Is Affirmative Action helping or hurting?

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

the researchers manufactured the resumes and names so they are not real applicants.

By the way, with all the call to end affirmative action why not call for ending legacy admissions to prestigious academic institutions.......aren't these pupils wether black, Asian or white sometimes admitted with lesser qualifications because the parents are alumni and/or large monetary donators?

Are they public or private schools? (not that the line between the two isn't horribly blurred today). But you're right enough that publicly funded institutions shouldn't do that. Of course, that would mean Ted Kennedy, Bush, and a whole bunch of other politicians would be our automechanics...

 

[HTColeman]

ok lets say our society is not color blind (which is true). Whites go for whites.. and not colored people. I am a colored person. I am indian. I have dark skin. I should be discriminated against. But I feel I am not. Why? Because Indians have established themselves as good competitors in higher professions. Affirmative action actually hurts us, and we're a minority. So why doesn't this apply in ur case?

When you say Indian, I am assuming India, not Native American, correct? In that case, along with Asian Americans, although they are a minority, there is not a history of economic disadvantage because of discrimination. They have been discriminated against, but it was to a lesser degree when compared to African Americans and Hispanics. Also, you must consider both Indian, Asian American, and even Jewish history of immigrating to America. Many came by choice and brought with them skills(doctors, lawyers, etc.) and already had somewhere to start. However hispanics often do not have such skills coming from Latin America, and blacks have been denied from gaining such skills except for the past 30 years, and the same go for women who have also been historically kept from gaining higher level skills. Asian Americans, Indians, and Jewish Americans, are not historically disadvantaged. Affirmative Action is not based on color, but the history behind it.

hmm proof, alwyas start with wikipedia :smile: --



link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Quotas


So from what you see here, is it fair? Just because asians perform better in tests and have better academic qualifications, should they be penalized for it?

I would hardly say that Asians are penalized, they have a higher graduation rate than whites, the dominant culture. As I said earlier, they are not included because Aff. Action is based on racial history, not just that you are a minority. And economically, asians are not historically disadvantaged. Note, I am not saying that that Indians or Asians are not victims of discrimination, but it typically does not affect them economically.

Also I believe a part of that article is misleading (as wikipedia is written by everyday internet users),

The estimates for blacks, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, probably understate the disparity. Standardized tests tend to overpredict for individual, high-scoring members of populations with weaker test scores [5][6]. (One's SAT score predicts a certain level of performance. If one performs above this level, the test underpredicted; if the reverse, it overpredicted.) Thus, according to these analyses, accounting for group differences, a white with a score of 1,200 would actually be more, not equally, able on average than a black or Hispanic with the same score. Critics say that this failure to adjust scores to improve the test's predictive validity distorts the true scores of minorities, and indirectly everyone, as admissions is a zero sum game. Adjusting for this tendency would likely result in more controversy, however, as it is easily misconstrued.

The study that they linked for this, does not support this statement. According to the study, it is not that a white with a 1200 score would be more able than a black with the same score, they both show the same amount of performance on the test score. The study simply stated that elite universities may weight the scores based on racial background.

http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf

they found that
elite universities give extra weight in admissions to candidates whose SAT
scores are above 1500, who are African American, and who are student
athletes. A smaller, but nevertheless important, preference is extended to
Hispanic and legacy applicants. African-American applicants receive the
equivalent of 230 extra SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), and being
Hispanic is worth an additional 185 SAT points.

The wikipedia article makes it seem as though SAT scores overpredict for blacks and underpredict for whites, which is not what the case says.

Also the same study showed that:

White plaintiffs in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger
(2003) argued that they were unfairly denied admission while some less
qualified minority students were accepted. Our results show that removing
consideration of race would have a minimal effect on white applicants to
elite universities. The number of accepted white students would increase by
2.4 percent, and the white acceptance rate would rise by just 0.5 percentage
points—from 23.8 to 24.3 percent. Many rejected white applicants may feel
they would have been accepted had it not been for affirmative action, but
such perceptions probably exaggerate the reality.

Saying that, contrary to popular belief, whites are not penalized by Affirmative Action, and it barely affects their acceptance rate.

 

[HTColeman]

So, thinking about the logic of what you're saying, then because people who benefit from legalized racism don't feel slighted, then legalized racism is morally acceptable.



Hmmm...if you don't mind, I think I'll go back to using Aristotle's logic. You know Aristotle. He's a dead white guy.

:spin: you know thats not what I said. I was refuting the 'logic' that minorities in which race was a factor in their admittance, they would feel sighted by it, no one has before.

Perhaps you can apply your logic and explain how, when it's white american males that supposedly benefitted the most from the now vanished racism of earlier eras, that it's acceptable for Affirmative Action programs to reduce the admission of asian students to below their proportional representation in the general population? I do seem to recall that the damn coolies suffered from racism as much as any other immigrant race.

As I have said repeatedly, Affirmative Action is not perfect, but its implementation marks that our society is trying to correct itself. I admit, it really needs to be reformed, and the effect it has had on Asian Americans needs to be one of the focuses of that reform. Also, as I said earlier, Asians aren't included in Affirmative Action b/c although they have endured racism, their history of immigration keeps it from severely affecting them as a race, when compared to hispanics or blacks.

P.S., I would hardly say that racial bias has 'vanished', nothing like that vanishes, we still see the effects of it in inner city areas. As I have said in another thread, America is not at all racist, but it is still recovering from the extreme racism that was just 30 years ago.

 

[Crispy]

You know

I think the problem with Affirmative Action is that its original intent doesn't apply to todays circumstances. It directly responded to government sponsored discrimination. Since then our government has by and large eliminated this through civil rights legislation and I think its time we eliminated all remnants of this including Affirmative action in government.

We don't need to acknowlege that people are racist and throw the target of their idiocy a bone for it. We know there's racism here as there is everywhere in the world. I think the KKK, Islamic Fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists and every closed minded group of this sort won't let us forget that they think differences between people are bad and not good.

We're not going to change their minds anymore than you'll change my mind that diversity between people is what "does" enrich our lives. If anybody is becoming alienated, its those who do discriminate in hurting their own interests by not reaping the portential benefits of relationships with others.

Ask yourself, do you really want to work for a company that discriminates against you (be it right or wrong)? If I send my resume to a company and they don't respond because of my racial or religious membership then I'm better off not working there anyway. I don't associate with those who think they're better than me. If I lived in a neighborhood that discriminated against me either I'd prove them wrong or leave. What I don't do is look to my government to force them to change their minds. So now I will get a job in a company that had to have some artificial equality imposed on them instead of thier genuine desire to have me as an employee. How much better is that?

I think racism in our country, although obviously still a social problem, is not something minorities can't get passed and we don't need our government spending its time debating, legislating and enforcing laws that just lead to some artificial sense of justice when it doesn't change any racists minds to begin with. I think its time our diverse population stop looking to the government to solve its problems and show what they're made of themselves instead of pushing the government to do it for them.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

When you say Indian, I am assuming India, not Native American, correct? In that case, along with Asian Americans, although they are a minority, there is not a history of economic disadvantage because of discrimination. They have been discriminated against, but it was to a lesser degree when compared to African Americans and Hispanics.

Oh. You're saying that it's okay to start discriminating against a racial group so that in the future they too can claim they were economically disadvantaged by racist government policies.

I'm sure that has to make sense to someone.:roll:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

As I have said repeatedly, Affirmative Action is not perfect, but its implementation marks that our society is trying to correct itself. I admit, it really needs to be reformed, and the effect it has had on Asian Americans needs to be one of the focuses of that reform. Also, as I said earlier, Asians aren't included in Affirmative Action b/c although they have endured racism, their history of immigration keeps it from severely affecting them as a race, when compared to hispanics or blacks.

P.S., I would hardly say that racial bias has 'vanished', nothing like that vanishes, we still see the effects of it in inner city areas. As I have said in another thread, America is not at all racist, but it is still recovering from the extreme racism that was just 30 years ago.

Affirmative Action doesn't need a tune up, it needs a tow to the junk yard of old racist ideas. Period.

The Fourteenth Amendment says that ALL PERSONS shall be granted equal protection under the law.

The Fourteenth Amendment was specifically written to end racial discrmination against blacks in the Re-construction Era South.

Affirmative Action violates not only the letter of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's spirit, as well.

 

[HTColeman]

Oh. You're saying that it's okay to start discriminating against a racial group so that in the future they too can claim they were economically disadvantaged by racist government policies.

I'm sure that has to make sense to someone.:roll:

Do you read? I could have sworn that I said Affirmative Action is not perfect and needs reform.

Also, the bad side affect it has had on Asian Americans and possibly Indians is a rather small percentage, since Asian Americans have a higher college rate than even whites. I doubt that it would cause them to become economically disadvantaged. You're just fishing and blowing things out of proportion.

 

[HTColeman]

Affirmative Action doesn't need a tune up, it needs a tow to the junk yard of old racist ideas. Period.

The Fourteenth Amendment says that ALL PERSONS shall be granted equal protection under the law.

The Fourteenth Amendment was specifically written to end racial discrmination against blacks in the Re-construction Era South.

Affirmative Action violates not only the letter of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's spirit, as well.

That's a great spirit, but its not real life, there is a difference between real and ideal. Ideally, we wouldn't need efforts to level the playing field because it would happen naturally because the U.S. does not have any racial bias nor does it suffer from the effects of past racial bias. Your idea would work great in a colorblind society. But here in the real world, the U.S. still has a ways to go before it can be compared to that ideal world you dream of.

The 14th amendment is talking about civil rights and voting rights, not getting into college. The fact of the matter, you wish to believe that we live in that 'spirit' of the 14th amendment, but we don't, look around, there is not equal opportunity. Affirmative Action at least admits that we aren't perfect and shows an effort to try and fix that.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Has anyone in this thread made the correlation between France's lack of affirmative action, and their current uprising? A report was done in France that stated a muslim with the same qualifications as other Frenchmen was FIVE TIMES less likey to be hired.

I'd love to get to the place in America where we don't need affirmative action, but I see so much racial, ethnic and sexist bigotry in the US that I think it's necessary.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Do you read? I could have sworn that I said Affirmative Action is not perfect and needs reform.

Do you read? I said rend it, not mend it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Has anyone in this thread made the correlation between France's lack of affirmative action, and their current uprising? A report was done in France that stated a muslim with the same qualifications as other Frenchmen was FIVE TIMES less likey to be hired.

I'd love to get to the place in America where we don't need affirmative action, but I see so much racial, ethnic and sexist bigotry in the US that I think it's necessary.

The problem in France is that they let the enemy in the gates, then lay down to sleep with them.

What's that got to do with legalized discrimination in the United States?

 

[Russell Hammond]

We're talking about entry qualifications for college, and qualifications for real jobs. Clearly Bush was the most qualified of the candidates for the Presidency in 2004. The qualifications of that job are simple. You have to win the popularity contest.

Bill Gates didn't apply for a job, he created a business.

Yeah, there are indeed objective standards for qualifying for jobs. I don't go to any dentist, I found the best dentist in the city and use her.

How do you know she's the best dentist in the city? An opinion poll? Did you sample a sufficient number of other dentists to assure yourself that she was the best? Did she receive a write-up in the paper?

A person with a 750 SAT math score and self-trained in calculus is obviously a better prospective engineering student than someone with a 400 SAT math and a C in high school trigonomety.

99% of the time for math-related disciplines, you're probably right, however, most career fields/majors do not have the same level of predictors for success.

And any employer that looks outside the requirements for the job to select employees is not optimizing his work force for efficiency, though certainly an office with a large selection of D-cups and legs makes for an entertaining Christmas party.

And exactly what does your ability to do well on a standardized test have to do with your ability to do well in any job?

My point is that there is no such thing as an objective standard when we are talking about qualifications for most jobs. Rather, we use a series of things that we think are predictive of success (test scores, years of experience, number of deals "closed"), and a series of squishier things (references, alma matter, eye contact, attractiveness.)

 

[Russell Hammond]

Are they public or private schools? (not that the line between the two isn't horribly blurred today). But you're right enough that publicly funded institutions shouldn't do that. Of course, that would mean Ted Kennedy, Bush, and a whole bunch of other politicians would be our automechanics...

Ted Kennedy and Bush my automechanics? Scary, scary thought. Thank God they have careers where they can't do any damage...

...oh wait...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Your idea would work great in a colorblind society.

And how does one get to a color blind society if the government insists on treating citizens differently based on race? Hmmm?

But here in the real world, the U.S. still has a ways to go before it can be compared to that ideal world you dream of.

In the real world, people today hire based on performance. Does anyone really want to work for a company that's hiring them only to fill a quota? That says both that the company truly doesn't like them, and that they've got serious self-image problems for them to take such a job.

And as long as government mandated racism is in place, the unasked question of every minority employee is "how did you really get that job?"

That's the real world.

The 14th amendment is talking about civil rights and voting rights, not getting into college.

The Fourteenth Amendment applies to all law. It's in the CONSTITUTION. If the it had been restricted to voting and civil rights, it would have said so.

The fact of the matter, you wish to believe that we live in that 'spirit' of the 14th amendment, but we don't, look around, there is not equal opportunity.

Well, no, of course there isn't "equal opportunity" (I'll guess at your meaning, it's really a sloppy concept), Affirmative Action is the racist law of the land.

Affirmative Action at least admits that we aren't perfect and shows an effort to try and fix that.

No, it just implements racism against people who weren't responsible for the racist policies of the past and who must therefore suffer unjustly in because a policy of reverse racism now denies them what you would like to call "equal opportunity".

The only way to create "equal opportunity" is to eliminate legislated racism.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

And exactly what does your ability to do well on a standardized test have to do with your ability to do well in any job?

Well, I'm fairly certain that a rock scoring 120 on the SAT math isn't likely to be an efficient nuclear operator.

Someone scoring 250 on the verbal would be an excellent New York Times reporter, though.

Objective criteria such as test scores and college degrees are useful tools in eliminating applicants from consideration. Interviews are necessary to gather the necessary subjective information to make an effective hiring decision.

That being said, a person's skin color is an irrelevant objective criteria for almost all jobs, and shouldn't be part of the consideration for employment or training. And that applies in both directions.

Racism in hiring will never be eliminated, nor will the tendency of male employers to have a preference for shapely females ever be eliminated.

But the immorality of legislated racism in any form is beyond question.

 

[alphamale]

My point is that there is no such thing as an objective standard when we are talking about qualifications for most jobs. Rather, we use a series of things that we think are predictive of success (test scores, years of experience, number of deals "closed")

skin color, genitals.

 

[Russell Hammond]

Well, I'm fairly certain that a rock scoring 120 on the SAT math isn't likely to be an efficient nuclear operator.

Probably not, and I'll agree that the math section is more predictive than other items. Howver, the person could be very capable at math, but terrible at taking standardized tests. Or I will use myself as an example. I grew up in Iowa (we take the ACT there.) When I took the ACT, I had not had a math class in over two years.

Someone scoring 250 on the verbal would be an excellent New York Times reporter, though.

You cannot make that claim with any level of certainty. There is little correlation between SAT verbal and writing ability.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Probably not, and I'll agree that the math section is more predictive than other items. Howver, the person could be very capable at math, but terrible at taking standardized tests. Or I will use myself as an example. I grew up in Iowa (we take the ACT there.) When I took the ACT, I had not had a math class in over two years.

I personally don't think the ACT or SAT should be the only deciding factor, though proficiency on these tests does indicate the kind of course work or at least proficiency in understanding and being able to communicate knowledge with some degree of accuracy, though not perfectly. Other criteria can include school activities, leadership, community service, grade point average, etc. In other words, those kids who stay in school, work at learning their subjects, participate in activities (choir - band - debate - sports, etc.) that expand and increase their experience and education, are an asset to their community, and work to get decent grades are going to naturally score better on the SAT or ACT and will invariably have a better shot at getting into the school of their choice than will the unusually intelligent gang banger.

You cannot make that claim with any level of certainty. There is little correlation between SAT verbal and writing ability.

Um I believe this was intended to be a joke implying that you don't apparently need much smarts, ability, or even integrity to be a NY Times reporter. Funny how humor so often really hits the mark though.

 

[alphamale]

Other criteria can include school activities, leadership, community service, ..... choir - band - ....sports, etc.)

How about good at knitting? These sorts of things are often quoted, and they have nothing to do with being a scholar. I suspect they are included to provide a little blur so that the admissions committee can give a pseudo-justification for people they want to admit, but who don't deserve to be there.

 

[AlbqOwl]

How about good at knitting? These sorts of things are often quoted, and they have nothing to do with being a scholar. I suspect they are included to provide a little blur so that the admissions committee can give a pseudo-justification for people they want to admit, but who don't deserve to be there.

I've thought many a person who was really proficient with knitting needles also had talents for color coordination, artistic aesthetics, and graphic design. So you can't discount a person's hobbies just because they look like fluff to most.

Actually, however, I was discussing what admissions criteria should be; not what admissions policies actually are.

 

[Russell Hammond]

I personally don't think the ACT or SAT should be the only deciding factor, though proficiency on these tests does indicate the kind of course work or at least proficiency in understanding and being able to communicate knowledge with some degree of accuracy, though not perfectly. Other criteria can include school activities, leadership, community service, grade point average, etc. In other words, those kids who stay in school, work at learning their subjects, participate in activities (choir - band - debate - sports, etc.) that expand and increase their experience and education, are an asset to their community, and work to get decent grades are going to naturally score better on the SAT or ACT and will invariably have a better shot at getting into the school of their choice than will the unusually intelligent gang banger.

Right. I agree that these are all important factors, but they certainly aren't objective.

Um I believe this was intended to be a joke implying that you don't apparently need much smarts, ability, or even integrity to be a NY Times reporter. Funny how humor so often really hits the mark though.

Sorry that I missed the joke. I agree with the sentiment about the Times; it's not exactly a bastion of integrity (Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, etc.)

 

[nkgupta80]

Right. I agree that these are all important factors, but they certainly aren't objective.

right, but nonetheless good scores/performance in each of those factors points to a better qaulified individual, than the one that didn't. There is a limit to the subjectivity allowed with these factors.

 

[AlbqOwl]

right, but nonetheless good scores/performance in each of those factors points to a better qaulified individual, than the one that didn't. There is a limit to the subjectivity allowed with these factors.

I agree. I honestly don't know how anybody can rate human beings with 100% objectivity when any one of us can have a revelation or inspiration or reflex that would never be expected on any known testing procedure devised by other humans. How many of us have seen a student voted "most likely to suceed" and then didn't? Or the really unpopular class zero who had the most to brag about at the 25-year class reunion?

I think the best we can do is establish some kind of evaluation criteria and try to stick to it knowing that it will be imperfect.