Affirmative Action
The US Supreme Court is set next term to take up an affirmative action case arising out of Harvard (a private university) and the University of North Carolina (a public university) challenging race based admissions policies as violating the US Constitution. The result seems predictable based upon the Court composition. The action has been brought by Asian students who argue they are being denied admission over other less qualified applicants because Asians are already over-represented at these competitive schools.
The arguments are summarized below:
https://www.highereddive.com/news/dissecting-affirmative-action-opponents-arguments-before-the-supreme-court/624093/
Race based decision making policies are pervasive in the US. It is common to be asked when seeking business from corporations or government entities what the business' racial, gender, and sexual orientation makeup is. That general practice is not before the Court, but it all seems logically related.
My thought is that from a pure ideological position, it is morally suspect to promote on the basis of race or gender, but I also recognize all is not societally fair and that refusal to consider race and gender will dramatically reduce minority numbers in prestigious universities and occupations.
By the same token, I don't know that even if I can accept the need for affirmative action to right past wrongs, that I can accept it as a forever proposition.
II'm interested in people's thoughts here. I straddle the ideological/pragmatic fence here. I can say I was taken aback when a Fortune 500 Company asked me to fill out a vendor application form that asked the specific percentage of gay/lesbian/trans at my office. It was like I was being asked to guess based upon stereotype because I would never ask an employee their sexual preference, and the clear message is that I need to hire more gay people if I want more business. How one goes about that is unknown to me.
The arguments are summarized below:
https://www.highereddive.com/news/dissecting-affirmative-action-opponents-arguments-before-the-supreme-court/624093/
Race based decision making policies are pervasive in the US. It is common to be asked when seeking business from corporations or government entities what the business' racial, gender, and sexual orientation makeup is. That general practice is not before the Court, but it all seems logically related.
My thought is that from a pure ideological position, it is morally suspect to promote on the basis of race or gender, but I also recognize all is not societally fair and that refusal to consider race and gender will dramatically reduce minority numbers in prestigious universities and occupations.
By the same token, I don't know that even if I can accept the need for affirmative action to right past wrongs, that I can accept it as a forever proposition.
II'm interested in people's thoughts here. I straddle the ideological/pragmatic fence here. I can say I was taken aback when a Fortune 500 Company asked me to fill out a vendor application form that asked the specific percentage of gay/lesbian/trans at my office. It was like I was being asked to guess based upon stereotype because I would never ask an employee their sexual preference, and the clear message is that I need to hire more gay people if I want more business. How one goes about that is unknown to me.
Comments (57)
Your instincts are correct here. Its morally wrong. As the case proves, any race-based inclusion leads to race-based exclusion. When you make an effort to advance some groups you impede others. This is why we ought not to favor some races, and for the same reasons we ought not to disfavor other races.
It is also demeaning both to the favored and unfavored groups insofar as it paints the candidates as requiring special considerations based on superficial phenotypes, none of which factor in to education.
Its unjust. It doesnt rectify any past injustice because it doesnt even consider them. It doesnt distinguish between the deserving and undeserving. That it is premised on fuzzy taxonomies makes it all the more threadbare.
A case for affirmative action could be made to flesh-and-blood human beings who have actually been excluded from such institutions because of their race. That sort of injustice could be rectified by giving them the full benefit of proper consideration as they give everyone else. Beyond that it should not go.
The interesting thing here is that the main people arguing these cases (admissions, etc) are Asians, as they are claimed to be overrepresented, even more than Whites. As a result, I feel like many Asians (which typically vote democratic) will begin voting more conservative because they feel these sorts of policies and quotas hurt them and are targeted at them. In many cases, this is true. My guess is the supreme court's conservative leaning will say these admissions are discriminatory. Whether the federal government can regulate it is another question. But for public schools that are federally funded, I think they may be able to withhold funding or do something that way.
I do a lot of STEM teaching, outreach, etc. Honestly, much of this work to get more women and minorities in STEM (if this is indeed the goal) has to happen earlier. Even high school is too late in many cases. I'm for trying to find the best talent and give everyone and equal chance, but in my opinion, affirmative action goes too far and ends up hurting the people it is trying to help.
To put things in perspective, Prop 16 (to repeal Prop 209, which made the UC admissions system race blind in 1996) was on the ballot in California. It was shot down by more of a margin than prop 209 originally passed by in 1996. This is California we are talking about. Its complicated-the voters care about equity in some sense, but also care a lot about merit and seem to not like quotas. I think we are starting to see the pendulum swing the other way-people are more aware of discrimination, racism, etc, but they feel that some of these policies take it too far.
This is one of those issues where I think both sides make good points (similar to the abortion debate), and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives on it.
I was not an attractive candidate for the Ivy League or the Fortune 500, because I wasn't interested in producing the kind of high achievement that would have made me an attractive candidate. Now, there are many people who had fewer opportunities to excel than I did. That's unfortunate, but if they aren't prepared to compete for very good and elite positions, then they are, like me, S.O.L.
Diversity is much sought after (in some circles) because it is thought to improve performance for everyone through some mysterious influence. I haven't witnessed such an effect in the work place, but I can imagine that diversity could make a contribution to collegiate life.
Many Americans suppose that some jiggering of the system can overcome disadvantages that are built into 'the system' from the foundation upwards. Jiggering won't work. A community whose systematic disadvantages are based on 5 or 10 generations of being on the bottom, won't be changed by affirmative action, It has to be rebuilt from new-borns on up.
All that said, when exceptional candidates whose cohort has been very underrepresented, present themselves, they ought to be admitted/hired because they have great merit, not because they are black or female. It is nonsense and frank discrimination to limit qualified Asian candidates, just as it was nonsense and frank discrimination to limit qualified Jewish candidates.
While I think that affirmative action is defensible in principle (and the benefits of inclusive diversity are well documented and researched), it has shown to be ineffective to change overall culture and should be replaced with something that works. That it hasn't changed anything is because the "tone at the top" is the same old, racist, white people in power. There's no good example to be had (and in this respect the Netherlands is even worse).
The question is, for instance, if you consider the following discrimination: I don't have any females in my team. My next hire is going to be a woman no matter what, even if she wouldn't be the best candidate (but does qualify). I would do this because I believe in a "diversity dividend" and the larger a team becomes the more group dynamics become important.
Take that to the larger stage of society and if we take "all men are created equal" seriously then this should be reflected in every segment of society but we don't see it. Maybe just throw hiring managers and CEOs in jail if they're caught discriminating. And any company with a skewed composition of employee ethnicity is suspect.
Probably not, because Racism is certainly intended to do so, and affirmative action at least seems to be intended to mitigate the effects of racism, and reduce social division.
Most so-called democracies are aristocracies in disguise, and rejecting the principle of noblesse oblige does not constitute a glorious revolution. Let's pretend that there is some principle or virtue at stake though, rather than power politics overriding the justice system in a race for complete moral nihilism masquerading as righteous religion.
Diversity without inclusivity doesn't work, for sure. If it did, the US would be a much better place to live in.
Here's an example of a diversity dividend: https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend
What else would you have when you try to correct the errors of the past, segregation and racist legislation, with still holding on to the core idea of dividing people into categories of race?
Quoting unenlightened
Even if we don't have a rigid caste system or an entrenched class system, modern societies tend to be meritocracies at best. A meritocracy doesn't end classes. Add then the capitalist system on top and there are always those who are better off and those who aren't.
Social mobility, transfer payments, welfare state and above all, social cohesion, all can minimize the problems, but they surely won't erase them.
Our day is relatively more brutal and close to nature. 'Let nature make the decisions, and let the chips fall where they may.' It comes down to where you see the limits of our power and wisdom.
Modern societies tend to be like the kingdoms of yore. Politics is almost as much a family affair as the Mafia. "Meritocracy" is the cloak under which dynastic rule likes to hide, and is the justification for grinding poverty amid fabulous wealth. It is so very easy, to maintain, because even the desperate poor prefer to think they deserve their poverty rather than that they have been systematically shafted their whole lives and never stood a chance. The better off always think they deserve their privilege of course.
I don't doubt that's the case sometimes, but how does that apply to Asians? They can't be said to be advancing a meritocracy ideology in order to protect their historical power.
So should we let the chips fall where they may, how do we explain to racial groups that go dramatically under-represented in some fields that the cause is pure fairness?
What is the replacement you allude to?
This response seems too simplistic. You say the problem is old school.racists, but where is the evidence of that? Not that I've sat in important board rooms to know much, but all I hear from my seat is how everyone needs to promote diversity. The US is a diverse nation and diverse employment is good for business.
I think the best you can argue is a CRT argument, that racism is hidden within the structure, but neither currently intended or overt.
It suits the dynastic rulers to promote the interests of the Asian minority as a means to maintain the oppression of the much larger African community. Do I have to convince you that The supreme court has an agenda that is not equal treatment and equal rights for all? If so I give up in despair.
American racism has obviously affected many groups, so I don't want to diminish any group's suffering, but no where has it been more extensive than with African Americans and Native Americans. I'd probably be OK with efforts directed at promoting those two groups, as opposed to separating the country into hundreds of sub-groups.
I fully accept, for example, that gays have had a tough path historically in the US, but I don't think part of that struggle was in exclusion from universities, real estate markets, or employment. So why am I being asked to be on the lookout for them to be sure they get hired?
This requires an acceptance of some sort of illuminati that sets up the puppets on the strings and then watches as they half knowingly play out their roles on stage.
Asian culture, whatever it might historically have been long before America was a twinkle in anyone's eye, must play some role internally here as well, meaning their values must also be leading them toward STEM based occupations, without manipulation by the powers that be.
A for example. I'm Jewish and can attest to the emphasis upon education in my community, which also leads to over-representation in the professions and in leadership positions. Am I to believe that cultural norm really is just reactionary to the Jewish experience in the US over the past couple hundred years?
Yes, old school racists. If you're not actively anti-racist, you're still a racist. Biden, Trump, Gingrich, the whole lot of white dinosaurs are racist to the bone. They pander in symbolism to then turn around and either do nothing or generally make life worse for minorities. As Street would like to say: it's not a shortcoming, it's a feature. "But Biden was VP to Obama who was black", is just another "I'm not a racist because I've got a black friend", or innocence by association, which amounts to saying "I'm not a sexist because I know my mum".
I don't buy it to describe it as a systemic issue. That is also an issue but these people are actually in a position to change the systemic rules many are operating under. Unless, of course, you think it's a systemic issue that white old men in power select/groom/nurture/support other more white old men to get into power - which can be argued but I think is a bit semantic or about interpretation at least. I think there's a lot of agency involved there, where actual people could make different decisions.
And what you just agreed on as a fact between us with respect to diversity being good for business, is not believed by a large majority of people, who think "personal qualifications" are the only thing that matter. That is another expression of individualism taken too far.
Tell them the race of those involved has no bearing on anything in the entire process.
Telling someone his community's subservient lot in life is well deserved will not lead to societal harmony, regardless of how morally justified you think it is.
Your position just demands stricter rules and stricter enforcement, which means bigger police forces and bigger prisons. If a better result can be crafted for a cheaper price (both in dollars and human suffering), that would seem to be the better pragmatic solution, as opposed to dying on the sword of moral consistency.
I dont know why you would tell a person his lot in life is well deserved because his skin color is a certain shade. But youre thinking with race here. Thats the problem to begin with. If you look at a crowd and divide it into races you will get disparities that you cannot explain without resorting to racism.
No it doesn't. It requires that people are selfish first, familial second, and tribal third, and that people in government are good at manipulating opinion.
Quoting Hanover
I can attest the same cultural norms amongst the UK working classes, and also among the Afro Caribbean population here. And that proves what? It proves that we are all hearing the same messages and seeing the same solutions to the same problems. 'Work hard, support power, make yourself useful to power, don't rock the boat, etc.' The Jewish community surely knows as well as any that education and hard work count for little when the government is against you.
I think if you look at Thurgood Marshall's comments on affirmative action, you'll see that he didn't think it was supposed to last forever. It's not racist to ask if we have arrived at the point where it can be dropped.
But I'm not talking about racism as I find it unhelpful. I am saying that states that claim to be democratic are nearly always dynastic to a great extent (count the Bushes and Kennedys, for example). This means that by design and by accident, privilege and disadvantage are passed down the generations. Such dynastic government cannot remotely be fair and equitable, and relies on custom and management of the media, from the pulpit to the tabloid and beyond, to perpetuate the dominance of a minority. (Notice that it relies also on the patriarchal control of women's sexuality, to guarantee patrilineal descent) Racism (and sexism) is an effect rather than a cause of a partisan system of government that only ever pretends to be equitable. When can we drop extra support for the structurally disadvantaged? when the structure stops systematically disadvantaging some people. Don't hold your breath.
As you say, [some] gays were not excluded from universities, real estate markets, or employment, they are ideal diversity candidates. Gays have the proper cultural credentials, in addition to their "disadvantaged" status. Gays that were excluded from universities and real estate markets (in terms of purchase, rather than rent) belong to the very large class of not-very-prosperous working class people who stay not-very-prosperous working class.
The Bushes and Kennedys among others. G. William Domhoff's WHO RULES AMERICA is a very readable report on how, exactly, the ruling elite arranges its affairs to hold, and keep holding, power. In a nutshell, the answer is "The Corporate rich, white nationalist Republicans, and inclusionary Democrats..."
Happily, Domhoff has made a lot of his findings available on his University of California - Santa Cruz webpage HERE
Affirmative action essentially forces social change by giving minority individuals the chance to start their own dynasties. Just as installing the first black SCOTUS judge won't change anything concrete, but it will change the expectations of young black girls, affirmative action changes people's assumptions.
I'm sorry you didn't read Thurgood Marshall's comments. They're helpful in understanding the outlook of the world that first embraced affirmative action. It's not my world, and all the more, it most definitely is not yours.
Domhoff suggests we stop blaming the media:
So you define social change as social more of the same.
Because...Quoting unenlightened
I already understand the deep abiding hatred you have for the millions of Americans you've never met, so you can leave that part out if you want to. :grin:
Have you really? Someone has asked that from you in your work?
Or have you read an article that basically urges people to do this?
You can't, since you're not allowed to inform about a person's sexual orientation. Once hired you're not allowed to fire them because of it. Sex and skin colour are a bit hard to hide although I guess from a social experiment perspective it would be totally cool if a black man could pretend to be white and then show up normally on his first day. Preferably somewhere in Mississipi.
The argument made by the Students for Fair Admissions seems misguided.
I dont see how no one can be harmed regardless of whether affirmative action is enacted; many different students are considered, but there is a limited number of spots; someone is going to get in, and some other number of people will not. While ideally this selection process would be meritocratic, I dont see any real, honest-to-god meritocracies outside of the gym. And it isnt even perfect there. The burden of proof is on them to show that the selection process would be meritocratic if Harvard hadn't instituted the Asian cap.
Thus, I think it is stupid to raise an argument about how it is unfair that someone got selected over you; it is unfair for everybody minus the winner unless it considers every single relevant factor, which would be impossible. For example: you might be a math genius with a lack of social skills. You would be at home with the math researchers, but you dont get a spot because some sly socialite really makes an impression on their interviewer. Or maybe English isnt your first language. Or maybe you are gay and the interviewer is a bigot. All factors that could lead to an unfair outcome.
Unless schools want to come out with a clear explanation for their selection processes, the best solution seems to me to be focusing on the development of a (more) sophisticated selection process that takes into account myriad factors, including the likelihood of success of the student benefiting from the affirmative action, whether or not they will be able to contribute to research, etc. I dont know how much resources would need to be dumped into this, but I think it would be worth it.
Of course, if schools came out with information about their selection processes they could be gamed, but overall, I think if they were transparent enough they could achieve the efficacy necessary to solve this issue once and for all. So really transparency is the answer imho.
You'd be amazed at what's actually occurring. I solicit business from major corporations and am told very directly that they need a certain percentage ownership by minority and then I get these 10 page forms where I'm asked for specific breakdown of employee by race and sexual orientation. It's illegal for me to ask, and impossible for them to verify for accuracy.
Actually gender is subjective, so maybe I can say we're all gay women and they'd have no way to disprove it. Race is actually complicated if we try to break it down to 1/16 or however they might define it (and I doubt they do). How are they going to tell someone they're not a particular race?
This whole thing is on a collision course.
So continues the trend of me totally missing the point of an OP. Got a little ahead of myself there.
Quoting Benkei
Not a problem, because many to most Americans are hired, quit, or are fired "at will". "At will" requires no justification, You can hire me (bearded, balding, in a mini dress and heels) if you so wish. I can quit because I would just rather not work for you, and you can fire me because... heels and mini skirt didn't match. If one is hired with a contract this doesn't apply, and voluntarily quitting generally disqualifies one for unemployment.
Then too, a plaintiff will probably need to show a pattern of discrimination. Being the one gay, female, black, or Dutch male to get fired doesn't in itself mean much. Were Hanover's firm to fire all of its Dutch male employees, you might have a case.
Strangely enough, plenty of owners and managers manage to contravene the rules for at will employment by giving discriminatory reasons. At least, if the the anti-work reddit is an indication.
What I have observed, and it seems to be something of a consensus, is that people might be fired for cause or for some discriminatory reason, but the actual reason will not be officially stated. It seems like a lot of agencies are also not giving references--not because they have no former employees who deserve a good reference, but because litigation has resulted often enough from references the next employer thought were too positive or the former employee thought was too negative.
My experience was mostly in the non-profit sector. Perhaps practices in corporate establishments are harsher.
Most jobs are bad jobs, which is why workers have to be paid to get anything done. Most bosses are bad bosses because they pretty much have to treat workers as means to ends which they may or not believe in. There are of course a few good jobs and several good bosses.
What? That's ridiculous.
You just make up some numbers and turn it back in?
The government isn't a monolithic entity, but it's comprised of the same sort of ineptitude and gullible sorts that make up the general public, which then results in everyone trying to manipulate everyone in a political free for all. I accept that the lowest rungs just follow along oblivious to the game being played, but I don't view the government as this controlling entity with all its powers clearly focused on a particular objective. They're just as smart, just as stupid, just as moral, just as corrupt as we all are.Quoting unenlightened
I think the Jewish experience speaks to what oppression can do, but it also speaks to what resiliency can do. Another example would be the Celts, which I use because they settled large portions of the area where I live. The Southern US culture owes much of its culture to those oppressed folks, which only makes the point that you can't explain the entirety of a group's current condition upon their most recent government.
To put this another way: Trump's persuasion is probably much stronger on the great grandchildren of the Scots and Irish settlers as opposed to those of the English aristocracy.
Of course. But... Who said everything had to make sense?
I heard (in a documentary about immigration in Australia) that Asians, specifically, the Chinese, tend not to be interested in politics and government, because the Chinese hold politicians to be a "lower class of humans", they don't see going into politics as a respectable career choice; they see it as something necessary, but not respectable. This is one of the reasons the Chinese tend to be underrepresented in politics and government in multicultural settings (such as Australia).
I suppose similar could hold for other Asian ethnicities.
Yes. There's research on this, e.g. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why.
Well, given that there's been Affirmative Action, in effect, for straight, white male, Protestants (in the main) established in every manifest institution in North America since 1619, I don't see an equitable alternative to addressing persistent (perhaps intractable) structural inequalities. If not "permanent"", then for at least 247 more years (1969-2269) in its current, limited scope as redress(?) for the three centuries of 1619-1969 AA for white males (that continues). Besides, as I've pointed out here (link to data therein), in practice, white women have been the primary beneficiaries of Affirmation Action programs since the early 1970s.
I continue to struggle to see the underlying eye for an eye philosophy in these sort of conclusions as moral or just. If Affirmative Action, in effect, has led to these unfair and inequitable results, then why would more of the same somehow fix the issue?
There is a lot of unfairness in this country, both past and present, but revenge doesnt undo any of it. It just perpetuates it, and creates a new class of victims.
If AA is the equitable solution as you argue, but also an ineffective solution as you argue, then why have it?
Are you arguing that AA is in principle fair, but in practice unhelpful, so we should just keep it because it's of good intent?
Should I benefit from AA because I'm not Protestant?
My position on this really is pragmatic. If someone could arrive at a workable solution to racial inequity, I'd sign off on it. Meanwhile I'm filling out paperwork asking me how many gay people work at my firm so I can obtain business. What this means is that we've lost our way here terribly. I just don't think that the creators of AA policy really thought one day employers would be expected to ask employees where their dicks were the night before so that heterosexual dominance could be checked.
That's not what I'm arguing.
I'm not arguing this either.
Quoting 180 Proof
:chin:
There are white groups that arrived in the colonies as indentured servants, oppressed by the English long before they arrived, and to this day scraping by on the margins of society scattered through Appalachia. That cycle of poverty needs some response other than pandering politicians like Trump et al.
The best positioned African American is the affluent one, who can have the many advantages of wealth and receive the benefits of AA. Private school kids with professional parents have their path well paved, but they were going to be fine anyway. Do we really see kids from the hood being saved by AA? Aren't those the ones we're worried about?
It just seems like there's a better way to sort out who's been unfairly disadvantaged than through DNA tests. I accept the playing field is not level, but leveling it is far more complex than just dumping people into broad categories and going from there.
What's your suggestion?
Lol, yeah right.
Quoting 180 Proof
For me the issue is that anytime one group is given an advantage, it necessarily disadvantages anyone not in that group. I dont know what kind of specific advantages you have in mind, so maybe theres some way around this issue, but I dont think I, a white man, should be automatically disqualified for a job or a promotion or educational opportunities because of my skin tone, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, etc. I shouldnt be punished for something I didnt do.
I also dont understand having the expectation of equity, rather than equality. For example, the NFL is like 80% non-white, which is far from being equitable, but I couldnt care less about the color of the athletes playing. When I watch football I just want to see the most talented players competing against each other. I think everyone should view all areas in such a way, other than areas like politics where representation actually matters.
I dont think it can ever truly be level, or fair. Not completely. As far as I know, no immoral practice has been completely eradicated. Slavery still exists. Honor killings still exist. Wars still exist. Xenophobia in all its forms still exist, and theres no way to effectively prosecute such offenses because its almost impossible to prove someone didnt hire someone because of their race, etc. So it will continue like it always has regardless of what we do.