That's right: It's about to get political up in this bish...
I realize I am going to get zero support for my view here, but this needs1 to be said. I am not racist (although I don't know how one can prove such a statement these days. "I have black friends" isn't acceptable.), but I'm likely to be accused as such, and I'm willing to accept that (despite the fact that my very writing below proves otherwise). I do realize that I am a white male aged 18 to 32, so as the majority my words mean absolutely nothing.
Let us first take a look at a definition of racism: making decisions, or otherwise acting in a different manner based on the race of another individual. Fairly reasonable definition. All men (and women) were created equal and each is equal in the eyes of God, so to act any differently because one man has darker skin than another is despicable.
You probably already know where I'm going with this, but I'll spell the entire thing out for the sake of completeness. Let me use a concrete illustration so that everyone can mentally visualize the situation: there are one thousand available openings on a college campus (Let's call it Baltic State University). One thousand and one people apply: Seven hundred fifty one from a group of people that randomly have genetic attribute A. The other two hundred fifty have genetic attribute B. These genetic attributes have no affect on the person in a learning capacity. Affirmative action laws dictate that at least one quarter of all invitations to attend BSU must go to those with genetic attribute B (for some strange reason). Let us also assume person #751 from group with genetic attribute A earned an entrance exam score of 88% (or got 1810 on his/her SAT or graduated in the top 12% of his/her class in high school). As the final point of set up, person #250 of the group with genetic attribute B earned a score of 87% on the same entrance exam (or got 1800 on his/her SAT or graduated with a class rank just after person A-751 and they went to the same high school and took the exact same class with the exact same instructors2). Mull over this problem and write down your answer as to who should receive an extension of invitation to attend BSU in the last open position: A-751 or B-250 (Assume all other attributes not mentioned in the scenario are equal to both people).
Do you have your answer? Well the correct answer is: B-250. "Wait, Will, how is that so?" I'll answer that by pointing out that I slyly added a key detail in the middle of the scenario, you may have missed it: "Affirmative action laws dictate that at least one quarter of all invitations to attend BSU must go to those with genetic attribute B (for some strange reason)." Had it not been for this illogical statement, we would all surely have put A-751 and been correct.
Now, let's take a look into the reasons affirmative action laws exist (at least in our good ol' United States3): historical society of this country said it was OK for certain men with certain genetic traits to own certain men with different genetic traits (yes, this is a horrible thing to have happened, thankfully we've done a fairly decent job of eradicating it from our own country). Following that, the society of this country thought it was still OK for a the former group to remain superior in public over the latter group (again, horrible, but so far as government has the power, it has eliminated this). There are, most assuredly, more reasons, but these are the biggies.
Today, people receive unequal benefit because of this (I guess to even the score). So, let me get this straight: people with genetic attribute B should be more apt to receive invitation to attend some school because their great-great-great grandfather may have been one of the people that was owned by a person with genetic attribute A at or more than 150 years ago. Or possibly their grandmother was told to sit in a separate, albeit worse, part of a restaurant fifty years ago.
Not only this, but the government, who feels the need to give them this benefit, wasn't the one inflicting the unequal treatment (in fairness, they may have contributed some, but I contend that the vast majority was inflicted by Joe Farmer of South Carolina), they simply did not stop such actions. Should all victims (and their ancestors) of internet identity theft receive unequal benefits from post-secondary schools or places of employment, if the damage was inflicted before the government enacted a law forbidding it?
In all of this, I've almost forgotten my biggest point: these laws are set in place because people were racist. Now we've enacted laws that counter this previous racism by giving unequal benefits to people simply because they are of a certain race (racism). Seems illogical (but I guess it's government, so I shouldn't be surprised that something is illogical.)
I really just put this section here for completeness. Also, the (unfunny) joke of using a section called "Logue" wouldn't be as obvious without an epilogue.
Notes
1 "Need" is such a strong word. Of course this doesn't need to be said, but rather I feel strongly about it and greatly want to express that.
2 Obviously, in real world scenarios, nothing is this equal, opening up the possibility for even more disparity, so the very fact that this situation could happen is egregious.
3 "Good", in this context, is being used sarcastically, in case the inflection didn't come out and punch you in the face hard enough.
1. this whole post hinges on the fact that affrimative action only benefits blacks. AA also benefits other minorities.
ReplyDelete2. the need for AA is so much more complicated than how you presented it. think about it: education is America is based on where you live. you can only go to schools in your district. so if you are poor and can only live in poorer districs, then you go to sub-par schools b/c funding for these schools are based on property taxes (which are super low). the book Savage Inequalities talks about this in-depth, esp in New York City. These sub-par schools usually can't even offer a lot of college-prep courses, and if they can, they cant afford textbooks, etc. Basically the only minorities that can make it to college are those that are able to make it into the middle-class sector. and there are still very little of those. AA allows more minorities opportunities to go to college and move up the economic ladder.
3. It is hard to want to go to colleges that are like 100% (or close to that) in one race group. the only people who like that are race supremacists (there is a history of both black and white suprecists)
1. This whole post does not hinge on that fact. My scenario completely strips specificity from the racial attributes of the prospective students. True, some of my ancillary points use African Americans as the example (as they are the majority of the minorities concerning this subject).
ReplyDelete2. Ah, good point I did not address. Let's suppose, for a moment, that the reason for affirmative action is to benefit those without the opportunities given others. We measure this by income of the family, poverty level of the area in which the prospective student lived, and/or which high school he/she attended. Let us notice that these three aspects of the person have nothing to do with their race whatsoever (it is true that, probabilistically, a larger portion of minorities would qualify for needing more benefit based on these characteristics, but it isn't by any stretch of the imagination a good metric to go off of). We can objectively measure family income, and fairly well measure the other two, so why not collect that information (family income, location, high school) and base their benefit or add a specific weight of acceptance based on that.
3. Not sure what this had to do with anything, but I would guess the following response is appropriate: post-secondary schools should not collect race on applications. Pile all of the concrete data from the applications and select the most qualified (feel free to weight the applications in regards to income/location/schooling as needed). Take an entrance essay (typed ver batim by an office clerk before the acceptance people read it as to remove any handwriting bias) if necessary. Any edge cases will, unfortunately, require an interview, opening up the possibility for preconceived notions, on the side of the acceptance personnel, to seep in (but there's probably no way of eliminating this). This makes everything a whole lot more fair (and I think that's what affirmative action is aiming towards: fairness),
1. well there is a difference between the African-American and, let's say, Asian American experience in America in terms of education. For instance Indians (whom I will include in the Asian-American category) make up the largest percent of people with PhDs and Im willing to bet the second-higest earners of bachelor's degrees. They are usually economically upper-middle class. They are technically minorities. So what about them?
ReplyDelete3. the purpose of this point was to talk about one of the consequences of AA- diversity in colleges. Some colleges can do better in this area than others if AA didn't exist because of its location (DC colleges are in a more ethnically diverse area than, say, a smaller town in Utah). The thing about not putting your race is that some people value (and others de-value) diversity and make it a point to go to a school because of that. If no one puts their race, then I could have come to Pitt and been in shock- too many blacks, too many whites, or whatever reason.
4. There is another point I forgot to mention. Should all colleges have the same criteria? Are some colleges like ivy leagues inheritly for certain groups of people as opposed to others? And you don't even have to think about race either- Harvard wouldn't admit women until like 1970 or something like that.
5. What do you think about HBCU's? (historically black colleges and universities that btw dont only accept black people. and my dad works at one so be careful lol) They were formed specifically for blacks that couldnt get educaitonal opportunites at white schools.
6. you don't have to answer this but think carefully about this. Where is all of this REALLY coming from? I have never heard you complain or even discuss about the white priviledge that you have in America. And yet when something happens that is misrepresentated as Black priviledge, it becomes a bad thing that needs to end asap.
6.
7. what makes a person qualified for college? how you measure that inherently changes things also.
ReplyDelete1. What about them? All Asian-Americans that have better qualifications than any other person should get the nod before any of those other people.
ReplyDelete3. So, you're racist?
4. Not necessarily, but race shouldn't be one of them (and neither should gender). (Fun fact according to Wikipedia: Harvard accepted women starting in 1879, but they were segregated until 1977).
5. I'm fine with any private institution accepting whomever they see fit (as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberties of anyone but themselves). I have a problem with publicly funded institutions basing their service on race/gender/etc.
6. I just want equality for all men and women. There is white privilege in America, but it's not going to be solved by acknowledging the two groups of people as two separate groups. We should try to solve it by treating every person as an equal to every other person.
I really would like to see a university that highly weights family income when considering prospective students. If there is a large disparity of poor African-Americans (and there is, unfortunately), then the outcome will be racially equal (but at least the people from all races who need the help will receive it).
Can I not also challenge you with the same question? Are you countering my points because I'm wrong or because I'm challenging something that benefits your race?
7. Additional point: What the hell is race anymore anyway? Apparently, we have our first African-American president in office. People often forget to mention he not only is of African descent (more specifically Kenyan), but also English and Irish. I don't care what his race is, can he run the country? I'm actually fairly impressed with what he's done so far, seeing the hand he was dealt. Back on point, where do we draw the line? Should I call myself Scottish, Irish, German, English, Spanish, Welsh (or whatever else comes down the ancestral line)? I prefer not to care about what race I am, because I define myself, not my ancestors, and not my genetics.
Oh I didn't see your point 7 before I replied, I think my reply to 4 applies.
ReplyDeleteI think everything i can ay boils down to this: until racism can be dissolved completely in this country, everyone wont be equal in the eyes of everyone. You want peace, love, and cupcakes. I do too. but the reality is, is that there is. i have to deal with people who cant believe that my parents can afford a 5,000 square foot home because we are black and supposed to live in the projects. like this actually happens. AA doesnt need to exist in a perfect society. alas, America is far from that (but making progress).
ReplyDeleteIm actually taking a class called minority groups that is solely based on race issues now. it is interesting that not Blacks in America are even from AFrica. But I totally digress....
How am I racist? I was making a general statement. I, personally, do not hate any specific race but would be lying if i said that I didnt have a bad history with certain ethnic groups. I was saying "I" in a general "any college kid" kind of way.
7. I'm surprised you like Obama considering the stories I have heard about about how you felt when he was elected. Unfortunately, people give you identity. I tried saying that I wasnt any particular rce cuz i didnt know where exactly my ancestry came from but as society starts labeling you, you get stuck with those regardless of whehter you want them or not. It would be nice if that changed.
Im countering your points because I felt you had a one-dimensional, very white point of view on the issue. that is all. its nnot your fault. its hard for me, i guess, to explain our perspective on this.
you cant move on from a racist pass by ignoring the reality. Ever hear the phrase "those that forget history are doomed to repeat it?"
And my entire point is to try to eliminate that racism that still exists.
ReplyDeleteI know it isn't much consolation, but I apologize for my race if they don't believe someone can own whatever size house because the owner is of a specific race.
"not Blacks in America are even from AFrica" - Exactly my point (one of them). Who should count as an African-American? I know a number of white people from African countries. I also know a number of black people with incredibly diverse family backgrounds (those from Africa who were not affected by the slave trade or segregation in America, those whose families were affected by those things) and from a wide swath of economic situations.
Oh, I didn't realize it was a statement being applied to a generic student. Also, you don't have to hate a race to be racist.
As far as Obama goes, let's say I've had a little bit of change of viewpoint since the point he was elected. Was he the right man for the job? Maybe, maybe not (I don't know that any one man is perfect for the job). But he wasn't the disaster I was expecting.
It would be nice if we could eliminate that thinking in people. Eliminating as many decisions based on race as possible would help.
And I'm making my points because I think the decisions of some have been one-sided and unequal (in a country where "all men are created equal", I thought). It isn't their fault, society pressured them into it.
And I don't think we'd be forgetting history by getting rid of affirmative action. If anything, we'd see the results of making racist decisions in the past and changing it for a better future.
I understand where you are coming from. Like I said, we have made progress. But just like there are laws in place to help women because they are still underpriviledge, there are laws to helps minorities that are underpriviledge. I mean, what about illegals that are allowed to become citizens simply by going to school? Universtiy of Texas gives scholarships to illegals hispanics all of the time.
ReplyDeleteIm glad you are changing your mind about Obama. PLEASE tell me you will vote for him in 2012. (knowing you i have a feling you are into Rick Perry) but I digress...
Some decisions seem one-sided from an arbritary point of view. But if you look closely at the systems behind those points of view, then you can see why they have to be made.
Hopefully the world can improve 3 generations from now. It is sad, but I kinda blame the Christian history of America for a lot of the problems that exist (not just race either). A true christian nation looks different than America is right now.
But minorities are not underprivileged (at least not all of them). The underprivileged are underprivileged. Serve them whether they're white, black, red, blue, or green.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you want me to say about illegal immigrants.
And aren't we being incredibly judgmental? ("knowing you i have a feling you are into Rick Perry") Although Rick Perry's got the looks of a president in a big budget film, being a president isn't about looks. Will I vote for Obama? Who knows? I wish I could enter a ballot every election that says "I'm not too lazy enough to not vote, I just hate all of the candidates" Maybe a third-party vote will get that point across. Ron Paul's an interesting candidate. He won't get the Republican nod, but I agree with a lot of what he says.
"have to be made"? I don't think so.
"A true christian nation looks different than America is right now." Which is why I would not blame Christians, but rather I'd blame "Christians"
Will,
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw the topic, I expected to mostly agree with you. But after thinking about it more, and reading a little bit (I didn't have the patience to read it all) of your dialogue with Chelsea, I don't think I agree with you as much as I thought I would.
I think the main point that commends AA to me is the underpriveleged argument. I gather your response has mainly been that underprivelegedness is not a racial fact, but a socioeconomic one, so colleges should give preference to underpriveleged people of all races equally.
But here's why I think that's not good enough: for many people from minorities, being underpriveleged IS a racial issue. You can't sweep away the past of racial injustice by summing it all up as segregation in restaurants. If, say, 50 or 60 years ago it was nearly impossible for black people in America to get a quality higher education, then an entire generation of black people grew up living in poverty.
Then the next generation of blacks grew up mostly in areas of poverty (and thus crime) and poor education. This trend continues. Thus, in the present, even when colleges say they'll accept people from all races based on merit, the meritorious students are mostly whites.
So **temporarily** FORCING schools to open their doors to African-Americans seems unjust in the short term (and it is), it might be absolutely necessary to help them escape repercussions from the way our country was 50 years ago. It's not a way to make it up to them, or say sorry (as you seem to suggest), but to even their ability to succeed in our country.
If colleges did what you said -- just looked at need regardless of race -- they would be "helping" people of all races who are poor/undereducated. But it seems like most white people who are poor are poor because of mistakes they or their ancestors made, not because 50 years ago the tide of culture swept cruelly and inexorably against their ancestors. This seems unfair, maybe, to the poor white person, but I think it's better to be punished for ancestors' mistakes than for ancestors' random genetic factors.
Practically, then, once employment and higher educational opportunities are distributed on par with racial distribution (rather than being skewed in favor of the Caucasian), all AA rules could be immediately repealed. But not sooner, right?
Jon
Not surprisingly, Jon mentioned most of what I would have said in response to this. Now, to me, the important question is "does Affirmative Action actually do what it is intended to do?" Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the research on AA to know the answer to that question.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I will offer one of the arguments for affirmative action (note: I have not read all of the previous comments, and this is not necessarily my own view of the issue):
Some/many African Americans, especially from low-income backgrounds, assume that even if they try hard in life, they will have difficulty getting into a good school, finding a good job, getting paid well, etc., because of racism. This will prevent African-Americans from even trying to get out of poverty. In turn, they will remain in poverty, and the negative cycle continues... Affirmative Action is a way to assure African-Americans that the color of their skin won't be an insurmountable barrier. Thus, they will try to get into school, get a job, etc. and that positive cycle continues...
Damn you Jon and your incredibly logical progression! (Tim, you can feel free to feel validated, too) It's hard to argue against. What's worse is I'm starting to think you're right. I wish I could peer into the future and see whether it has actually evened the racial gap, but I agree that this must be repealed, if it does work. The question then becomes: At what point, if AA doesn't work, can we repeal it for not working? If we continue to just keep it in place, we will only continue to reinforce racism. Granted it won't be as heinous as in the past, and it will negatively affect whites, but racism nonetheless.
ReplyDelete"it seems like most white people who are poor are poor because of mistakes they or their ancestors made" - Well if this isn't the most racist statement I've ever heard. Haha, not in actuality, but making a wide-sweeping generalization about one group of people because of their race (even if it's probabilistically true) fits the very social definition of a racist statement. I realize you gave in a bit ("So **temporarily** FORCING schools to open their doors to African-Americans seems unjust in the short term (and it is)"), but let's make sure we're not lying to ourselves: you can admit we're using racism to try to defeat the effects of racism?
I still maintain we would greatly benefit at least knowing the effects of AA versus a system where the underprivileged are treated equally (and I maintain we'd be better off with the latter as I still believe we don't negate the effects of racism by continuing to acknowledge the difference between people, but by treating them all the same).
Will, I'm genuinely flattered by your comment. Thanks!!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I admit that the worst part of what I said was the comment about poor white people and their decisions. The thought behind it was that the list of factors contributing to poverty in minorities is something like {discrimination from 60 years ago, discrimination now (which thankfully is much less), bad choices, bad luck}, while the list for poor people in the majority culture is more like {bad choices, bad luck}.
Would I agree that we're using racism to fight racism? Maybe. It depends on the definition of racism. But I'm not sure I care if that's what we're doing. If one type of racism used temporarily is the only thing that can permanently end the effects of another type of racism, it might be the best course of action.
And finally, I agree completely with you and Tim that it would be hugely beneficial to know the data of how effective AA has been.
And, of course, any comment that includes set theory (or at least set notation) gets a thumbs up from me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if that guy who wrote the Seven Habits of Highly Effective people knows anything, he told me that there's always room for a Win-Win solution, AA seems like Win-Lose or Lose-Win to me.
so this is incredibly late, but i thought i would throw my two cents in. So I do agree that the motive behind AA is noble and just, but I don't know if its the best solution (lets be clear i don't have another solution I'm just really good a point out problems in others ideas).
ReplyDelete1) AA is designed to help eliminate racism, however when someone (Person A) is denied and opportunity because it must go to a minority (Race B) instead, what do you think that does to person A's feelings toward race B. I would say that in some situations AA can cultivate racism toward the minority it is trying to help.
2) in response to the point of "it seems like most white people who are poor are poor because of mistakes they or their ancestors made". to the person today, should it make a difference if they are poor because of the ancestors mistakes or discrimination? the person born into poverty because of poor decisions had no more to do with there situation than the person born into generational poverty due to race. I don't think it should mater why you someone is born into an underprivileged situation.
As to number one above, I know this happens, so it's a good point to consider.
ReplyDelete