle in America. I grew up in a home that makes above a middle-class income, but I wouldn't label us rich. Growing up, I felt as though we were simply doing well. We made enough to get what we needed and also made enough to get a reasonable amount of the things we wanted. Even though my family had absolutely no impact from the racial segregation of the early 1900s, I am getting the AA benefits for work and education. How is this fair?

 

[kirblar]

To those who feel that affirmative action does not foster a meritocracy:

It is an undeniable fact that Blacks in america perform less well in school and are less likely to enter college. Do you feel that this represents their true merit, and that black people simply aren't as intellectually vigorous as other races?

That is an honest question. If your answer is "yes," then you are explicitly a racist. If your answer is "no," then I'd be interested in hearing why you think this achievement gap occurs. To get you started: my answer is persistent cultural racism.

When you subjugate a race for centuries, it's going to take far more than 150 years for them to catch up to everyone else. Money, education, social connections- these are all things that your parents pass down to you (in addition to genetic factors) that greatly influence someone's economic outcome. Unfortunately, the shadow of slavery looms large, and it will take a very, very long time for many of its effects to dissipate, if they ever do.

 

[captmcblack]

I am getting the AA benefits for work and education.

Are you?
What programs, exactly? How do you know you're benefiting?

 

[Byakuya769]

I am Eritrean. My family moved here in the early 80's from Ethiopia. My father had to work and study his way through multiple colleges to eventually settle in America. I grew up in a home that makes above a middle-class income, but I wouldn't label us rich. Growing up, I felt as though we were simply doing well. We made enough to get what we needed and also made enough to get a reasonable amount of the things we wanted. Even though my family had absolutely no impact from the racial segregation of the early 1900s, I am getting the AA benefits for work and education. How is this fair?

You realize you could have opted out of self-identification and ended your moral dilemma?