just curious but .. . if they are not published. . . how do you know it? what is the source of your information? Rocket River
At least 100 different testimonials from friends and colleagues at prestigious universities and employers. AT LEAST
I think it hurts minorities too because people wonder if they got in or got the job just because of the AA... Also I think it's flawed in who gets the spots.. at prestigious universities for instance.. I'd guess most of the minorities getting in from AA are well off and from rich families.. i doubt AA is increasing diversity in the sense of getting poor, inner city students into the schools for instance..
You are totally right here. Its not even the poor minorities that are generally getting the help, its the middle to upper class ones.
Um, you're flat out wrong on this one. Please don't make these sweeping statements without evidence. I've worked in a college admissions & recruitment office. The students the college targeted were poor. Coming out of highschool, AA programs targetd me because I was from a lower economic class. Most people who try to attend prestigious, expensive schools tend not to be poor anyway. Even still that doesn't negate the use of an AA program to ensure the presitigous school doesn't remain a good ole white boys club.
I also honestly believe that AA is wrong and should be based on wealth not race. If two kids grow up next door to each other, go to the same schools, it's not fair that one of those kids can get into college easier than the other kid just because of the color of his/her skin. It just doesnt seem fair in the least. In the end, I think AA is help too little, too late anyway. It doesn't do a lot of good to have a kid go to a poor crappy school and then send him off to a college to compete against kids who have had a good education in a wealthier area. It's almost setting them up for failure. I think we need to focus on the root of the problem, which is making sure everyone has equal opportunity from birth. That means making sure every kid has as good of a chance to excel in school as any other kid. In my opinion, we have got to find a way to make sure kids that show potential can get the support they need. Too often, kids in these low-income areas are smart, but the school they go to doesn't have the teachers or supplies to keep that kid motivated and interested sending them down a path of failure. This is why I believe vouchers or some other sort of program to make sure every kid has just as good of a chance to succeed in school as any other kid is most important. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the current system just isn't working. If we solve the root problem, there should be no need for AA at higher levels.
So what you're saying is that there should be AA in lower education but not in higher education? And that as long as it is based on wealth you are OK with it? Seems that with a voucher-type program you would still need AA to ensure that certain prestigious schools -- ones colleges tend to recruit from -- don't lock out students based on race, gender, class or status. Do understand that not most AA programs are not strictly based on race. Gender and economics factor in too. Race was the overwhelming motivation for the program and is the hot button way for politicians to talk about AA without having to talk about social inequality itself.
A valid point is brought up. You don't correct past discrimination through a form of discrimination. For those opponents of the death penalty, the same argument applies: You do not fix murder by murdering. Should race in universities be in equal proportions? Absolutely not. Race is not proportional in the rest of society, why should that standard be applied to universities? Our population is 60-70% white. That means that 60-70% of college students should be white. That's fairness. Do inner-city kids have a harder time getting into prestigious schools? Of course. But inner-city does not mean "black". Inner-city usually implies "poor". The economic standard is a more fair one. Instead of basing admissions on race, we should be basing them on financial worth. Or here's a novel idea- base them on scores. Base them on a student's performance. Have we forgotten about that? Smart black kids get into college. Stupid black kids do not. Simple and effective. The same applies to whites, hispanics, asians, pacific islanders, whatever you want. A university is not a forum for diversity. A university is a place of education. Those with the committment to education required get to attend a university. No one should get in because they were born black or because their father is wealthy. I've long said that a huge education reform is necessary in America. I personally favor the implementation of specialized schools. Those with a strong background in mathematics (if they so chose) could attend a high school that catered especially to those planning to major in mathematics. The same applies to students wishing to enter politics (I especially would like that one), the sciences, literature, etc. Of course, not everyone knows from an early age what they plan to pursue in life, and neutral schools would still have to exist for such students. But the option should be there. And this detracts from the argument about affirmative action, so we'll return. Affirmative action is bad because it implies that our universities are more interested in appearing fair than educating our nation's smartest students. Affirmative action is bad because it dillutes the talent pool. We are not educating the most able of our students, simply meeting a quota. Affirmative action is bad because it neglects the fact that it itself is a form of discrimination. You do not fix a problem by furthering that problem. If you're really worried about blacks and hispanics getting into good schools, you know what you should do? Put more money into education in predominantly black and hispanic neighborhoods. Focus on education. Make these kids believe that education (not sports) is the most important goal they can pursue. Instead of trying to drag white kids down, why don't you try to elevate minorities?
isnt it a big assumption to make when you say that AA discriminates in order to correct past discrimination? can you for sure say that such discrimination doesnt exist in the workplace and at universities today also? i'm sure some african american/hispanic posters could come up with "100 different testimonials AT LEAST" of minorities who were discriminated against simply because of their skin color.
Without responding to the other points in your post, I think you'll find that most university professors and administrators would vigorously disagree with these statements. You should read the Amicus brief filed by former MIT president Chuck Vest, joined by Stanford president Hennessey, IBM, DuPont, the National Council of Science and the National Council of Engineering on behalf of the University of Michigan in their supreme court case a few years back. Here's a brief synopsis, but the brief itself makes some compelling points as well, and you can find that pretty easily. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/amicus.html The bottom line is that in many settings, diversity itself has intrinsic value. There is remarkeable agreement on this topic in academia. I'm not sure what it's like in the corporate world, but I do know that a number of companies fiercely fight to defend their diversity driven hiring practices.
1) You are aware that university professors are overwhelmingly liberal and thus not a representative sample 2) You are aware that bad PR and the threat of lawsuit taints the decision making process 3) As an economist, you should be FULLY aware of the labor market distortions that affirmative action creates.
Basing it only on wealth or not having it at all, would be fine if everyone got their education only from school. But that isn't the way people learn. School can be a partner in a child's education, but most of a person's education comes from their family. School is important, but it isn't the most important, and unless parents are a part of the education children can't get the most out of school. Linguistics studies show that it takes 4 generations to change the language pattern at home. That is an average, of course. But if you have 400 years of depriving people of a good education, and then all of a sudden the children are allowed to go to school, it doesn't make it equal. Their home life will still be surrounded with non-academic English, they won't get help on their homework, they may not have books to read at home, probably weren't read to as children, are shown the example of education as something important, taught by their parents in any kinds of academics etc. Standardized tests are against children without a certain background etc. For example the test may talk about little leaguers and how many there are on a team in a Math problem. Many of the students I teach have no idea what little league is. They can multiply 9 by 3 which the problem was asking, and could even apply it in real situations, but they test was written for students of a different background. These kinds of things are all over testing, and standardized curriculum. Then all of a sudden that child is expected to compete with a child whose family wasn't denied education for 400 years? The idea of AA was to get families educated as possible so that the base can be there for minorities who were denied that for so long. That doesn't take away the fact that the student still has to apply himself in order to learn and get ahead. All of that is still there.
Right, especially the commandants at West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs, etc, etc, etc, and various other military leaders who cited AA as vital to national security, an argument that proved persuasive to the Supreme Court, which upheld affirmative action as constitutionally permissible. Seriously, TJ, this is like me arguing why Kerry is better than Bush, two years from now. You lost. Grutter reigns. You and your fellow victims need to take it to Judge Joe Brown or something because the courts that matter have spoken.
1) Whether they are a representative sample or not is besides the point. Those people that understand how to run universities and have had experience in such endeavors are the people I'd want to ask if I had a question on how to run a university. At any rate, I don't think that the CEOs of IBM and DuPont (and any number of other large corporations that support using race in hiring decisions) are overwhelmingly liberal. And I'm not sure where you're going with this point. 2) Agreed 3) I don't disagree that there are labor market distortions to AA. However, in certain markets (such as the market for college education), there may be institutional market failure that needs to be corrected. The institutional underrepresentation of minorities leads to less diversity, and if diversity is intrinsically of value, then this underrepresentation yields a suboptimal outcome, and the market failure needs to be corrected. Using race as a factor in admissions is one way of correcting this market failure. Heads of universities certainly believe in the assertion that diversity has intrinsic value in the academic setting. I personally think AA is a program with a good heart and a bad head, and causes more harm than good. That said, I do believe that diversity is of value. I know that I have benefitted from exposure to others, and I know others have benefitted from exposure to me. In the instance of university admissions, I defer to heads of universities in making the decision whether or not to use race in their admissions decisions between two equally qualified candidates.
