Affirmative Action

[Deviate]

The thing is, the "most uniquely black" names are all poor names (or at least perceived as such, lets face it, most people do not consider Jamal and co. to be middle class names)

[Citation Needed]

 

[Bamspeedy]

About the names:

1. So if I understand correctly, the study kept the same names but changed the address to test the rich-poor factor? If one is prejudiced against a name they won't even look to the next line to look at the address. I think the study proves that people do judge names, it just needs to be shown if it's because of a 'black' name or a 'poor' name.

2. Names change in popularity. I read somewhere that what the elite name their kids now will be popular amongst the masses (the poor) 10 years from now.

Here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2005/04/trading_up.html

This lets you look at name popularity over the years:

http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager#

3. Here is an interesting article from Slate about names.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2005/04/a_roshanda_by_any_other_name.html

But it isn't the fault of his or her name. If two black boys, Jake Williams and DeShawn Williams, are born in the same neighborhood and into the same familial and economic circumstances, they would likely have similar life outcomes. But the kind of parents who name their son Jake don't tend to live in the same neighborhoods or share economic circumstances with the kind of parents who name their son DeShawn. And that's why, on average, a boy named Jake will tend to earn more money and get more education than a boy named DeShawn. DeShawn's name is an indicator—but not a cause—of his life path.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So here it is. A 1-by-1-reply to your post.

Affirmative Action does not, never has, never will, advantage blacks over whites. You must understand that before you can understand AA. What AA does is take a group that is badly disadvantaged in a number of ways, all of them artificial and imposed from without, and offset some of that disadvantage so that they have a shot at outcomes that would be similar to what would be expected had they never been artificially disadvantaged.

On the level of race, that is true. On the individual level, it only partially is true. And to what extend is anyone's guess. In principle, the same goes for SE. A low SES is a pretty good indicator that someone is disadvantaged, but it is no guarantee. Just as a high SES is no guarantee that some is advantaged, but just a pretty good indicator of being so.

But I hope we can at least agree on one substantial difference: SE is a better indicator than race how disadvantaged someone really is. Not saying race isn't of some importance too, just saying SE is more crucial.

The question is, that if someone agrees that SE was a good orientation for AA (which I do and I'd think you do too), why someone thinks race is not (which I don't, but you do). The obvious answer is: Because someone does not think that the impact of racism is significant enough. I argued before, in the other thread, that my criticism was of a conceptional nature and that the actual extend of racism hence played no role. This was wrong. But where I still see grounds for this conceptional approach is in the direct comparison of SE and racism. Bear with me for a few lines:

Our market economy is inherently designed to favor high SES. It is not just a cultural phenomena or whatever, but a necessity of the system. A low SES means that your parents did not have success in the society and so natural, they will tend to pass that on to you. This effect will be strengthened by a neighborhood typical for your SES and by a school typical for your SES. And if this weren't bad enough, you also will lack financial support with regards to tertiary education.
So it to me seems that SE is by nature so significant, that if one would oppose this as a criteria for AA, one could just as well oppose any measure to fight the way society develops for certain groups of people.

In the case of racism, it is not a matter of the design of the economy. It is a cultural phenomena, a matter of what people associate with being black and also with black culture like the special way black people talk etc. In this sense, racism is also a lot less special than SE. Because this kind of cultural phenomena in principle applies to a wide variety of things.
As already has been explained: People are discriminated against for their height, their gender, their general looks, their general cultural background etc.
What makes racism so special is its history of public endorsement and its history of ideological endorsement. A history, which has A) caused lower SES for black people today, B) created conscious endorsement to discriminate black people and C) created a profound group mentality along racial lines. A), B) and C) resulted in D): a lot of sub-conscious or at least intuitive racism to boot.
So I acknowledge that racism is a special severe case of discrimination on cultural grounds, but one should not forget that it is not alone.
Now, SE-based AA will tackle A), so when it comes to racial AA, we can forget about that as a justification. C) is also not in favor of racial AA or at least dubiously so. As racial AA may help C) to flourish and by this also indirectly D). But still, we are left with conscious and intuitive racism, AA is supposed to counter-balance.

But here is the picture I see: In contrast to SE, where the SES has without a doubt a high probability to disadvantage an individual, in case of racism we have no idea how high this probability actually is. We don't know where SE exactly ends and racism starts (even though how quick some are to just assume the latter). We can only speculate. Additionally, many other cultural factors will have a say in the success of an individual. Which blurs the actual impact of racism even more. And this is where my problem lies, which is most of all of a conceptional nature. Which is to single out a factor which is so unclear in its actual merit in general and which will hence be even a lot more unclear in its merit on the individual level. And to then use this factor as a criteria for default benefits.

Because that to me makes racial AA so unbearable impossible to judge how fair this really is, that I would say that the burden of proof does not lie with the opposes of racial AA, but its supporters.
In deed, it appears to me that the effort to counter-balance something like racism (instead of directly engaging it) is doomed to be arbitrary in its actual justice or injustice. Hence, justice is not actually a viable argument. Just the wish that certain races do better is. But this wish is racist in spirit if not based on a (reasonable) thought of justice. And I mean not just in theory, but also in practice. Which again AA can not possibly provide.

Why do you disagree? (and please don't just answer with complaining about racism )

It will erode away the segregation that results in racism and further group exploitation and oppression. It will erode away the the underperformance of blacks who never get a fair chance to compete in the economy. It will make the country more of a meritocracy, where the best people can get the best outcomes based on ability and effort. It will increase the growth of the economy by ending the practice of keeping a group underperforming their abilities for no other reason than that they are not permitted to perform up to their abilities.

As said, your assumptions about the merits of AA are quit spurious. I am sorry but I have to say so. "Will erode away the segregation that result in racism" This segregation is a result of SE and culture. Bonus points for being black in admission processes will hardly change that. That you argue with merit for a measure that does not even try to asses merit is really, well, incredible. I don't mean to be a douche, but it is. And how the fact, that black guy A will mange to get into a better university but white guy B not, does demonstrate how this will stimulate the economy I am left to wonder.

Now consider the costs of not doing it. They are huge. A year in prison costs more than a year in a good university.

As luiz already noted - AA will hardly benefit criminals. And one will hardly turn criminal for the lack of AA. I mean do you seriously argue that?

People with hope and a future commit fewer crimes, have healthier habits, make better life choices about children and family.

Okay Cutlass, please be honest: This is a hopeless hyperbole. Like I expect from a deceiving politician, but not from you. AA can not provide hope and future by itself. It is not even supposed to do so. It is supposed to influence general trends, not inspire you.

The economy as a whole underperforms because so many people within it do

I seriously don't see how AA has such an effect. There are limited places in universities, everywhere. AA will just mean that different races occupy the same places, but not based on merit, but a policy of social engineering.

, and there is so much governmental costs for remedial actions, remedial schooling, welfare, law enforcement.

Now you act like AA would tackle SE-factors. Which it doesn't. As said many times before, it actually supports most of all those members of a race which already are doing okay. And they don't cause those costs.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If you accept that SE-based AA is suitable to tackle SE-based issues, then you ought to accept that race-based AA is suitable to tackle race-based issues, for the same reasons. Or at least, you would have to prove that race-based AA is inadequate but SE-based AA is not inadequate. To me, the reason why SE-based AA is adequate to tackle SE-based problems is the same reason why race-based AA is adequate to tackle race-based problems.

I tried to explain in my response to Cutlass why I believe it to be sound to differentiate between SE and racial AA. Which in summary is that the actual impact of race on the individual level is so vague that racial AA can not be expected to be just on this level. And if racial AA is supposed to be right because it makes the world more just by balancing unjust disadvantages for minority races, than its injustice on the individual level is the direct opposite of what is opposed to be achieved.
You can have the same injustice with SE, I admit that, but overall, SE has so much going for it, that it seems to clearly outweigh possible injustice on the individual level. In case of race, we don't have any idea how much impact it really has, where SE-derived disadvantages and different kinds of cultural discrimination ends and race starts.

 

[Cutlass]

So here it is. A 1-by-1-reply to your post.



On the level of race, that is true. On the individual level, it only partially is true. And to what extend is anyone's guess. In principle, the same goes for SE. A low SES is a pretty good indicator that someone is disadvantaged, but it is no guarantee. Just as a high SES is no guarantee that some is advantaged, but just a pretty good indicator of being so.

But I hope we can at least agree on one substantial difference: SE is a better indicator than race how disadvantaged someone really is. Not saying race isn't of some importance too, just saying SE is more crucial.

This is a tricky question. If the average of all black people is lower than the average of all white people, then it's pretty clear that races is the reason why. There isn't really any differential in ability. So since ability does not explain the difference, what does? What are the other factors besides race?

Now you say SES. But the average SES of blacks is lower than the average SES of whites. Why? Again, the only factor is the racial oppression blacks have, and continue to have, faced.

The question is, that if someone agrees that SE was a good orientation for AA (which I do and I'd think you do too), why someone thinks race is not (which I don't, but you do). The obvious answer is: Because someone does not think that the impact of racism is significant enough. I argued before, in the other thread, that my criticism was of a conceptional nature and that the actual extend of racism hence played no role. This was wrong. But where I still see grounds for this conceptional approach is in the direct comparison of SE and racism. Bear with me for a few lines:

Our market economy is inherently designed to favor high SES. It is not just a cultural phenomena or whatever, but a necessity of the system. A low SES means that your parents did not have success in the society and so natural, they will tend to pass that on to you. This effect will be strengthened by a neighborhood typical for your SES and by a school typical for your SES. And if this weren't bad enough, you also will lack financial support with regards to tertiary education.
So it to me seems that SE is by nature so significant, that if one would oppose this as a criteria for AA, one could just as well oppose any measure to fight the way society develops for certain groups of people.

Yes, it is true, that the system tends to resist socioeconomic class advancement. There is class advancement in the system, and there used to be even more of it. And a system that made more of it happen would be of a benefit to the nation as a whole.

I want there to be a lot of class mobility. The more the better.

However, you are vastly underrating how important race is to these outcomes. You seem to think that it is a trivial consideration in these outcomes. And it is not. It is a core consideration in these outcomes. It is one of the biggest considerations. You cannot dismiss it without failing to deal with the problem as a whole.

In the case of racism, it is not a matter of the design of the economy. It is a cultural phenomena, a matter of what people associate with being black and also with black culture like the special way black people talk etc. In this sense, racism is also a lot less special than SE. Because this kind of cultural phenomena in principle applies to a wide variety of things.
As already has been explained: People are discriminated against for their height, their gender, their general looks, their general cultural background etc.
What makes racism so special is its history of public endorsement and its history of ideological endorsement. A history, which has A) caused lower SES for black people today, B) created conscious endorsement to discriminate black people and C) created a profound group mentality along racial lines. A), B) and C) resulted in D): a lot of sub-conscious or at least intuitive racism to boot.
So I acknowledge that racism is a special severe case of discrimination on cultural grounds, but one should not forget that it is not alone.
Now, SE-based AA will tackle A), so when it comes to racial AA, we can forget about that as a justification. C) is also not in favor of racial AA or at least dubiously so. As racial AA may help C) to flourish and by this also indirectly D). But still, we are left with conscious and intuitive racism, AA is supposed to counter-balance.

Now here you are utterly, completely, and indefensibly wrong.

People are not different because their skin color is different. People are not different because their ethnic background is different. People are not different because their culture is different. That is not a reason, that is an excuse. And it stinks like that that thing that excuses are like in the commonly used phrase.

“Law and force cannot change a man's heart”
AuthorDaron Acemoglu and James Robinson

Well that’s what President Dwight Eisenhower supposedly said to Chief Justice Warren after the Supreme Court passed Brown vs. Board of Education which ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional.

But Brown vs. Board of Education, together with landmark federal legislations such as the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was supposed to be a death knell for the institutions of the US South and it was.

Why didn’t Eisenhower get it?

Do take the time to read the whole blog post HERE

He didn’t because he had the wrong theory of why the South was the way it was. He thought that it was all due to southern culture, which was racist and which intrinsically thought of blacks and whites as being different. According to this cultural theory, the differences between the north and the south, for example in terms of race relations and institutions, were ancient and immutable and dated back to the creation of these societies in the 16th and 17th centuries. You can’t change people’s culture with a law. At least that’s what the theory says.

The racism is actually explicitly an economic, and not cultural, phenomenon. The racism exists, it was invented for, it was perpetuated for, exclusively economic reasons.

The racism exists as a divide and conquer strategy to keep wages down. To keep the group poor. Culture has nothing to do with it. Differing cultures are a result, not a cause, of the problem. And cultures can be changed.

Some people in America make a lot of the fact that there is overt racism today in the "liberal Northeast" while there is lessened overt racism in many areas of the "conservative Old South". And this is valid. It is true that in much of the Old South racism is not what it was. And many of these areas are actually quite friendly to blacks now. When the economic justification was cut off at the knees, the cultural justification was crippled, and began to fade away.

Many things are rooted in history, but the “culture” of the US South was actually not one of them as the historian C. Vann Woodward showed in his brilliant book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, published a year after Eisenhower’s remark.

Woodward showed that all of the supposed facets which distinguished southern society, particularly racial segregation and its institutionalization, did not date from deep history but were created de novo in the 1890s when southern states re-wrote their constitutions to control the black population which had been emancipated at the end of the Civil War (see also Suresh Naidu’s research on the impact of disenfranchising blacks).

But here is the picture I see: In contrast to SE, where the SES has without a doubt a high probability to disadvantage an individual, in case of racism we have no idea how high this probability actually is. We don't know where SE exactly ends and racism starts (even though how quick some are to just assume the latter). We can only speculate. Additionally, many other cultural factors will have a say in the success of an individual. Which blurs the actual impact of racism even more. And this is where my problem lies, which is most of all of a conceptional nature. Which is to single out a factor which is so unclear in its actual merit in general and which will hence be even a lot more unclear in its merit on the individual level. And to then use this factor as a criteria for default benefits.

Because that to me makes racial AA so unbearable impossible to judge how fair this really is, that I would say that the burden of proof does not lie with the opposes of racial AA, but its supporters.
In deed, it appears to me that the effort to counter-balance something like racism (instead of directly engaging it) is doomed to be arbitrary in its actual justice or injustice. Hence, justice is not actually a viable argument. Just the wish that certain races do better is. But this wish is racist in spirit if not based on a (reasonable) thought of justice. And I mean not just in theory, but also in practice. Which again AA can not possibly provide.

Why do you disagree? (and please don't just answer with complaining about racism )

Your argument that we can not exactly measure the effects of racism compared to the effects of other factors is really a weak argument. I mean, is it 50% of the cause, or 60% of the cause, and is it really important that we have that exactitude of the piece of information before we act on it? Well, it's not.

X takes from Y everything above bare subsistence for Y. X+1 (X's son) therefor has the opportunity for better housing, better education, better nutrition, better everything, than Y+1. X+1 then does the same to Y+1, and with the same result and this goes on and on generation after generation, eventually reaching the point where X+8 hasn't got the same power, and can confiscate less from Y+8. But despite that X+10 is still a hell of a lot better off than Y+10.

All that confiscation was justified based on race.

So yes, Y+10 has a much lower socioeconomic status than X+10. But you cannot separate that from where it came from.

Can you get exact numbers? No. But what does it matter? We know that it is an extremely large part. Do we truly have to quantify it to the last decimal place?

We do in fact have the number for the results, even if we don't have exact numbers for the causes.

As said, your assumptions about the merits of AA are quit spurious. I am sorry but I have to say so. "Will erode away the segregation that result in racism" This segregation is a result of SE and culture. Bonus points for being black in admission processes will hardly change that.

I don't understand these objections. I fundamentally do not comprehend where they come from.

Where does the persistence of racism come from?

They are not like us. They are a threat to us. We are afraid of them. They are a bunch of criminals. They are a bunch of welfare cheats. They are lazy. They won't work. They are a threat to our values. They want to take what is ours. They want to hurt us. They are different, and we can't live with them.

All of these things and more is that makes racism persist generation to generation. How do you address this? How do you end this? You end this by having people of good will intersecting with one another and realizing that people are people, and given a chance any groups of people are more alike than different.

It is the segregation that allows and facilitates the persistence of the racism which allows the persistence of the discrimination. That segregation must be ended to end all of the problems that flow from it.

AA is a weak and incomplete solution to that problem. But it is far, far, better than doing nothing.

That you argue with merit for a measure that does not even try to asses merit is really, well, incredible. I don't mean to be a douche, but it is. And how the fact, that black guy A will mange to get into a better university but white guy B not, does demonstrate how this will stimulate the economy I am left to wonder.

Let us say you have 100 applicants for a position. Doesn't matter if it's a job or a university slot. Any position. Now of that 100, 16 are black, so they will not get the position.

Can you say, can you make the claim, that the chosen candidate out of the remaining 86 represents the best candidate on purely merit criteria? No, you cannot. It might be, it might not be. You will never know. You will never know if you excluded the best candidate on a non-merit basis.

Your scenario makes the assumption that the excluded blacks are inherently less capable than the non excluded whites. But in reality you do not know that. You do not have that information.

You do not get to a merit based outcome until all candidates are given a fair chance.

Now it is explicitly obvious that this has a positive effect for the whole of the economy. 16% of the population is not allowed to work to their maximum ability and productivity. They are simply excluded from it. The economy as a whole will grow the strongest when the whole of the population is allowed to compete based on their merit. When no persons face artificial obstacles to their economic performance.

If a percentage of the population can only work at partial output because they are discriminated against, then that can only reduce the aggregate growth of the whole.

As luiz already noted - AA will hardly benefit criminals. And one will hardly turn criminal for the lack of AA. I mean do you seriously argue that?

Not all criminals come from abject poverty. But abject poverty certainly does breed criminals. Poverty with no foreseeable way out breeds criminals. No access to decent jobs and decent education breeds criminals.

You reach a point where the obstacles you expect people to overcome just exceed any hope the people facing those obstacles have to overcoming it.

And so they give up and give in and just drop out of being part of legitimate society.

People must have a believable route out. AA helps with that. It's not a lot of a benefit, but it's more than they have without it.

Okay Cutlass, please be honest: This is a hopeless hyperbole. Like I expect from a deceiving politician, but not from you. AA can not provide hope and future by itself. It is not even supposed to do so. It is supposed to influence general trends, not inspire you.

How so? Is it not obvious? I mean, your objection here flat out blindsides me. I'm at a loss as to how to respond to it.

People who have hope and prospects for the future behave differently than people who think they are fraked no matter what they do. Is that not obvious? There are self-destructive people in every group. But the highest numbers the greatest substance abuse, the riskiest behavior, gang membership, common crime, these activities are most common among those people who are at the bottom and have no expectations of having any way out of the bottom.

Make them believe that they can get out by their own efforts, that behavior changes. But they need a way out, and they need to believe in it.

I seriously don't see how AA has such an effect. There are limited places in universities, everywhere. AA will just mean that different races occupy the same places, but not based on merit, but a policy of social engineering.

Without AA the enrollment is not based on merit. What you are failing to see is that we do not have a merit bases system in the absence of AA. But the extra obstacles that blacks must overcome to get to the same place are not taken into consideration. AA offsets some of those extra obstacles, it does not bypass real merit.

Now you act like AA would tackle SE-factors. Which it doesn't. As said many times before, it actually supports most of all those members of a race which already are doing okay. And they don't cause those costs.

In part. Not in whole. AA does not exclusively benefit those who do not need it. That is a strawman argument. What it does do is give those might get into a good college or job a chance to get into a very good college or job. And those who might be qualified for some college or job have a chance. It is not perfect, but it does make many of the members of the group better off, not just those who don't need it.

 

[Flying Pig]

Again, the only factor is the racial oppression blacks have, and continue to have, faced

OK, but change that to Hispanics - it's not as simple as just 'blame racism'. Most Hispanics are poor because they immigrated from relatively poor countries, or because their families did so in the relatively recent past - even without any discrimination, they're still worse off in the job market.

 

[Cutlass]

OK, but change that to Hispanics - it's not as simple as just 'blame racism'. Most Hispanics are poor because they immigrated from relatively poor countries, or because their families did so in the relatively recent past - even without any discrimination, they're still worse off in the job market.

That's true. That's why I focus on the blacks. The Hispanics are a more complicated problem. And quite frankly I don't know how to break down the stats on it. Many speak little or no English, and that is an additional factor in their average poverty. Some 11 million of them are undocumented immigrants, and that cannot help but change their demographics and SES. So my question would be, what does the SES of Hispanics who are English speaking legal residents be?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This is a tricky question. If the average of all black people is lower than the average of all white people, then it's pretty clear that races is the reason why. There isn't really any differential in ability. So since ability does not explain the difference, what does? What are the other factors besides race?

Now you say SES.

Ha! Correct

But the average SES of blacks is lower than the average SES of whites. Why? Again, the only factor is the racial oppression blacks have, and continue to have, faced.

The extends to which you surprise me seem to never end And you seem to contradict yourself her.
Because you also admit that

Yes, it is true, that the system tends to resist socioeconomic class advancement.

so there you already have a different factor for low SES of black people. History. But that is not contemporary racism, does not justify to benefit more from help than any other person which has a low SES and hence needs to be treated as an issue of its own.
That black people have a low SES to begin with is due to a history of racism/racial oppression. There is nothing to argue against that. Slavery, racism. What keeps black people from succeeding today is obviously a different question, though. And low SES breeds low SES. High SES breeds high SES. You say that yourself.
And now, lets play a thought experiment.

Imagine there is a fictional country x. Fictional country X has a social mobility that is not that bad, but also not that good. People in principle have the possibility to succeed, but the lower the SES, the harder it will be. This is true everywhere, but there are some things which alleviate the problem in country X. For one, welfare is very limited. There is a "everybody for themselves" - mentality present. That seems to give country X a lot of beneficial dynamic, but it also increases the risk to sink into poverty and most importantly to stay there to begin with. Which is a first minus for low SES. Further on, there is a strong tendency for similar SES to group, which again enhances the effect of SES. Your have specific SES neighborhoods and more importantly, even schools. There is a certain segregation based on SES present. And high school education can be abysmal, especially for lower SES, and this also increases the importance of parenthood and hence once again the importance of SES. And finally, tertiary education seems to maximize the segregation based on SES. There are top universities which are tremendously expensive, and low-tier community colleges which are way more affordable but lack any prestige.
Fictional country x knows no race, but it knows different classes of people based on SES. And while those classes are not fixed by law or public authorities, more abstract and complex social dynamics have their own way of taking care of it.
One day, something very strange happens. A lot of people suddenly have green skin. And this green skin has a bias for low SES. Though it can be found on all levels of society. Suddenly. many people who work at Burger king. clean the floors or shoot each other in lost town districts, are visually distinct. Intuitively, people start to see a direct relation between the color of the skin and the SES of people. And a generation later, green still would have a bias for low SES. For social dynamics tend to work slow in a stable society.

What I am trying to emphasize: You can not trust your intuition on racism. It will fool you. I think of the article of an American blogger who went to Europe and suddenly realized, that a lot he attributed to racism, was actually of a social nature. Yes this does not mean there wasn't racism. That it wouldn't disadvantage black people. Very correct.
But what is the actual, the real point of racial AA to begin with? To help black people? To help Mexicans? To help people who in their distant past got some Indian genes thrown into their own gene code?
Or is it to make the world simply more just? To fight the injustice that racism is with a little bit of justice?
If that is so, we should have good reason to assume that this also actually would be the result of racial AA.

But do we have such reason?

Let me summarize again: We know that SE fundamentally shapes every society and disadvantages people. We now that in the US, for a Western country, it does so especially strong. We know that other culturally rooted discrimination disadvantages people (you misunderstood what I meant by cultural*) and that here racism shines particular bright. We don't know how strong racism really is. It could be 25%. 50%... well Cutless let me say that I think this is beyond anything reasonable. If racism was 50%, social mobility would have to be a lot lower than it already is. As it is, it is lower than in Western Europe, but not so much lower that suggests so much additional impact by racism, which European nations will not have in such dimensions. And that does not even take into account other cultural factors. So maybe it is 25%. Maybe it is 10%. Maybe even less.. Who is to say? As said, you can't trust your intuition on this. Your public perception is so focused on racism that it inevitably will make you very biased and seeing the correlation between skin color and work status is just too tempting to not irrationally sway you.

Now lets assume an average of 20% impact in relation to SE and other cultural factors (and I think that is very generous). Now think of a white kid with a low SES. Who do you think is more disadvantaged? Is it justice to prefer the black kid with an alright SES over the white kid with a low SES? Can those 20% be expected to be enough that racial AA will create more justice than injustice? Could 25%?

I find that all very questionable.

*When I say racism is discrimination on cultural grounds, I mean it in a sociological sense of the word. Where culture describes simply the rinser, the glasses, the unspoken assumptions through which we perceive the world, of which racism is a part. But also just disliking guys in hip hop cloths and who engage in special elements of black culture. Just like one may dislike white trash while not for being white, but for not liking their cultural background.
But besides that, if people are not different due to their culture, culture would not exist to begin with So I am confused why you would suggest so.

However, you are vastly underrating how important race is to these outcomes. You seem to think that it is a trivial consideration in these outcomes. And it is not. It is a core consideration in these outcomes. It is one of the biggest considerations. You cannot dismiss it without failing to deal with the problem as a whole.

But if it is so essential, where is the study that controls for SE and actually shows so? It can't be too hard to do something like that, but where is it? Where? And how do you explain social mobility in nations where race is not so essential as you claim it to be in the US? As things are, this is mere speculation on your part, isn't it? Remember my example of above with the green skin. It would be very intuitive to blame the green skin for the woes of those people, wouldn't it? And it would be all the more so if your media talked about it all the time. And if those people with the green skin would start to actively perceive them selfs as a separate group. But it would be an illusion. What I am saying: I don't think you can trust your instincts on that. You need hard numbers. But not only that, those umbers need to be in favor of whom AA actually reaches (so not dirt poor ghetto kids, they can only depend on SE). I can only repeat: Very questionable in its actual justice.

Do take the time to read the whole blog post HERE

I read the whole post and it was interesting. But it does not argue that racism is a cultural phenomena (in the since I defined cultural above), but that it was primarily perpetuated by culture. That instead, economic conditions give rise to a culture of racism. And I find this a reasonable assumption.
But if bad economic conditions for black people are so crucial to racism, does this not imply that we should focus on those blacks which actually leave under bad economic conditions? Is that not an argument for SE rather than a merely racial criteria?

The racism exists as a divide and conquer strategy to keep wages down. To keep the group poor.

Again an argument to orientate on SE, to actually help those blacks which would receive those low wages.

Some people in America make a lot of the fact that there is overt racism today in the "liberal Northeast" while there is lessened overt racism in many areas of the "conservative Old South". And this is valid. It is true that in much of the Old South racism is not what it was. And many of these areas are actually quite friendly to blacks now. When the economic justification was cut off at the knees, the cultural justification was crippled, and began to fade away.

Well that is probably also due to the fact that the Northeast knows a lot of poor blacks due to the breakdown of Northeastern industry. Which creates a bad economic situation for them and perpetuates racism. And if this is true, will be most effectively tackled by helping black people with a low SES.

I don't understand these objections. I fundamentally do not comprehend where they come from.

My issue was primarily with "will erode away", as I think this to be quit a hyperbole even if racial AA is a good idea. But I admit, you have a point there. Fighting segregation is fundamentally good to fight racism Yet if this segregation, as you yourself say, is largely perpetuated by economic factors, I maintain, that to focus on SE would do a way better job in fighting segregation. As with SE you by default will focous on those blacks which actually do have a hard time to integrate. And without the dubious justice of racial AA.

Let us say you have 100 applicants for a position. Doesn't matter if it's a job or a university slot. Any position. Now of that 100, 16 are black, so they will not get the position.

Can you say, can you make the claim, that the chosen candidate out of the remaining 86 represents the best candidate on purely merit criteria? No, you cannot. It might be, it might not be. You will never know. You will never know if you excluded the best candidate on a non-merit basis.

Your scenario makes the assumption that the excluded blacks are inherently less capable than the non excluded whites.

It suffices if I assume that an arbitrary general preference based on race will not correlate with actual merit.

Now it is explicitly obvious that this has a positive effect for the whole of the economy. 16% of the population is not allowed to work to their maximum ability and productivity. They are simply excluded from it. The economy as a whole will grow the strongest when the whole of the population is allowed to compete based on their merit.

Agreed. Just that racial AA has nothing to with merit directly, but justice and the social dynamic of racism as a whole. The former is very questionable and the latter seems to be inefficiently thought with racial AA in comparison to making use of SE.

Not all criminals come from abject poverty. But abject poverty certainly does breed criminals. Poverty with no foreseeable way out breeds criminals. No access to decent jobs and decent education breeds criminals.

You reach a point where the obstacles you expect people to overcome just exceed any hope the people facing those obstacles have to overcoming it.

And so they give up and give in and just drop out of being part of legitimate society.

People must have a believable route out. AA helps with that. It's not a lot of a benefit, but it's more than they have without it.

Now you seem like you grab for every straw you can reach, no matter how short. Again, if poverty is what you are concerned with, focus on a measure for that: SES.

How so? Is it not obvious? I mean, your objection here flat out blindsides me. I'm at a loss as to how to respond to it.

People who have hope and prospects for the future behave differently than people who think they are fraked no matter what they do. Is that not obvious? There are self-destructive people in every group. But the highest numbers the greatest substance abuse, the riskiest behavior, gang membership, common crime, these activities are most common among those people who are at the bottom and have no expectations of having any way out of the bottom.

Make them believe that they can get out by their own efforts, that behavior changes. But they need a way out, and they need to believe in it.

And who are those hopeless souls who need hope? Integrated middle class blacks? Or people with a low SES?

Without AA the enrollment is not based on merit. What you are failing to see is that we do not have a merit bases system in the absence of AA. But the extra obstacles that blacks must overcome to get to the same place are not taken into consideration. AA offsets some of those extra obstacles, it does not bypass real merit.

An arbitrary advantage based on race does not bypass merit? Oh, so you think being black is a quality in itself now or what? Seriously, that makes no sense. Never mind how merit-based the system is to begin with, racial AA can not possibly make it more so.

In part. Not in whole. AA does not exclusively benefit those who do not need it. That is a strawman argument. What it does do is give those might get into a good college or job a chance to get into a very good college or job. And those who might be qualified for some college or job have a chance. It is not perfect, but it does make many of the members of the group better off, not just those who don't need it.

It is not a straw man argument. Given, it is a hyperbole, but only to illustrate the point, that AA will inevitably tend to target those which need it the least. Making it a terrible approach to help people in need to begin with - when it is about helping people in need of course. Fighting racism is a different quest. So is justice for a race. You will already have read my responses to those.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not going to answer all of that, because I think that I have already done so as well as I am able to. But let me pick out a few points.

An arbitrary advantage based on race does not bypass merit? Oh, so you think being black is a quality in itself now or what? Seriously, that makes no sense. Never mind how merit-based the system is to begin with, racial AA can not possibly make it more so.

Where this fundamentally wrong is that it implies an assumption that the starting positions of blacks and whites are the same. And so giving blacks a benefit is unfairly gives blacks an advantage over whites for non merit reasons. What makes this fundamentally false is that the starting positions are not the same. Again, the race metaphor: If the black has to cover 50% more distance to arrive at the same place, and does so with a longer time, that does not imply that he is actually the slower runner. What it actually tells you is that when you have less work to do, you can do a better job of it with less ability. And that is the difference that most blacks and most whites face in the US. The amount of effort and ability it takes to get to the top is simply less for whites than it is for blacks. They have a shorter race to run.

AA does not give blacks an advantage. It only reduces somewhat the advantage whites have.

And that is why SES AA will never result in making the black average SES roughly equivalent to the white average SES. It does not address the problem.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What you don't want to understand is that you can not directly counterbalance the injustice that is racism in a direct way without introducing an unjust measure yourself. But if you insist on only thinking about races rather than individuals, you will never get that.
All you accomplish is giving places to already integrated black people instead of focusing on the not so integrated. And here racial AA becomes a net harm. Because it not only means less space for whites or Asians, but also low SES-groups.

 

[Cutlass]

Even if it is true that much of AA helps primarily those who are least in need of it, that does not imply that none of AA helps those who have no other options.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I would like to see a single case where AA is the only thing offering someone an option. And if it is only fictional, plausible would suffice. I ask for that, because racial AA is inherently not designed to help those which lack options. As said a felt million times before - it can by default only help those which already have a reasonable shot to begin with. Because it will not make unacceptable candidates viable, but already acceptable candidates preferable to other acceptable candidates.

 

[Flying Pig]

As said a felt million times before - it can by default only help those which already have a reasonable shot to begin with. Because it will not make unacceptable candidates viable, but already acceptable candidates preferable to other acceptable candidates.

I may be missing something, but isn't that the entire point? No system should ever allow inferior candidates to succeed over superior ones.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well first of all inferior and superior are different than acceptable or unacceptable.
The former describes a relative measure (how candidates stand relative to each other), the latter an absolute one (if a given candidate is a viable choice to begin with).
In any case, I was only responding to Cutlass post, so ask him.

 

[Flying Pig]

True, but I was taking it for granted that an unnacceptable candidate is worse than an acceptable one - just pointing out the overriding maxim at work.