Afirmative Action

[Clay Fink]

From a Godly paper: The Washington Times

The grand fraud

Thomas Sowell

No issue has been more saturated with dishonesty than the issue of racial quotas and preferences, which is now being examined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Many defenders of affirmative action are not even honest enough to admit they are talking about quotas and preferences, even though everyone knows that is what affirmative action amounts to in practice.
Despite all the gushing about the mystical benefits of "diversity" in higher education, a recent study by respected academic scholars found that "college diversity programs fail to raise standards" and that "a majority of faculty members and administrators recognize this when speaking anonymously."
This study by Stanley Rothman, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Neil Nevitte found that "of those who think that preferences have some impact on academic standards those believing it negative exceed those believing it positive by 15 to 1."
Poll after poll over the years has shown that most faculty members and most students oppose double standards in college admissions. Yet professors who will come out publicly and say what they say privately in these polls are as rare as hen's teeth.
Such two-faced talk is pervasive in academia and elsewhere. A few years ago, in Berkeley, there was a big fight over whether a faculty vote on affirmative action would be by secret ballot or open vote. Both sides knew the result of a secret ballot would be the direct opposite of the result in a public vote at a faculty meeting.
When any policy can only be defended by lies and duplicity, there is something fundamentally wrong with that policy. Virtually every argument in favor of affirmative action is demonstrably false. It is the grand fraud of our time.
The need for "role models" of the same race or sex is a key dogma behind affirmative action in hiring black or female professors. But a recent study titled "Increasing Faculty Diversity" found "no empirical evidence to support the belief that same-sex, same-ethnicity role models are any more effective than white male role models."
The related notion that a certain "critical mass" of black students is needed on a given campus, in order that these students can feel comfortable enough to do their best, has become dogma without a speck of evidence being offered or asked for. Such evidence as there is points in the opposite direction.
Without affirmative action, its advocates claim, few black students would be able to get into college. In reality, there are today more black students in the University of California system and in the University of Texas system than there were before these systems ended affirmative action.
These black students are simply distributed differently within both systems — no longer being mismatched withinstitutions whose standards they don't meet. They now have a better chance of graduating.
What of the idea that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of povertyandis needed to continue that rise? A far higher proportion of blacks in poverty rose out of poverty in the 20 years between 1940 and 1960 — that is, before any major federal civil rights legislation — than in the more than 40 years since then. This trend continued in the 1960s, at a slower pace. The decade of the 1970s — the first affirmative action decade — saw virtually no change in the poverty rate among blacks.
In other words, most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty but liberal politicians and black "leaders" have claimed credit. One side effect is that many whites wonder why blacks cannot lift themselves out of poverty like other groups, when that is in fact what most blacks have done.
Affirmative action is great for black millionaires, but it has done little or nothing for most people in the ghetto. Most minority business owners who get preferences in government contracts have net worths of more than $1 million.
One of the big barriers to any rational discussion of affirmative action is that many of those who are for or against it are for or against the theory or the rationales behind group preferences and quotas. As for facts, the defenders simply lie.


Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.

I thought that the original idea behind "afirmative action" was to require institutions to demonstrate that they don't discrimnate anymore. No one has been able to figure out how to do this without pissing someone off.

I guess I have to agree with a lot of what he says (eventhough I think Sowell is a fuckhead, generally) but one statement I found particularly disturbing:

Without affirmative action, its advocates claim, few black students would be able to get into college. In reality, there are today more black students in the University of California system and in the University of Texas system than there were before these systems ended affirmative action.
These black students are simply distributed differently within both systems — no longer being mismatched withinstitutions whose standards they don't meet. They now have a better chance of graduating.

Is he politely saying that blacks aren't as smart as whites? It sounds like he is. He's saying that blacks don't fit in in the flagship state universities, just the lower rung, mostly black state schools. I don't know how it is in other states, but Maryland and Kentucky both seem to have systems that are unofficially segregated (UMD vs Bowie State, UK vs NKY).

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Originally posted by Clay Fink Is he politely saying that blacks aren't as smart as whites?

No, he's not saying that at all. He's alluding to the fact that many black students come from areas where the educational system leading up to college leaves a lot to be desired. Hence, they may not have gotten as good an education as others who may have been more fortunate..............

[Clay Fink]

Why didn't he say that?

[Jimmy Cantiello]

I don't know. You'll have to ask him...........

[Jimmy Cantiello]

By the way, when you say, "He's saying that blacks don't fit in the flagship state universities, just the lower rung, mostly black state schools.", what do you mean by that? It sounds as if you're saying that black state schools are "lower rung schools".

See how easy it is to put our own spin on things? I do it all the time.................

[Clay Fink]

Unfortunately they probably are "lower rung" in terms of funding, number of students, etc. . That's just conjecture of course. I really have no idea.

[Clay Fink]

BTW. Is that a picture of you on your way to perform as a Chippendale?

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Yeah, that's it, I'm on my way to perform as a Chippendale. You caught me with my pants up.................

[mke]

I've never seen the point of taking this kind of "affirmative action" policy at high-level education while primary- and secondary-education, especially for the people that are supposed to be helped by AA, is in a dire state.

Creating and enforcing a level playing field at all levels of education should be AA's only goal, rather than forcing institutions to fill quotas.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

You're making way too much sense.................

[Darryl G. Thomas]

At the rate things are going the only folks who'll be able to afford the flagship schools in their states will be the upper middle class and the rich.

The question many of us has to decide is affirmative action still needed. the majority of whites seem to feel that it's not, the majority of blacks do (I have no stats, just going on anecdotal evidence).

I'm black, I think it's still needed because there's is still strong evidence that racial bias in hiring, housing, etc. still exists.

Plus as a taxpayer it would really piss me off seeing my tax dollars going to an instituton that has a miniscule number of minorities attending. For me, that institution would have no right to my dollars.

I say if they're going to end affirmative action in colleges they should end all forms of it. Including the affirmative action for children of alumni, athletes, and all the little weights colleges use to select candidates. Just use straight up test scores.

[larrycohen]

What's needed is a solution to bias and discrimination, but not necessarily affirmative action.
It seems to me that the ultimate goal is a color blind society. Affirmative action favors one race over another, so how can that be a good solution? It's pretty dumb to try and go south by heading north.
My impression is that it's probably the elementary, middle and high schools that need attention, and not the colleges. And, in keeping with a non-racist philosophy, the help should be handed out based on things like the neighborhood's average income and test scores, NOT based on race.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

>>I say if they're going to end affirmative action in colleges they should end all forms of it. Including the affirmative action for children of alumni, athletes, and all the little weights colleges use to select candidates. Just use straight up test scores.<<


Couldn't agree with you more. Darryl................

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Larry,

The problem with attaining a bias free society is that bias, racism, sexism, all the "isms" are human nature. I'm afraid it would take a level of enlightenment that is beyond the capacity of most human beings. This shit is our genes, it's a part of our DNA, distrust, even hatred of the "other". We're not that far up the evolutionary chain. It's utopia.

So the question is: How do we deal with the inequities that exist now, while we're still so primative? that's wher programs like affirmative action, Title IX, etc come in. They're an acknowledgement that we are biased, we are racist, we are sexist and what concrete methods can we use to combat it?

[Pete C]

The problem with a test score soulution is that you end up creating "ghettos" of people with similar test taking abilities, which is not necessarily productive. My feeling, based on my experience as a teacher, is that schools and classes based on one particular achievement level is not necessarily an ideal situation. Granted I'm only talking from the perspective of someone who has mainly taught creative writing, but I always found that the grappling that "weaker" students go through can be instructional to "stronger" students, and that the mentoring of peers is as important as that of the teacher, who, IMO, must be like a conductior and work to bring everybody's strengths into play. But that philosophy doesn't fit comfortably within an education system that is so quantitative and acheivement-oriented. The importance of process is often forgotten.

[Sergio Zamora]

I'm not a proponent of affirmative action, but I really don't see those that oppose it offering any real solutions to the gross social and economic inequality that is the root of such programs. The purpose of affirmative action seemed to be to eliminate the symptons of inequality, which the theory goes would eventually end inequality (at least between two ethnic/cultural groups) itself. I don't think that works too well, but I don't see how things will be improved without a core change in society and government.

But as Waltissimo would say...

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Sergio,

And therein lies the rub. Very seldom is an alternative offered. As Sisco mentioned in another post there is no such thing as color-blindness.

One of the faults I find with opponents of affirmative action is that some seem to think that life is a meritocracy. That each person got their job because they deserved it. The plaintiffs in this case assume that if it weren't for affirmative action they would've been accepted to the U. of Michigan. Hell, for all I know Chris Webber or Jalen Rose got the slots because they're star basketball players.

One of the major reasons I have the career I have right now is that the Army Signal Corps was integrated during the late '60s. The forced integration I should say.

Conservatives can quote Martin Luther King all day but I'd wish they sit down and talk to blacks and WOMEN who experienced the work force prior to affirmative action.

Have the hearts and minds of the majority population been transformed so much in the last 30 years?

[Chris Castelle]

Without delving into the central issue of race-based affirmative action I'm going to have to register a strong objection to Darryl's comment about "straight-up test scores." An institution of higher learning in which admission is based exclusively on GPA and SAT/ACT scores would probably be an unbearably boring place--I think it's *very* important to take into consideration application essays, teacher recomendations, extracurricular activities, etc--perhaps more so than test scores, at least for liberal arts institutions. Maybe if you're talking about more specialized or technical fields the test score argument is more readilly applicable, but as a former student at a very competitive and highly-rated private liberal arts college, let me tell you that there are a hell of a lot of plain old boring and non-creative kids attending our "best" schools. Whether they ended up there because they got 1600's on their SAT's or because of the advantages of having tons of money, or being an athlete or a minority or a legacy or whatever, my limited but up-close experience with higher education tells me thet there's something seriously amiss with the college admissions process. Attempts to level things out by relying only on numbers strike me as misguided in the extreme. I don't entirely buy the argument that tests only measure test-taking skills, but there's a whole lot more to any person than how quickly they can fill in the bubbles.

But I'm sure you all know that.

[S.Eden]

Here an article from The Daily Howler:



SNORES AND WHISPERS! A Post op-ed “liberal” hadn’t read his own rag. But he did know conservative spin-points:

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2003



JESS B. SIMPLE: When it comes to the University of Michigan’s affirmative action plan, we can teach it flat and we can teach it round. We can see real costs—and real benefits. Luckily, the Washington Post’s fiery “liberal,” Richard Cohen, has made the whole story much simpler:

COHEN: Sooner or later the argument for [affirmative action] gets so attenuated it becomes downright silly. The reason is that some justification has to be found to overcome the obvious—that the constitutional protection of equal treatment under the law is being violated. Someone is being rejected on account of race. It is that simple.

At Michigan, it was Jennifer Gratz.

But if Cohen had read the front page of yesterday’s Post, he would know that, as a constitutional matter, it doesn’t seem to be that simple. On the front page of yesterday’s Post, Charles Lane limned Sandra Day O’Connor:

LANE: O’Connor said that [Gratz’s] insistence on absolute color-blindness in admissions might be too inflexible. “You’re speaking in absolutes, and it isn’t quite that,” she said. “I think we have given recognition to the use of race in a variety of settings.”

Swing-Vote Sandy explicitly said that consideration of race is often allowed. If Cohen had read to paragraph four of yesterday’s piece, the fiery “liberal” would have known it. But so it goes on the Post op-ed page when its snooze-snoring “liberals” phone in their columns. They don’t know the law—and they don’t know the facts (see below). But they do know conservative spin-points:

COHEN: At Michigan, it was Jennifer Gratz. She alleges that she was denied admission because black applicants were favored. Whether she was denied admission for some other reason we may never know. We do know that the university awarded black applicants 20 points (out of 150) on account of race. By comparison, applicants with perfect SAT scores got 12 points. Race mattered—and mattered greatly.

Groan! As we pointed out months ago, the 20/12 spin-point is grossly misleading—and was invented by the conservative group that has led the fight against affirmative action (see THE DAILY HOWLER 1/20/03, 1/21/03). We don’t mind when a “liberal” adopts a conservative view (or vice versa), and we think that conservatives have raised substantial points against some forms of affirmative action. But at the Post, op-ed “liberals” don’t just adopt the conservative view. They spread bogus spin as they do so. (By the way, does Cohen know the simplest facts of this case? The 20-point plan was not in effect when Gratz was rejected at Michigan. If Cohen had performed even cursory research, he’d be aware of that too.)

Just how clueless—out of touch—is this fiery “liberal?” The fiery lib was greatly impressed by an argument from Justice Thomas:

COHEN (pg. 1): It turns out that the much-maligned Justice Clarence Thomas has his uses. During oral arguments over affirmative action the other day, he had a question for John Payton, a lawyer for the University of Michigan who was arguing the supposed benefits of racial diversity. What about traditionally black colleges, Thomas asked. “Wouldn’t the same argument apply to them?”

Duh. For all we know, historically black colleges might be better off if they had larger white populations. (Some such schools have been seeking such diversity.) But what does that have to do with this case? No one is arguing that colleges should be forced to seek such diversity; Michigan is merely saying that such efforts should be allowed. Thomas’ question is far off the point. So what better place to find the query than in the first paragraph from a Post op-ed “liberal?”

Out of touch? Cohen returns to this point later on:

COHEN: In and of itself, diversity is good. But…if diversity is so crucial that it justifies racial discrimination by majority-white institutions, then why isn’t it just as important at majority-black colleges? The answer has nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with giving blacks an advantage. This is typical when it comes to defending affirmative action. A worthy societal goal is constantly being defended by well-meaning people who simply will say almost anything in its defense. The first step, almost always, is to deny that an affirmative action program exists. The second is to say it does not entail quotas, and the third is to exalt diversity—the ultimate justification of the unjustifiable.

Why isn’t diversity “just as important at majority-black colleges?” Perhaps it is. But it’s also possible that it isn’t “as important;” in a majority white culture, young blacks are exposed to whites and to the majority viewpoint more than young whites are exposed to minorities. This point would occur to almost any “liberal”—except to the slumbering breed at the Post. Beyond that, do institutions like Michigan “almost always deny that an affirmative action program exists?” Truly, Cohen lives in a different decade. Snoring, wiping sleep from his eyes, Rip Van Winkle now works at the Post.

Is the UM plan a good thing on balance? Serious writers could cite pros and cons. But on the Washington Post’s op-ed page, slumbering liberals don’t know the facts; don’t know the law; and don’t even seem to have read their own paper. They’ve been phoning in their pure piffle for years. The public interest suffers under this lazy reign. When will the Post let Cohen go, so he can snore, snooze, slumber, doze and gaze at the ceiling without interruption?

JESS D. SEMBLE: Ted Olson is perfect for the present Admin. In her New York Times report, Linda Greenhouse described an apt exchange involving the mother of all solicitors. Olson was challenged about the “Texas ten percent” plan. The Bush Admin publicly favors this plan—a plan which, as everyone knows, was put in place to increase racial diversity:

GREENHOUSE: Justice Kennedy asked Mr. Olson whether he disagreed that diversity was a “permissible governmental goal.”

Mr. Olson replied that under the [Michigan] law school’s program, diversity was “an end in and of itself” and, as such, “obviously it’s constitutionally objectionable.”

So wasn’t the Texas 10 percent plan just as objectionable, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wanted to know, because its motive and purpose “is to have diversity in the college?”

That was not the “stated motive,” Mr. Olson replied. He said the purpose of the program was to break barriers and open access, and accepting the top 10 percent was “one very race-neutral means of accomplishing that legitimate objective.”

The perfect man for a dissembling Admin! According to Olson, as long as you simply don’t say what everyone knows is the case, then you should be allowed to proceed unimpeded.