> I'm not even counted as "diverse" (because I'm not black or hispanic) despite coming from a muslim family and middle eastern background. I can only select "white", though I'm not white white.
My high-school's college admissions advisors told us, in no uncertain terms, if you are non-white or mixed race, make sure you declare that because it will help your chances.
I recall hearing in casual conversation "ohh this guy is Asian and went to X so you know he's good". I was shocked.
It must create a weird dynamic to have two identifiable groups where you know one got there on merit alone, while the other one maybe benefited from a quota.
Absolutely. This is one of the reasons affirmative action is poisonous—it creates rational reasons for discrimination. Which will, of course, be exaggerated by actual racists; but it's much harder to argue "Discriminating against group X is bad" when it's public knowledge that group X has passed a lower bar.
It literally mathematically requires a lower bar. If your criteria for hiring a software engineer is that an applicant demonstrate proficiency in a given set of tasks, for example, you will result in a pool of applicants sorted by proficiency. Say we have 100 slots open to hire people, and we would normally just take the top 100 applicants according to this proficiency criteria.
Now, introducing any criteria which results in a different set of applicants than the top 100 necessarily lowers the bar of proficiency. It doesn't have to be affirmative action, it could be any arbitrary change in criteria. "We want just as many people named Michael as people named Jim." Well, if that wasn't the case in the original set of applicants, you're no longer getting the top 100. Affirmative action by race is no different. It's not that there is a debate here, as I said, it is that you are necessarily lowering the bar of proficiency by introducing another set of arbitrary criteria.
Maybe there were 6 Michaels and 1 Jim in the top 100. In order to balance them out, there would likely have to be some Michaels removed, some Jims added, and some people from other common names removed. Every person that was removed for a Jim from outside of the original 100 was more qualified and excluded due to the arbitrary criteria. The bar was lowered.
The one strategy I've heard of that doesn't do this, and isn't something any rational organization who saw no intrinsic benefit to "diversity" would already be doing, is "spending extra recruitment resources to yield good candidates of the underrepresented groups". For example, you could send 5 recruiters to all-female colleges or majority-black colleges that aren't highly ranked in CS, in the hopes of turning up as many good programmer candidates as you'd get from sending 1 recruiter to a highly-ranked CS college. That indeed does not require a lower bar—although it spends resources in a way I'd consider wasteful.
But I don't think that's what affirmative action normally means, and I'm generally leery of allowing proponents to redefine the term more broadly (that type of thing enables motte-and-bailey argumentation).
Funny story in Malaysia it's well known that if you get sick you want a Chinese doctor because the Malaysian government discriminates heavily against the Chinese, and thus the ones that actually become doctors are only the elite.
We actually had a few Pacific Islanders express anxiety with selecting "Asian American/Pacific Islander" because they were worried that identifying as such would subject them to more competition. They were advised to do it anyways.
There are most certainly meaningful genetic clusters in human populations. You can call these races or something else but to assert that differences between human populations only extend to a few superficial traits like skin tone is just ignorant and silly. For example there is a meaninful genetic reason why some sub-saharan populations have a higher incidence of sickle cell anaemia than Irish people or why most of those with native American heritage are less able to tolerate alcohol than Europeans.
> Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
This is true in the exact same sense as is saying that all animal species are social constructs with no basis in reality other than the social perceptions of the group delineating them. Which is to say, in not very useful sense at all.
It’s a self label though, so social perceptions aren’t involved. I am whatever race I identify as, not whatever race other people think of me as. I can tell people that I’m Mexican and who are they to say otherwise?
Haha. Yep, same here. Just saw an email from our corporate HR head saying that we're paying an extra $1500 per referral for people considered a "minority" by the federal government definitions. I work at a tech co. where white people are a minority (less than 39%), so not sure what type of gobment subsidy they're after now?
It's not generally government subsidy, its "corporate ethics" which is to say PR and investor relations. It "looks good" and attracts business, especially government.
No it shouldn't, but as a society we seem to want it to so it does.
Sowell has an interesting take on AA and believes it actually does more harm than good because it pits those subject to it against scenarios they have not been prepared to handle and thus in turn results in over-stress, higher rates of failure, and ultimately disillusionment.
The means at which we arrive upon AA is even suspect:
A: We want equality, why are white people successful?
B: Clearly because they went to a good college.
C: Okay easy, let’s put the underprivileged into good colleges, that should fix ‘er right up.
It doesn't seem like anybody is interested in solving the hard problem of why underprivileged communities aren’t producing good high school graduates. Maybe it has something to do with, IDK, the fact that they’re under served and underprivileged? Maybe primary education is a more important factor than the name at the top of your college transcript? Maybe good communities produce outstanding colleges and universities, not the other way around? Yet we can’t seem to spend money on primary education or figure out how to help struggling communities. Why is that?
Exactly. From an European perspective America's obsession with race seems absolutely idiotic. Progressive taxation and major help for poor communities and families regardless of skin colour is obviously the only sensible solution.
Racial groups are used as vote banks by the two major parties - that's all there is to it. It has nothing to with wanting to help the poor or improve social cohesion, rather the opposite. A divided society is great for the most incompetent politicians since it provides them an easy way to whip up their constituents against other groups and fish for more votes.
As an American, I think it's because the treatments for racism are far cheaper and more tolerable than the treatments for poverty. Minorities were kept out of any opportunity to create generational wealth for a long time, due to racism. The problem we need to solve to reverse that is deprivation of generational wealth for decades, not racism from 60 years ago. We don't want to talk about that, though, because most of the solutions end up looking like wealth redistribution. There isn't a way to cheat poverty that I've seen. You either have enough money or you don't, and the only way out is to have enough money.
That's not to say that racism isn't a problem; it is, and we should fix it. It's not going to magically solve problems like graduation rates and income gaps, however.
You could start by closing tax loopholes or introducing a corporate community/education support tax. We leak a lot of wealth IMO that could be captured and distributed to those in need but we don’t because we live in a corrupt society that’s lost it’s backbone.
The supposition we’re exploring in this sub-thread is that AA is not actually a treatment for racism and more of a signal of virtue collectively by society. Real treatment would be to do the expensive and disruptive thing, yes.
Sociologists or whatever correlate good outcome with education. 90% of rich people went to college, therefore college good. That’s true, but one dimensional.
I coach little league, and have been following a group of now ten year olds since 2016 or so. They are all awesome, but the cracks that come from family life and environment are starting to show up. I fear for a few of them.
> It doesn't seem like anybody is interested in solving the hard problem of why underprivileged communities aren’t producing good high school graduates.
The same people who are seeking equity in college are seeking it in high school and elementary school and preschool. The same opponents and arguments come out against them at all of these phases.
I have personal experience with this work in both the elementary school and high school levels. What you are saying here is simply false.
They don't get "so much help" in all the years before because of the same forces that resist change at later ages. My family got a lot of hatred and resistance for just pushing back on the idea that it was okay that many of the schools (you can guess which ones) in our district simply never sent a single application to the 3rd grade GT system because their principals didn't believe that any application would ever succeed. They were wrong, of course.
So why not fix that problem? You can't make up 12 lost years beginning at College, putting them to compete with people who are that far ahead will just make everyone feel those people are stupid even if it isn't true.
I thought AA meant that, when given two equally qualified applicants, where one is caucasian and the other is a minority, the seat should go to the minority.
If that’s what it once meant it’s since been perverted. Many places use a point system that gives additional points to under privileged applicants. And then there are programs that straight up take groups of inner city kids and give them full rides. Pretty equitable on the surface but perhaps not as effective or fair as intended in the long run. These type of AA programs are what Sowell is critiquing. In his opinion these groups of students would be better served at community, city, and state colleges with the option for less demanding programs where they could celebrate more success.
> In his opinion these … students would be better served at … colleges with … less demanding programs where they could celebrate more success.
The author is missing the point of this education.
For almost ALL students the aim is to get a prestigious certificate as this is the gateway to a upper middle class lifestyle.
The education is largely irrelevant. (Most are going to end up as real estate agents of financial advisors anyway).
Which is why a bunch of rich Hollywood folk were recently bust for bribing their way into top Californian colleges. It was not for the calculus.
Fear not for the kids: these top universities handle the intellectual demands with soft courses, grading on a curve, supplementary exams, oral exams, etc.
The only real challenge is to get in. Politicising it is the best approach for a large demographic.
Yes, in many cases a prestigious college degree is just a social signal. But that doesn’t materially change anything. Let’s concede for a moment that all college degrees are simply a ticket to an upper middle class lifestyle. Then that seems to imply the students receiving the degree were already essentially prepared for upper middle class lifestyle upon entrance to college. Those being thrown into the mix from underprivileged communities majorly are not. It’s even worse than the charitable interpretation whereby colleges confer essential skills to their graduates. You're just giving people a fancy suit and hoping they figure out how to use it to get a job.
I’ve experienced this first hand with the posse program. One of my closest friends in college was a posse member. It has been heart breaking to watch them struggle and regress after college. My friend group and I have tried to help, motivate, and encourage, the best we could exiting college and at various points since. We helped them get into TFA. They gave up after 6 months. We tried to get him jobs. Nothing and now they’ve essentially disappeared and rarely interface with us anymore. This person has a special wit about them, they’re bright and deserving as any of a successful life. The college ticket simply isn’t enough for this person because so much of their identity is tied to the community of people they developed in the first 18 years of life. 4 years and a degree is too little too late.
So this is the entire point: it’s incredibly naive and reeks of a search for an an easy out to sit back any say that college is the only thing that matters the challenge is simply getting people in so let’s just skip the challenge and fudge the numbers and “get them in”. I don't care if your provocative econ class taught you college is just a signaling process, that’s a rash short sighted response to an intense submission to “white” guilt. The challenge is solving the challenge. The challenge is providing resources required to hoist entire communities out of their rut so they can be held to the same standards as everyone else, the answer is not to trash our standards (as we’re literally doing by removing standardized tests from admission processes) and regress our expectations to the lowest common denominator.
I wonder if that push toward diminishing the impact of measurable, standardized testing isn't an attempts at generating more "equally qualified applicants"
There are complaints that standardize testing isn't equal. Basically that some portions of the testing reflect white culture, which puts minorities at a disadvantage. I read the article a while back, but one of the examples they gave was the choice of words to test on the SAT. One of the questions was asking for a synonym for "armoire". The article posited that that term was far more likely to be recognized by white students because their family was more likely to actually own one, and further to refer it to as an armoire instead of simply a wardrobe or cabinets. I think there was another question that involved boats that was similar.
I think the article also noted that in many cases, the questions really discriminated more against poverty than race. Race gets dragged in because people of color are drastically overrepresented in poverty, so anything impacted by poverty will also show an effect along racial boundaries (at least when aggregated).
The underlying question is whether the score boost you get from being born into a high enough social class to have wide exposure to things like that actually makes you more qualified or not. It certainly boosts your test scores, but does knowing what an armoire is actually make you more qualified, or does it just keep poor people out?
If you frame it as a fight against poverty we’re making incredible progress. Now we can ask the question in a way that might lead to a real solution. The solution could either be fix the biased vocabulary in the test or give everyone armoires. Or overhaul the economic system so that more families can afford armoires.
Here’s the “logic”: If we give a standardized test to a random selection of people and then look at the results and add a racial overlay, white people (allegedly) disproportionately succeed. Therefore the test itself is racist. It is an unwanted artifact that encodes the privileged (alleged) majority’s innate biases and confers structural racism upon future generations. These artifacts must be purged. This is the way.
Let’s concede for a moment the definition of structural racism and agree it’s worth addressing in the admissions process. The problem then is not the desire to address the perceived oppression, but rather the conclusion that we should just tear down the racist institution without a viable replacement on hand. If we tear down pillars of rational society (or, western liberalism), then what remains is not ideologically consistent.
This article is specifically about the UC system, which has been banned by Proposition 209 since 1996 from considering an applicant's race when making admissions decisions. It might matter at private schools or in other states, though.
It might surprise people who only know California by reputation and assume it is completely full of raging lefties, but affirmative action measures have been pretty soundly rejected by voters many times in the past three decades and the state has not been allowed to implement any of them.
That's because Richard Sander from UCLA Law has demonstrated fairly well that there's a really good chance that affirmative action is a net negative for those it's trying to help.
California has a significant Asian population. In my experience, many older Chinese Americans are completely apolitical, but one thing they do care about is that their children get into a good college. They exerted significant pressure the last time repealing Prop 209 was proposed by calling and writing their elected officials.
The last time 209 was up for repeal was last year. Elected officials were not involved. It was up for popular vote, and it failed. I think the margin was even wider than when 209 was first put in place.
The pro-209 campaign was outspent something like $27M to $1.6M but still prevailed.
Absolutely not. Any attributes like race and gender should play no consideration in a fair admissions process. It should not even be public information.
The color blind thinking modal has a long history of helping the majority stay the majority. What you propose is to continuing allow the status quo, which has already by statistical aggregation of college entrance proved to allow under performing “whites” in. Have you not seen the news where Aunt Becky got her kid in? Without tough affirmative action rules, Aunt becky’s kids get in and your kids don’t.
This thinking model is best to be dropped into the dustbins of history.
Black, Latino, and Asian people all oppose racial preferences in admission: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ.... For example Latinos say that race and ethnicity shouldn’t be even a “minor factor” in college admissions by a margin of 2:1.
Like many things, this is in large part about liberal white people wanting to engage in social engineering on behalf of minorities who mostly don’t support their policy. Like “defund the police.”
Members of certain minorities aren't underrepresented because of their skin colour, but because they are more likely to be poor and lack access to quality education at childhood and youth. Racial discrimination against whites and Asians in higher education is not the best way to fix any of this. Progressive taxation, better childhood/youth education for everyone on the other hand could make a big difference.
> Have you not seen the news where Aunt Becky got her kid in? Without tough affirmative action rules, Aunt becky’s kids get in and your kids don’t.
This whole controversy is about a handful of the most elite schools in the nation. I find it more than a bit silly tbh, since whatever admissions policy they choose it's not going to be even close to affecting "the majority" of prospective students. We should be working to expand access to education at every level, not just focusing on such a tiny minority.
That's an intellectually lazy rhetoric inspired by probably those ibram kendi's books. People who promote it really deserve to live in a society where dentists, surgeons, engineers making cars and bridges, all get their jobs because they are "underprivileged minorities" of some sort and not the best and most competent in their field.