response 114 of 217:

Feb 3 18:06 UTC 2003

From a Jewish World Review article:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/leo.html
--
A Harvard University Press book exploring a fairly narrow question-why aren't
there more black and Hispanic professors?-is about to take center stage in
the affirmative action debate. 

The book, "Increasing Faculty Diversity: The Occupational Choices of
High-Achieving Minority Students," reports that roughly 10 percent of
high-achieving black and Hispanic college seniors want to become
professors-about the same percentage as whites. But only a small pool of
non-Asian minorities earn grades good enough to get them into graduate school.

And the study finds that affirmative action is making things worse: It steers
minority students to selective colleges where they are underqualified and
likely to get lower grades. The low marks make them less likely to attend
graduate school. They also erode students' confidence, often convincing them
that they aren't suited for academic careers. 
===see link for rest of article===

response 116 of 217:

Feb 3 21:18 UTC 2003

The argument boils down to, "black people aren't capable of making good
decisions on their own, so we should limit their options for their own
good."

response 118 of 217:

Feb 4 02:36 UTC 2003

The argument made in the article linked to in resp:114 is similar to one
I've made many times here.  I consider the argument plausible, and think it is
one that needs to be considered seriously, but I have never seen anyone pull
together sufficient evidence to prove it.

If convincing evidence for this exists, then my "solution" would not be to
eliminate affirmative action admissions.  It'd be to provide the information
to students who are being given a prefered admission.  Tell them that they
have been accepted, but that their GPA/SAT scores are significantly below
those of most students at the institution, and that students admitted with
such scores tend to have higher drop-out rates and lower grades.  To succeed,
they will probably have to work harder than most other students on campus,
studying while other students are partying.

Are you substantially more motivated, more willing to work, than other
students you know who are as smart as you?  Are you prepared to sustain this
level of work for four years, while seeing others around you succeed with
less effort?  If you are prepared for that challenge, then we welcome you.
If not, you may want to consider the alternative of attending a college where
you can be accepted without preferment, where you will be on a level field
with other students.

My point is that for some students a preferment is a real boon.  It depends
on how big the preferment is, but mostly it depends on the student.  For
bright-but-lazy types (like me), or for easily discouraged types, it isn't.
Either way, the student should know what they are getting into.  They should
take some time to contemplate the pluses and minuses, not just grab for the
most prestigious school that accepts them.

response 120 of 217:

Feb 4 03:31 UTC 2003

re:  "#116 (gull): The argument boils down to, 'black people aren't 
capable of making good decisions on their own,'"

Are they now making the decisions "on their own?"  Or are they being 
pushed, pulled, and steered by the colleges, their high schools, the 
civil rights establishment, their families, and who know who else to go 
to the prestigious school because they deserve it on account of the 
rotten treatment their people received, not because it is the best 
choice for that individual?  It is a lot of pressure to put on a 17 year 
old.

response 122 of 217:

Feb 4 03:53 UTC 2003

re resp:118: Maybe all applicants should be shown a chart showing where 
they are on the admissions criteria, so they can decide how they'll do 
at a particular school.  Of course it'll never happen, as specific 
admissions criteria are a closely guarded secret at every competitive 
university.  If the full criteria got out, the schools might face 
lawsuits.

response 124 of 217:

Feb 4 05:09 UTC 2003

If you were accepted to, say, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State
Univiersity, which would you go to?  Although Wayne State is a fine and
well-respected institution, nearly everyone would consider the University of
Michigan the obvious choice.  Choose the other way, and you'll have to defend
yourself to everyone you meet.  Your parents will likely go ballistic. 
Whatever your race, everyone is under pressure to go to the "best" college
they can get into.  I don't think the "civil rights establishment" is pushing
black students especially.  No push is required to convince people to grab
short glory ("I'm going to the University of Michigan!").  This force is so
strong, that my suggestion of informing students about what they are getting
into is probably dumb.  Hardly anyone is going to pass up the prestigious
school, and the ones who do will likely always regret it.

response 126 of 217:

Feb 4 15:05 UTC 2003

Rane, I think if you consider Jan's response in a reasonable manner, 
you'll get closer to understanding the point he made.  Obviously if you 
want to go to vet school and Michigan doesn't have one, you wouldn't go 
to Michigan.  You probably wouldn't apply, like your daughter, putting 
you outside the rules.  No one is accepted who doesn't apply.

If you want to go into medicine, though, and both Wayne State and 
Michigan have med schools, and you've applied and been accepted at 
both, chances are pretty good you're going to Michigan instead of Wayne 
State.

Not everyone will.  There are plenty of reasons why some wouldn't, such 
as location (maybe you want to stay in Detroit), cost (U-M is more 
expensive), parents might have gone to Wayne State, friends might be 
going there, you don't like trees, etc.  But most, given the choice, 
are going to pick Michigan.

response 128 of 217:

Feb 4 17:17 UTC 2003

No, it's not.  The argument against affim. action is that it amounts to 
racial discrimination and, as such, it unconstitutional.

What the "choosing the wrong school" argument does is to highlight a 
corrolary - why affirmative action is harmful to the very people who it 
is supposed to help.

response 130 of 217:

Feb 4 22:33 UTC 2003

I also agree that the "wrong school" business is not an argument against
affirmative action.  It only says that we offer some students a very
tempting opportunity to fail.  Not exactly discrimination.  It's also
very specific to college admissions.  Similar arguments don't
necessarily apply to other arenas.  I thought affirmative action worked
very well in hiring faculty.  This was because (1) there was a glut of
people seeking very few jobs, so we might have had to pass up someone
who was stupifyingly overqualified to choose someone who was merely
amazingly overqualified, and (2) because there are so many different
success modes for a faculty member (succeed as a researcher, succeed as
a fund raiser, succeed as a teacher, succeed as an administrator, etc.)

The "reverse discrimination" argument is a valid objection to
affirmative action in general.  But it's also the whole point.  We try
to counter-act discrimination with reverse discriminaton, balancing
things out.  This is why the courts have upheld it in the past.  To make
the "reverse discrimination" argument stand, you need to demonstrate
that the reverse discrimination is substantially in excess of the
discrimination it is supposed to be balancing.  Not an easy case to prove.

response 132 of 217:

Feb 5 03:01 UTC 2003

Had to punt, eh?

response 134 of 217:

Feb 5 09:09 UTC 2003

 1)  You can discriminate against someone or you can discriminate in their
     favor -- there is nothing inherent of the definition of "discriminate"
     that requires it to be negative.

 2)  Other than by retracting what he said and claiming he never said it,
     I can't imagine how Rane intends to justify his statement that 
     "affirmative action is not racial discrimination."  It is clearly
     discrimination - differentiating between candidates based on a
     particular attribute - and that attribute happens to be racial.
     In my book that means it's pretty fair to call it racial discrimination.

 3)  I think the problem Rane's having with his argument is that he's too
     scared to go on record as saying that there can be good forms of racial
     discrimination and bad forms of racial discrimination.  His position
     on affirmative action, which he favors, doesn't reconcile neatly with
     his position on racial discrimination, which he disapproves of, so 
     apparently he's decided to avoid the resulting cognitive dissonance
     by just refusing to admit to himself or others that affirmative action
     is, in fact, a form of racial discrimination.

 4)  Klg seems to be having fun making Rane squirm, but he's fixated on the
     wrong question.  The dominant issue is not whether affirmative action
     is a form or racial discrimination but whether it is a legally
     permissible form of racial discrimination.  If the answer were clearly
     an automatic "No", as klg prefers to believe, I suspect the courts would
     have settled the issue a long time ago..

response 136 of 217:

Feb 5 16:08 UTC 2003

 > I'd be obliged if you would show any currently standing law or court
 > opinion in the U.S. that sanctions "racial discrimination" in so many
 > words.

 I'll leave that up to someone who has nothing better to do than dig for
 research material you could easily be finding yourself.  The numerous
 federal, state, and local laws which provide for hiring and contracting
 preferences for minorities and minority-owned businesses should be ample
 demonstration that some race-based laws are currently in effect and
 presently considered good law in most jurisdictions in the country.

response 138 of 217:

Feb 5 18:34 UTC 2003

re resp:137:

   "the answer is simply that affirmative action is not racial
   discrimination. No direct action it taken to discriminte against
   anyone."

I find that a completely flabbergasting statement.  Do you not 
understand that, when you choose to give one person an advantage in a 
competitive situation, you take away something from another person?

You can't just move a person higher on a list without any other 
effects.  When you move one name from position 10 to position 5, then 
the previous 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 will then become 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.  The 
first gains position, and the others lose position.  The act of moving 
one person higher on the list does indeed directly move the others down 
on the list.

There's no way around that.  There's no way you can have affirmative 
action without also having adverse discrimination on some of the others 
who do not receive affirmative action.