How to address modern racial inequality: is affirmative action just?

[CNHander]

How to address modern racial inequality: is affirmative action just?


I applied to college a few months ago. Here are some of my qualifications:

* Graduated third in my graduating class of 800
* Logged over 350 hours of community service
* Scored a 2280 on the SAT
* Eagle Scout
* Senior Patrol Leader of a large troop
* Many extracurricular activities

However, I was rejected from Stanford. The rejection alone was not a surprise at all, because there are many other very well qualified applicants like myself. Also, Stanford admitted one of my close friends, an African-American. In comparison, he has a somewhat underwhelming record; he's under 85th percentile gradewise and has no outside activities to put on a resume aside from band. Stanford proudly proclaims that it practice some form of affirmative action. Yes, I'm white. What the heck is this? Do we, as a culture, really need to have equality of outcome for all races, rather than simply equality of opportunity? Should universities, employers, and other organizations really be so pressured to appear politically correct that they slip into reverse discrimination?

I may be inferring too much from too little information, but I don't that's likely; what factor, other than race, could have admitted him and rejected me?

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are all very serious problems in America, as evidenced by the Presidential election, but how is affirmative action or anything like it ethical or just? Both racism and affirmative action influence someone's judgment on the basis of prejudice, that certain groups of the population should be given extreme abnormal disdain or privilege for something they had no control over. Instead of fighting prejudice with prejudice, wouldn't it be better to address the root causes of the problem? That is, we should address harmful internet sites, inadequate education leading people to mis-infer that correlation implies causation, certain environments and subcultures that encourage racism in the young, and of course ensuring equality of opportunity for as many people as possible.

But enforcing racial diversity for diversity's sake behind force of law, institutional ruling, or simply underlying prejudice is wrong, for the same reason that enforcing a single "pure race" behind the KKK or a Hitler is wrong; diversity or non-diversity are not underlying principles that should be appealed to. Rather, justice, and individual merits, skills, accomplishments, and talents are what should be taken into consideration.

Otherwise, if we as a culture continue to judge people based simply on what group they can be classified into, we will just become ever more divided, which will further unjust prejudice, to the detriment of the nation.


Oh, and to presuppose an objection, I'm not looking for sympathy. I got into a good school anyway, and besides, my own personal circumstances mean very little in the broad scheme of things. Rather, I'm looking for someone to give a good logical defense of why affirmative action may be a just policy. I surely wouldn't want to persist in a false belief without giving anyone the opportunity to convince me otherwise :)

Some may think of criticizing me for not explaining how hundreds of years of slavery, systematic discrimination, and racism can be addressed, so here are some positive suggestions. The way I see it, affirmative action tries to address the effects, which are lower income levels and higher unemployment, rather than the causes, which is generally lower educational potential due to systematic inequality/racism. Since AA tries to fix the effect rather than the result, it is only as permanent as long as the employee manages to hold onto the job, which may be short, especially given the current economic situation. Since AA doesn't treat the causes, it would have to be practiced close to forever to retain its effectiveness, because as soon as it stops, we're very close to the original situation again.

The solution is not to say or make people act as if a particular African-American's qualifications are greater than they actually are. The solution is to make it so that African-Americans' qualifications ARE the same as others, on average. I suggest that, rather than treating the symptom through affirmative action, we treat the disease itself. For instance, in my state, funds for local schools come from taxing the surrounding properties. If one lives in a poor, primarily African-American neighborhood, your school will also be quite poor. This is obviously an idiotic policy, which serves only to further inequality among students and schools. In addition, I have heard that some subsections of African-American culture, greatly influenced by popular rappers, is somewhat self-depreciating and does not carry all that much respect for the most important thing, education, nor so much for getting a job and working. I don't know how correct these rumors about some subsets of AA culture is, but it may be something to help fix. I don't know. Or, there exists in my neighborhood an organization which seeks to pair up poor, typically unmotivated minorities from unprivileged neighborhoods with a more well-to-do mentor, who helps them with schoolwork, encourages them and gives them advice, and most importantly, helps them to become motivated to fully attend college. We need more programs like that, which help future families to fervently seek success on their own, without any outside help necessary.

Better to correct and encourage those, which help to permanently treat the causes of inequality, than affirmative action, which is temporary, unjust, and shortsighted.


To make an analogy, A and B are twin brothers and have to take a test tomorrow. Imagine that B was assigned a lot of homework for other classes and so didn't study much for the test, and got a B. Brother A has more time to study and gets an A. Brother B doesn't know the material very well, so does not deserve an A. However, that happened because he was denied equal opportunity; he had little time to study for the test. Would the just thing be to give him an A regardless, even though he doesn't know the material well? Of course not. The just thing would be to make sure he doesn't get much homework from other classes on test days. Same for AA; if one is less qualified one shouldn't be as likely to get a job. The solution is not to give them the job; the solution is to provide for equal opportunity so that the subjects would be equally qualified next time, on average.


I also forgot to mention this at the top: other important components of an application are recommendations and the "creative essays." Some of it might be explained by my not doing that well on those. It's hard to make something "creative" when there isn't really a concrete topic or known concrete expectations... at least, that's how it is for me. That's why I like forums or regular assignments much better. But my personal experience doesn't matter; my point is that affirmative action is not right.

Really sorry for such a long post but it's a complicated issue.

[CNHander]

1. And for the record, I am by no means a Repub, I only disagree with Democrats on a couple issues n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Sorry I can't contribute

But this is interesting and I'd like to "tag" it so I can read responses later.
Thanks for sharing.

[Wickerman]

3. I see you are seeking multiple opinions

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7878

I tried to follow what was said there, but the pic of Ann Coulter and all the knuckle dragging blatant racism kinda made me ill so I came back here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/84220-just-unjust-ways-address-modern-racial-inequality-affirmative-action.html

[CNHander]

4. That's why I was hoping DU could provide me with some better ones! n/t

[Hoyt]

5. I'm sorry this happened. But there are many more schools.

Fortunately, there are plenty of other good schools and lots of years for you to realize this might not be where you want to go anyway. You might even be able to appeal the decision.

Personally, I am for Affirmative Action (to a point) even though it might produce some results like yours. I guess I still can't shake the spectre of George Wallace and other governors standing in the doorways of schools telling Black kids they could not attend, and "separate but unequal elementary and high schools." I also remember employment ads in my area saying "__________ need not apply." I know things are better now, but there are still repercussions from those years.

I've also listened to people complain about being turned down for say a promotion even though they “knew” they were better qualified than the "minority" who got the position. I always like to ask how they know they are better qualified? -- that usually produces dirty looks and/or comments about where I can put my opinion.

In any event, I wish you well. Your credentials indicate you have a bright future if you don't let things like this stop you. Good luck.

[CNHander]

6. I'll be fine

I'll be fine. I care more about the policy as it affects the nation than about how it's affected me personally; as I said, I got into a good school anyway. I'm not going to bother appealing the decision because Stanford is a private school and is well within their rights to discriminate (to an extent) however it wishes.

FYI, a Supreme Court ruling ruled that AA via quotas is unconstitutional for public schools, a few years ago.

[Brewman_Jax]

7. Tim Wise covers this

here at http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/PlayingRaceCard.html

This should plenty for consideration.

[CNHander]

8. It's true that AA is quite rare and that you usually hear white conservatives arguing against it,but

You're right, I too should "put things in perspective" as the article's first sentence says. I should have said this at the beginning. To be completely honest, affirmative action is quite rare. Stanford's apparent practice of it is quite an unusual exception to the general state of things. Courts have even ruled that state schools have important limitations on how they practice it, if they have to practice it at all. (Very, very few actually do) Also, in the workplace, I suspect that AA is not very pervasive because it's nearly always antithetical to profit. Most employers only care about how talented you are, that is, how efficiently you can make money for them.

Again, the AA that I experienced was a significant but rare exception to how things normally work. Still, I think I've already answered the important questions the article says, including the one the article says is most important, which is
"And, finally, who was hired or given the contract ahead of you, and what evidence do you have that they were less qualified, objectively than you for the position?"

I am not a "white conservative." I agree completely with the rest of the article; anti-black bias is much more pervasive than anti-white bias in the workplace, due to racism and profit incentives.

Despite the fact that true AA is rare, that does not stop me from arguing that it's unjust in the few cases in which it is practiced.

[Brewman_Jax]

9. I re-read the opening

For most, affirmative action is only unjust if they think that they have been personally kicked in the shorts by it. Very uncool announcement of entitlement, esp. regarding that "close friend" you profess to have. If what you wrote is accurate, you aren't much of a friend. It goes back to the standard anti-affirmative action screed, "that black person took MY slot!"

In the University of Michigan undergrad admissions case, the plantiff argued that 85 black students with lower test scores were admitted instead of her; no mention of the 1400 white students with lower test scores admitted instead of her. U of MI, like most non-HBCU's, has a black undergradute population that's roughly 5-6% of the total. If Stanford has the same ratio, "your" slot was more likely given to another white student.

How do you REALLY know that affirmative action was the reason you didn't get admitted to Stanford? How do you REALLY know that affirmative action was the reason your friend was admitted to Stanford? YOU don't know. That's a very lazy argument and shows a profound sense of entitlement. If that's how you feel, I hope you and your friend go your separate ways. Your lack of respect for him is pretty obvious.

For someone that's not a "white conservative", you have more in common with them than you realize. To imply that the "bottom line" in business makes everyone equal ignores the fact of this country's history and reports of discrimination in all major areas of business, incl. hiring, mortgages, insurance, housing, etc. If you want to argue against affirmative action for minorities, then you're obligated to argue about affirmation action for whites, but those aren't called "affirmative action for white people". They have different names, like legacy admissions, the old boys' network, and the like.

[exboyfil]

10. How about complete openness in how all enrollment/aid decisions

are made by colleges (at least public colleges)? If AA is not an issue then a healthy openness will not be a problem. I firmly suspect that many enrollment/aid decisions are made based upon factors that would make everyone uncomfortable (just witness the Illinois scandal which goes on often). What is not supporting is to use such scandals as Illinois as a reason to support AA (it is a matter of contacts and not race).

I think admissions/aid administrators have way too much unaccountable power. Also I think it is bogus to report aid by including loans and grants together. Statistics should be done (at least at every public institution) on the particular aid package for every individual (of course the identities should be removed) and what prompted the decision (ie merit based but also adding to the diversity of the student body, musician, etc).

[CNHander]

12. I didn't say I deserve to get into Stanford, because there's limited space...

I didn't say I deserve to get into Stanford, because there's limited space...


For most, affirmative action is only unjust if they think that they have been personally kicked in the shorts by it. Very uncool announcement of entitlement, esp. regarding that "close friend" you profess to have. If what you wrote is accurate, you aren't much of a friend. It goes back to the standard anti-affirmative action screed, "that black person took MY slot!"
I am not making an "announcement of entitlement," nor am I claiming that he took my spot. Obviously I can't say that I'm "entitled" to go to a place like Stanford because there are so many extremely well qualified applicants apply to Stanford, and because there is limited space. All I'm saying is that, based on our respective achievements, it appears to me that affirmative action must have played a large part in his admission. How can you say that I'm "(not) much of a friend?" I don't resent him at all, he just got lucky as a result of how the system is set up. I got into a good school anyway, too, as I said in the OP.

In the University of Michigan undergrad admissions case, the plantiff argued that 85 black students with lower test scores were admitted instead of her; no mention of the 1400 white students with lower test scores admitted instead of her. U of MI, like most non-HBCU's, has a black undergradute population that's roughly 5-6% of the total. If Stanford has the same ratio, "your" slot was more likely given to another white student.
Again, I never said that he took my spot. I'm just saying that it seems likely that AA played a role in his admission if he was admitted and I wasn't.

How do you REALLY know that affirmative action was the reason you didn't get admitted to Stanford? How do you REALLY know that affirmative action was the reason your friend was admitted to Stanford? YOU don't know.
As I said in the OP, given the evidence I have, I don't see any other reason why I would have been rejected while he would have been admitted. I never said that "affirmative action was the reason you didn't get admitted to Stanford," because I don't believe that. I'll say it again: I can't pinpoint the reason I was rejected, because there are so many well qualified applicants and because there is limited space.
That's a very lazy argument and shows a profound sense of entitlement.
You are assuming a little much. I never said that i was entitled to go to Stanford. I never said that he took my place or anything. I am not saying that I should have been admitted. I am saying that it appears quite likely that affirmative action must have played a role.

I am also surprised that you characterize what I'm arguing as "very lazy."

Do you think that frequently choosing to study at night instead of going to parties or movies or games is "lazy"?
Do you think that showing enough leadership to result in ~75 of my peers in Scouts vote me as their leader is "lazy"?
Do you think that hundreds of hours of community service is "lazy"?
Do you think that fighting to top of my class is "lazy"?
Do you think that getting into the 99th percentile of the SAT on all 3 sections is "lazy"?
Do you think that the motivation to become an Eagle Scout is "lazy"?

Do you think that believing these achievements are statistically significant is "lazy"?

To reiterate, I am not saying that I should have gotten into Stanford. I am saying that this gives me enough evidence to believe that affirmative action must have played a role in my friend's admission. That's all.
If that's how you feel...
It isn't. I do not feel that I am "entitled" to go to Stanford, nor do I believe that he "took spot." Please stop making straw men of my character.
I hope you and your friend go your separate ways. Your lack of respect for him is pretty obvious.
Again, you are making a completely unjustified assumption. We get along quite well; why in the world would I resent him for a policy he has no control over? He actually told me that older students he met during orientation say that grading at Stanford is often somewhat arbitrary because everyone interested in learning there is so similarly smart.
To imply that the "bottom line" in business makes everyone equal ignores the fact of this country's history and reports of discrimination in all major areas of business, incl. hiring, mortgages, insurance, housing, etc.
I never said, implied, or believe that that the "bottom line in business makes everyone equal," because it doesn't. There is still a terrible racial gap which is tied in to poverty. I believe that affirmative action, in the few places where it is practiced, does not do near enough to address inequality, in addition to being unjust. That's why I wrote a few paragraphs explaining what should be done for a more permanent effect, starting with "Some may think of criticizing me for not explaining how hundreds of years of slavery, systematic discrimination, and racism can be addressed, so here are some positive suggestions."
If you want to argue against affirmative action for minorities, then you're obligated to argue about affirmation action for whites, but those aren't called "affirmative action for white people". They have different names, like legacy admissions, the old boys' network, and the like.
I completely agree with you, legacy admissions are even worse. All it does is serve to benefit the entrenched aristocracy. At least AA had a good goal in mind, however temporary the methods were; legacy admissions cannot be justified from any angle.

[kwassa]

14. How do you know what Stanford's admission criteria are?

You don't, you are guessing, you didn't get in, and now it is time to blame the black folk. Excuse me if I don't cry.

Many admissions processes are not visible to the public. You assume the issue to be affirmative action, but you have no idea, really. The only ones that know work in the admissions office or the administration of the university.

and you know what they say about assumptions.

Stanford is one of the most competitive admissions processes in the country. Most who apply don't get in.

sorry to say this but .... get over it.

[DeadEyeDyck]

11. Oh give me a fucking break...

" Yes, I'm white. What the heck is this? Do we, as a culture, really need to have equality of outcome for all races, rather than simply equality of opportunity? Should universities, employers, and other organizations really be so pressured to appear politically correct that they slip into reverse discrimination?"

Get real!!! Your parents and their parents made it becaus of us blacks. All we want is a chance to get on top. You have run our black asses around and now the shoe is on the other foot. Accept it.

[CNHander]

13. No need for profanity, I'm trying to be civil here, I just want more permanent, just equality

because, as you probably know, the current systems in place are a joke. The racial gap is still wider than ever, and although AA was virtually phased out, nothing has really taken its place in the system at large, which is why the racial conditions are still deplorable.

"Get real!!! Your parents and their parents made it becaus of us blacks."
?

Why do you assert such a thing? They made it because they were lucky enough to be born into middle class families, with the motivation and luck to go to college and get good jobs. They were lucky to have a skin color that was not discriminated against, but it was not "because of blacks" that they did well.
"All we want is a chance to get on top."
Uh... you already do have chances to do well. What I want to do is improve the conditions so that government interference won't be necessary in the long run to preserve equality, because, as I said, AA treats the results, not the causes, for the most part. Neither race should be "on top;" everything should be based on merit. Of course, for this to be fair, we need to enable equality of opportunity, which is why I made those suggestions in the last part of my OP.
"You have run our black asses around and now the shoe is on the other foot. Accept it."
You think I should be disadvantaged for what people that happened to have my skin color did decades ago? Sorry for the cliche, but two wrongs don't make a right, especially if the 2nd wrong isn't done to the party that inflicted the 1st wrong.

I would appreciate it if you would attack the issue rather than me or a race.

Also, I don't think that the "shoe is on the other foot" yet. Remember the racial gap? There is still a long way to go to remedy the inequality, but it has to be done by treating the underlying conditions, rather than the effects.

[kwassa]

15. no, you just want to get into Stanford.

that sums up this entire thread.

[steelerman]

16. Selection Process Is Complex

My (limited) experience of college education, was that being 'top of the class' wasn't always what the admissions team were looking for on all of the courses. Some of the brightest students who were fresh from taking exams (and had done very well) were struggling with degree level work. The reason often seemed to be that although these star students were highly intelligent, they often lacked the insight which would take them deeper into their chosen subject.

By the end of the first semester, some students who seemed grossly under qualified academically, were actually doing rather well.

I am not suggesting that the OP lacks insight, merely that university/college requires a different skill-set to school and the selection process is subject to many factors.