Race-based Affirmative Action

[A18]

I am very ambivalent about race-based affirmative action.

Ambivalent? Change your avatar to Democrat.

[dazzleman]

I am very ambivalent about race-based affirmative action.

Ambivalent? Change your avatar to Democrat.

Do you really think the Democrats would want me?
I am just trying to think of the issue in real world, and not doctrinaire, terms.  It's important to look at both sides of the issue, and that's what I've attempted to do.  In sum, I would tolerate reluctantly a limited form of affirmative action for a limited period of time, but I think the real answer to the overall problem of black economic deprivation lies elsewhere.

[AuH2O]

It's simple. The government cannot legally discriminate on the basis of race in education. It's so obviously illegal that anyone supporting it clearly has no regard for the Constitution or the tradition from which it emerges.

The difference between AA and putting one race of people in concentration camps is mostly context.

[Emsworth]

It has been helpful in the sense that it simply adds an incentive to the hiring manager to move a little bit beyond his comfort zone, and consider people of other backgrounds for a desirable position, people who may have been dismissed previously.  In this sense, it works as intended, in getting qualified blacks considered for good positions.

If affirmative action is imposed by the government, then it is an unfair intrusion by the government. If an employer wants to use affirmative action himself, that's his affair; but for the government to compel employers to hire someone who is not the best for the job is simply intolerable.

The government cannot legally discriminate on the basis of race in education.

That's certainly true for state governments under the equal protection clause, and not just in education. However, the federal government does not seem to be under any such constraint.

[dazzleman]

It's simple. The government cannot legally discriminate on the basis of race in education. It's so obviously illegal that anyone supporting it clearly has no regard for the Constitution or the tradition from which it emerges.

The difference between AA and putting one race of people in concentration camps is mostly context.

I agree that the government cannot discriminate on the basis of race in education.  That is why I have firmly opposed things like forced busing, that assigned students to schools on the basis of race, which was no better than segregating on the basis of race.

But Philip, you need to understand that in the real world, things are not so black and white, if you'll pardon the pun.  The reality right now is that blacks are severely undereducated relative to whites, and this negatively affects their job prospects and earning potential.

I don't accept this this is all the result of deliberate discrimination, as many liberals and black activists claim.  I think that blacks themselves must bear a certain amount of responsibility for the situation, since family structure and parental attitude is the most important component in education.  That is why I favor a grass-roots initiative by private organizations, and not necessarily race-based, to try to get parents involved in their children's education in a positive way.

I don't favor explicitly different standards for blacks versus whites, either in college admission or hiring.  I also don't think that the government should be directly involved in pushing for different hiring or admissions standards.  But I do think that colleges, for example, should consider the amount of effort a student had to expend to achieve what he/she did, recognizing that an underprivileged student (regardless of race) will have to put forth a lot more effort to reach high levels of achievement than a privileged student.  And companies should go beyond just giving an inside track to the children and friends' children of their higher level executives, which is often how hiring is done.

This is an issue where the real world situation can differ greatly from the way it appears in theoretical discussion.  I think it's important to make an effort to close the economic gap between blacks and the rest of society.  It is not in our best interests to have a large group of people significantly worse off than the rest of society, and somewhat alienated from the larger society, as is the current situation.  It will not be easy to solve this problem, and will require a lot of changes from many blacks themselves, in the way they think and act.  It is not politically correct to say this, but I do believe it's true.  I firmly reject the liberal/civil rights dogma that economic equality can be extracted from whites through legal means without any changes by blacks.

In order to make this happen, we must make it easier for blacks who make the necessary efforts to succeed.  There are still many barriers put up against blacks, whether we are willing to acknowledge this or not.  Many blacks behave in such a way as to encourage these barriers to stay in place.  It's a complex problem, that will not be solved all at once, or in one step, but little by little, if at all.

I can't accept the liberal position on the race issue, but the doctrinaire conservative one also has a number of blind spots, so I am groping for something that will produce acceptable results without causing additional problems.  I seem to be the only person so far occupying this position.

[Emsworth]

But Philip, you need to understand that in the real world, things are not so black and white, if you'll pardon the pun.  The reality right now is that blacks are severely undereducated relative to whites, and this negatively affects their job prospects and earning potential.

That doesn't warrant hiring someone who's not the best person for the job, though.

Harsh as it may seem, companies are not, and should not be considered, responsible for fixing society's problems. The government should not force them to do so, either, at risk to their profits. The same applies to good universities: their responsibility is to educate students with the best academic potential.

If I might also add, dazzleman, your argument seems to be one that supports class-based affirmative action, more than race-based affirmative action.

[© tweed]

Also, Dazzleman, you were responding to AuH2O and not Philip with your last post. 

[dazzleman]

But Philip, you need to understand that in the real world, things are not so black and white, if you'll pardon the pun.  The reality right now is that blacks are severely undereducated relative to whites, and this negatively affects their job prospects and earning potential.

That doesn't warrant hiring someone who's not the best person for the job, though.

Harsh as it may seem, companies are not, and should not be considered, responsible for fixing society's problems. The government should not force them to do so, either, at risk to their profits. The same applies to good universities: their responsibility is to educate students with the best academic potential.

If I might also add, dazzleman, your argument seems to be one that supports class-based affirmative action, more than race-based affirmative action.

I don't think companies should hire somebody other than the person best for the job.  Often however, the person who MIGHT have been the best for the job wasn't even considered due to race, class or gender.

I absolutely agree that companies aren't responsible for fixing society's problems.  I think that the issue has to be convincing people in general that it is in their own best interest to cast a broader net to find the best people.  To me, this is not about hiring somebody inferior in order to get more blacks, or more women, into senior positions.  Unfortunately, this is what affirmative action has often been in practice, and why so many people, including myself, are disgusted with it as it is currently constituted.

The type of AA that we have right now is a liberal form that I largely reject.  I find that on the race issue, more than any other, most people think "inside the box" and take either an untenable liberal or conservative position.  My thinking on it is largely outside the box, and is therefore easily misunderstood.  But I do think we need to get more people thinking outside the box on race issues, because what we have been doing so far clearly has not worked.  And as I said earlier, contrary to what many liberals think, I think a lot of blacks will have to change a lot of their thinking too, along with many whites.  The "blacks are victims and can't be held responsible for anything they do" type of thinking that comes from many liberals and black "leaders" is just the flip side of the same coin to the "blacks are inferior by definition" thinking of white racists.  We absolutely have to get beyond this type of thinking.

You're right in observing that what I'm suggesting is more class-based than race-based.  There's a great deal of overlap between the two, but the overlap is not absolute.  I believe in having a fluid society where people can move up in class, rather than one in which class positions are rigid.

[dazzleman]

Also, Dazzleman, you were responding to AuH2O and not Philip with your last post. 

You're right, man.  I'm an idiot [smacks self in head].   I do that sort of stupid s**t all the time.

[RBH]

I support affirmative action as long as it's possibly needed, in a place to place basis, but not after that.

We're closer than ever to really disregarding skincolor. The dominos will fall and Affirmative Action will be retired.

Although I really haven't done much looking into the issue.

But soon enough we should figure out if affirmative action is needed. Throw out the partisanship, and judge affirmative action on it's merits to see if it stops discrimination, or if it's just a hinderance.

[opebo]

I support merit-based affirmative action, and oppose every other kind.

In fact the education and connections that lead to employment are purchasable depending upon your parent's class.  Merit in the sense of aptitute or personal responsibiliity has little to do with it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Maybe when Stevens dies (assuming he does, which looks likely, given his age).

Assuming he does?  Do you know something we don't?

When Gonzalez name was floated a couple of months ago, Bush was told in very clear language that he was unacceptable.

For the last few months Bush has been angering his base by ignoring concerns on illegal immigration.

Bush probably realizes that a Gonzalez nomination would be the straw that broke the comels back.

[AuH2O]

Well, in every IQ study blacks score substantially lower than whites, so no amount of "affirmative" action will result in true equality, unless they become more intelligent. There is debate over what % of the gap is environmental (maybe it's as high as 25% or so, though I doubt it), so you would first have to close that-- meaning imposing a police state to monitor and provide for nutrition, health care standards, etc., but then also proceed with mass genetic engineering, or perhaps genocide against smart people.

[dazzleman]

Well, in every IQ study blacks score substantially lower than whites, so no amount of "affirmative" action will result in true equality, unless they become more intelligent. There is debate over what % of the gap is environmental (maybe it's as high as 25% or so, though I doubt it), so you would first have to close that-- meaning imposing a police state to monitor and provide for nutrition, health care standards, etc., but then also proceed with mass genetic engineering, or perhaps genocide against smart people.

I'm for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

[minionofmidas]

I am very ambivalent about race-based affirmative action.

Ambivalent? Change your avatar to Democrat.

Do you really think the Democrats would want me?
I am just trying to think of the issue in real world, and not doctrinaire, terms.  It's important to look at both sides of the issue, and that's what I've attempted to do.  In sum, I would tolerate reluctantly a limited form of affirmative action for a limited period of time, but I think the real answer to the overall problem of black economic deprivation lies elsewhere.

Indeed you should, your post is far more balanced and reasonable than all those above. (Haven't read below yet.)
I should add that it has also created a situation where Whites claim they were fired or didn't get a job on account of affirmative action, when it was really just their own performance ... AND the decrease in institutional racism caused among other things by affirmative action.

[minionofmidas]

I have come around to believing that parental attitude and involvement is the most important component of education, far more important than the racial composition of a school or the amount of money spent.  A grassroots outreach program to convince parents of at-risk children to support their children's education could produce at least some modest positive results.

The problem is that many of the at-risk children will have similarly (or worse) at-risk parents, and these will be the least responsive...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which will then only be used by the ones it's not supposed to be aimed at, for the above reasons, leaving the schools worse off...then again, maybe better they use a voucher than they leave the neighborhood for good and move to the suburbs...hey, that's a new thought. School Choice to combat Suburbanization. I could live with that result.

[dazzleman]

Indeed you should, your post is far more balanced and reasonable than all those above. (Haven't read below yet.)
I should add that it has also created a situation where Whites claim they were fired or didn't get a job on account of affirmative action, when it was really just their own performance ... AND the decrease in institutional racism caused among other things by affirmative action.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're implying that the Democratic position is inherently more reasonable and balanced than the Republican one.  I don't accept that supposition.  My position is basically a middle way between the extremes on either end.  As I have said and implied often, I am a free-market capitalist, but I also believe that a genuinely fair shake for everybody is the foundation on which a healthy free market economy is based.  I don't believe that AA as supported by many liberals provides that, but neither does conservative denial of an obvious problem.

As to your second point, about whites being able to claim that they were fired or didn't get a job because of AA, I have to say I have seen almost none of that in real world practice.  Believe me, there is a lot more of the opposite -- blacks and women claiming they were let go because of their race/gender, when it was their performance that sucked.

[minionofmidas]

Indeed you should, your post is far more balanced and reasonable than all those above. (Haven't read below yet.)
I should add that it has also created a situation where Whites claim they were fired or didn't get a job on account of affirmative action, when it was really just their own performance ... AND the decrease in institutional racism caused among other things by affirmative action.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're implying that the Democratic position is inherently more reasonable and balanced than the Republican one.  I don't accept that supposition.  My position is basically a middle way between the extremes on either end. 

I was, sort of. (The supposition is not technically necessary for the "your post is far more reasonable than the ones above" line) Basically I don't consider the White popular Anti-AA  to be primarily based on and appealing to reason.
Then again, the Dem's official position isn't really either, it's just an "I feel your pain" towards Blacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm in no position to make or refute claims about frequency - I don't even live in the country we're talking about...

[dazzleman]

The problem is that many of the at-risk children will have similarly (or worse) at-risk parents, and these will be the least responsive...

I recognize that.  This problem has always been with us, and always will be.  Short of removing the kids from these parents and adopting them out to others, there is no solution.  But I do think that some parents who are not currently adequately supporting their children's education could be brought around to doing so if they recognized the potential benefits.  The issue is really to minimize this problem, not maximize it, as is happening right now through certain anti-education cultural attitudes that currently hold a lot of currency in certain segments of the black community.

Which will then only be used by the ones it's not supposed to be aimed at, for the above reasons, leaving the schools worse off...then again, maybe better they use a voucher than they leave the neighborhood for good and move to the suburbs...hey, that's a new thought. School Choice to combat Suburbanization. I could live with that result.

What you are effectively saying is that the children who are at the better end of performance in horrible schools ought to be forced to stay there, in order to "help" the kids who are effectively destroying their educational potential.  This is the sort of liberal nonsense that has destroyed inner city education, and destroyed the potential of many children who otherwise might have performed well academically, had they been removed from the toxic environment of failing and violent inner city schools.

As to those who are destroying those schools, frankly, they will fail anyway, and it makes no sense to tie the fate of more promising children to these kids.  Yes, removing the better performing kids would bring the schools' average performance numbers down.  But in a school that is failing beyond a certain point, this will not cause those students who are at the bottom to do any worse.  And it will immeasurably help those with potential to do a lot better.  I think liberals need to get over this idea that it's wrong for promising poor children to get off a sinking ship, especially when those advocating that they stay on that sinking ship wouldn't dream of putting their own kids on it.

And yes, this plan could combat suburbanization.  Many, many people move to the suburbs simply to get away from urban schools.  There isn't one larger urban school district in the country that I can think of that I would find acceptable.  Changing this, and not through previously failed statist and coercive liberal favorites like forced busing, is an imperative if we are to narrow the economic gap between blacks and the rest of society.

[minionofmidas]

But Philip, you need to understand that in the real world, things are not so black and white, if you'll pardon the pun.  The reality right now is that blacks are severely undereducated relative to whites, and this negatively affects their job prospects and earning potential.

That doesn't warrant hiring someone who's not the best person for the job, though.

The notion that anybody might be able to identify that person beforehand is very much spurious...well, depends on the no. of candidates o/c.

[minionofmidas]

The problem is that many of the at-risk children will have similarly (or worse) at-risk parents, and these will be the least responsive...

I recognize that.  This problem has always been with us, and always will be.  Short of removing the kids from these parents and adopting them out to others, there is no solution.  But I do think that some parents who are not currently adequately supporting their children's education could be brought around to doing so if they recognized the potential benefits.  The issue is really to minimize this problem, not maximize it, as is happening right now through certain anti-education cultural attitudes that currently hold a lot of currency in certain segments of the black community.

Which will then only be used by the ones it's not supposed to be aimed at, for the above reasons, leaving the schools worse off...then again, maybe better they use a voucher than they leave the neighborhood for good and move to the suburbs...hey, that's a new thought. School Choice to combat Suburbanization. I could live with that result.

What you are effectively saying is that the children who are at the better end of performance in horrible schools ought to be forced to stay there, in order to "help" the kids who are effectively destroying their educational potential.  This is the sort of liberal nonsense that has destroyed inner city education, and destroyed the potential of many children who otherwise might have performed well academically, had they been removed from the toxic environment of failing and violent inner city schools.

As to those who are destroying those schools, frankly, they will fail anyway, and it makes no sense to tie the fate of more promising children to these kids.  Yes, removing the better performing kids would bring the schools' average performance numbers down.  But in a school that is failing beyond a certain point, this will not cause those students who are at the bottom to do any worse.  And will immeasurably help those with potential to do a lot better.  I think liberals need to get over this idea that it's wrong for promising poor children to get off a sinking ship, especially when those advocating that they stay on that sinking ship wouldn't dream of putting their own kids on it.

I've highlighted some very important qualifiers here...the task would be to find and institute policies that prevent such a situation to arise in the first place - and, alas, school-choice-with-their-feet is at least one of the reasons. The last "better" kids to get out are in a similar situation to the last investors to sell a troubled stock. Trampled by herd mentality, so to speak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh aye...it's happening even here...the thing is, though, due to the German school system's history (don't ask), it's only really happening in the primary schools. In High School I had quite a couple classmates commuting in from suburbia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

Well, in every IQ study blacks score substantially lower than whites, so no amount of "affirmative" action will result in true equality, unless they become more intelligent. There is debate over what % of the gap is environmental (maybe it's as high as 25% or so, though I doubt it), so you would first have to close that-- meaning imposing a police state to monitor and provide for nutrition, health care standards, etc., but then also proceed with mass genetic engineering, or perhaps genocide against smart people.

I'm for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

Now REAL equality of opportunity would entail taking all kids away from their parents at birth.

[dazzleman]

Well, in every IQ study blacks score substantially lower than whites, so no amount of "affirmative" action will result in true equality, unless they become more intelligent. There is debate over what % of the gap is environmental (maybe it's as high as 25% or so, though I doubt it), so you would first have to close that-- meaning imposing a police state to monitor and provide for nutrition, health care standards, etc., but then also proceed with mass genetic engineering, or perhaps genocide against smart people.

I'm for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

Now REAL equality of opportunity would entail taking all kids away from their parents at birth.

Yes.  That was last advocated by whom....the Khmer Rouge, maybe.

[minionofmidas]

Well, in every IQ study blacks score substantially lower than whites, so no amount of "affirmative" action will result in true equality, unless they become more intelligent. There is debate over what % of the gap is environmental (maybe it's as high as 25% or so, though I doubt it), so you would first have to close that-- meaning imposing a police state to monitor and provide for nutrition, health care standards, etc., but then also proceed with mass genetic engineering, or perhaps genocide against smart people.

I'm for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

Now REAL equality of opportunity would entail taking all kids away from their parents at birth.

Yes.  That was last advocated by whom....the Khmer Rouge, maybe.

Yeah, I'm not advocating it... I just think that "equality of opportunity" was a cheap cold war rhetorical figure (of the centre-left mostly, but others too) that was never supposed to be taken TOO seriously and should be retired.

[dazzleman]

Yeah, I'm not advocating it... I just think that "equality of opportunity" was a cheap cold war rhetorical figure (of the centre-left mostly, but others too) that was never supposed to be taken TOO seriously and should be retired.

I'm not sure I know what you mean.  As I see it, you either support (a) discrimination of some type; (b) equality of opportunity; or (c) equality of outcomes.

Many liberals have effectively supported equality of outcomes, through advocacy of programs that would require lower standards for certain classes of people than others.  I think this is wrong, and firmly oppose it, and I don't believe it actually helps those who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of it.  Like with many programs that spring from this same type of thinking, this hurts society as a whole, without helping those who are supposed to benefit from it.  So it's a lose-lose.

The fallback position is equality of opportunity.  This concept is amorphous and of course, not absolute.  Equality of opportunity must exist within the limitations of a person's native intelligence as well as family background.  What I have suggested is meant to minimize the negative factors in this area that may be controllable, but I am under no illusion that absolute equality of opportunity can ever fully exist, and I would rather permit a certain level of inequality than go to really extreme measures, which wouldn't work anyway.

I just don't know what you mean by a "cheap cold war rhetorical figure."  What would you propose in place of this concept?