Affirmative Action

[nerdanel]

This thread topic began awkwardly because it was split from the following casual comment made in Bag End.

I was reading the New York Times' recent article on racial demographics at the public magnet school Stuyvesant High in NYC. The article focused on the statistical underrepresentation of African-Americans at Stuyvesant (which has a 100% merit-based system without use of quotas or affirmative action) and the resulting socially difficult experience for black students. The comments section became a predictable conversation about affirmative action, and one racist comment was so beautifully ironic that I just had to share it:

I feel sorry for a truely smart black/latino, because everytime I saw such a person in a community that requires intelligence, my first thinking is "another beneficiary of affirmtive action"!

(irony still burning.)

[Frelga]

Well, after I untangled what passed for logic in the quoted comment, I had to conclude that it was not true. What could that commenter be doing in a community that requires intelligence?

nel, you owe me an aspirin.

[Primula Baggins]

"If they're actually smart, I'm stupid! Which can't be!"

[halplm]

the point was that if someone achieves the level required to make the cut as it were, that is cheapened by people making the cut because of their skin color.

Or in other words, affirmative action is racist, rather than any kind of fix to racism.

[narya]

the point was that if someone achieves the level required to make the cut as it were, that is cheapened by people making the cut because of their skin color.

Or in other words, affirmative action is racist, rather than any kind of fix to racism.

I disagree. The "level required" had been finely tuned, over the years, to select only for the type of people who were already there. That was racist. Perhaps not intentionally racist, but people do unintentionally select for people they feel comfortably familiar with. For most Whites, that means selecting other Whites. As a mixed race person (though I look White), I feel uncomfortable in a stark white room full of people. I self select for mixed race groups, which feel more "normal" to me, probably because the extended family I grew up with was mixed race.

If the mix has been honed to a cookie cutter group of rich WASP males of a certain score on a certain set of tests, then only a change of the selection criteria will allow in females, or people of different socio-economic classes, or religions, or skin colors. Affirmative action is not a matter of keeping all the same selection criteria, and throwing in a few people who don't qualify. A good affirmative action program affirms that there is value in diversity.

[halplm]

narya, you're making a point altogether different to what i said or what the accused racist commentor was talking about... which is typically where these discissions go and why its fairly impossible to have a productive duscussion on race

[narya]

Hal, I will agree with you that affirmative action, badly applied, is not a good fix for racism.

[nerdanel]

hal,

Despite the fact that I posted the indisputably racist comment to comment on its irony, I do not support affirmative action - a conclusion I've reached after years of thought and back-and-forth on the subject. While I don't support affirmative action, it is not possible to know whether any individual black or Hispanic person was the "beneficiary" of affirmative action - i.e., whether they did or did not present a sufficiently strong application package to be admitted purely on merit. The comment is racist in inaccurately presuming that no black or Hispanic person could belong to a "community that requires intelligence" on their own merits. And it is ironic for obvious reasons: if one decides to make snarky, racist comments about others being unqualified to participate in a "community that requires intelligence," it would behoove one to endeavor to learn how to spell and use grammar first.

narya,

As an opponent of affirmative action, I strongly disagree with your analysis, and I believe that the Stuyvesant article showcases why it is fatally flawed:

I disagree. The "level required" had been finely tuned, over the years, to select only for the type of people who were already there. That was racist ... If the mix has been honed to a cookie cutter group of rich WASP males of a certain score on a certain set of tests, then only a change of the selection criteria will allow in females, or people of different socio-economic classes, or religions, or skin colors. Affirmative action is not a matter of keeping all the same selection criteria, and throwing in a few people who don't qualify. A good affirmative action program affirms that there is value in diversity.

The article illustrates that Stuyvesant's demographics - who are selected based solely on their performance on a merit-based test - have shifted rapidly over the years:

Asians, on the other hand, make up 72.5 percent of Stuyvesant’s student body (they are 13.7 percent of the city’s overall public school population), a staggering increase from 1970, when they were 6 percent of Stuyvesant students, according to state enrollment statistics. Back then, white students made up 79 percent of Stuyvesant’s enrollment; this year, they are 24 percent, and 14.9 percent systemwide.

Without changing the selection criteria from a test that measures ability, Stuyvesant's student body now is comprised of a supermajority of minorities. Note also that Asian-Americans hail from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, cultures, religions and countries, such that a mixed group featuring South, East, and Southeast Asian-Americans is itself internally diverse. The "rich WASP males" of whom you speak are a small minority of the overall student body.

The ugly reality of affirmative action is that it discriminates unfairly on the basis of skin color ... both against those white people who are born into poverty and who lack class privilege, and also against brown people who:
- Are immigrants or children of immigrants
- Who have fought their way up from poverty in a mere 1-2 generations and who have contended with racism throughout - or have managed to succeed academically while still financially poor
- Who, based on their cultural differences and/or immigrant experiences, can often contribute to the much-vaunted "diversity of student experience" just by showing up
- Who have worked their way to the top such that they are objectively the most qualified candidates for admission. See, e.g., a 2009 study at Princeton: "Of students applying to private colleges in 1997, African-American applicants with SAT scores of 1150 had the same chances of being accepted as white applicants with 1460s and Asian applicants with perfect 1600s."

(As an Asian-American making this argument, I should clarify that my view is not based on a belief that I have been a victim of racism in admissions decisions. I have only ever been rejected from one school, Yale Law School, and in a one-on-one conversation, they gave me a race-neutral, persuasive explanation for why I was not admitted.)

[nerdanel]

I'm sure most people have seen this by now, but I am eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. Texas, in which the Court has the opportunity to rule decisively against all use of race in admissions decisions by public universities and private universities that receive federal funding. I hope that they take this opportunity to hold that race-based preferences are both racist and constitutionally impermissible.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This topic might have begun awkwardly, but it is a timely topic because the SCOTUS is poised to do away with the last vestiges of affirmative action. Back in 2003, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice O'Connor, the court held that college admissions could consider race as a factor, so long as it didn't use a quota system. The rationale of the court was that diversity was a reasonable goal to seek to achieve, and considering race was a reasonable way of achieving that goal. Now the court has taken on a case coming out of Texas in which two lower courts have upheld the University of Texas' system, in which the top ten percent of high school students are automatically offered admission regardless of race, but then below that applies a complicated system that includes race as one factor. With O'Connor having been replaced by the much more conservative Alito (and Kagan recusing herself from this case, although that doesn't matter so much since a tie would affirm the Court of Appeal decision), I think it is highly likely that the court will strike down the Texas system. The only real question, I think, is whether they will make a fairly narrow decision, or prohibit all race-based consideration altogether. I suspect the latter will be case.

Affirmative action • Supreme Court justices take up race as a factor in college entry

As for my own, opinion, I disagree that all consideration of race should be eliminated, and think that the current system should be preserved for some time. Won't happen though.

[nerdanel]

While I firmly believe that all consideration of race as a standalone positive (or negative) factor in one's application must be eliminated as constitutionally toxic, I tentatively support socioeconomic/hardship affirmative action for which applicants can apply by submitting a supplemental statement describing their specific circumstances that they believe merit the admission committee's consideration.

(This appears to be happening in the law school admissions context. In recent years, law schools have apparently begun making statements such as this: "The Committee makes every effort to understand your achievements in the context of your background and to admit a diverse student body. After completing the application form and personal statement, you may feel that there is other information that may help us in these efforts. If so, please include it with your application. Any information that you believe may be helpful is appropriate." Students took this as an invitation to submit a "diversity statement," which is apparently now a standard part of many law school applications. When I applied to law school in 2002, this was not part of the process.)

I tentatively support socioeconomic affirmative action for five reasons:

1. It would continue to combat the long-standing effects of historical racial discrimination for those most affected by them - minorities who are members of the lower class.

2. It poses fewer constitutional obstacles, since class-based distinctions are not - and need not be - subject to constitutional strict scrutiny.

3. It could potentially benefit lower-income immigrants and their children of all racial and ethnic backgrounds who have started from a disadvantaged point and can present a strong case for admission despite a facially weaker application than some of their competition. (I recently read a law school admissions "diversity essay" from an Indian immigrant who came to this country as a refugee based on religious persecution, had a trauma history based on his experiences of persecution for which he received years of medical treatment in the US, endured years of uncertainty about his legal status, was unstably housed in poor conditions for several years, spoke no English until he was 14 ... but worked his way to a full-ride, merit-based scholarship at a top private school for his bachelor's, then received a PhD from another highly-regarded school. These are absolutely the types of hardships that an admissions committee should consider, particularly when followed by a striking pattern of academic success despite extreme hardship. On the other hand, subjecting a candidate like this to race-based disadvantages is morally noxious. He is not a child of privilege.)

4. Next, socioeconomic affirmative action would draw people's attention to the disadvantages linked to class. Rather than a rejected candidate grousing, "I didn't get into this school because I was discriminated against because of my race in favor of someone with a different skin color," it could force these folks to admit, "I didn't get into this school, but if I was 'discriminated' against, it was in favor of students who didn't have the same chances as me growing up, some of whom have the same skin color as I do and some of whom don't."

5. It makes less facially obvious which students are eligible to benefit from affirmative-action, thus chipping away at the widespread (racist and untrue) presumption with which this thread began: that blacks and Hispanics have all been the direct beneficiaries of affirmative action, such that none have earned their class places based 100% on merit. In a class-based system, you wouldn't be able to guess by appearance who had received a "leg up" - and in any case, people who had received that "leg up" would have presented a compelling, individualized case for why they should be admitted despite lesser objective credentials than other applicants.

[SirDennis]

This thread topic began awkwardly because it was split from the following casual comment made in Bag End.

I was reading the New York Times' recent article on racial demographics at the public magnet school Stuyvesant High in NYC. The article focused on the statistical underrepresentation of African-Americans at Stuyvesant (which has a 100% merit-based system without use of quotas or affirmative action) and the resulting socially difficult experience for black students. The comments section became a predictable conversation about affirmative action, and one racist comment was so beautifully ironic that I just had to share it:

I feel sorry for a truely smart black/latino, because everytime I saw such a person in a community that requires intelligence, my first thinking is "another beneficiary of affirmtive action"!

(irony still burning.)

Not sure if it's ironic or if it puts a very fine point on what types of intelligence are not measured to be admitted to that particular school.

[River]

Can't say I'm a big fan of affirmative action either. It was a very poor fix for a very real problem. In the sciences, both historically and to a still-palpable degree in the present, women and non-Asian people-of-color get judged more harshly than white and Asian males. I'm sure this is true in other areas for other groups, but I can speak only from my own experience. The existence of affirmative action fundamentally does nothing to change those altered perceptions. If anything, it makes it worse for us. And, in science at least, it's the women who rip each other the hardest because as a group we fear to show weakness. Any weakness. Because if we do, people we think we don't deserve to be there.

Fortunately, this is easing off. Male scientists in the Gen-X and younger age brackets typically trained with or under women and have gotten over our existence in the labs. But there're some dinosaurs who still need to die and take their affirmative action down into the dark with them(WTF is it supposed to do, anyway, make 'em feel better while bandaging bruised egos in a soft-balm of "Well, s/he's only here to fill a quota?").

[JewelSong]

The best thing I can say about affirmative action is that it "seemed like a good idea at the time." I do think it was put into place with the best intentions...and we all know the saying about good intentions.

Prejudice, in various forms, will always exist. We ALL carry our own prejudices, whether we like to think so or not. "Prejudice" means (literally) to "pre-judge" and everyone does it to some extent.

The key is to be aware of it and that is where education can play a part...in addition to exposure to various groups and sub-sets of people.

[axordil]

Male scientists in the Gen-X and younger age brackets typically trained with or under women and have gotten over our existence in the labs.

Would those women have been there without AA?

ETA: Just to be clear: I'm not implying their qualifications weren't up to snuff. I'm asking if they would have been hired were there not legal pressure to do so.

[anthriel]

As for my own, opinion, I disagree that all consideration of race should be eliminated, and think that the current system should be preserved for some time. Won't happen though.

Well, perhaps as no surprise, I agree with Voronwë (albeit with a tiny bit of foot draggin'). I feel like the pressures against "fairly" choosing without a racist factor are still there, if not just a bit more subtle. It's not gone, and until it is, we need to fight it.

However, I don't love a system that is designed to be unfair. The fact that it was designed to correct an egregious unfairness makes it understandable.

Two examples (not necessarily of AA in particular, but in the kind of policy that AA is):

When I graduated high school, I had a 3.9+ GPA (this was before the 5-point-for-an-A-in-some-classes era). Being the money-grubbing little thing I was, I applied for a scholarship based on GPA; the minimum GPA you had to have was a 3.8, to apply.

I lost to a kid I had tutored in math, that senior year. He and I had been in school together since second grade; we both went to public schools. His GPA was a 2.5. Turns out that since his parents were from Puerto Rico (he was born and raised in the USA, his father had an air conditioning company and they lived in a tony part of town, with housecleaners and gardeners and such), *his* minimum GPA (for a GPA-based scholarship) was a 2.5, which he got, not a bit ironically, mostly because I carried his sorry butt through Algebra I (my senior year class was Calculus, btw).

Not fair, really. I understand the reason for it, and I did make it through college without the scholarship, so all's well that end's well. But it wasn't fair.

The other example is in my own family. My brother's first wife is 1/4 Cherokee, which puts his daughter at 1/8, which qualifies her as a minority in some books. His daughter is wildly accomplished, but he investigated whether applying for her as a minority for certain things would give her more access/money/clout. Surely that system was designed for someone who had faced some hardship because of their race? Unlike my very privileged, very intelligent, very athletic, very ambitious, tall, beautiful, spoiled, slightly-darkly-tinged niece with the remarkably weathy father?

I still understand the reason for it. But the holes in it really are large enough to drive big ole' logic trucks through them.

[vison]

The Law of Unintended Consequences was never repealed.

[SirDennis]

But there're some dinosaurs who still need to die and take their affirmative action down into the dark with them(WTF is it supposed to do, anyway, make 'em feel better while bandaging bruised egos in a soft-balm of "Well, s/he's only here to fill a quota?").

This was a sticking point for me for years (now I just don't care anymore).

It seems the people who benefited most from the inequalities of days gone by got to keep their jobs and their paternalistic ways (which is at the heart of affirmative action as it played out). Not only did they not step down or step aside they simply changed the rules for admittance -- some would say to keep young "crackerjacks" from competing with them for dominance -- while holding onto the power and prestige that they still believe is their birthright. Lately, especially in academia, as women and minorities have reached the point where they should be in charge, the governors changed the rules about being in charge.

And what self aware woman or visible minority would want to be in charge anyway? Though they changed the rules of admittance and arrival at the top, people on the road to the top were expected to think and behave exactly like the governors had always acted. What manner of abomination is a paternalistic woman or black? (Thank God Obama has proven an exception to the rule.)

There was never any push for balance, simply an offloading of the punishment for the excesses of previous generations of white males to their counterparts of younger generations. At the same time as doors were being opened for women and visible minorities, doors were being closed for young wasp males. Education became tailored to how females learn best. Young males, regardless of ethnic background, began falling through the cracks. Is it any wonder a generation of "mooks" and man children was born? Now the scourge of society, they feel incapable of managing their own affairs, let alone the affairs of the world. Not that it should be up to them alone, but neither should a brave new world see them under-represented among the guiding professions either.

Now that I got that out of my system, I do agree that among younger generations there does seem to be less awareness of gender (except where it is healthy to note differences) or ethnicity, especially when considering who should be in charge, or who is worthy to be followed.

[vison]

So, for this incredibly short space of time some girls in some places are "ahead" of some boys? Oh, dear. What a terrible, terrible, terrible tragedy!

Cry me a river.

If women are "coming in to their own" it may be - it is just possible - that this is what Nature intended all along. Maybe men will have to take the back seat. Maybe some men have always been "mooks" but the system catered to them anyway? Yes, you know? I think that's the truth. They don't call it The Old Boys Club for nothing.

Millennia after bloody millennia girls couldn't even go to school and in a lot of places around this world they still can't.

It really strikes me how SOME men view this: they aren't "winning" so they . . . are LOSING!!!!! It just boggles the mind. If you're not top dog and crushing everyone beneath you? You lost. You're a loser. It isn't fair. Women don't play fair. The world wasn't meant to be like this! Schools should still be run to suit the way boys learn!!! Girls always managed, jeez, look at some women in the past, they succeeded in a man's world!!!!!!!

As far as I can see, schools aren't set up to "suit the way girls learn", they just aren't boy-centered any more. They're more fair, actually. Some. A few here and there, in lucky countries.

If women are still "on top" in 20,000 years, I'll think it's a sad thing.

But meantime, you go, girls.

eta: my comments are NOT directed at anyone here. But it is a subject I feel quite strongly about.

[yovargas]

I still understand the reason for it. But the holes in it really are large enough to drive big ole' logic trucks through them.

And those holes add fuel to fires of resentment and create divisions when the intent was to heal them.