Depressed about Matt Walsh

[umsami]

To create a diverse environment. In Stanford's case, they have clearly succeeded--34% white means 2 out of 3 people there are not white. But that means that fewer white kids today have the opportunity that I had to go to this fantastic school. I think you can be pro-diversity and still have hopes and dreams for your children or other fantastic students to have this opportunity (no one from our town seems to get in--except Division I level athletes). The sad thing is that they can't--there aren't enough spaces.

 

I know my kids will get a good college education somewhere. I know they have advantages, probably due more to the level of education of their parents rather than their race. I don't wish Stanford was less diverse. I just wish that particular opportunity was available to more people.

 

According to this, Stanford is 41% white…. 47% women….and 39% of students come from California.

http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/undergraduate-profile

 

Non-hispanic whites make up 38.8% of California's population…. Latinos make up 41%.  Yet Stanford still only has 14% of students identifying as Mexican/Chicano/Other Hispanic.  California still has the largest population of white residents of any state in the Union.  In 1970, however, they were closer to 78% of the population.

 

While the assumption is that Asians dominate, they make up 15% of California's population and 22% of Stanford undergrads.  Yes, a higher representation, but not huge. 

 

I get what you're saying though.  There is among many a sadness that they can't offer their kids the opportunities they had.  I get that. It's not just minorities in jobs/colleges, but also the whole global nature of the world.  Your (not you personally) son/daughter isn't necessarily competing with just American kids, but with kids from the former Soviet Union, China, and India.  Billions of people who weren't really in the competition pool before.  

 

I don't think we can afford college tuition where I went for four kids--or a similar priced school.  It would be over $150k/year when we have three kids in at the same time.   We are unlikely to get any financial aid.  It angers me that a lot of good schools have increased their tuition so greatly, in an effort to sell themselves to the students with lazy rivers and fancy dorm rooms, rather than focusing on academics and a more affordable cost.  But am I angry that many schools offer full rides to kids whose families incomes are lower than ours?  Nope. I'm happy for them.  I'm happy they get the opportunity.  Do I wish we could? Absolutely.  Do I sort of wish we had a situation like Canada or Egypt where DH was raised where higher education was more affordable? Absolutely.

 

In 1986 when I started school, Latinos made up 7.2% of the population of the U.S.  Today, it's more than double that.  In my lifetime, they will probably make up a majority of the United States.  America is "browning."  I think there will be a lot of people who will have trouble with this. I think that's one of the reasons some have freaked so much about Pres. Obama.  He's a sign of what the future holds---multiracial families/people/etc.  That's why people resort to stereotypes about him being an affirmative action president or Michelle being "moochelle"…assuming she's the First Lady equivalent of a welfare queen.  No matter that he graduated with honors from Harvard Law or that he was editor of the Law Review, he will still be the "community organizer."  His accomplishments, his previous elections are all swept under the rug.  Why?  Because it scares some to think that there are qualified minorities out there who will be competing with them. Similar to her accomplishments, her six figure salary pre-White House, etc.  It's much easier to dismiss him if you resort to stereotypes. It's much easier to feel "safe" if you think he was not really qualified.

 

I think American's diversity is awesome.  I think that the reason America became so great was because of our diversity.  Yet I know there are many who long for the good ol' days when we were a 80%+ white nation.  Sadly, I think race issues will get more and more heated.

 

 

(Sorry for the kind of rant that was not really directed at you. :))

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I just looked at Stanford's enrollment figures.

 

Of 1674 first year students, African Americans make up 97. 272 are Hispanic.  It isn't affirmative action taking slots away from white kids.

[BrookValley.]

Hmm, I'm going to say the one "getting hung on on the emotions" is the one who uses loaded language like "panty bunching."

 

I was truly questioning the logical fallacy of your statement "It just does" as an argument.

Loaded language? That's quite mild, by my standards. Lol. And no, I'm not hung on any emotions. I'm simply trying to point out that most people seem to get hung up on affirmative action without getting to any sort of meaningful discourse about the problems behind it. But I already explained that. In that post.

 

Ok, so you're saying white privilege doesn't exist? How so?

[AlmiraGulch]

I understand what you're saying.  But data is made up of data points, which in the case of affirmative action means PEOPLE - the very real personal experiences you mention.  Others on this thread (not just me) have pointed out there are real, negative outcomes for some people because of affirmative action.  We need to decide as a society if we want to raise the outcome for some members of the minority group, at the cost of both other members of that group and ALL members of the non-included group.

 

You mean like it was for so many years for women and racial minorities prior to affirmative action?

 

ETA:  I wish that organizations would approach diversity differently so that affirmative action would no longer be needed.  Like I said, there are ways to achieve diversity goals without government mandate.  That said, it can be a costly proposition.  Given sensitivities to cost, I would bet my last dollar that without watchdogs organizations and financial penalties,  it would be very, very easy for companies to back-burner these initiatives if they were no longer required to do them.  I'm involved in these discussion with client companies all the time.  We, as a society, are not as progressive as we like to think we are.  It would not go well.

 

[marbel]

Let me ask this.  If you stumbled across a post by -- let's say an Indian, about how white American are just terrible screwed up and awful, and you saw a whole bunch of Indians replying 'yes, yes they are, you're so right!', would you feel like the ethnicity of the original commentator and the responders was completely irrelevant?   

 

This is not to say in a conversation about the relative merits of the US, people from India are "not allowed" to comment or have an opinion.   Just that seeing an echo chamber of people from one group talking about another, and referring to that group as "they", can be uncomfortable.

 

I didn't say it wouldn't be relevant.  I said I thought that it would be considered offensive to list the race/ethnicity of the people involved if it were any group other than white people.   I probably should have said "by some people."  

 

Edited for clarity (I hope).

[poppy]

Some people who are white people think it's offensive to be called white people ?

 

Man, thin (white) skin.

 

Pretty sure that answer was just a joke.  I certainly hope so!

[Crimson Wife]

The two aren't the same though. I agree that class privilege also exists. it just doesn't negate white privilege.

I'm not talking about classism (though that certainly existed) but rather ethnic and religious discrimination. In the time frame we're talking about, anyone who was not a WASP faced discrimination because of being the "wrong" race, ethnicity, and/or religion. Some groups faced more serious discrimination than others, but lumping together all whites and claiming they were "privileged" is false. WASP's had privilege. Others faced prejudice and discrimination because of where their ancestors came from.

[Crimson Wife]

I think that's one of the reasons some have freaked so much about Pres. Obama.  He's a sign of what the future holds---multiracial families/people/etc.  That's why people resort to stereotypes about him being an affirmative action president or Michelle being "moochelle"…assuming she's the First Lady equivalent of a welfare queen.  No matter that he graduated with honors from Harvard Law or that he was editor of the Law Review, he will still be the "community organizer."  His accomplishments, his previous elections are all swept under the rug.  Why?  Because it scares some to think that there are qualified minorities out there who will be competing with them. Similar to her accomplishments, her six figure salary pre-White House, etc.  It's much easier to dismiss him if you resort to stereotypes. It's much easier to feel "safe" if you think he was not really qualified.

Pres. Obama has never released his academic records so we have no actual basis to judge his qualifications for Columbia and then Harvard Law School. It's pure speculation on everyone's part. If he released his records and it turns out he had a high GPA and test scores, that would go a long way towards shutting up the people questioning him.

 

I have no idea what his qualifications actually look like, but the fact that he refuses to release them certainly makes it look like he has something to hide.

[Crimson Wife]

Sure. So use that to empathize with others who experience discrimination now. It's not a competition.

Racism and ethnic discrimination are wrong. Whether that is in working against blacks and Hispanics or in favor of them. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Ali in OR]

Wait, so white students are a minority of the admissions, and that seems bad? Huh, funny to be on the other side of things.

That was my point--there is no "white privilege" in applying to Stanford.

 

If they are admitting MOSTLY minority students you can't blame that on AA. That's beyond what diversity requires, and seems to be based on merit. The very thing you were championing a few sentences ago. 

Merit is not valued over diversity. They often note that they could fill a class with only straight A students who get 1500 on the SAT. But they don't. They specifically build a very diverse class. That doesn't necessarily mean that only the most accomplished students get in. They want students who are first generation to go to college, they want those from disadvantaged backgrounds, they want people from different states and countries. They want a diversity of opinions there. All good things. My point is just that in this thread there is an assumption that white privilege dominates in our world today. Not so in some of the most desirable places to be--elite universities and large corporations (at least the high tech world which is what I am most familiar with). Maybe a generation ago. Maybe in some types of businesses or some parts of the country. But not everywhere.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Um, yeah. When the conversation cycles back to this point, the only thing to point out is that you don't yet understand white privilege. And the only thing to do is go learn about it. Then the conversation can resume.

 

^^^^This.

 

And again, the discrimination faced by Catholics/Irish/whatever was never as systematic or as enduring as what was faced by blacks in this country.  Anyone trying to compare the two is making quite the leap to do so.

[T'smom]

Pres. Obama has never released his academic records so we have no actual basis to judge his qualifications for Columbia and then Harvard Law School. It's pure speculation on everyone's part. If he released his records and it turns out he had a high GPA and test scores, that would go a long way towards shutting up the people questioning him.

 

I have no idea what his qualifications actually look like, but the fact that he refuses to release them certainly makes it look like he has something to hide.

Oh please. You can buy coffee mugs with his birth certificate printed on them but people are still squawking about that. Nothing would shut those people up.

[Ali in OR]

Should more consideration be given to a student because they are a legacy?

I just mentioned it because I think some people think that people who are already part of the establishment can make sure their kids get into their schools, get the right internships, get them jobs in their companies or their friends' companies--that this is part of "white privilege". And while there is a slight advantage to having parents who went to Stanford, it's not much of one. Most applicants whose parents went to Stanford will not get in.

 

I'm a little envious of people who can pass on their love of their school to their kids. It happens with the state schools here in Oregon--you're either a Duck fan (U of O) or a Beaver fan (OSU). Some families are all Duck, some all Beaver, some have a bit of intra-family rivalry--all in good fun. Many kids grow up wanting to go to the same school as their parents and they'll be able to do that. We try to share our love of Stanford with our girls--we all went to the Rose Bowl last year--but I very consciously don't try to build up their desire to go there. Sure you can apply, but recognize you probably won't get in. Don't set your heart on it. This doesn't really have anything to do with affirmative action or diversity goals. The major difficulty is that more and more people apply to Stanford every year. I think it was on the order of 15,000 applicants for 1600 spots back in the 80's when I applied. It was over 40,000 applicants this year and it's still only 1600 spots.

[zoobie]

Pres. Obama has never released his academic records so we have no actual basis to judge his qualifications for Columbia and then Harvard Law School. It's pure speculation on everyone's part. If he released his records and it turns out he had a high GPA and test scores, that would go a long way towards shutting up the people questioning him.

 

I have no idea what his qualifications actually look like, but the fact that he refuses to release them certainly makes it look like he has something to hide.

LOLZ. I mean, if you can't laugh, you'd cry.

[Slojo]

Ya know. Affirmative action can sometimes be a good thing, but then again, it can also be a bad thing. Is it any better to deny someone more or equally qualified, simply because they are white and not xyz race? I think historically there was a time when it was needed. Now I think it's become abused, and should be done away with. People should be judged, accepted, hired, etc on their own merits, not given credence to the color of their skin. I live in an area that used to be slightly more white than Mexican. Now, it's mostly Mexican, and the whites are in the minority. So maybe I should get special privileges because of that? NO! (and yes, Mexican, not Hispanic. My Mexican friends get pissed when you call them Hispanic!)

 

Affirmative action has dimensions of it that are imperfect because its a policy (like most social policies) intended to fix a social injustice that should not have existed in the first place. But indeed the discrimination, the bias, the disinvestment and the resultant gaps in outcomes still exist. The wealth gap between whites and blacks is widening, not shrinking; and our schools are about as segregated as they were in the 60s (with money, teacher quality, access to the most rigorous available curriculum, etc...). Resources for schools tend to vary along racial lines (not just economic lines).  Get rid of the policy, the conditions remain. If that's the case, I prefer to keep the policy.

 

But taking a step back from the policy, I really, honestly don't get the "most qualified" argument. I get that there are some people are are clearly not qualified, and some that are clearly worth consideration. But I don't get "most qualified" under the scenarios that people offer up. In most job situations (except for the most technical of jobs in which you are talking about maybe a few dozen people, not hundreds of people, who could possibly be qualified), "most qualified" feels pretty hard to judge (highly qualified, no, but the absolutely without any doubt "most qualified," rare that it comes to that - unless we did a poor job of recruiting candidates). Usually, it seems that you have a narrowed down pool of candidates and that there are a few individuals who could be good for the spot. "Most qualified" as if you could objectively line folks up hasn't worked for most interview searches I've been involved with -- this person brings slightly more technical expertise, but this one is better at networking, another has deeper ties with a client base we're hoping to grow... which one's the MOST qualified?  I don't know -- depends on what we are trying to balance given who's already on our team, how much money we have for new hires anyway, whose "voice" wins out on the final say, whether one was more extroverted/wore the right colors/was taller (there's research on these "so-not-about-being qualified" factors as well)...  There are a great many opportunities for which I'm pretty sure I'm in the running with others, all of whom bring their strengths. Sometimes I get the job, sometimes not - but not every decision (and I'd daresay most decisions) comes down to an unquestionably, "most qualified" individual.  

 

In competitive admissions, many admissions officers will admit that they are totally denying spots to students who would make great additions to their schools, but there just aren't enough spots. I'm sure Harvard could fill their freshmen classes with their B and C list students and have students just as stellar as the ones they let in. Under those circumstances, the decision is no longer about the "most qualified" -- they are trying to shape an entire class with there certainly being (a very high and hyper-competitive) floor to "qualified", but after that, just about all bets are off for all be the smallest fraction of really stellar students.  

 

In terms of "special privileges" (mentioned in the above post) because there are more Mexicans -- depends on if you could establish evidence of a pattern of discrimination against white applicants. Affirmative action isn't about being in the numerical minority, it's about patterns of discrimination and remedies to address those. Generally, the national data doesn't seem to support widespread discrimination against white applicants, even if it seems that way when you see more of one ethnic group moving in. On that note, there's also interesting studies looking at individuals' ability to judge whether people of color actually constitute a majority -- some studies suggest that 30% actual people of color is about the point at which most people will incorrectly judge a picture of a crowd to be majority people of color.  That inability to accurately assess the actual numbers I can only imagine colors the way people "see" all kinds of things - including policies like affirmative action.

 

What if it's not about race?   What if there are other risk factors at play, factors like growing up in poverty, low educational achievement by the child's parents, being raised by a single parent, poor quality schools, no (or limited) access to tutoring or enrichment, few role models in the young person's immediate community, etc.   When we control for all these factors, how do students really compare?

 

Ah, but it's more complex than that. A bit chicken and egg in some ways. Is it poverty or race in situations where race and poverty are intertwined? And, though there's not a lot out there, there are some studies that do control for those things - essentially studies looking at middle class African Americans -- and, yes, race still plays a role for them, too (money helps, but doesn't fully buffer against the effect of racism, and in some cases, money provides no "protection" at all). Some of the most fascinating research is actually in the area of health outcomes. Some of the most personally troubling research for me as a black woman is the research on birth outcomes for black women -- essentially income, educational status, the presence of prenatal care,  prior health status, and health insurance status don't budge the outcomes. Black women regardless of status consistently have the worse outcomes of all women, and poor black women and wealthy black women have virtually the same odds with regard to birth outcomes. Usually higher education and income predict better birth outcomes -- doesn't do a darn thing for black women and their babies. Anyway, my point is that there are so many things that are hard to separate out from race. It's not "was race a factor" but "how was race a factor" - sometimes it's additive, sometimes it multiplies, sometimes subtracts, and sometimes divides. And sometimes the effect is big and sometimes so small that you could ignore it. You don't always know what "math problem" you're dealing with, but in these population-level social factors, race has been and continues to be at play to lesser or greater degree. 

 

 

What is a "white name?"  I've never heard of that before.  I know plenty of people have ethnic names, but not everyone.  What qualifies as a white name?

 

This comes from a study - several at this point - providing resumes to employers that were exactly the same except for a change of name, typically the first name. It's pretty hard to find someone who has lived 5 years in America that would look at Tenisha Jenkins or Tyrone Washington, and not think "they're black." Well, long story sort -- "exact same resume-carrying" Tenisha and Tyrone didn't get an interview while the Tylers, Taylors and Thomases did. The original study was actually looking at the effect of having a criminal record on interview rates - found that applications/resumes with an indication of a criminal record that had a "white-sounding" name got higher call back rates than "black sounding names" without the criminal record. I've been in more than one conversation with other African Americans about the whole "ethnic naming issue" and whether one should go with a less "racially conspicuous" name (there was even an article in the NY Times about it). On that note, I kind of land on the side of "you know, it takes precious little for people who have that bias to find a reason not to hire you, so name your kid what you want to name them." And, in fact, if you are one of the 165,000 people with the last name Washington - well, you're out of luck anyway. 90% of people with the last name Washington are African American, and again, the research suggests that employers have a bias against that last name, presumably because they know that Washington is an extremely common surname for African Americans (even if they don't quite know its 90%). What to do then? 

 

It's also the reason why I don't give much credence to "they just hired me because I'm black" - maybe they did (though I must say I have yet to send in an application that had nothing that a picture of my face with no attached resume or summary of qualifications, but hey maybe I'll try it on my next job search for kicks - I've always wanted to be a CEO and I hear they are looking for black women to run major corporations ;-) Any way, you know, if people have that bias, there is precious little evidence they need to believe whole hog that that was the reason I was hired. Not my problem. Doesn't take away from my fabulousness ;-). So I kind of think that line of argument is a bunch of bull. But that's my experience -- sometimes people pin it on affirmative action when they didn't want to understand (as the rejected applicant) or explain (as the potential employer) the more complex decision making that was at play (or the interviewer didn't want to hurt feelings -- affirmative action makes for an easy target on which to pin blame. "Affirmative action made me do it. ;-)").

 

- Slojo

[Mom in High Heels]

I don't see why race/sex has to play a role in getting into college.  Why do kids even have to check off an ethnicity?  What about mixed race kids?  What do they check off?  If they are a mix of black and white, is it fair that they can choose to select black so they fall under AA?  I get that some names are quite ethnic, but perhaps they should all just be assigned a number for the application review process.  I know a family whose last name is Rodriguez.  They are about as hispanic as sauerkraut, but because a male ancestor several generations back came from Mexico, and they happen to have a hispanic last name, should they be given AA treatment?  Interestingly, they all identify themselves as coming from an Irish background, as they have loads of Irish ancestors on both sides, but they still ended up with the hispanic last name.

[Slojo]

Pres. Obama has never released his academic records so we have no actual basis to judge his qualifications for Columbia and then Harvard Law School. It's pure speculation on everyone's part. If he released his records and it turns out he had a high GPA and test scores, that would go a long way towards shutting up the people questioning him.

 

I have no idea what his qualifications actually look like, but the fact that he refuses to release them certainly makes it look like he has something to hide.

 

No other sitting President has had to deal with this kind of insult. I have no memory of any other President being asked to produce their college transcript.  I'm sorry, I have a job that is a far cry from being the President of the United States, but I'd say that a few years post-college I stopped putting my GPA on resumes (they don't even care what college I went to because - I don't know - there's other ways of verifying my professional track record), and I've certainly never produced a full transcript. Young people with no job experience show their academic records to get a foot in the door, grown people with decades of experience don't. It's an insult (and micro-aggression) to even ask: "How can I be sure you are qualified?"  Give me a break. There might be reasons he wouldn't be qualified, but going back to 20+ year old Harvard and Columbia transcripts is ridiculous.

 

He should refuse. At this stage in my career and for the job categories for which I am now qualified at the age of 42, I consider that insulting. If you don't want me for the job, don't hire me, but let's not bring in some "fake" assessment of my lack of qualifications for because I got a B- in statistics (actually I got an A in statistics, but who's counting ; -).

 

Some people are just upset the "other guy" won. I was upset too when my candidate lost (for about a day - okay, a week, but I'm mildly partisan ;-)), but never once did I want to see his college, high school, or elementary transcript OR see it as remotely legitimate evidence disqualifying him for the presidency.

 

Unless you are going to apply that criteria to every individual you vote for, with whom you enter a contractual agreement, vote for, or whose professional services you use, just stop. See how far it gets you to demand to see the transcripts of all those people before you deem them legit. There's much easier and effective ways to do so.  It's really disrespectful and offensive at a basic level. 

[Free]

That was a brilliant post Slojo. I especially agree with your point about there being no such thing as an absolute standard for "most qualified".

[Free]

I don't see why race/sex has to play a role in getting into college.  Why do kids even have to check off an ethnicity?

If we care about diversity (and right thinking people should), if we care about higher representation for minorities and women, if we care about providing greater opportunities to the traditionally oppressed, then we should most definitely start with college admissions.

 

We do not live in a post-feminist, post-racial world. Race and gender absolutely do play a role in the opportunities people get. Race and gender also play a role in upbringing, in networks, in experiences one is exposed to right from childhood. Affirmative Action is simply a way to counter the bias that is already present in society.

[Mom in High Heels]

If we care about diversity (and right thinking people should), if we care about higher representation for minorities and women, if we care about providing greater opportunities to the traditionally oppressed, then we should most definitely start with college admissions.

 

We do not live in a post-feminist, post-racial world. Race and gender absolutely do play a role in the opportunities people get. Race and gender also play a role in upbringing, in networks, in experiences one is exposed to right from childhood. Affirmative Action is simply a way to counter the bias that is already present in society.

 

I get that, BUT shouldn't things be based on merit and not race/sex?  Isn't that part of what AA is about?  Okay, here's a scenario:

 

6 college applicants, 3 slots available.  

 

1-white male, gpa 4.0, multiple awards, multiple outside activities, meets all requirements for entry

 

2-white female gpa 4.0 no awards, some outside activities, meets some requirements for entry

 

3-black male-gpa 4.0, multiple awards, some outside activities, meets most requirements for entry

 

4-black female-gpa 4.0, few awards, no outside activities meets few requirements for entry

 

5-asian male-gpa 4.0, multiple awards, multiple outside activities, meets all requirements for entry

 

6-asian female-gpa 4.0, multiple awards, no outside activities, meets some requirements for entry

 

 

We know nothing about their background, family, social status or wealth (or lack thereof).  Who gets the slots?  Why?  

To me it would seem that 1 and 5 clearly should get in, with 3 getting the 3rd slot.  Now, these are all male, with number 1 being white.  None of the female were selected, but not because they were female, but because the males were more qualified.  Sex shouldn't have anything to do with it.  The white male could come from the poorest background and have the least amount of contacts, but should he be passed over because he's white?  Should the black male be passed over for the black female, simple because he's male?

 

 

I'm not saying there isn't a racial bias, but in selecting applicants for a school, job, promotion, whatever, the most qualified person should get it, despite race/sex/religion, etc.

[Mom in High Heels]

There are systemic barriers in the way of those who do not have privilege, impacting, in your example, on outside activities and other requirements.

 

Maybe candidate 1 has the fastest time. He's the winner, right ? But maybe he had a head start, fewer hurdles, a choice of lane.

 

Candidate 4 looks like she has the slowest time. Maybe she started back from the rest of the field ? Perhaps she ran a race with extra hurdles ? Was she allocated the toughest lane ? Maybe considering the race she actually ran in the time she did means that she's the winner ?

 

Candidate 1 might be pissed if he doesn't get the blue ribbon. "I crossed first!"

 

Maybe if he understands that part of the reason he crossed first is because he had unearned privilege - let's call it the wind at his back - and the other candidates did not, he can see that we need to do something to compensate for that unearned privilege.

 

Taking away a factor that you didn't earn - or rather, compensating others for it -  isn't really taking away something that's yours, kwim ?

 

So, because he's a white male, he automatically has unearned privileges?  Did you miss the part I quoted below?

 

The white male could come from the poorest background and have the least amount of contacts, but should he be passed over because he's white?  Should the black male be passed over for the black female, simple because he's male?

 

 

The thing is, just by looking at their race, you CAN'T know their background.  What if the black female, who has no awards, and no outside activities, and meets few admission requirements comes from the more privileged background, but just didn't do that much, because she felt she didn't need to, or simply didn't want to?  Maybe her gpa was helped along by tutors, because her parents could afford it, where the males all had to struggle and work hard on their own to keep a high gpa. Should she get a slot over the white, asian or black male, simply because she's a female and black?   You can't automatically look at a white male and say, "Oh, well, he clearly has had more opportunities/unearned privileges than the others."  There are plenty of poor white people in the US who are working to try to better themselves too.  They shouldn't be automatically discounted simply because they are white, just as no one else should automatically be discounted because they're black/asian/hispanic/whatever.   What if a school decides they have too many hispanic students and wants to diversify by adding more black or asian students?  Is that fair to the other hispanic kids who apply?  Should they just be told, "Sorry, we have too many hispanics, so even though you're incredibly qualified, more so than many of the other applicants, we can't admit you," and just be happy with that?

 

 

FWIW, I do understand the reason behind affirmative action, but like many others have stated, I don't like the way it's set up.  I don't know what the answer is, but discriminating against anyone, based on race is wrong.   Race should not play a factor.  

[Free]

I'm not saying there isn't a racial bias, but in selecting applicants for a school, job, promotion, whatever, the most qualified person should get it, despite race/sex/religion, etc.

 

The problem with the "most qualified person" argument, is the underlying assumption that all candidates have had a level playing field.

 

That is where I fundamentally disagree with Meritocracy. Meritocracy often completely disregards the challenges a person has had to face to get to the top. Meritocracy also assumes that only people who are meritorious or "deserving" get to the top even when we have studies and examples that show there are a number of other factors that can and do grant advantages - wealth, status, looks, confidence, networks and so on.

 

There is another problem with the "most qualified person" argument. When systems currently in place (schools, educational systems, health care, wealth distribution, societal attitudes, etc.) continue to put minorities and women at a disadvantage, the number of people breaking ranks and rising to the top of a merit list are going to be fewer than other groups which do not face such challenges. Continuing with a "only Meritocracy" policy in the face of such reality is a form of discrimination in itself, because it ensures that the existing power structures will not be challenged.

[Free]

The thing is, just by looking at their race, you CAN'T know their background. 

 

This is a strawman argument. Neither College Admissions officers nor Corporate Hiring Managers select people just by looking at their race.

 

Race should not play a factor.  

 

Race is just one of the factors that goes into the selection process. And it exists as a factor for very good reasons - reasons which have not yet been eliminated in modern society. Eliminating race as a factor, will only worsen the existing inequalities that exist in education and wealth.

 

What if the black female, who has no awards, and no outside activities, and meets few admission requirements comes from the more privileged background, but just didn't do that much, because she felt she didn't need to, or simply didn't want to?  Maybe her gpa was helped along by tutors, because her parents could afford it, where the males all had to struggle and work hard on their own to keep a high gpa. Should she get a slot over the white, asian or black male, simply because she's a female and black?

 

Now this example is just a re-framing of the classic moocher argument that is used to scare people into believing that there are hordes of lazy people out there waiting to take your money, jobs, food, healthcare, education, and whatever else they can lay their hands on. That people are poor because they are lazy and if only they worked harder a world of opportunities would open up for them.

 

I would rather have a few "lazy" people slip through the cracks if it means more balance in society.

[ktgrok]

I'm not talking about classism (though that certainly existed) but rather ethnic and religious discrimination. In the time frame we're talking about, anyone who was not a WASP faced discrimination because of being the "wrong" race, ethnicity, and/or religion. Some groups faced more serious discrimination than others, but lumping together all whites and claiming they were "privileged" is false. WASP's had privilege. Others faced prejudice and discrimination because of where their ancestors came from.

 

I'd say that being able to use the freaking water fountain, or sit at the counter in a restaurant, where others couldn't, was still privileged!  Yes, they were persecuted too, but not to the same degree, not at all. and Using the term white privilege doesn't mean that no one else was ever discriminated against. Heck, women have only had the right to vote for a short time, they have their own oppression issues, but that doesn't mean that in general the term white privilege is still accurate. 

[ktgrok]

That was a brilliant post Slojo. I especially agree with your point about there being no such thing as an absolute standard for "most qualified".

Seriously!

 

Slojo, it says you are just visiting, but I'd love you to stick around! You are a breath of fresh air!

 

Fess up, you listen to NPR, don't you? (inside joke...but I still bet you do.)

[umsami]

Pres. Obama has never released his academic records so we have no actual basis to judge his qualifications for Columbia and then Harvard Law School. It's pure speculation on everyone's part. If he released his records and it turns out he had a high GPA and test scores, that would go a long way towards shutting up the people questioning him.

 

I have no idea what his qualifications actually look like, but the fact that he refuses to release them certainly makes it look like he has something to hide.

 

Actually, you don't even need his transcripts. You know he went to the Punahou School, which is one of the preeminent boarding/college prep schools in Hawaii.  That should be enough, really.  The fact that a kid from an extremely competitive academic school ends up in Columbia is not a shock.  

 

(This was the year Pres. Obama graduated)…. "In a recent study of the class of 1979,^[31] 8 graduates had earned degrees from Harvard, 3 had degrees from Princeton, 1 from Yale, 14 from Stanford, 17 from UC Berkeley, and 26 (total) from Ivy League schools.^[32] 15 had a PhD, 22 had an MD, 39 had a JD, 18 had the MBA, 10 had the DDS, DMD, DVM, or ND (about one quarter of the class reaching terminal degrees)."

 

"The class of 2012 had 30 of the state's 70 National Merit Semifinalists.^[34] The class of 2013 had twenty semifinalists, and five of the state's ten National Merit Scholars.^[35][36]

Punahou's 30 Presidential Scholars were graduates of the classes of '64, '66, '70, '71, '75, '78 (two members), '79, '82, '84 (two members), '85, '86 (two members), '91, '92 (two members), '93, '95, '96, '98, '01, '02, '04 (three members), '05, '06, '08, and '11.^[37][38]"

 

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punahou_School}

 

Based on that, it should not be shocking that he went to Columbia or Harvard.  The only reason you suspect it is because of his race.  The fact that he performed extremely well at Harvard Law, enough to graduate magna cum laude and be elected President of the Harvard Law Review would be enough for any other candidate with a different skin tone.  The fact that he had international living experience to bolster his essay and experience would also play a factor.

 

Let's also remember that his father graduated in three years from the University of Hawaii and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.  His Dad also got his master's at Harvard, in the pre-affirmative action days.  I'm going to bet that Harvard wasn't falling over itself to admit black men back then…especially those that were not qualified.  

 

Wait, I know, you also think he was born in Kenya too.  Right?

[solascriptura]

Pres. Obama has never released his academic records so we have no actual basis to judge his qualifications for Columbia and then Harvard Law School. It's pure speculation on everyone's part. If he released his records and it turns out he had a high GPA and test scores, that would go a long way towards shutting up the people questioning him.

 

I have no idea what his qualifications actually look like, but the fact that he refuses to release them certainly makes it look like he has something to hide.

Have the academic records of every other white president ever been in question? I am not a fan of Obama, but I still can't figure out why everyone still picks on him about these issues. I can only conclude it is because of his race.

[Lady Florida.]

^^^^This.

 

And again, the discrimination faced by Catholics/Irish/whatever was never as systematic or as enduring as what was faced by blacks in this country.  Anyone trying to compare the two is making quite the leap to do so.

 

Especially enduring. Discrimination didn't last as it has for non-whites. My great grandparents came through Ellis Island and I know from family stories that they experienced discrimination for being "greasy Italians". Three generations later I experience virtually no discrimination due to my being of Italian heritage. Can we say that of people who don't have white skin?

[poppy]

Have the academic records of every other white president ever been in question? I am not a fan of Obama, but I still can't figure out why everyone still picks on him about these issues. I can only conclude it is because of his race.

 

Remember Bush's "gentleman's C" at Yale? And how he got into the Ivy League entirely due to his race and family connections?? And how if detractors pointed these things out, his supporters scoffed that the idea that college grades should be used as a measure of leadership skills for an established adult professional?

 

I do!

[DawnM]

This is how I feel too.

 

One of my friends insists that "all those illegals get a free ride to school and we have to pay because we are white."

 

I have tried to explain to her that in every aspect of her presupposition, she is flawed, but she doesn't even listen, just keeps saying it over and over.

 

We make too much for aid, but not enough to write a check.  It is frustrating, but it is what it is.  

 

 

.  But am I angry that many schools offer full rides to kids whose families incomes are lower than ours?  Nope. I'm happy for them.  I'm happy they get the opportunity.  Do I wish we could? Absolutely.  Do I sort of wish we had a situation like Canada or Egypt where DH was raised where higher education was more affordable? Absolutely.

 

 

 

[shage]

Not sure if this will contribute much to the discussion....

 

I work a professional job part time that is very people oriented.  The practice that hired me:  I am currently the only native born, Caucasian person.  This is mostly because I live in a very diverse part of the country.  It is also because the job demands that we have a high degree of cultural fluency and be able to move "between worlds" very quickly.  I was interviewed several times, and mostly what they were watching, in addition to technical skills, was ability simply to be comfortable no matter who was in the room.  And, they later told me, how curious I was about the various people--eg ability to get the interviewers talking as opposed to simply answering questions about myself. (They were also interested in the fact that I was raised in 3 countries.)

 

Three months after starting, I was asked to be one of the interviewers as they were deciding which interns to bring on board.

 

Guess what? 

 

The minority and immigrant candidates typically have many of these social skills without even being aware of it.  As do highly academic adults raised in the foster care system. 

 

Being a certain skin color does not mean a person can or cannot move between worlds and relate to a wide variety of people.  But certain skin colors in our country do sort of force people to get savvy in ways that might be part of the job skill set.

 

Just another perspective.

 

[flyingiguana]

 

 

"It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller."

 

 

But when I look at that list of names, what I see is class differences, not race.  I'm not actually convinced that that study is answering the question it set out to answer.

 

There are plenty of people who are not white who have "white" names (at least as defined by this study).  And one would expect the people looking at these applications to be well aware of that fact.  So the alternative hypothesis, that call backs were solely influenced by the perception of class, really can't be separated from the hypothesis that race is influencing call backs.

 

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to get around this difficulty in designing a study like this.

[flyingiguana]

Neil deGrasse Tyson speaking about gender and racial inequalities in science. Video jumps to relevant clip at the Q&A session at the end (last couple minutes). It's good.

 

While I thought what he had to say was worth listening to, I also found how he did it to be pretty telling.

 

It's a question that I suspect was directed to the woman on the panel  (I can't tell for sure because videos are loading badly and skipping for me right now).  But he jumps up and starts answering it -- does he interrupt her?

 

And then he spends much of his time with his expansive arms in front of the woman's face.

 

He didn't even see how he was filling all the stereotypes about men taking over and not letting women speak.

 

Maybe they aren't just stereotypes?

[poppy]

But when I look at that list of names, what I see is class differences, not race. I'm not actually convinced that that study is answering the question it set out to answer.

 

There are plenty of people who are not white who have "white" names (at least as defined by this study). And one would expect the people looking at these applications to be well aware of that fact. So the alternative hypothesis, that call backs were solely influenced by the perception of class, really can't be separated from the hypothesis that race is influencing call backs.

 

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to get around this difficulty in designing a study like this.

Class not race? Could you please explain because I don't see that at all.

[Aspasia]

I think for the most part it is still needed. Should it be perhaps based on economic class over race? Perhaps--or at least that should play a part.

 

Thing is, there are still major issues regarding race in this country--look at all the comments about our Columbia and Harvard law school educated President and his Princeton and Harvard law educated wife. Even though Clinton was from a poor background, it was never assumed that he did not deserve to be at Georgetown or at Yale law school.

 

Look at the recent studies even on access to professors regarding race and sex. http://www.thewire.com/culture/2014/04/professors-are-less-likely-to-mentor-female-and-minority-students-especially-in-business-school/361047/

 

Most universities are still woefully lacking in African-American students, especially African-American males--and yes, diversity is an important part of college…seeing educated Black men does matter, especially as our country has the horrible distinction of having more Black men in prison than in college.

 

I wish we were living in a post-racial society, but we're not. Look at the make-up of C-level executives of major corporations. Heck. look at our percentage of women and minority Reps and Senators, look at the make-up in investment banking and finance. We're not doing as well as we think we are. We're still, in large part, a country run by white men.

I agree with affirmative action based on economic class. I think it's necessary. But assuming that someone is disadvantaged simply because he's black is as racist as assuming he's a criminal simply because he's black. There are lots of black kids who grow up in privileged circumstances. They shouldn't be receiving admissions or hiring preference over equally qualified white kids, especially equally qualified white kids from truly disadvantaged backgrounds (those kids exist all over the place).

[umsami]

I agree with affirmative action based on economic class. I think it's necessary. But assuming that someone is disadvantaged simply because he's black is as racist as assuming he's a criminal simply because he's black. There are lots of black kids who grow up in privileged circumstances. They shouldn't be receiving admissions or hiring preference over equally qualified white kids, especially equally qualified white kids from truly disadvantaged backgrounds (those kids exist all over the place).

 

But they do.  Based on name.  Based on race.  Based on access to professors.  Doesn't matter if they were well off.  Look at the previous studies I posted, as well as the articles about being profiled in my own driveway. Being wealthy and black is not the same as being wealthy and white.  Wealthy blacks are still likely to be profiled.  Their blackness trumps all else.  Black physicians, attorneys, and scientists can all tell you this.  

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/25/nation/na-racial-profiling25

 

"Like Henry Louis Gates Jr., they are professionals, men of status and achievement who have excelled in a nation that once shunned black men.

And for many of them, their only shock -- upon learning of the celebrated scholar's recent run-in with police -- was the moment of recognition.

They know too well the pivotal moment Gates faced at his Massachusetts home. It was that moment of suspicion when confronted by police, the moment one wonders, in a flash of panic, anger or confusion: Maybe I am being treated this way because I'm black.

Next comes the pivotal question: Do I protest or just take it?

Kwame Dunston says he has made the calculated choice to take it -- repeatedly. The public school administrator says he has been pulled over more than 20 times in the last decade, but has rarely been issued a ticket. What factor other than race, he wondered, would account for all of those stops?

"It's more important for me to make it home than to fight for a cause I'm not going to win," he said."

[Dana]

While I thought what he had to say was worth listening to, I also found how he did it to be pretty telling.

 

It's a question that I suspect was directed to the woman on the panel (I can't tell for sure because videos are loading badly and skipping for me right now). But he jumps up and starts answering it -- does he interrupt her?

 

And then he spends much of his time with his expansive arms in front of the woman's face.

 

He didn't even see how he was filling all the stereotypes about men taking over and not letting women speak.

 

Maybe they aren't just stereotypes?

He talks with his hands a lot. Almost swatted Dawkins a couple of times earlier in the session.

The woman on the panel is Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's wife.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

.

[umsami]

But I think sometimes, people also are too sensitive and blame everything on racism. Being pulled over a lot happens to all kinds of people.

 

I had a friend who went on and on about racism today, and one of her "rants" was that black men can't get a cab in DC. Well, ever since then (we live near DC) I have paid attention in DC. I have not ONE TIME seen a white cab driver- not once. Once, during cherry blossom festival I was waiting on a friend to come pick me up (tons of traffic) and I watched and counted the cabs- around 60 of them passed me, and the drivers were ALL black. Lots of Indian/Middle Esstern looking drivers- I still have not seen a single white cab driver here. I'm sure they exist, they have to right? But they can't possibly exist in such a high number that they are solely responsible for black

men not being able to catch a cab!

 

I caught a cab in DC last year and chatted with the guy- he was from Ethiopia. He was very nice. But before he stopped to pick me up, several cabs just flew by me. Should I blame that on racism? Or maybe they just had somewhere else to be....

 

And yet I consistently hear about how "black men can't get a cab in DC". Well, if they can't, (which I doubt) it's not because of white people.

 

 

 

Just because the cab drivers are not white does not mean that it's not racism at play.  Just because the cab drivers are Indian or Middle Eastern does not mean that they do not discriminate against black men.  You're assuming that all non-White people see each other as equal, not true.  (Also, on a side note, Arabs are classified as white.)  There is black on black discrimination regarding skin tone. Lightening creams are popular in India and the Middle East. There has been a big discussion in the Muslim community about racism that exists among Muslims regarding black Muslims.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/wusa9-taxi-discrimination-video_n_3326228.html

 

"A WUSA9 undercover investigation -- see a video about the investigation above -- found D.C. taxis 25 percent less likely to pick up a black passenger than a white passenger"

 

​Oh…and I've been pulled over once in 25+ years of driving.  I was at fault when I did get pulled over, but was given a warning.  I drive all the time.  I'm white.  I would find it weird/troubling to have been pulled over as many times as you.  I can also tell you that it's not the norm for my peer group to be pulled over.

[poppy]

*I* have been pulled over way more than 20 times in the last decade- I've already been pulled over 5 times this year, lol!!!

 

I have only gotten warnings. And I'm a white female, usually with kids in the car.

 

I know plenty of white people who get pulled over on a consistent basis- it just happens. Cops need to fill quotas and someone always draws the short straw, you know?

 

I agree slightly with both sides down the line, because I have lived in many places and was raised in the south, now in the "North"; and in general, I have just always had a diverse, I dunno, entourage?

 

I was called a whore and ostracized for merely dating a black guy. I saw this guys cousin get jumped and beaten with metal poles just because he was dating a white girl.

 

But I think sometimes, people also are too sensitive and blame everything on racism. Being pulled over a lot happens to all kinds of people.

 

I had a friend who went on and on about racism today, and one of her "rants" was that black men can't get a cab in DC. Well, ever since then (we live near DC) I have paid attention in DC. I have not ONE TIME seen a white cab driver- not once. Once, during cherry blossom festival I was waiting on a friend to come pick me up (tons of traffic) and I watched and counted the cabs- around 60 of them passed me, and the drivers were ALL black. Lots of Indian/Middle Esstern looking drivers- I still have not seen a single white cab driver here. I'm sure they exist, they have to right? But they can't possibly exist in such a high number that they are solely responsible for black

men not being able to catch a cab!

 

I caught a cab in DC last year and chatted with the guy- he was from Ethiopia. He was very nice. But before he stopped to pick me up, several cabs just flew by me. Should I blame that on racism? Or maybe they just had somewhere else to be....

 

And yet I consistently hear about how "black men can't get a cab in DC". Well, if they can't, (which I doubt) it's not because of white people.

 

This probably doesn't add anything to the convo- sorry- I have just been following along and learning, gaining perspective, etc. So many great points on this thread :)

 

But I think things like the quote above just drag things a bit too far on the other side of the extreme. On one extreme, there is calling all poor people lazy and assuming all Hispanics are illegals, and requesting the presidents transcripts. On the OTHER extreme, there is calling out racism every single time one gets pulled over, or can't get a cab.

I suggest you drive slower , getting pulled over 20 times in 10 years is not normal. I don't think. Might be worth a poll. I've been pulled over twice in 15 years, same with my husband. We are white, it's always a warning ( and we were guilty both times....)

[marbel]

Have the academic records of every other white president ever been in question? I am not a fan of Obama, but I still can't figure out why everyone still picks on him about these issues. I can only conclude it is because of his race.

 

I think that is one of the points are trying to make here:   AA casts a shadow of doubt over people's qualifications.  I'm not saying it's right,  just that it's a consequence.  Many people here have suggested that AA is flawed, and that's one reason why.

 

IIRC GW Bush's qualifications were questioned too.    Most likely some of the same people who are rolling their eyes at those who are questioning President Obama's qualifications are people who questioned President Bush's.    (I don't mean here on this board, just in general.) 

[AlmiraGulch]

I get that, BUT shouldn't things be based on merit and not race/sex?  Isn't that part of what AA is about?  Okay, here's a scenario:

 

6 college applicants, 3 slots available.  

 

1-white male, gpa 4.0, multiple awards, multiple outside activities, meets all requirements for entry

 

2-white female gpa 4.0 no awards, some outside activities, meets some requirements for entry

 

3-black male-gpa 4.0, multiple awards, some outside activities, meets most requirements for entry

 

4-black female-gpa 4.0, few awards, no outside activities meets few requirements for entry

 

5-asian male-gpa 4.0, multiple awards, multiple outside activities, meets all requirements for entry

 

6-asian female-gpa 4.0, multiple awards, no outside activities, meets some requirements for entry

 

 

We know nothing about their background, family, social status or wealth (or lack thereof).  Who gets the slots?  Why?  

To me it would seem that 1 and 5 clearly should get in, with 3 getting the 3rd slot.  Now, these are all male, with number 1 being white.  None of the female were selected, but not because they were female, but because the males were more qualified.  Sex shouldn't have anything to do with it.  The white male could come from the poorest background and have the least amount of contacts, but should he be passed over because he's white?  Should the black male be passed over for the black female, simple because he's male?

 

 

I'm not saying there isn't a racial bias, but in selecting applicants for a school, job, promotion, whatever, the most qualified person should get it, despite race/sex/religion, etc.

 

A university wants more from its student body than just those with the highest GPA or test scores, or even outside activities.  Diversity of race, gender, socio-economic status, religion, thought, life experience....all of these play a role.

 

The more diverse your candidate pool, and the more broad your acceptance standards, the better the chance of achieving a better whole.

 

I'm not saying that someone who does not meet minimum academic standards should not be admitted. The more competitive the school, the more rigorous the requirements should be.  But there are more to the requirements than test scores and gpa.

[poppy]

I think that is one of the points are trying to make here:   AA casts a shadow of doubt over people's qualifications.  I'm not saying it's right,  just that it's a consequence.  Many people here have suggested that AA is flawed, and that's one reason why.

 

IIRC GW Bush's qualifications were questioned too.    Most likely some of the same people who are rolling their eyes at those who are questioning President Obama's qualifications are people who questioned President Bush's.    (I don't mean here on this board, just in general.) 

 

This was kind of Matt Walsh's point.  That AA is terrible because it casts that shadow of doubt. Thing is, if you don't assume every person of color or woman that you see is under qualified, you don't' have that problem. Easy solution.

 

I think everyone running for President has his qualifications questioned, and rightly so. But not all questions are reasonable.  DUI arrest records and military records that the press sues for access for is one thing. 'Is this constitutional law professor with the Harvard degree academically incompetent because he's black' is something else, I think.

[marbel]

This was kind of Matt Walsh's point.  That AA is terrible because it casts that shadow of doubt. Thing is, if you don't assume every person of color or woman that you see is under qualified, you don't' have that problem. Easy solution.

 

I think everyone running for President has his qualifications questioned, and rightly so. But not all questions are reasonable.  DUI arrest records and military records that the press sues for access for is one thing. 'Is this constitutional law professor with the Harvard degree academically incompetent because he's black' is something else, I think.

 

Maybe people have had experiences that confirm their doubts.  Have you ever worked with people who were incompetent and clearly unqualified for their job, so that you wondered how they ever got it, or got promoted to it?  I have and I remember the "nickname" for such people, white people included:  "Affirmative action hire."   And it wasn't only white people using the term.   (This was in the '80's and '90's which is when I was last engaged in corporate life.  It was a competitive atmosphere and as I said upthread, people were valued for their work ethic and ability to contribute, nothing more or less.)    

 

Again, I am not saying it's right.  But that is a consequence.   If the policy/program (whatever is the right term) is viewed as a bad joke by many people, including some of the people it's supposed to help, could it be time to change it?   Can you see that people of goodwill are going to disagree on this and that just calling them out as racists doesn't help?    

[poppy]

Maybe people have had experiences that confirm their doubts.  Have you ever worked with people who were incompetent and clearly unqualified for their job, so that you wondered how they ever got it, or got promoted to it?  I have and I remember the "nickname" for such people, white people included:  "Affirmative action hire."   And it wasn't only white people using the term.   (This was in the '80's and '90's which is when I was last engaged in corporate life.  It was a competitive atmosphere and as I said upthread, people were valued for their work ethic and ability to contribute, nothing more or less.)    

 

Again, I am not saying it's right.  But that is a consequence.   If the policy/program (whatever is the right term) is viewed as a bad joke by many people, including some of the people it's supposed to help, could it be time to change it?   Can you see that people of goodwill are going to disagree on this and that just calling them out as racists doesn't help?    

 

This presumes that everyone, or nearly everyone, was competent prior to - say- the 1980s.  Which is pretty laughable.  And that more women and  minority are incompetent, proportionally, than whites. 

 

I honestly think these people who find a way to dismiss people of color professionally would probably not be the most respectful if, say, there was no racial consideration given to college admission.   I don't think calling out racism helps those change their minds, but, I honestly and truly do not know what would.  And pointing it out might just help give some perspective to more reasonable people who just hadn't thought much about this before.

 

[DawnM]

Huh, AA hire has never crossed my mind, nor have I heard it when in reference to incompetent workers.

 

What we DID say under our breath was that they must have known someone because there could be no way he/she was hired on their merit.

 

I always assume it is who you know, not what you know that gets you ahead many times.

 

The ONLY time AA affected me was in my first job hire.  The person in front of me was of another race and she was offered a school in a more affluent area while I was told there were no jobs there.  What they meant was that there were no jobs there FOR ME.  But honestly, it wasn't a huge deal to me at the time.

 

Dawn

 

 

Maybe people have had experiences that confirm their doubts.  Have you ever worked with people who were incompetent and clearly unqualified for their job, so that you wondered how they ever got it, or got promoted to it?  I have and I remember the "nickname" for such people, white people included:  "Affirmative action hire."   And it wasn't only white people using the term.   (This was in the '80's and '90's which is when I was last engaged in corporate life.  It was a competitive atmosphere and as I said upthread, people were valued for their work ethic and ability to contribute, nothing more or less.)    

 

Again, I am not saying it's right.  But that is a consequence.   If the policy/program (whatever is the right term) is viewed as a bad joke by many people, including some of the people it's supposed to help, could it be time to change it?   Can you see that people of goodwill are going to disagree on this and that just calling them out as racists doesn't help?    

 

[katilac]

*I* have been pulled over way more than 20 times in the last decade- I've already been pulled over 5 times this year, lol!!!

 

 

That's pretty bizarre. Why are you getting pulled over so often? Are you breaking traffic laws repeatedly, and just getting lucky enough to not get tickets again and again? 

 

I can't even remember the last time I've been pulled over; it's been years and years, probably not more than 5 times total in 30+ years. I can say the same for my dh, my mom and dad, my sister and her dh, and my brother and his wife - I think it's really unusual. If I were getting pulled over so often, I would want to know why, that's for sure.  

 

 

Maybe people have had experiences that confirm their doubts.  Have you ever worked with people who were incompetent and clearly unqualified for their job, so that you wondered how they ever got it, or got promoted to it?  I have and I remember the "nickname" for such people, white people included:  "Affirmative action hire."   And it wasn't only white people using the term.   (This was in the '80's and '90's which is when I was last engaged in corporate life.  It was a competitive atmosphere and as I said upthread, people were valued for their work ethic and ability to contribute, nothing more or less.)    <snip>

 

I'm happy to say that using that term would never have flown in any of the places I worked. Regardless of how they felt privately, no one would have felt free to make such a comment. It would have been regarded as extremely unprofessional, and likely resulted in a conference with the boss and a documentation in your file. I would be extremely uncomfortable in a work culture where people felt free to make such remarks. 

[katilac]

This was kind of Matt Walsh's point.  That AA is terrible because it casts that shadow of doubt. Thing is, if you don't assume every person of color or woman that you see is under qualified, you don't' have that problem. Easy solution.

 

 

That doubt is a terrible aspect of AA. I do not think it means AA is terrible in and of itself, in all situations. 

 

It's not an easy solution, b/c the flip side of the 'doubt' coin is never getting the chance to be hired and doubted. 

 

We have come a long way, true, and it is tempting to just relax and quit thinking about it. But there is quite a bit of evidence that discrimination in America is alive and well. 

 

If you google, "discrimination housing" you will see lots of studies showing bias. The housing studies are relatively easy to do, b/c they are just testing response to inquiries. For example: 

 

The study's authors sent more than 1,100 identically worded e-mail inquiries to Los Angeles-area landlords asking about vacant apartments advertised online. The inquiries were signed randomly, with an equal number signed Patrick McDougall, Tyrell Jackson or Said Al-Rahman. The fictional McDougall received positive or encouraging replies from 89 percent of the landlords, while Al-Rahman was encouraged by 66 percent of the landlords. 

 

Only 56 percent, however, responded positively to Jackson.

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/osu-ncl052306.php

[Slojo]

I think that is one of the points are trying to make here:   AA casts a shadow of doubt over people's qualifications.  I'm not saying it's right,  just that it's a consequence.  Many people here have suggested that AA is flawed, and that's one reason why.

 

IIRC GW Bush's qualifications were questioned too.    Most likely some of the same people who are rolling their eyes at those who are questioning President Obama's qualifications are people who questioned President Bush's.    (I don't mean here on this board, just in general.) 

 

I would believe that it's AA that casts a shadow of doubt over people's qualifications if the abilities of people of color were rarely or never doubted before the existence of the policy. Except -- well, that they were actually generally accepted as "scientific fact."  My mother was told that it was scientific fact that negros (the term at the time) were no smarter than monkeys when she was a little girl - pretty sure that assessment of her intellectual abilities wasn't the fault of AA since that happened in the 1950's. Perhaps a few quotes from the written historical record might remind us all:

 

"That the Negro race is an inferior race I shall show by an appeal to anatomical, physiological, psychical and historical facts. I have already pointed out the salient characteristics of the Negro race. Let me advert to those which establish his inferiority. Capacity of cranium is universally recognized as a criterion of psychic power.*"  (OH NO, NOT MEASURING THE SIZE OF PEOPLE'S SKULLS! SIGH!)

 

"The broadest Negro skull does not reach the average of the Germans; nor does the best Australian skull reach the average of the Negro. Mean relative breadth of skull is found to be associated with executive ability."  - Alexander Winchell,  ~1890 (DOUBLE SIGH!!)

 

From Jefferson's NOTES ON VIRGINIA: "To the present hour, the Negro has contributed nothing to the intellectual resources of man." (And a founding father, no less! I hope he didn't have any power to actually control the lives of... oh, that's right, he did!)

 

And then there's all that recent (historically speaking) Charles Murray Bell Curve loveliness (to mention one of the more prominent writings about the intellectual abilities of different races - I actually read that piece of cr** from cover to cover because he was invited to speak at the college I was attending at the time, and I wanted to be prepared). That brief jaunt through history, as distasteful as it is, reminds us that this line of thinking has a long history and perhaps is not as distant from our contemporary context as would be most comfortable to believe. 

 

Much of the history of progress in this country has largely been the history of debunking such notions, and where people's hearts and minds weren't changing fast enough, the history of either legislating the behavior or promoting affirmative policies to correct past and ongoing discrimination and lack of opportunity. So to suggest that AA is the reason for the doubt ignores a very large historical record suggesting that those doubts were already pretty firmly embedded in both the conscious and subconscious thoughts of the populace writ large. The contributions of the affirmative action set of policies (which quite frankly did more to secure open doors for white women in institutions of higher ed and in the workplace) to a significant (but shrinking) proportion of the population doubting the abilities of people of color is a drop in the bucket, and generally, just not the cause of that line of thinking.  There are plenty of situations in my own life in which affirmative action was not in play and still my abilities were questioned. Racism, not affirmative action, is what casts a shadow over the abilities of people of color (sexism casts a shadow over the abilities of women, ableism casts a shadow...).  

 

If one doesn't like the policy, don't like the policy but I wouldn't give a pass to folks whose thinking should be, well, more rigorous with regard to what might possibly be causing their lack of confidence in the abilities of people of color. 

[*lifeoftheparty*]

.