Affirmative Action

Hanover

The US Supreme Court is set next term to take up an affirmative action case arising out of Harvard (a private university) and the University of North Carolina (a public university) challenging race based admissions policies as violating the US Constitution. The result seems predictable based upon the Court composition. The action has been brought by Asian students who argue they are being denied admission over other less qualified applicants because Asians are already over-represented at these competitive schools.

The arguments are summarized below:

https://www.highereddive.com/news/dissecting-affirmative-action-opponents-arguments-before-the-supreme-court/624093/

Race based decision making policies are pervasive in the US. It is common to be asked when seeking business from corporations or government entities what the business' racial, gender, and sexual orientation makeup is. That general practice is not before the Court, but it all seems logically related.

My thought is that from a pure ideological position, it is morally suspect to promote on the basis of race or gender, but I also recognize all is not societally fair and that refusal to consider race and gender will dramatically reduce minority numbers in prestigious universities and occupations.

By the same token, I don't know that even if I can accept the need for affirmative action to right past wrongs, that I can accept it as a forever proposition.

II'm interested in people's thoughts here. I straddle the ideological/pragmatic fence here. I can say I was taken aback when a Fortune 500 Company asked me to fill out a vendor application form that asked the specific percentage of gay/lesbian/trans at my office. It was like I was being asked to guess based upon stereotype because I would never ask an employee their sexual preference, and the clear message is that I need to hire more gay people if I want more business. How one goes about that is unknown to me.

Agent Smith

The trending social issues like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., their prominence to be precise, especially the positive light in which these minority groups are portrayed is largely due to the backing they get from big businesses. This though very encouraging is also rather disheartening for the simple reason that the support is purely for monetary reasons - bad publicity means losing valuable customers. It's all about money!

NOS4A2

↪Hanover

Your instincts are correct here. It’s morally wrong. As the case proves, any race-based inclusion leads to race-based exclusion. When you make an effort to advance some groups you impede others. This is why we ought not to favor some races, and for the same reasons we ought not to disfavor other races.

It is also demeaning both to the favored and unfavored groups insofar as it paints the candidates as requiring special considerations based on superficial phenotypes, none of which factor in to education.

It’s unjust. It doesn’t rectify any past injustice because it doesn’t even consider them. It doesn’t distinguish between the deserving and undeserving. That it is premised on fuzzy taxonomies makes it all the more threadbare.

A case for affirmative action could be made to flesh-and-blood human beings who have actually been excluded from such institutions because of their race. That sort of injustice could be rectified by giving them the full benefit of proper consideration as they give everyone else. Beyond that it should not go.

Paulm12

↪Hanover

The interesting thing here is that the main people arguing these cases (admissions, etc) are Asians, as they are claimed to be overrepresented, even more than Whites. As a result, I feel like many Asians (which typically vote democratic) will begin voting more conservative because they feel these sorts of policies and quotas hurt them and are targeted at them. In many cases, this is true. My guess is the supreme court's conservative leaning will say these admissions are discriminatory. Whether the federal government can regulate it is another question. But for public schools that are federally funded, I think they may be able to withhold funding or do something that way.

I do a lot of STEM teaching, outreach, etc. Honestly, much of this work to get more women and minorities in STEM (if this is indeed the goal) has to happen earlier. Even high school is too late in many cases. I'm for trying to find the best talent and give everyone and equal chance, but in my opinion, affirmative action goes too far and ends up hurting the people it is trying to help.

To put things in perspective, Prop 16 (to repeal Prop 209, which made the UC admissions system race blind in 1996) was on the ballot in California. It was shot down by more of a margin than prop 209 originally passed by in 1996. This is California we are talking about. Its complicated-the voters care about equity in some sense, but also care a lot about merit and seem to not like quotas. I think we are starting to see the pendulum swing the other way-people are more aware of discrimination, racism, etc, but they feel that some of these policies take it too far.

This is one of those issues where I think both sides make good points (similar to the abortion debate), and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives on it.

BC

↪Hanover

It was probably not intended as a means to divide and keep the working classes conquered, but affirmative action has been quite divisive. Hiring and admission ought to be based on the merit of meeting the stated expectations of the organization. In my case, I would have failed to meet the requirements of very good, never mind elite colleges. The same goes for high paying jobs -- I was generally not an attractive candidate.

I was not an attractive candidate for the Ivy League or the Fortune 500, because I wasn't interested in producing the kind of high achievement that would have made me an attractive candidate. Now, there are many people who had fewer opportunities to excel than I did. That's unfortunate, but if they aren't prepared to compete for very good and elite positions, then they are, like me, S.O.L.

Diversity is much sought after (in some circles) because it is thought to improve performance for everyone through some mysterious influence. I haven't witnessed such an effect in the work place, but I can imagine that diversity could make a contribution to collegiate life.

Many Americans suppose that some jiggering of the system can overcome disadvantages that are built into 'the system' from the foundation upwards. Jiggering won't work. A community whose systematic disadvantages are based on 5 or 10 generations of being on the bottom, won't be changed by affirmative action, It has to be rebuilt from new-borns on up.

All that said, when exceptional candidates whose cohort has been very underrepresented, present themselves, they ought to be admitted/hired because they have great merit, not because they are black or female. It is nonsense and frank discrimination to limit qualified Asian candidates, just as it was nonsense and frank discrimination to limit qualified Jewish candidates.

Benkei

↪Hanover

That will obviously be overturned yes. What's morally wrong is the assumption people have the right to benefit from past wrongs, that people should not carry responsibility for others and that society is atomistic, all problematic but persistent assumptions in US society.

While I think that affirmative action is defensible in principle (and the benefits of inclusive diversity are well documented and researched), it has shown to be ineffective to change overall culture and should be replaced with something that works. That it hasn't changed anything is because the "tone at the top" is the same old, racist, white people in power. There's no good example to be had (and in this respect the Netherlands is even worse).

The question is, for instance, if you consider the following discrimination: I don't have any females in my team. My next hire is going to be a woman no matter what, even if she wouldn't be the best candidate (but does qualify). I would do this because I believe in a "diversity dividend" and the larger a team becomes the more group dynamics become important.

Take that to the larger stage of society and if we take "all men are created equal" seriously then this should be reflected in every segment of society but we don't see it. Maybe just throw hiring managers and CEOs in jail if they're caught discriminating. And any company with a skewed composition of employee ethnicity is suspect.

unenlightened

It was probably not intended as a means to divide and keep the working classes conquered, but affirmative action has been quite divisive. — Bitter Crank

Probably not, because Racism is certainly intended to do so, and affirmative action at least seems to be intended to mitigate the effects of racism, and reduce social division.

Most so-called democracies are aristocracies in disguise, and rejecting the principle of noblesse oblige does not constitute a glorious revolution. Let's pretend that there is some principle or virtue at stake though, rather than power politics overriding the justice system in a race for complete moral nihilism masquerading as righteous religion.

Benkei

Diversity is much sought after (in some circles) because it is thought to improve performance for everyone through some mysterious influence. I haven't witnessed such an effect in the work place, but I can imagine that diversity could make a contribution to collegiate life. — Bitter Crank

Diversity without inclusivity doesn't work, for sure. If it did, the US would be a much better place to live in.

Here's an example of a diversity dividend: https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend

ssu

Race based decision making policies are pervasive in the US. — Hanover

What else would you have when you try to correct the errors of the past, segregation and racist legislation, with still holding on to the core idea of dividing people into categories of race?

Most so-called democracies are aristocracies in disguise, and rejecting the principle of noblesse oblige does not constitute a glorious revolution. Let's pretend that there is some principle or virtue at stake though, rather than power politics overriding the justice system in a race for complete moral nihilism masquerading as righteous religion. — unenlightened

Even if we don't have a rigid caste system or an entrenched class system, modern societies tend to be meritocracies at best. A meritocracy doesn't end classes. Add then the capitalist system on top and there are always those who are better off and those who aren't.

Social mobility, transfer payments, welfare state and above all, social cohesion, all can minimize the problems, but they surely won't erase them.

Tate

Affirmative action is a tool for social engineering. It's from a bygone age which I associate with the civil rights movement. I'm sad because it seems like that age was more optimistic. 'We can fix this problem,' they thought.

Our day is relatively more brutal and close to nature. 'Let nature make the decisions, and let the chips fall where they may.' It comes down to where you see the limits of our power and wisdom.

unenlightened

Even if we don't have a rigid caste system or an entrenched class system, modern societies tend to be meritocracies at best. — ssu

Modern societies tend to be like the kingdoms of yore. Politics is almost as much a family affair as the Mafia. "Meritocracy" is the cloak under which dynastic rule likes to hide, and is the justification for grinding poverty amid fabulous wealth. It is so very easy, to maintain, because even the desperate poor prefer to think they deserve their poverty rather than that they have been systematically shafted their whole lives and never stood a chance. The better off always think they deserve their privilege of course.

Hanover

Meritocracy" is the cloak under which dynastic rule likes to hide, and is the justification for grinding poverty amid fabulous wealth. — unenlightened

I don't doubt that's the case sometimes, but how does that apply to Asians? They can't be said to be advancing a meritocracy ideology in order to protect their historical power.

Hanover

Your instincts are correct here. It’s morally wrong. As the case proves, any race-based inclusion leads to race-based exclusion. — NOS4A2

So should we let the chips fall where they may, how do we explain to racial groups that go dramatically under-represented in some fields that the cause is pure fairness?

Hanover

While I think that affirmative action is defensible in principle (and the benefits of inclusive diversity are well documented and researched), it has shown to be ineffective to change overall culture and should be replaced with something that works. That it hasn't changed anything is because the "tone at the top" is the same old, racist, white people in power. There's no good example to be had (and in this respect the Netherlands is even worse). — Benkei

What is the replacement you allude to?

This response seems too simplistic. You say the problem is old school.racists, but where is the evidence of that? Not that I've sat in important board rooms to know much, but all I hear from my seat is how everyone needs to promote diversity. The US is a diverse nation and diverse employment is good for business.

I think the best you can argue is a CRT argument, that racism is hidden within the structure, but neither currently intended or overt.

unenlightened

↪Hanover

Indeed, I don't notice a lot of Asians in the US government; they are simply pursuing their interests using the available rhetoric. The government makes the rhetorics available and promotes the agenda using Asians as their tool. A good many Asians will be familiar with thinly disguised dynastic rule from places like India. And a good many African Americans will be familiar with the uses of 'house niggers' and 'uncle Toms' to keep them in place. It's similar to the use made of Christian women to delegitimise women's rights campaigners.

It suits the dynastic rulers to promote the interests of the Asian minority as a means to maintain the oppression of the much larger African community. Do I have to convince you that The supreme court has an agenda that is not equal treatment and equal rights for all? If so I give up in despair.

Hanover

What else would you have when you try to correct the errors of the past, segregation and racist legislation, with still holding on to the core idea of dividing people into categories of race? — ssu

American racism has obviously affected many groups, so I don't want to diminish any group's suffering, but no where has it been more extensive than with African Americans and Native Americans. I'd probably be OK with efforts directed at promoting those two groups, as opposed to separating the country into hundreds of sub-groups.

I fully accept, for example, that gays have had a tough path historically in the US, but I don't think part of that struggle was in exclusion from universities, real estate markets, or employment. So why am I being asked to be on the lookout for them to be sure they get hired?

Hanover

don't notice a lot of Asians in the US government; they are simply pursuing their interests using the available rhetoric. — unenlightened

This requires an acceptance of some sort of illuminati that sets up the puppets on the strings and then watches as they half knowingly play out their roles on stage.

Asian culture, whatever it might historically have been long before America was a twinkle in anyone's eye, must play some role internally here as well, meaning their values must also be leading them toward STEM based occupations, without manipulation by the powers that be.

A for example. I'm Jewish and can attest to the emphasis upon education in my community, which also leads to over-representation in the professions and in leadership positions. Am I to believe that cultural norm really is just reactionary to the Jewish experience in the US over the past couple hundred years?

Benkei

This response seems too simplistic. You say the problem is old school.racists, but where is the evidence of that? Not that I've sat in important board rooms to know much, but all I hear from my seat is how everyone needs to promote diversity. The US is a diverse nation and diverse employment is good for business. — Hanover

Yes, old school racists. If you're not actively anti-racist, you're still a racist. Biden, Trump, Gingrich, the whole lot of white dinosaurs are racist to the bone. They pander in symbolism to then turn around and either do nothing or generally make life worse for minorities. As Street would like to say: it's not a shortcoming, it's a feature. "But Biden was VP to Obama who was black", is just another "I'm not a racist because I've got a black friend", or innocence by association, which amounts to saying "I'm not a sexist because I know my mum".

I don't buy it to describe it as a systemic issue. That is also an issue but these people are actually in a position to change the systemic rules many are operating under. Unless, of course, you think it's a systemic issue that white old men in power select/groom/nurture/support other more white old men to get into power - which can be argued but I think is a bit semantic or about interpretation at least. I think there's a lot of agency involved there, where actual people could make different decisions.

And what you just agreed on as a fact between us with respect to diversity being good for business, is not believed by a large majority of people, who think "personal qualifications" are the only thing that matter. That is another expression of individualism taken too far.

NOS4A2

↪Hanover

So should we let the chips fall where they may, how do we explain to racial groups that go dramatically under-represented in some fields that the cause is pure fairness?

Tell them the race of those involved has no bearing on anything in the entire process.

Hanover

Tell them the race of those involved has no bearing on anything in the entire process. — NOS4A2

Telling someone his community's subservient lot in life is well deserved will not lead to societal harmony, regardless of how morally justified you think it is.

Your position just demands stricter rules and stricter enforcement, which means bigger police forces and bigger prisons. If a better result can be crafted for a cheaper price (both in dollars and human suffering), that would seem to be the better pragmatic solution, as opposed to dying on the sword of moral consistency.

NOS4A2

↪Hanover

I don’t know why you would tell a person his lot in life is well deserved because his skin color is a certain shade. But you’re thinking with race here. That’s the problem to begin with. If you look at a crowd and divide it into races you will get disparities that you cannot explain without resorting to racism.

unenlightened

This requires an acceptance of some sort of illuminati that sets up the puppets on the strings and then watches as they half knowingly play out their roles on stage. — Hanover

No it doesn't. It requires that people are selfish first, familial second, and tribal third, and that people in government are good at manipulating opinion.

I'm Jewish and can attest to the emphasis upon education in my community, which also leads to over-representation in the professions and in leadership positions. — Hanover

I can attest the same cultural norms amongst the UK working classes, and also among the Afro Caribbean population here. And that proves what? It proves that we are all hearing the same messages and seeing the same solutions to the same problems. 'Work hard, support power, make yourself useful to power, don't rock the boat, etc.' The Jewish community surely knows as well as any that education and hard work count for little when the government is against you.

Tate

↪unenlightened

I think if you look at Thurgood Marshall's comments on affirmative action, you'll see that he didn't think it was supposed to last forever. It's not racist to ask if we have arrived at the point where it can be dropped.

Tzeentch

Implying certain individuals inherently require assistance because of their demographic is patronizing and discriminatory in more ways than one, not to mention affirmative action has essentially failed across the board.

unenlightened

It's not racist to ask if we have arrived at the point where it can be dropped. — Tate

But I'm not talking about racism as I find it unhelpful. I am saying that states that claim to be democratic are nearly always dynastic to a great extent (count the Bushes and Kennedys, for example). This means that by design and by accident, privilege and disadvantage are passed down the generations. Such dynastic government cannot remotely be fair and equitable, and relies on custom and management of the media, from the pulpit to the tabloid and beyond, to perpetuate the dominance of a minority. (Notice that it relies also on the patriarchal control of women's sexuality, to guarantee patrilineal descent) Racism (and sexism) is an effect rather than a cause of a partisan system of government that only ever pretends to be equitable. When can we drop extra support for the structurally disadvantaged? when the structure stops systematically disadvantaging some people. Don't hold your breath.

BC

I fully accept, for example, that gays have had a tough path historically in the US, but I don't think part of that struggle was in exclusion from universities, real estate markets, or employment. So why am I being asked to be on the lookout for them to be sure they get hired? — Hanover

As you say, [some] gays were not excluded from universities, real estate markets, or employment, they are ideal diversity candidates. Gays have the proper cultural credentials, in addition to their "disadvantaged" status. Gays that were excluded from universities and real estate markets (in terms of purchase, rather than rent) belong to the very large class of not-very-prosperous working class people who stay not-very-prosperous working class.

BC

I am saying that states that claim to be democratic are nearly always dynastic to a great extent (count the Bushes and Kennedys, for example). — unenlightened

The Bushes and Kennedys among others. G. William Domhoff's WHO RULES AMERICA is a very readable report on how, exactly, the ruling elite arranges its affairs to hold, and keep holding, power. In a nutshell, the answer is "The Corporate rich, white nationalist Republicans, and inclusionary Democrats..."

Happily, Domhoff has made a lot of his findings available on his University of California - Santa Cruz webpage HERE

Tate

When can we drop extra support for the structurally disadvantaged? — unenlightened

Affirmative action essentially forces social change by giving minority individuals the chance to start their own dynasties. Just as installing the first black SCOTUS judge won't change anything concrete, but it will change the expectations of young black girls, affirmative action changes people's assumptions.

I'm sorry you didn't read Thurgood Marshall's comments. They're helpful in understanding the outlook of the world that first embraced affirmative action. It's not my world, and all the more, it most definitely is not yours.

BC

relies on custom and management of the media — unenlightened

Domhoff suggests we stop blaming the media:

Like everyone else, progressives have a strong tendency to blame the media for their failures. As horrible as the media can be, they are not the problem. Blaming the media becomes an excuse for not considering the possibility that much of the leftist program is unappealing to most people — Domhoff

unenlightened

Affirmative action essentially forces social change by giving minority individuals the chance to start their own dynasties. — Tate

So you define social change as social more of the same.

↪Bitter Crank

much of the leftist program is unappealing to most people — Domhoff

Because...

even the desperate poor prefer to think they deserve their poverty rather than that they have been systematically shafted their whole lives and never stood a chance. — unenlightened

unenlightened

Excuse me, but someone has to be the rabid angry sneering lefty round here or we'll all drown in our own reasonableness.

Affirmative Action

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions