Comments on: affirmative action: diversity in universities and conferences

By: mike

mike — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:20:15 +0000

The costs of affirmative action are numerous, yet one can condense them into three main arguments against the policy. One major argument is that although affirmative action was made originally to end racial inequality it tries to do this by giving preference to racial minorities, giving preference by race, by skin color, is wrong, unjust; when done by an agency of the state it is unlawful, a violation of federal statutes and of our Constitution. The motives are often good, and one can understand that. But the conduct is wrong and not tolerable in a good society. One example is when, in his Brief in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, Thurgood Marshall, then executive director of the Legal Defense Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, wrote in 1954: “Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state, bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere.”
The argument is that by supporting affirmative action, the United States is being hypocritical because they say that they support equality with affirmative action when in reality it provides minorities with a superior chance of acceptance than a white male, costing American majorities equal opportunity. Another cost of affirmative action a lower level of achievement, and at times dropouts among the encouraged ethnic minorities. In many colleges affirmative action provides some quota to fulfill regarding the number of students admitted. This is usually directly proportional the composition of the general population. In other words if ten percent or the population were Asian then ten percent of the college students would be Asian. This means that regardless of the qualifications of that white guy, who is the 2051st of the 2050 white guy’s who are accepted, he can’t go to that college even though he is more qualified to attend than many of the minorities who are accepted to fulfil the quota. This results in the admittance of ethnically diverse, yet less qualified students who may or may not be able to handle the load of the educational institution they were admitted in. While there are certainly many well-qualified applicants of ethnic minority, the percent of applicants for admittance to universities with competitive admissions who are qualified minorities isn’t nearly as high as the percent of the general population who are ethnic minorities, as affirmative action assumes. The real problem is not discrimination at the college level-but inferior education or lack of effort by ethnic minorities in the schools. According to federal testing data, the average African-American student in 12th grade performs at about the same level as the average white student in 8th grade. In every subject area tested by the federally funded National Assessment of Educational Progress-whether reading, science, mathematics, history or geography-there was a four-year difference in the scores of white and African-American high school seniors. Hispanic seniors are almost as far behind on the same measures. This is why ethnic majorities often experience “reverse discrimination” at the hands of affirmative action wielding admissions committees. Affirmative action, with specific regard to college admissions, is a policy that doesn’t even solve for what it attempting to: racial inequality. According to Marie Gryphon, a lawyer and policy analyst with the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, “Minority under-representation in college is caused by public schools’ failure to prepare minority students” It is a failure that affirmative action does not remedy.” Affirmative action does not even significantly affect college access because most four-year schools are not selective, and will accept any student with a high school education. Preferences for minority students only matter at the 20 to 30 percent of colleges where admissions are competitive. Preferences at these selective schools have not increased college access for minorities because most minorities leave high school without the minimum credentials necessary to attend any four-year school. Political scientist Jay Green, who found that only 20 percent of African-American students and 16 percent of Hispanics leave high school with the minimum credentials, supports this. The cost of implementing affirmative action is thus wasted on a very ineffective tool, causing other harm in the process.

I say this as a 17 year old white male who is applying for college at the moment, and have some anxiety about AA although i have a 1560 Sat…and a 3.9XX, and likely won’t need to worry, as i’m not applying to a wourld-class supper school.

Please respond

By: zephoria

zephoria — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:44:59 +0000

Affirmative action is a construct – it’s implementations vary tremendously and it doesn’t have to have caps for Asians nor does it everywhere.

By: blahblah

blahblah — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:30:21 +0000

I am liberal. I abhor A.A. Do you realize how many asians are excluded from colleges and universities? Most colleges/universities have a maximum percentage acceptance level for asians, contrasting with the minimum acceptance level for others. These exclusionary tactics are unnecessary, especially when all we have to do is spend more govt money in education to bring up the quality of education at its roots, rather than spending govt money on stuff like wars and tax cuts.

By: Consplicator

Consplicator — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:45:34 +0000

Thanks for posting my comments. Looks like you are unable to deal with a little intellectual diversity by way of a divergent opinion. Typical liberal – too insecure to even consider you might be wrong.

By: Consplicator

Consplicator — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:44:08 +0000

An interesting and sophisticated argument in favor of affirmative action, but it quickly reduces to the following maxim: “diversity is an inherent societal good.”

It is pointless to argue that affirmative action in a given setting results in increased diversity in that setting – clearly it does. The question is, at what expense? (if any, for all you dogmatics out there).

In short, arguing for institutionalized racism (which is what AA boils down to if you are being honest) without addressing whether the above maxim is true is a sollopsistic waste of time.

If one is looking for a counter-example to the notion that diversity equals great society, check out Japan, which is 99.5% ethnically pure, and seems to be doing okay. On the other hand, one can easily see that forcing a society into ethnic or racial homogenuity by use of government power has historically led to the horrors of nazism and fascism.

Pick your poison.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:16:46 +0000

wow, the first sane argument for affirmative action i’ve ever heard. i’m still not convinced yet but i am definately going to read this a few times. i think my issue with A.A. is the exclusionary aspect. all of the positive social results from screwing over a qualified individual still doesnt justify A.A. in my mind.

thanks danah

By: Charlie O'Donnell

Charlie O'Donnell — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:29:45 +0000

To be honest, this is the most convincing argument I’ve seen for affirmative action. I’m not quite convinced just yet, but I can definately see the network value that diverse groups bring to the university (even the jocks).
The issue I have is that race is only one factor in diversity. If I grew up next to someone of a different race than me, hung out together all the time in the same social groups, went to school together, etc, then that person doesn’t exactly alter the University network any more than I do upon acceptence. In fact, I wonder whether or not its more effective to look for economic, rather than racial diversity. I think about this related to my nieces, who are, through my sister-in-law’s background, now considered “minorities.” However, they have not learned Spanish nor have they grown up in a particularly culturally diverse area. What other networks are they bringing to the table? Race is not the only factor in determining whether or not someone’s acceptance brings more diversity to a University.

By: coturnix

coturnix — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:17:38 +0000

http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2005/03/apophenia-rocks.html

By: Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life

Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:18:20 +0000

Bringing Affirmative Action to Blogging

By: Jay Fienberg

Jay Fienberg — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:35:30 +0000

Seems like there are interesting parallels between your example of afirmative action in universities and the US public school bussing programs that started in the 1970s.

Although most bussing programs failed because of logistical and cultural complications, the ones that succeeded had an effect on the issue of geographic neighborhoods acting as barriers to social network connections (e.g., to cultural and economic opportunities).

In Los Angeles in the 1970s-80s, there was the “magnet” school program which created some schools that were like colleges in that each student had to apply to get in, and kids from all over LA attended (pretty much all were bussed) rather than from just 1-2 local neighborhoods. Admission criteria was based around the goal creating a diverse student body that would succeed academically.

I attended two magnet schools and each was a totally different network of families / neighborhoods / cultures / businesses than the ones connected with my neighboorhood schools. It seemed like a totally good thing to me.

(AFAIK, the magnet schools still exist in LA–they’re just not called magnet schools any longer. I think this model is more common now in many places too.)

Also, I think your points could be applied to efforts to get past the apparent logic of separate-but-equal.