|
Grex > Diversity > #12: Bush to join fight against UM's affirmative action program |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 232 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 83 of 232:
| 
Jan 21 14:56 UTC 2003 |
re resp:79: "Legacy" students, children of previous graduates, offer a
small benefit to the university, of building up multi-generational
loyalty to the school. They're from families who have demonstrated
they can succeed at the university, and so they get a small benefit
from the university. And yes, they probably do, as a group, donate a
lot more money to the school than the general populaton. Money talks.
Athletes, similarly, bring money into the university. They bring in a
lot of it; millions of dollars if it's the U-M and the athlete is a
football player. They bring prestige, too. More people know of
Michigan's championships in football and basketball than they do about
the new life sciences initiative. More people know Michigan by their
sports department than know that Michigan has a graduate school.
re resp:81, Interesting analogy, medical care and affirmative action.
It doesn't fit, though. With medical care, we treat the individual
people who need it. Not everyone gets heart surgery. With affirmative
action, we apply it to entire segments of the population.
When you talk about addressing it with "better teaching about these
issues", what it really means is indoctrinating students with different
political beliefs. I think universities should not be doing that.
They *do* do it, but they shouldn't.
|
janc
|
|
response 84 of 232:
|
Jan 21 15:29 UTC 2003 |
If the only thing football players were doing was bringing in money for
the school, then I wouldn't consider that an acceptable reason for
admiting them. I'd consider that exploitation. However, they are also
building valid careers for themselves, perhaps in pro-football, perhaps
in any of a number of fields where having a football record is a plus.
Quite a few even get useful college educations that they can build
careers on that are completely unrelated to football, which they might
not have been able to do otherwise, due to financial constraints or
unimpressive academic credentials. We have to be doing something for
the student when we admit a student. Benefits to the university are a
secondary consideration (OK, I know this isn't the way the University
administrations actually think).
I agree completely with scg that affirmative action is an important tool
in redressing social inequalities. Some of the students who wouldn't
have been admitted otherwise do manage to thrive there and become
leaders and examples to their communties. This is invaluable. But we
have to be aware that there are negatives too. There is always the risk
of swamping the person by placing them in a role that they are not
necessarily fully prepared for. There is a backlash effect as other
people get angry at the prefered people for being prefered. Because of
this, you probably don't keep doing affirmative action until the social
inequalities are 100% leveled, because beyond a certain point, the
negatives of affirmative action make it more of an obstacle than a help.
Where that break point is, I don't know. But it is different for
different kinds of affirmative action, because they have different
negatives and positives. Affirmative action in college admissions has
the additional negative effect of turning our educational institutions,
where many people form their basic impressions about the relationship
between themselves and society, into microcosms where racial
inequalities in intelligence and ability appear to be real. Bigger
negatives in this particular form of affirmative action suggest that it
should be one of the first to phased out. Is it time yet? I don't
know. I think it may be close.
I actually hope that the UofM wins it's case. I don't agree that
affirmative action is immoral or illegal in any blanket sense. I think
it may be inadvisable. I don't think the courts are the ones who should
decide that. I'm not sure who should. Probably what I'd prefer would
be that black students were well aware of what they were getting into
when they accepted an advanced admission - working harder than everyone
else, possibly being viewed as a bit dumber than everyone else, not
because they are in any sense inadequate, but because they will be
placed among people selected for being smarter than they are. For some,
it may be wiser to choose a university where the other students have
academic creditials similar to theirs. Some may feel delighted by the
challenge of an advanced placement. If students were making informed
judgements of their own, then I think the problem would largely go away.
The problem, however, is that Americans are incrediably shy about
talking about race. So the pros and cons of the choice are not laid out
to the students. They are not told about higher failure rates among
advanced admits. I think if you wanted to pass a new law relating to
this, requiring public disclosure about failure rates and their
correlation to admissions would be a good one. As it is, I think most
black students come into this situation blind.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 85 of 232:
|
Jan 21 17:11 UTC 2003 |
Not at the U of M. There are minority affairs offices that keep very close
track of the statuses of minority students, and inform minority students
of the "facts of life" in regard to the problems they may face and what
they may need to do to succeed. When a minority student gets into academic
hot water there is plenty of support available in the form of encouragment,
tutoring, etc. These are also all available to majority students too, of
course, but it is noticeable for minorities because they stand out by
virtue of being a minority.
|
gull
|
|
response 86 of 232:
|
Jan 21 17:16 UTC 2003 |
Re #83: Ah, I see. So preferences are okay if there's money involved?
You'd be fine with affirmative action if blacks had more cash?
|
klg
|
|
response 87 of 232:
|
Jan 21 17:34 UTC 2003 |
re: "#81 (scg): Even Affirmative Action supporters don't tend to be
terribly excited about it, because its opponants are right that it's a
lousy system."
Even if it weren't "lousy," it would still be unconstitutional.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 88 of 232:
|
Jan 21 17:55 UTC 2003 |
It wasn't unconsitutional the last time the SC looked at it. I don't
see anything new making it unconstitutional now. In fact, any observer
can see that many minority members are not being treated equally by
the majority, in contradiction of some constitutional provisions, which
calls for some redress in order to establish constitutional observance.
|
klg
|
|
response 89 of 232:
|
Jan 21 17:59 UTC 2003 |
Actually, according to my sources, the SC struck down the University of
California's race-based admission policiy.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 90 of 232:
|
Jan 21 18:12 UTC 2003 |
Wasn't that after they had already changed it to be in accord with SC
rulings? I am speaking of the form that was acceptable to the SC.
|
scg
|
|
response 91 of 232:
|
Jan 21 19:37 UTC 2003 |
klg continues to look at the issue out of context. We have a group in our
country whose ancestors were kidnapped, brought over to the US or the colonies
that preceeded it in conditions that would amount to torture, and, if they
survived, enslaved for several generations. The slavery officially ended less
than 140 years ago, and was replaced by a legal system that forbade people
from that group from living in the same neighborhoods as the rest of the
population, attending the same schools as the rest of the population, or in
many areas using the same drinking fountains or bathrooms, eating in the same
restaurants, or sitting on the same part of the bus. During that period, it
was also perfectly legal to discriminate based on race in hiring, and this
was done blatantly (take a look at the employment classifieds from the Ann
Arbor News in the 1950s -- they had separate sections for "help wanted, male,"
"help wanted, female," and "help wanted, colored"). That system didn't go
away until the 1950s and 60s, at which point it was replaced by a less formal
system, in which black people are no longer prohibitted from moving into white
neighborhoods or sending their kids to white schools, but doing so often has
the effect of getting the white families in the area to decide the
neighborhood has become "unsafe," and to pack up and leave, generally taking
the jobs and other opportunities, not to mention the resale value of property
in the neighborhood, with them. So now we have a situation where most members
of this group continue to live in poverty, do far worse economically than the
rest of the population, and score lower in school. Given all this, what do
those who want to eliminate Affirmative Action now want to do instead to
remedy the situation?
In #83, jep raises some more interesting points, in terms of medical care
treating only those who need it, versus Affirmative Action treating an entire
segment of society. It should first be pointed out that that isn't always
true in the case of medical care, in dealing with big crisis situations such
as a big outbreak of some fast spreading infection. In those cases, often
everybody who has been exposed is given a vaccine or antibiotics, because it
just isn't possible to test them all, and overtreatment is considered a lesser
risk than undertreatment. Aside from that, however, if you can find black
people in the US who haven't been negatively affected by discrimination, and
can develop an easy to apply test for this, I'm eager to see your proposal.
jep also suggests that what I call "better teaching about these issues" would
really be "indoctrinating students with different political beliefs," which
he opposes. I don't think that's what I meant at all, though. When I was
in school, we generally had one week a year, around Martin Luther King Day,
when we would learn about racial discrimination. We would be told,
essentially, that The South (in other words, somewhere else) used to be
segregated, but that Martin Luther King had come along, led some marches, and
made us good Northerners aware of the problem, and as a result the problem
had been fixed and everything was equal now. To some extent, all teaching
is indoctrination, and this certainly was. It was indoctrination in a belief
that the problem was solved, and hadn't really concerned our part of the
country anyway. Imagine instead in depth presentations of the history
involved, not just in The South, but in all parts of the US, charting of
demographic data over time, up to the present, in depth discussions of how
things got to their current state and what the current state is, presentations
and analysis of arguments on many sides of the issue, and so forth. It may
be that most reasonable people woudln't come out of such a class with the
views that jep wants them to have, but the goal should be to make sure they
have enough information to make their own reasonable judgements.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 232:
|
Jan 21 19:52 UTC 2003 |
Another factor, which has not yet been discussed here, is that school is
not the "real world" in many ways. School is a period of preparation for
the "real world", and in that context, enormous effort is already being
put into helping the struggling student. Additional resources, of time
and personnel is required to do this over what is required for teaching
the average student. The object is to educate everyone to the highest
level they desire or can attain, and if this requires more "action" for
those lagging, it is provided.
We know that when students finally do enter the "real world" after
schooling, be it just high school, or college to, they will face forms
of discrimination too. This is where our constitutional protections
really operate, so that adults have a more even world in terms of
employment, travel and accomodations, participation in civil affairs
and government, etc.
Therefore, in prepartion for adulthood, there is plenty of justification
for providing the effort needed so that everyone leaving the school system
is as well prepared as possible (or as desired), acknowledging that this
means unequal application of resources, so they are distributed where the
are needed most. Equality of access to education was not being attained
because of the effects of continuing discrimination toward some
minorities.
|
klg
|
|
response 93 of 232:
|
Jan 21 20:31 UTC 2003 |
The "context" is the U.S. constitution. Or don't you believe in
following the law?
|
mdw
|
|
response 94 of 232:
|
Jan 21 22:16 UTC 2003 |
The US constitution does not exist in isolation, but is explicitly
embedded in common law. That makes part of a much larger and older
matrix of logic. The SC, and the decisions they make, good or bad, are
part of that matrix. Are you disagreeing with the SC's interpretation
that said quotas are no good, but that certain forms of preferential
treatment were acceptable?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 95 of 232:
|
Jan 22 01:13 UTC 2003 |
Minors are not provided for in the Constitution, except to exclude them
from participation in much of society. What provisions of the US
Constitution apply particularly to minors, other than by assuming
"persons" includes minors? The statutory law is very mixed on this, but
certainly a great deal of discretion is granted both parents and the State
to determine provisions for minors. This is in the context in which it is
certainly permissible to apply whatever remedies seem necessary for the
education of minors, including provisions to assist in the education of
minority minors. I do not see any good reasons why States should not
have the power to use affirmative action to redress some inequalities in
access to education.
|
scg
|
|
response 96 of 232:
|
Jan 22 01:35 UTC 2003 |
While Rane is trying to justify something I support, his argument is bullshit.
Affirmative Action doesn't apply only to minors. In fact, in this particular
case, many college freshman and just about all law school applicants are not
minors. Furthermore, it's now illegal in the US to discriminate among minors
based on race, just as it is for adults.
The legal basis for Affirmative Action and the like has been that the
underlying segregegation was illegal, and Affirmative Action was the least
intrusive way to counter that.
|
klg
|
|
response 97 of 232:
|
Jan 22 01:46 UTC 2003 |
What part of "No state shall . . . deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" does mdw believe is
negated by "a much larger and older matrix of logic?" Sounds pretty
clear to me - and it does not include and ifs, ands, or buts, least not
as I can see. If you don't feel it's necessary to respect the
Constitution, then don't come whining to me when you suspect that others
may be violating lesser laws.
|
scg
|
|
response 98 of 232:
|
Jan 22 02:06 UTC 2003 |
Affirmative Action is an attempt to restore some approximation of equal
protection of the laws, not to circumvent it.
|
scott
|
|
response 99 of 232:
|
Jan 22 02:07 UTC 2003 |
Re 97: Can you reconcile your quote with the long period of time in which
slavery was explicity legal in the United States?
|
klg
|
|
response 100 of 232:
|
Jan 22 02:18 UTC 2003 |
I don't have to. (A) Slavery was wrong. (B) Affirmative action (i.e.,
lack of equal protection) is illegal under the Constitution. You cannot
construct a logical argument to prove that (B) is untrue based on the
prior existence of slavery.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 101 of 232:
|
Jan 22 02:47 UTC 2003 |
(B) is a statement without foundation. In fact, it is wrong: Affirmative
Action is NOT a lack of equal protection.
|
jep
|
|
response 102 of 232:
|
Jan 22 03:20 UTC 2003 |
I don't agree that affirmative action is unconstitutional. The
Constitution is a set of guidelines, not exact laws closely covering
varieties of circumstances. Every "right" is moderated. Affirmative
action laws are clearly not intended to evade or contradict the
Constitution, not at least as a general rule.
But I don't think they're intended to correct any past or present
wrongs, either. What they're intended to do is buy votes by segmenting
society and giving parts of it favors. I don't think there's been much
reduction in discrimination or racism because of affirmative action,
any more than there was from desegregation busing. There's less racism
and much less discrimination, but it's come because of laws prohibiting
it, and changes in society's view, not because of affirmative action.
No minorities are going to be hurt by losing the chance to be given
positions in colleges they could not earn.
Instead, I think society's resources would be better used in finding a
way to correct the lack of respect for, and accomplishment in,
education among minorities. Inner city black kids don't *want* to be
educated. Their parents aren't that interested. They don't think they
can get a better life that way.
Why aren't they? Because the schools are bad, the schools are full of
drugs and rife with violence, the teachers are intimidated or
disillusioned? Or because U-M doesn't drop admissions standards low
enough to let those people get in (and fail out) if they want to?
|
klg
|
|
response 103 of 232:
|
Jan 22 03:28 UTC 2003 |
Affirmative action is, by practice (if not by definition), preference.
Equality is the opposite of preference.
Affirmative action is the opposite of equality.
Equality is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Affirmative action is contrary to the Constitution.
jep: The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not the
guidelines of the land. Is it a "suggestion" that the presidential term
is 4 years or a just a "good idea" to abolish slavery??
|
jep
|
|
response 104 of 232:
|
Jan 22 03:33 UTC 2003 |
re resp:91: If you want to carry the medical care and affirmative
action analogy even further, then I'm willing to counter it.
Immunization *work*. You get a shot for, say, German measles, as
almost everyone entering school does, and you don't get measles. If
you had to keep getting measles shots continuously for 40 years and
then still almost always got the disease, some people might start
scratching their heads and wondering just why they still got the shots.
With affirmative action, though, we just keep doing it, and never mind
that it doesn't help anything. "At least we're doing something."
|
scg
|
|
response 105 of 232:
|
Jan 22 03:49 UTC 2003 |
I think if Affirmative Action opponents were conecntrating on fixing the
problems John mentions in the second sentence of his last paragraph, they'd
be getting a lot less opposition from Affirmative Action supporters. That
they generally aren't shows their claims to be supporting racial equality to
be pretty hollow.
However, having spent some time tutoring kids in a middle school in a rather
rough neighborhood of Detroit, I will take issue with John's second to last
paragraph. I don't think I encountered any cases of kids not wanting to
learn. I did encounter lots of cases of kids thinking they couldn't learn
various things, and being very excited to find that they could. There's a
huge difference.
re 97, 99, and 100:
The Equal Protection Clause is in the 14th Ammendment, which was added
to the Constitution during the post-Civil War Reconstruction. It doesn't have
to be reconciled with slavery, because slavery had ready been eliminated.
It did take another 80 or so years before the courts started striking down
other forms of discrimination based on that ammendment.
Still, it would be nice if klg would stay on top of his own argument enough
that I wouldn't have to make it for him. He's been handed an easy to rebut
argument, based on a part of the Constitution that he had either just looked
up or had memorized, and yet he completely missed it.
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 232:
|
Jan 22 05:13 UTC 2003 |
I take it resp:105 refers to resp:102.
I've never had any contact with inner city kids. However, I've read
about inner city kids not getting an education, not attending classes,
not graduating, and about their parents not really caring or at least
not knowing what they could do. That was the basis of my comment.
These things aren't a problem?
Steve, I think you're both highly intelligent and highly thoughtful. I
also think your heart's in the right place. I very much enjoy reading
almost all of your comments. But in this case, it seems like you're
talking past me.
I perceive that affirmative action is not accomplishing much. There
are some good effects, and I've conceded those. There are also some
bad ones. I don't recall if you've conceded that, but others on your
side of the discussion have, and I'd hope we can agree to stipulate
that there are some bad effects. It all adds up, to me, in there not
being much improvement coming from affirmative action.
I don't know what to do about the problems of inner city high schools.
I wish I did. If I did, if I thought anyone did, I would be willing to
vote more tax money to address the problem. I might be willing to do
other things, too. Volunteer, for example, if I thought I could make a
difference.
I don't know how to correct the problems of racism, racial
discrimination, prejudice and inequity in society. I wish I knew how
to at least lessen these problems. If affirmative action for
admissions at U-M was really effective, I wouldn't be against it. I'm
not harmed by it personally. I don't think my kids will be borderline
U-M applicants who are likely to be affected. (One will probably make
it easily if he wants to, the other likely will not make it, unless he
makes it an important goal and works hard for it. I don't expect that
to happen.) I don't have anything to gain or lose.
I'm just trying to look at it from the perspective of fairness and
effectiveness. I think affirmative action is generally unfair, and I
think it doesn't work. In order for something unfair to be acceptable,
it's got to work in the way that's intended. The more unfair, the
better it's got to work. I don't think affirmative action makes the
cut.
I think having a competitive school like Michigan giving bonus
admissions points by race, specifically, is a bad idea. No, I don't
have another affirmative action plan to replace it. You've won that
point. Now, tell me why you support it, even though it doesn't work,
or supply some persuasion that shows it *does* work.
|
mdw
|
|
response 107 of 232:
|
Jan 22 06:44 UTC 2003 |
If I understand what klg is saying, he thinks the constitution
supersedes the SC and common law.
Interestingly, a google search on
constitution "common law"
finds a whole bunch of documents that claim the constitution was never
properly ratified and therefore isn't actually enforceable.
|