Affirmative Action

[Tee Kay]

Solutions:
- Affordable tertiary education
- Curbing "educational inflation"
- Diversification of educational institutions
- Diversification of the economy
- Strong welfare state

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Your point that the American society is inherently not that good in helping not so well off population groups is a good one (very limited welfare [poverty cycle] and tertiary education [social mobility]).
But what do you mean by educational inflation and what exactly does this diversification mean you speak of?

 

[luiz]

If you're naive enough to believe that an "entirely objective" admissions process is even possible, or that it is "guaranteed to be free of any kind of discrimination" then... whatevs. When you're talking about marginal cases, i.e. in cases where AA is applicable, there's no such thing as "entirely objective". Candidate A is never objectively better than candidate B.

Unless you believe mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and etc. are "White Male Sciences", then yeah, I do believe it's possible to be entirely objective in a test.

 

[Flying Pig]

Any test in which it is possible to improve one's performance through training will ultimately display racial bias.

 

[Mise]

Solutions:
- Affordable tertiary education
- Curbing "educational inflation"
- Diversification of educational institutions
- Diversification of the economy
- Strong welfare state

It's not just about that though, is it. There are four problems main here, all of which are endogenous to one another:

1) There's an attainment gap. Of course, there are SE (I'm just going to abbreviate "socioeconomic" to SE from now on) reasons for this, which can be solved with some of what you're suggesting.
2) There's an admissions gap. AA is aimed at solving this problem.
3) There's an expectations gap. This means that women, minorities, and those of low SESs don't even apply for university, because they don't believe they can get in. AA is aimed at solving this as well.
4) Then there is straight up racism, sexism, homophobia etc. AA tries to address this artificially at first, and then hopefully through the demonstration that blacks, women, gays, etc are actually capable of studying in universities, in workplaces, etc.

So what you're suggesting will go a long way towards addressing (1), will go some way towards addressing (2), and may even address (3) and possibly (4) (though honestly, 4 will go away by itself if we're willing to wait long enough). But here's where what I've been saying about the minimum wage kicks in. Even the easiest and cheapest of what you're suggesting will cost a crapload of money. It will take a generation of consistent, sustained spending and hard graft to even make an impact on problem (1). It will have to survive changes in government, changes in taxation, changes in the economy, the spending cuts and austerity imposed during cyclical downturns, changes in public attitude, and so on. The vast majority of black people currently alive would not benefit from more money spent on education, so the criticism that AA benefits only a small minority would still apply here. We know that all of our existing policies on tackling poverty are grossly inadequate -- otherwise, there would be no more poverty, or at the very least, people of low SESs would be equally represented in universities, employment, etc. And even if it did all work perfectly, we're still only focussing on the first two really: there's no guarantee that it will feed through to problems (3) and (4), and if it did, it would take several generations to even see the effect.

AA is a shortcut to equality in attainment, just like the minimum wage is a shortcut to equality of income. If people put aside the fact that we're doing this based on "race", which is just as arbitrary and uncontrollable as being born into a poor household, then I'm sure more people would see it the way I do.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That it is about race is not just a cosmetic feature. It has crucial implications for the usefulness of this approach.
Your argument is in itself sound, but simply does not take into account all the factors that need consideration. The comparison to minimum wages stays flawed on the whole.

 

[Cutlass]

That makes me glad to hear
But I am not only disagreeing that it was worthwhile. As my post explains, I think there is no valid rational that it was worthwhile and which is not appalling far to seek as soon as one bothers to dig into the depths of what AA in practice can be projected to really mean. That all that is left in the end is to insist on advantaging entire races no matter what, based on the intuitive feeling that this must be good. Simply disregarding all that is wrong about this approach. Which is not just covered with white boys whining (while them being discriminated is one part of my argument, though a secondary one) and economic inefficiencies (which I did not even care to mention), but concerns the very purpose of AA, too.
So basically, that racial AA ultimately is most of all supported for sentimental reasons, not for sound objective criteria.

I am in fact reading your argument. But the point of it all is that you are wrong in the core of your argument.

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. And beyond that, the program was so poorly designed and implemented that it barely accomplished even that much. At no point in time were blacks given an unfair advantage. No one even proposed doing so.

Now the benefits to doing this are extremely valuable. 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.

Now the costs of doing this is practically nonexistent. A small number of white people will actually have to work and compete to get what was previously an entitlement.

Now consider the costs of not doing it. They are huge. A year in prison costs more than a year in a good university. People with hope and a future commit fewer crimes, have healthier habits, make better life choices about children and family. The economy as a whole underperforms because so many people within it do, and there is so much governmental costs for remedial actions, remedial schooling, welfare, law enforcement.

You are talking about essentially no costs to rectify a problem that has vast costs. Objectively you cannot make a case against AA.

 

[luiz]

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. And beyond that, the program was so poorly designed and implemented that it barely accomplished even that much. At no point in time were blacks given an unfair advantage. No one even proposed doing so.

The thing is, the proponents of race-based AA were never capable of quantifying the "disadvantage" of being black, and therefore any "compensatory" system you can come up with can indeed generate unfairness and favor certain blacks over certain whites. And I insist, the blacks that benefit from AA are already competing with whites and don't need any bonus to begin with. Poorer blacks see no benefit whatsoever. The people benefited from it are not the ones who end up in jail.

But anyway. Fact is if you give a black candidate a certain amount of extra points, while not knowing how many points being black cost him (if any), you are indeed shooting in the dark and committing an injustice while at it.

Also, your sweeping generalization is demonstrably false if we think of places that adopted more radical AA, like racial quotas.

 

[Ajidica]

This may have been touched on, but would AA lose anything by ignoring race altogether and focusing on, as Mise so thankfully abbreviated it, SE? It addresses the same core problems while nicely avoid the whole 'reverse racism' stuff.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think the difficulty that people have applying the current, relatively simple system demonstrates that anything more complex would be impossible to run.

 

[luiz]

I think the difficulty that people have applying the current, relatively simple system demonstrates that anything more complex would be impossible to run.

The system would be much more simple if it were focused on socio-economic background. Or, even better, scrapped altogether and replaced for quality public education for everyone.

 

[Flying Pig]

Or, even better, scrapped altogether and replaced for quality public education for everyone.

Public education can never hope to match private simply because of funding - if society was prepared to pay enough so that state schools spent as much per pupil as public schools, the parents would simply all opt for private education.

 

[Quackers]

That implies spending per pupil is the only determinant of a quality education. I remember America spends a huge amount on education and still cannot match countries like Finland and South Korea on international tests.

Anyway sounds like a great topic for some econometrics.

 

[luiz]

Public education can never hope to match private simply because of funding - if society was prepared to pay enough so that state schools spent as much per pupil as public schools, the parents would simply all opt for private education.

Yeah, spending is not the only determinant of quality, as Quackers said. The US does indeed spend more per capita on its students than anyone else, and results are mediocre.

It's possible to have a very good and universal public education system (up to high school) without spending a fortune.

 

[Flying Pig]

OK, but I'll say that in the same country, it may as well be - schools will pretty much copy each other in nearly every other regard if someone comes up with an idea that works, particularly when the cultures are broadly the same. It's naive to think that the public sector can outpace the private based on some magic, impossible to emulate, free stroke of genius.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Cutless
First of all, what luiz said. Are you sure you read my post? Because what he replied can also be found within it. And that AA aims at those that need help the least further increases the potential for unfair disadvantages.
Seriously, the first statement of your post, which you bothered to bold and write cursive, is factually untrue. You need to understand that.
Secondly, that racism somehow causes economic costs is probably a reasonable assumption. To just shoot this out there in the inflated manner you did and to use it as some universal justification for AA is not reasonable however.
Your other assumptions about AA, that it will make the world a better place, meritocracy, save the oppressed etc, are vague and IMO quit spurious as well and my post (sorry if I seem a little obsessed with this post, but I feel it contains all key arguments against AA while considering a pro-AA stance) offered IMO good reason to not assume so in such a seemingly reflexive manner.

The only point I take no issue with is that AA has little costs. But only in the sense of economic costs. However, naturally, economic cost is not the ultimate criteria to policy decisions, or at least should not be. What serves the people in the best way, what is "right"/moral does. And there AA IMO fails.

This may have been touched on

Slightly.... But yes, SE (and God why did no one introduce this earlier?!) has significant advantages over race. I myself am also arguing with the assumption that racial AA would be replaced by SE, not just abolished. Its only drawback is that it does not benefit all members of a race (that is also those which need it the least), but only those which need it the most. But well, I don't actually see this as a drawback, but another advantage.

I think the difficulty that people have applying the current, relatively simple system demonstrates that anything more complex would be impossible to run.

Oh come on, what a smug statement to make. "It is so easy, but they still don't want to surrender to its awesomeness". Maybe it is because it simply sucks?

 

[Mise]

This may have been touched on, but would AA lose anything by ignoring race altogether and focusing on, as Mise so thankfully abbreviated it, SE? It addresses the same core problems while nicely avoid the whole 'reverse racism' stuff.

Well, I've touched on some reasons why AA based on SE wouldn't solve the problem entirely in my last post, but no, I haven't made them explicit.

AA based on SE would help insofar as the problems that black people face are in part a result of them being in of a low SES (the last S stands for "status"). But they won't help problems that black people face independent of that, such as the racism that prevents them from being hired in greater numbers, or that causes them to be arrested in greater numbers. It's just a fact that the police force is a racist institution in this country; the London Metropolitan Police Service has the honour of being described as "institutionally racist" by an official public inquiry, and it is still largely an open question as to whether they have managed to purge racism from the force since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.

In America meanwhile, there really isn't escaping the fact that a large section of American society is straight up racist. Half of Republicans (or something like that) think that Obama is a Muslim - in large part because they can't call him a N-----. The entire "birther" nonsense clearly had racist motivations among a large proportion of its belligerents. And yet, Obama is one of the most privileged black men in America. He's not even wholly black, he's half white! Obama can't escape being discriminated against due to his skin colour, and he's the freaking President of the United States! How on Earth can we expect black people of low SES to be treated equally, when the most successful black man in America still gets racially discriminated?

Anyway, the reason why I'm making this point isn't to suggest that we need "Affirmative Action" applied in courts, or that Obama should get an extra 5 electoral college seats for free in the election. The point is to demonstrate that blacks have problems that whites simply don't ever have to worry about, and this is true regardless of SES. Tackling SES will get you half way there, but there are still problems that blacks face that whites never will.


Additionally, AA based on SE would also do little to help women, for obvious reasons. Of course, the problems women face are different to the problems blacks face (e.g. they don't face much of any discrimination in university admissions), and women's problems can probably be solved through employment legislation, but it's worth bearing in mind.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

God dame it. Wrong thread.

 

[Deviate]

@SE-Only Folks

How do you account for the following quote from the study?

"The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase." (One can read the details if they wish. There's a section about being from an affluent neighborhood.)

Also, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to the following question:

Do you believe that Racism* still exists in America?

*Systemic racial discrimination by governments, corporations, religions, or educational institutions or other large organizations with the power to influence the lives of many individuals.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Don't tell me that this is from the same study which has already been discussed in great length.
And what exactly do you mean by "systemic"?
But most of all: The general existence of racism is not enough to justify AA!!!
RAHHHHG
Sorry about that.

edit:
@Mise
You last post consisted of nothing more than complaining about racism. How racial AA actually is suitable to tackle those you did not even bother to get into. So you essentially just established that SE-based-AA does not put a stop to the negative effects of racism. This is what I mean with sentimental reasoning.