The liberal case against affirmative action

TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:I don't think the articles you reference fairly engaged with that issue, even so.

That may be so - frankly, I didn't read all of them. That issue is in the news b/c of the recent suit. Before that, though, I've heard about it, specifically as relates to California schools, so I do think it gets discussed.

I think the situation is arguably even worse than you've described. Asian Americans certainly can show historical discrimination, and presumably some present as well. They should actually be getting preferential treatment, by traditional arguments for AA. Instead they're getting screwed.

The usual argument, as I understand it, is for diversity of background/perspective, but that's getting pretty racist. People from different SECs obviously have different perspectives. Blacks and whites within SECs often have different perspectives. But, say, middle-class 3rd-generation Asian Americans vs. middle-class 4th-generation "Irish Americans?" - getting pretty sketchy there. It starts to sound a lot more like, "All my students look Oriental - there's no diversity here!"
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
takoma wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If a school needs an athlete, then that is their business.

You're right that sports is their business, but isn't it supposed to be education?


They ned the revenue from the sports. They also need to make the schools more popular to young people who are for the most part interested in sprots as spectators or athletes.


This is the same reason colleges should be dealing drugs. They need the revenue and, gosh darn it, young people *like* drugs.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
takoma wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If a school needs an athlete, then that is their business.

You're right that sports is their business, but isn't it supposed to be education?


They ned the revenue from the sports. They also need to make the schools more popular to young people who are for the most part interested in sprots as spectators or athletes.


This is the same reason colleges should be dealing drugs. They need the revenue and, gosh darn it, young people *like* drugs.


Oh, I get it. Athletics = Drugs. Oh wait, those aren't in any way the same thing.
Anonymous
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't think the articles you reference fairly engaged with that issue, even so.

That may be so - frankly, I didn't read all of them. That issue is in the news b/c of the recent suit. Before that, though, I've heard about it, specifically as relates to California schools, so I do think it gets discussed.

I think the situation is arguably even worse than you've described. Asian Americans certainly can show historical discrimination, and presumably some present as well. They should actually be getting preferential treatment, by traditional arguments for AA. Instead they're getting screwed.

The usual argument, as I understand it, is for diversity of background/perspective, but that's getting pretty racist. People from different SECs obviously have different perspectives. Blacks and whites within SECs often have different perspectives. But, say, middle-class 3rd-generation Asian Americans vs. middle-class 4th-generation "Irish Americans?" - getting pretty sketchy there. It starts to sound a lot more like, "All my students look Oriental - there's no diversity here!"


Admissions offices use "diversity" as a code word for racial preferences to avoid potential legal ramifications of openly admitting to the use of those preferences. The objective data make it pretty clear what is going on. My personal preference would be for completely race-blind admissions, but if we are going to have racial preferences in education, I think the nature and purpose of those preferences should be transparent, so that people can debate whether we should have them or not by rationally assessing the costs and benefits. Allowing colleges to say "diversity," wave their hands, and come up with whatever result they want is, to me, not particularly defensible. Even having hard quotas would be better than the current system, at least it would be honest and susceptible to reasoned scrutiny and debate.
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:Admissions offices use "diversity" as a code word for racial preferences to avoid potential legal ramifications of openly admitting to the use of those preferences.

I don't think that's right. I think diversity is often the explicit justification for open race-based policies, not a pretext hiding secret race-based policies.

Anonymous wrote:if we are going to have racial preferences in education, I think the nature and purpose of those preferences should be transparent, so that people can debate whether we should have them or not by rationally assessing the costs and benefits. Allowing colleges to say "diversity," wave their hands, and come up with whatever result they want is, to me, not particularly defensible.

You don't think that they're after diversity, by their definition? Are you suggesting that it's an actual dislike of whites?

As I did above, I would criticize race-based diversity in many cases, but I believe that they do want diversity - AND they don't want to be known as a lily-white school for multiple reasons.
Anonymous
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Admissions offices use "diversity" as a code word for racial preferences to avoid potential legal ramifications of openly admitting to the use of those preferences.

I don't think that's right. I think diversity is often the explicit justification for open race-based policies, not a pretext hiding secret race-based policies.

Anonymous wrote:if we are going to have racial preferences in education, I think the nature and purpose of those preferences should be transparent, so that people can debate whether we should have them or not by rationally assessing the costs and benefits. Allowing colleges to say "diversity," wave their hands, and come up with whatever result they want is, to me, not particularly defensible.

You don't think that they're after diversity, by their definition? Are you suggesting that it's an actual dislike of whites?

As I did above, I would criticize race-based diversity in many cases, but I believe that they do want diversity - AND they don't want to be known as a lily-white school for multiple reasons.


Funny, the whole reason we have nebulous diversity goals is because quotas or targets of any kind are a big no-no.

Which is it, you want transparent targets or not?
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:Funny, the whole reason we have nebulous diversity goals is because quotas or targets of any kind are a big no-no.

Which is it, you want transparent targets or not?

You quoted me; did you mean to quote the other person?

Or are you the other person? I'm confused.

Damn anonymity.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
takoma wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If a school needs an athlete, then that is their business.

You're right that sports is their business, but isn't it supposed to be education?


They ned the revenue from the sports. They also need to make the schools more popular to young people who are for the most part interested in sprots as spectators or athletes.


This is the same reason colleges should be dealing drugs. They need the revenue and, gosh darn it, young people *like* drugs.


Oh, I get it. Athletics = Drugs. Oh wait, those aren't in any way the same thing.


Nope. But you can't justify anything by saying it brings in money, and students like it. It's not an argument.

Besides, most college athletic departments don't send appreciably more money than they take in to the university general fund. It stays with the football team.
Anonymous
Do Asians and Hispanics remember when they were allowed to be admitted to schools like U of MD law and med schools, but African Americans and Native Americans were not?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Affirmative action in things like college admissions, in practice, requires intentional racial discrimination against Asian-Americans in favor of African Americans and Hispanics. The numbers don't work out any other way. This has always struck me as the hardest argument for supporters of affirmative action to deal with, and, quelle surprise, they almost universally ignore it.


Affirmative action makes no sense. Work hard and be smart and be punished. Kick back and don't be so smart and be rewarded. And many of the AA slots are taken by blacks from Africa or their first generation children. And the policy makes people doubt the ability of black grads from good schools. This is perverted. It doesn't help anyone.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
takoma wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If a school needs an athlete, then that is their business.

You're right that sports is their business, but isn't it supposed to be education?


They ned the revenue from the sports. They also need to make the schools more popular to young people who are for the most part interested in sprots as spectators or athletes.


This is the same reason colleges should be dealing drugs. They need the revenue and, gosh darn it, young people *like* drugs.


Oh, I get it. Athletics = Drugs. Oh wait, those aren't in any way the same thing.


Nope. But you can't justify anything by saying it brings in money, and students like it. It's not an argument.

Besides, most college athletic departments don't send appreciably more money than they take in to the university general fund. It stays with the football team.


You are saying we needed to point out that athletics is considered a developmentally beneficial activity, which is why you find it in pretty much every grade school, middle school, high school and college in the country?
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:Work hard and be smart and be punished. Kick back and don't be so smart and be rewarded.

Ridiculous summary of AA. There's plenty of legitimate criticism you could level; this isn't it.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't help anyone.

It obviously helps the individual beneficiaries. That may or may not be worth it, but you can't say it doesn't help anyone.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
takoma wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If a school needs an athlete, then that is their business.

You're right that sports is their business, but isn't it supposed to be education?


They ned the revenue from the sports. They also need to make the schools more popular to young people who are for the most part interested in sprots as spectators or athletes.


This is the same reason colleges should be dealing drugs. They need the revenue and, gosh darn it, young people *like* drugs.


Oh, I get it. Athletics = Drugs. Oh wait, those aren't in any way the same thing.


Nope. But you can't justify anything by saying it brings in money, and students like it. It's not an argument.

Besides, most college athletic departments don't send appreciably more money than they take in to the university general fund. It stays with the football team.


You are saying we needed to point out that athletics is considered a developmentally beneficial activity, which is why you find it in pretty much every grade school, middle school, high school and college in the country?


Yes, you need to make an argument that professional(ized) athletics at the collegiate level is a "developmentally beneficial activity". To simply say, "we do it, therefore it's beneficial" or better yet "intramural soccer is good for 4th graders" doesn't cut it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't think the articles you reference fairly engaged with that issue, even so.

That may be so - frankly, I didn't read all of them. That issue is in the news b/c of the recent suit. Before that, though, I've heard about it, specifically as relates to California schools, so I do think it gets discussed.

I think the situation is arguably even worse than you've described. Asian Americans certainly can show historical discrimination, and presumably some present as well. They should actually be getting preferential treatment, by traditional arguments for AA. Instead they're getting screwed.

The usual argument, as I understand it, is for diversity of background/perspective, but that's getting pretty racist. People from different SECs obviously have different perspectives. Blacks and whites within SECs often have different perspectives. But, say, middle-class 3rd-generation Asian Americans vs. middle-class 4th-generation "Irish Americans?" - getting pretty sketchy there. It starts to sound a lot more like, "All my students look Oriental - there's no diversity here!"


Admissions offices use "diversity" as a code word for racial preferences to avoid potential legal ramifications of openly admitting to the use of those preferences. The objective data make it pretty clear what is going on. My personal preference would be for completely race-blind admissions, but if we are going to have racial preferences in education, I think the nature and purpose of those preferences should be transparent, so that people can debate whether we should have them or not by rationally assessing the costs and benefits. Allowing colleges to say "diversity," wave their hands, and come up with whatever result they want is, to me, not particularly defensible. Even having hard quotas would be better than the current system, at least it would be honest and susceptible to reasoned scrutiny and debate.


So what? I was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow for Public Policy and International Affairs. The program was open to everyone, but was mostly minority. I cannot begin to tell you how rich the experience was to learn about different Latino and Asian cultures. It truly made my life richer. I wish more people understood how valuable diversity is. Even if it is a code word for "racial preferences."
Anonymous
Does an assimilated/multiracial third, fourth, etc generation person of Latino or Asian American heritage bring as much diversity as someone with a single racial identity and who is first or second generation? Should affirmative action go to immigrants or poor Americans who have been here for generations? Should wealthy, privileged minorities get preferential treatment in admissions or jobs?
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: