(split) Affirmative Action discussion

[laughing dog]

Affirmative action, as it was originally designed (and is still practiced in some areas), is an attempt to recruit qualified candidates in under-represented categories. It is true that AA has been distorted in practice by some, but that does not mean that AA as originally designed is discriminatory.

How is this not still discriminatory? Unless you are recruiting based on talent alone, and as long as you are targeting based on race, you are discriminating.

I don't see how making special efforts to recruit qualified candidates in under-represented categories is discriminatory. It does not exclude qualified candidate in other categories from consideration. Nor does it preclude them from application.

Just because you find competent people to fill your positions doesnt mean you didnt do it in a discriminatory manner. The old bigotted white and male only system usually filled spots with qualified candidates as well.

Yes, because it excluded nonwhites and females. AA in the discussion does not do that.

 

[laughing dog]

I have never suggested that AA leads to the recruitment of unqualified candidates. But, just like many people who apply for a job may be rated 'suitable', some are more qualified, and have more merit, are ranked higher on objective measures, than others.

And this is relevant in the discussion for AA and the recruitment of qualified candidates because....?

And every time someone who is less qualified, has less objective merit, is hired for an arbitrary reason like gender or race, the whole enterprise suffers for it. The lesser candidate won't do as good a job, they won't produce as much, the world will literally have less wealth than it could have had, had the most qualified, the most objectively merited person, been hired.

That is true but it assumes 1) that wealth accumulation is necessarily preferred over other goals, and 2) that the notion of objective merit is well-defined and well-understood when it comes to evaluating multidimensional people for multidimensional jobs.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

View attachment 1883

There are two major problems with that cartoon:

i) It represents Blacks and Whites by a single person for each race throughout 200+ years, as if a race were reducible to a single representative, and as if the people alive now had any moral responsibility for the sins of their fathers

The first part of this sentence would make all expression of an idea through use of a metaphor wrong, which we all know is not true. People constantly use small examples to make bigger points because those point are easier to understand that way. The second part of the sentence, about being held responsible for the sins of the father, is not true. the point of the last panel isn't about the black guy asking for a hand up, but the white guy refusing for the reason given.

ii) It implies that Whites benefitted overall from enslavement of and racism against Blacks, which is patent nonsense. Slavery in America has made everyone alive today worse off than they would have been were there no slavery.

When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America

 

[AthenaAwakened]

MODS

Could you split out the Affirmative Action discussion into its own thread?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How is this not still discriminatory? Unless you are recruiting based on talent alone, and as long as you are targeting based on race, you are discriminating.

Just because you find competent people to fill your positions doesnt mean you didnt do it in a discriminatory manner. The old bigotted white and male only system usually filled spots with qualified candidates as well.

Sure. But again, you are operating on the assumption that the only thing that matters or should matter is GPA and test scores.

I am? Why do you assume that? Read what you quoted and justify your straw man.

I do like that you excluded race from your three examples to compare and contrast, and named a bunch of other stuff that may actually have some bearing on talent and merit.

 

[George S]

MODS

Could you split out the Affirmative Action discussion into its own thread?

Good idea, AA.


In 1961 the University of Wisconsin was, by law, required to admit everyone who graduated from a Wisconsin high school. As a result the attrition rate among freshmen was 2/3. But everyone had the exact same chance to learn. Although not with the label it was affirmative action done right.

Everyone got a chance to prove themselves regardless of race, color, weight, height, age, sexual preference, eye color, sex, gender orientation, interests and skills. The family of my freshman roommate was a storekeeper in Sheboygan. His father paid his tuition. My parents paid my tuition, room and board and books. Others paid their own way by working nights and weekends. Scholarships were available to ease the cost for some. These were often private and discriminatory: A scholarship was available only to Lutherans, for example. Another for sons of dairymen to go into agricultural engineering.

The past is often instructive to understand the way things are today, but attempts to restore the situation as it might have been had history been different seem doomed to failure. If history be our guide here such attempts' negative consequences seem proportional to the distance in time. The most violent, persistent conflict in the world attempts to correct (restore) a situation 3000 years old. Wrongs against native populations around the world in the age of colonialism which is almost over. My family was part of the underground railroad; each runaway who stayed overnight left with a gold coin -- enough to start a business when they got to Canada).

What is the right way to move forward from the present situation?

Neutrality? Equal opportunity, but only equal? No discrimination, but no affirmative action?

Favor minorities? In 2050 (or so) the population at least half "white" will be a minority. Around 40% will have nearly no white ancestry to speak of. When should this minority be favored?

Fire fighters should be judged for the ability to do the job, not their sex. Should an underrepresented group have lower standards for being fire fighters?

De facto racism happens. The NBA is disproportionately non-white. Should we have slots for white folks? Others for Hispanics? A quota? We do with immigration, why not with sports.

When I look for it I can see just how I have been discriminated against unfairly because of my heritage. My kind were called BoHunks (stands for Bohemian-Hungarian). There is no NAAB. What proportion of college slots be reserved for us?

So many affirmative action questions. Yes, another thread seems right.

 

[Toni]

Sure. But again, you are operating on the assumption that the only thing that matters or should matter is GPA and test scores.

I am? Why do you assume that? Read what you quoted and justify your straw man.

The part about recruiting solely on ability and talent. If you are not one of those who decry affirmative action because it doesn't rely solely on test scores and GPA for admissions, my apologies for confusing you with most who oppose affirmative action.

I do like that you excluded race from your three examples to compare and contrast, and named a bunch of other stuff that may actually have some bearing on talent and merit.

Why do you assume that admissions does not look at exactly the same things I listed in my hypotheticals?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't seem to understand how the selection process works in colleges.

You get various points for various things. If the university happens to be low on oboe players, then incoming oboe players get more points than other students. This does not mean that non-oboe players are being persecuted.

If the university happens to have more students from suburban and urban backgrounds, people from rural backgrounds get more points. This is to provide a more diverse student body so that students can be exposed to as many perspectives as possible, not evidence that suburban students are being persecuted.

You get points for having higher grades. This does not mean students with lower grades are being persecuted.

You get points for doing charity work. This does not mean students who don't do charity work are being persecuted.

You get points for having higher SAT scores. This does not mean students with lower SAT scores are being persecuted.

If the school makes a lot of money from its athletic program, then talented athletes get a ridiculous amount of points. Frankly, this is unfair.

If your family gave a lot of money to the university, then you get in no matter how bad your grades are. This is even more unfair.

However, what the selection committees do to increase the diversity of the student population is not evidence that Asian students are being persecuted (and let's face it, if the selection process were changed the way you want, there would be fewer white students and more Asian students). Points assigned for a wide variety of things and race is a very small part of that decision and the points assigned for that make up a small part of the overall consideration. If this upsets you and you want to attend a university with less diversity, you can always attend a university with less diversity, such as an evangelical university.

And some of us have a problem with some of these things you are listing. When you give points to things that have nothing to do with their abilities as a student you are discriminating and are no better than the KKK. Worse, in fact, because you think you're doing a good deed.

Ironically, the one on your list you call very unfair is probably the least offensive--such money increases the number of students they can handle. So long as the amount of money is enough to offer a position to another student there's no harm done.

And while you claim the racial points are small that's not what we see. The formulas are secret, the effects on admissions can be observed--and are highly discriminatory.

- - - Updated - - -

How is this not still discriminatory? Unless you are recruiting based on talent alone, and as long as you are targeting based on race, you are discriminating.

I don't see how making special efforts to recruit qualified candidates in under-represented categories is discriminatory. It does not exclude qualified candidate in other categories from consideration. Nor does it preclude them from application.

Just because you find competent people to fill your positions doesnt mean you didnt do it in a discriminatory manner. The old bigotted white and male only system usually filled spots with qualified candidates as well.

Yes, because it excluded nonwhites and females. AA in the discussion does not do that.

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[laughing dog]

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That koan is truly ironic coming from an "it's anything but racism" poster.

 

[Toni]

But you don't understand it: you believe that it takes unqualified candidates from under represented minorities and gives them admissions over highly qualified candidates who do not belong to under represented minorities. You insist that the only qualifications that should be considered are MCAT scores and GPA without acknowledging that medical schools in fact do an excellent job of selecting candidates, as demonstrated by the very low failure rate of candidates. Because medical schools take qualified candidates, not unqualified candidates.

You have not considered nor demonstrated that significant numbers of high scoring Asian and white candidates are denied admission to medical school. I don't believe that you've considered that such highly scoring candidates likely apply to multiple top rated medical schools, regardless of whether their actual interests are a good match for that particular medical school. Certain students apply to certain schools as a way to boost their status. I am certain that not all students with very high GPAs and very high MCAT scores are admitted to medical schools because frankly, some of them have no business becoming doctors. I've known such candidates who are frankly very happy with their Ph.D's in mathematics and physics which is where they belong and where their talents (which do not include a high level of interpersonal skills in the cases I am thinking of) and abilities are much better utilized.

You're simply assuming there are other factors that explain the difference in the stats--yet your side gets vicious with us if we show (rather than just hypothesize) other causes.

You're also constructing a strawman here. It's not the very high scoring people that are discriminated against. They get in where they want. It's the midrange people where you see the problem--a midrange score for a black to be admitted is basically a do-not-admit for a white.

Well, the only thing I am assuming is that admissions counselors are basically honest when I've talked with them and when I read articles where they are quoted extensively.

If you read what I have written or better yet, the words of admissions counselors, you will see that indeed some perfect scorers do not get into some programs. Because being good at taking tests is no the same as being a good doctor.

I think you will find you are not correct in your other assumptions.

 

[Kharakov]

No: every time you eliminate someone from a competition merely because of skin colour, and that person would have been the best candidate, you have made the world poorer. This cannot seriously be denied.

Every single Black person who, but for racism, would have succeeded, or would have been able to contribute more to society than they ended up doing, has made America poorer. How can you believe otherwise?

All I know is that all the women in the workplace are dragging down the economy!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am? Why do you assume that? Read what you quoted and justify your straw man.

The part about recruiting solely on ability and talent.

Recruiting based solely on ability and talent means recruiting based solely on ability and talent. There could be any number of ways to measure or attest such ability and talent, test cores being one of them, other things you mentioned being others. Race or gender or height or sexual orientation or eye colour of the person would not be.

I do like that you excluded race from your three examples to compare and contrast, and named a bunch of other stuff that may actually have some bearing on talent and merit.

Why do you assume that admissions does not look at exactly the same things I listed in my hypotheticals?

I hope that it does. But that would have nothing to do with targeting people for recruitment based on race, gender, or other non-merit or non-talent based group identities. It would have nothing to do with "Affirmative Action".

 

[Metaphor]

That is true but it assumes 1) that wealth accumulation is necessarily preferred over other goals, and 2) that the notion of objective merit is well-defined and well-understood when it comes to evaluating multidimensional people for multidimensional jobs.

1) Need not be exclusive to other goals. Indeed, selection based partly on an arbitrary preference for race not only reduces wealth and therefore material living conditions, but it degrades the accomplishments of people who did not benefit from AA but are suspected of doing so, and (worse) it continues the prejudice that selecting people based partly on race preferences is a noble and moral thing to do, when in fact it is the exact opposite.

2) Objective merit doesn't need to be perfectly defined, nor does performance have to be perfectly predictable, to know that the moral case against selecting based partly on race has already been settled.

 

[Metaphor]

No: every time you eliminate someone from a competition merely because of skin colour, and that person would have been the best candidate, you have made the world poorer. This cannot seriously be denied.

Every single Black person who, but for racism, would have succeeded, or would have been able to contribute more to society than they ended up doing, has made America poorer. How can you believe otherwise?

All I know is that all the women in the workplace are dragging down the economy!

You've got a smiley face, but of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The more people that are in the labour force, the more wealth that is produced, and the higher the material standard of living for everyone.

 

[Metaphor]

Your last link shows the exact opposite is true of what you believe
\


No: every time you eliminate someone from a competition merely because of skin colour, and that person would have been the best candidate, you have made the world poorer. This cannot seriously be denied.

You have also made the majority group wealthier, at the expense of those shut out. Basic math tells us that if there are 100 people competing for a share of a pie, and you exclude 18 of them from the competition, those remaining have a better shot at a larger slice.

The pie itself is smaller when you exclude 18, because not everyone worked to make the pie as big as possible and when people are arbitrarily excluded from contributing to the pie it has to be smaller.. The majority group is not wealthier, it is poorer.

 

[Axulus]

You are totally ignoring the contribution to the pie of those other 18 if they are selected. If those 18 have the most merit, they'll make the size of the pie larger than the less qualified individuals. Basic math and all that.

Bullshit. Those 18 are forced to contribute to the size of the pie, but excluded from competing for the benefits.

How are they forced to contribute? I thought we were discussing a situation where they are not allowed to contribute (or be best educated to contribute) by being denied the job position or college admissions slot they are most capable of and qualified for vs. someone else who got it instead?

 

[Metaphor]

When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America

I agree the government shouldn't discriminate by race, either.

 

[laughing dog]

1) Need not be exclusive to other goals.

Your argument is based on that exclusion.

Indeed, selection based partly on an arbitrary preference for race not only reduces wealth and therefore material living conditions, but it degrades the accomplishments of people who did not benefit from AA but are suspected of doing so, and (worse) it continues the prejudice that selecting people based partly on race preferences is a noble and moral thing to do, when in fact it is the exact opposite.

This can be said about any winners in an selection process - that the process is biased towards ______. And since the AA we were discussing is about recruiting qualified candidates, your argument is without merit.

2) Objective merit doesn't need to be perfectly defined, nor does performance have to be perfectly predictable, to know that the moral case against selecting based partly on race has already been settled.

Actually the two have to be well-defined for your argument to make sense because if there is no objective way to define this goals, your argument has no practical basis. BTW, I don't know that the moral case against AA has already been settled.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America

I agree the government shouldn't discriminate by race, either.

And what do you propose we do to deal with the long term effects of this injustice?

 

[Metaphor]

This can be said about any winners in an selection process - that the process is biased towards ______. And since the AA we were discussing is about recruiting qualified candidates, your argument is without merit.

If a university graduate school selects based partly on GPA and aptitude, of course the process is biased towards selecting those with higher grades and aptitude; it's designed to do so. Grades and aptitude predict academic performance.

Qualified candidates are not all alike. There are 47,000 anaesthesiologists in the United States. Each licensed anaesthesiologist is qualified to administer anaesthesia. That does not mean they are all as good as each other.

Actually the two have to be well-defined for your argument to make sense because if there is no objective way to define this goals, your argument has no practical basis. BTW, I don't know that the moral case against AA has already been settled.

I didn't say they were not well defined. I said they were not perfectly defined.

There is no doubt that grades and aptitude predict academic success. This is true no matter what we discover about other factors in the future, and it's true if grades and aptitude predict 95% of the variance in academic success or 50% or 5%.

It is therefore fair to use grades and aptitude in a prediction equation to rank people for selection.

The moral case against selecting people based partly on race has been settled. Or do you believe it was morally right for Harvard to exclude Jews from its economics department?