An End To State-Sponsored Discrimination?
The Democratic candidate for president will likely be either a black man or a woman. Isn't it finally time to end the discriminatory practice of "affirmation action," and go by "best man or woman gets the job" -- or the spot at the university? Even if that man or woman is Asian, not black or Latino?
Stephanie Simon writes for the LA Times (bugmenot.com for a login) that activists in five states have launched a drive to cut off tax dollars for programs offering preferential treatment for race or gender. Ward Connerly is behind it:
Connerly, who is of black, white and Native American heritage, began fighting against racial preferences as a member of the University of California Board of Regents in the mid-1990s. He has said he came to the issue after meeting with a white couple whose son had been rejected from several University of California medical schools; they believed less-qualified minority students had an unfair edge in admissions. A land-use consultant by training, Connerly now devotes himself to anti-affirmative- action campaigns.
More about Connerly here. And here's one of the whiners from the other side:
"They've targeted states where there's a white majority electorate and a vocal, if small, extreme anti-immigrant right wing," said Shanta Driver, who runs By Any Means Necessary, a coalition that defends affirmative action. In such states, she said, "it's extremely difficult for us to win."
I might have skin the color of Wite-Out, but beyond being for the idea that you don't resolve discrimination by discriminating, I'm not anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal immigrant. Come legally, and have something to offer us, like an ability in technology or medicine, and I'll be right there to set out the welcome mat for you and maybe even offer you a lemonade.
Here's the result of pushing race for law school admissions. From a WSJ story by Gail Herriott:
While some students will outperform their entering academic credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students will perform in the range that their academic credentials predict. As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels. This much is uncontroversial.Supporters of race-based admissions argue that, despite the likelihood of poor grades, minority students are still better off accepting the benefit of a preference and graduating from a more prestigious school. But Mr. Sander’s research suggests that just the opposite may be true–that law students, no matter what their race, may learn less, not more, when they enroll in schools for which they are not academically prepared. Students who could have performed well at less competitive schools may end up lost and demoralized. As a result, they may fail the bar.
Specifically, Mr. Sander found that when black and white students with similar academic credentials compete against each other at the same school, they earn about the same grades. Similarly, when black and white students with similar grades from the same tier law school take the bar examination, they pass at about the same rate.
Yet, paradoxically, black students as a whole have dramatically lower bar passage rates than white students with similar credentials. Something is wrong.
The Sander study argued that the most plausible explanation is that, as a result of affirmative action, black and white students with similar credentials are not attending the same schools. The white students are more likely to be attending a school that takes things a little more slowly and spends more time on matters that are covered on the bar exam. They are learning, while their minority peers are struggling at more elite schools.
Mr. Sander calculated that if law schools were to use color-blind admissions policies, fewer black law students would be admitted to law schools (3,182 students instead of 3,706), but since those who were admitted would be attending schools where they have a substantial likelihood of doing well, fewer would fail or drop out (403 vs. 670). In the end, more would pass the bar on their first try (1,859 vs. 1,567) and more would eventually pass the bar (2,150 vs. 1,981) than under the current system of race preferences. Obviously, these figures are just approximations, but they are troubling nonetheless.
Mr. Sander has his critics–some thoughtful, some just strident–but so far none has offered a plausible alternative explanation for the data. Of course, Mr. Sander doesn’t need to be proven 100% correct for his research to be devastating news for affirmative-action supporters.
Suppose the consequences of race-based admissions turn out to be a wash–neither increasing nor decreasing the number of minority attorneys. In that case, few people would think it worth the costs, not least among them the human costs that result from the failure of the supposed beneficiaries to graduate and pass the bar.
Under current practices, only 45% of blacks who enter law school pass the bar on their first attempt as opposed to over 78% of whites. Even after multiple tries, only 57% of blacks succeed. The rest are often saddled with student debt, routinely running as high as $160,000, not counting undergraduate debt. How great an increase in the number of black attorneys is needed to justify these costs?
One must point out another consequence of affirmative action that can be a serious problem for genuinely qualified professionals who happen to belong to a minority: Schools let in unqualified students under affirmative action. The schools dare not fail these students, so - even if they fail the curriculum - many are allowed to graduate.
Which means, a good proportion of the minority professionals (e.g., doctors) are at best marginally qualified for their jobs. For this reason, given a choice, many people avoid black professionals. How are the good one supposed to distinguish themselves from the affirmative-action incompetents?
I've seen this first-hand with my wife, who is a very talented theoretical scientist. One of her colleagues in grad school was a minority woman who was proud of the fact that she had been let into a program too good for her, and that the faculty didn't dare fail her. My wife, by contrast, was really irritated at the idea that she might have been admitted to the school because of her gender rather than her talent. But for an outsider - how are you supposed to tell which is which?
bradley13 at January 21, 2008 4:16 AM
Bradley makes an excellent point. Affirmative action devalues black acheivement. You cannot separate those that earned their opportunities and those that did not.
For example -say a group of people are running a 100 meter dash. The minority competitors are given a 15 meter head start. A minority competitor wins the race. Is he/she the fastest? Maybe. However, maybe he/she is the slowest and only won because of the head start. No one will ever know. That's the problem with affirmative action programs.
Another problem is that it is not the children of privileged whites that lose opportunities because of affirmative action, but the children of working class whites. Do you think Ted Kennedy's kids gave up their seats at Yale and Harvard to a "qualified minority"? Of course not. It is the sons and daughters of plumbers, auto workers, waitresses, etc.
BDT at January 21, 2008 5:10 AM
I suspect we can put belief in affirmative action alongside religious belief, since both exhibit a lack of evidence.
doombuggy at January 21, 2008 5:39 AM
Great points -- both on affirmative action devaluing actual achievement and on Ted Kennedy, etc.'s kids. And if there's anything dividing people it's money. A former assistant of mine, who was extremely bright, a fantastic student, and a great person, happened to be Korean. The first generation of her family born in this country. Asian? No scholarships for her! She went to Santa Monica College and got a lot out of it, and went on to Northwestern for a Master's.
Amy Alkon at January 21, 2008 5:48 AM
Curse you, Law of Unintended Consequences.
Norman at January 21, 2008 6:27 AM
Hmm. How are we supposed to tell the difference?
Let me tell you how it is (was) in the Navy. The Naval Academy has one of the finest engineering schools in the world. The enlisted ranks, in the advanced technical fields like aviation, communication and nuclear power, actually cull people from their schools, because there are no "spare" people on a warship. This resulting group can tell instantly where in the graduating class an officer placed, and it is part of their evaluation of him as an officer and a sailor. This latter term means, roughly, the degree to which he is able to serve his ship, as opposed to handling the men he is responsible for.
In short, we can tell the fool from the knight, by comparing him to his job, an objective measure. Nearly 20 years later, I can still name names - but this is of an officer corps which is itself subject to culling for poor performance. In an environment where everybody gets a "do-over!", and we are all focused on the insanity of assigning "self-esteem" as a goal, you're simply going to have to do more work to identify the slug whose name stains their diploma.
Radwaste at January 21, 2008 6:39 AM
Fixing our deeply troubled grade school system is hard. Affirmative action is easy. And therein lies the source of one of my major objections. A disproportionate number of kids in failing grade schools are minority kids. You want unfairness? THERE'S your unfairness. How can we fix it? No one idea, but I have several. Just throwing money at it won't help, but fixing our whacked-out approach to eduction - if it works, ditch it for something that sounds cooler! - might be a start. But all of that is hard. It takes time and energy. Merely waving one's hand and saying, "The starting class shall contain X percentage of minority students" is easy.
marion at January 21, 2008 7:20 AM
Marion is correct. Failing public schools are a huge problem. This is primarily caused by the dissolution of black families due to the welfare state. Black men have been replaced by welfare checks. This, coupled with declining manufacturing jobs, has destroyed the traditional role of black men in their communities and in society.
The remedy? Fixing broken families may be impossible. However, vouchers are an option. Black kids stuck in bad schools has been a disaster for everyone. Our prisons are filled with the proof of that.
That teachers' unions and the democrats object to vouchers is disheartening. They care more about money and political power than they do about disadvantaged kids.
Can you imagine if it was Republicans who had a stranglehold on education in this country and this was happening? It would be declared the second coming of bondage...or the Klan.
We have to give these kids a chance. Without an education....they won't have one.
TSBaker at January 21, 2008 7:39 AM
Oh so very true. HR have forced me to hire programmers based solely on race. I've been forced to offer salary bands that reach $10k higher for women and minorities (out of my budget). I've had women at campus recruiting sessions tell me, "I want more because I'm the only woman graduating from this engineering program." They get it.
Firing a minority of female for poor performance can be like trying to fire a dud round. There's a real financial risk, and it may exceed savings from a firing.
Great point! But it may not be just confined to working class folks. White, white collar workers (I don't know how else to say that) seem to be affected, too. I live in Dallas. On average, women here earn 20% more than men --- at all education levels.
It makes economic sense. Women mitigate a business risk, legal peril from EEOC regulations, that men do not. That makes women more valuable than men, irrespective of fitness for the job.
So, another perverse effect of affirmative action is to distort labor prices, with the usual far-reaching economic consequences.
Jeff at January 21, 2008 7:41 AM
"Hmm. How are we supposed to tell the difference?
In short, we can tell the fool from the knight, by comparing him to his job, an objective measure."
Ah, but you are living with them over time. My point was: if you are going to hire an unknown professional, and have the choice, you aren't going to bother investing all that extra work. You will just avoid the minority, because the risk that they are incompetent is significantly higher due to affirmative action.
bradley13 at January 21, 2008 8:11 AM
I watched the "Variety Show" episode of PBS' "Pioneers of Television" series the other night and it confirmed my view of bigotry in this country. Nat King Cole had a show for a short time but couldn't get a corporate sponsor because of concerns that "southern people might object". Carol Burnett's show was expected to be short-lived because variety shows were "men's work". And, of course, Flip Wilson had a show... it was the highest rated show of its day. So, I learned that bigotry is alive and well in the USA but it doesn't reside with the Average Joe, the hoi polloi. Instead, the fat finger of bigotry points squarely at the liberal elites.
It seems to me that Affirmative Action is just a variation of the Jim Crow Laws. The institutionalization of bigotry by Southern Democrats wasn't about race, it was about holding on to their power by controlling a group that might just vote for the "wrong" people. Likewise, Affirmative Action is a method to control the Black Vote by either granting or threatening to withhold political favors. Jim Crow Laws subjugated Blacks, Affirmative Action subjugates Blacks. There is no material difference.
Curly Smith at January 21, 2008 8:46 AM
A lot of really good comments here. Isn't it ironic that there are people who believe in separating us all out by race and gender and treating us differently in order to stop racism?
Rad, you are so right about the Navy schools. The US Navy engineering programs are world class. They really demand the absolute best candidates because you can't even think about passing those courses unless you're in the top five percent. I worked with fighter pilots a lot in the service and I'm telling you, those guys and some girls, are amazing. Just the amount data you have to memorize in order to do that job is staggering. You just can't stuff someone into a training program like that or you'll have another Kara Hultgren on you hands.
Bikerken at January 21, 2008 9:08 AM
I see above the mention of "vouchers". That's easy to say, but hard to do and an incomplete statement.
Immediately the argument becomes about money. The real argument centers around how to make schools effective. Sadly, this is not going to happen until minorities with significant discipline issues are scattered, so that discipline problems can be quashed. This is not actually difficult to do except for protests by those involved, eager to remain with friends in the area they know, in a situation where lots of people get a check from The Man.
Why do we have 2nd- and 3rd- generation welfare mothers? We show them that's the thing to do and pay them for it!
Radwaste at January 21, 2008 4:15 PM
It sounds as if the time has come to do away with affirmative action. I understand why it happened and discrimination is tough to prove but was it ever the intent for the less qualified to get the jobs? When last I was job hunting, I pretty much knew whenever I saw someone of color, male or female, going up against me for the job, I wrote the job off because I knew I wasn't going to get it. It has come so you only feel like you're competing fairly when no minorities are going up against. I'm not sure what would prevent discrimination if affirmative action is taken away but this too is discrimination. It should be the best person for the job point blank. I doubt there's anyway to ensure that it is.
Donna at January 22, 2008 8:37 AM
I live in a predominantly black area with a low socioeconomic status. It is always interesting to me when white people try to figure out the black problem: Education, affirmative action, poverty, welfare, prison, etc. Coming from the mouths of lower-middle class to low to below poverty level blacks, they have shared with me their issues. First, many are proud to get food stamps and welfare. Proud. Why? Because they feel completely fucked by the government and humanity (both in the past and now), so they consider it equal. Paybacks even. Of course, people like Al Sharpton and the likes won't let Black America believe many steps forward have been made, so they continue to lean on the crutch of discrimination. These blacks I live with are people who feel discriminated against every single day by, mainly, whites, and they discriminate right back. They blame the government (which is mainly white, so whites) for the overrepresentation of blacks in jail, the lack of job availability, the lack of educational experiences, poverty, etc. They look back on the atrocity of slavery and still get pissed. Affirmative action hasn't touched these people in the slightest, and most cannot even tell you what it is. We can argue all day about whether they should or shouldn't feel this way, but that is irrelevant.
I believe you need to embrace something to change it. You want to understand black people who think this way? Make a black friend who does...not a token black friend, but a real one. Listen to what they say, and be empathetic because doing so is the only way they will listen to your views.
When you sit in the livingroom of a person who lives below poverty level and you listen to their stories and histories...when you take inventory of their failures (real and perceived) and realize how psychologically difficult it is for many ignorant people to even jump in the playing field of employment, you begin to understand the cycle of poverty and ignorance in empathetic terms. Many of these folks just want to be heard and have their beliefs of discrimination validated by whites. When whites keep telling them what they feel and believe is false, they don't trust them and stop listening. To say, yes, that still exists and must be changed does a lot more good than telling someone to get off his ass and go to work. You may be able to say that one day, but you must validate their beliefs first...and it would help if you believed their first-hand experiences of racism and prejudice.
kg at January 22, 2008 12:59 PM
kg,
Excellent comment.
(I am white and my own experience of actively listening to individual black Americans friends is with a different socio-economic group to the one you mention. Nevertheless, your comment covers many good, hard points.)
Jody Tresidder at January 22, 2008 1:40 PM
I don't know, kg. I've always been poor myself and my black friends likewise and, yes, I and they do acknowledge this country's history of prejudice and discrimination and their personal history of the same (and they likewise recognize that whites living in black areas face discrimination) but they are not using it as an excuse to stay down. They tend to feel like I do -- that anyone who does is just continuing to let the man keep them down and needs to get off the stick and do something for themself. Of course, I tend to hang out with people of a like mindset as myself to work and achieve something for themself, not be bums. Frankly, true as that is, at this point in our history, it is an excuse to be a bum.
Donna at January 23, 2008 9:39 AM
This stuff is old news, conservative and libertarian blawgs were discussing this five years ago when I was starting law school. I have yet to see it addressed by any law school in a serious way; they're too afraid of alienating donors.
I agree with the commenters who say that affirmative action undervalues minority achievement, a fact which drove my (minority) law school roommate crazy - everyone assumed she was there on an affirmative action scholarship and took her less seriously because of it.
I also agree that a big achievement gap is economics - this disproportionately affects minorities, but it seems to me that outstanding students who come from underprivileged backgrounds, whatever race, should be given assistance if anyone gets it. It's easy for the daughter of two Harvard grads to get into a decent law school and then get a decent job afterwards. It's much harder for the son of migrant farmworkers who went to Directional State U on a full academic scholarship to get accepted, simply because he's a white male and therefore presumed to be privileged; though he may be the first person in his family to ever go to college and he lacks any prestigious "connections." Whereas the wealthy third-generation immigrant daughter of an Indian doctor who attended elite, private prep schools and an elite private university is presumed to be "underprivileged." What a crazy world!
Jennifer at January 23, 2008 3:44 PM
Leave a comment