Affirmative Action
A very strange thing happened at Columbia University during my freshman year. The College Republicans were out on College Walk for a bake sale. They had a fairly small booth and loads and loads of chocolate chip cookies. The interesting thing was the way in which they were selling these snacks. When a black student went up to the booth, they charged him $0.50 for a cookie. Then a white girl went to the booth and was promptly charged $1.00. Soon a commotion began, so I said to myself, "Self, what is all the ruccus?" Then my Jewish friend and I went over to purchase cookies and were charged $2.00 per cookie.
Anyway, turns out that this wasn't a demonstration in rapid inflation. It was a thinly veiled protest of affirmative action policies, with different rates for different races, based on "social performance" of the races.
Why Affirmative Action?
There are some fairly compelling arguments for affirmative action policies. First, there has been a documented history of discrimination against non-white groups such as blacks and latinos, and they have historically been portrayed as having inferior skill sets. So affirmative action would combat this disadvantage that certain groups face. Second, a low socio-economic setting is indeed a ball and chain on opportunity and mobility. Third, there is something to be said for the needs of diversity at places such as a university.
Why not Affirmative Action?
Before I start, I want to make it clear that prejudices that I/studies anticipate that people feel are not my own. I am not anti-black or anti-latino or pro-white or whatever. I do think, however, it provides a reasonably good snapshot of what reality affirmative action policies create.
First, I would argue "not affirmative action" because it does not really address the impoverished, destitute student that well. Studies explain that the real ball and chain is cast upon students in economic terms. That is, the force that drags them down the furthest is their own poverty and lack of access to strong educational opportunities. It so happens that a larger fraction of the black population than most other races are in these destitute conditions. Still, most studies point to the fact that of many of the students taken due to affirmative action do not necessarily come from impoverished backgrounds. Instead, a process called "cream skimming" occurs. Many of these African Americans, for example, come from upper-middle class students while other students (of any other race - white, asian, whatever) who are in a poverty trap are systematically disadvantaged in the process, even if they have exceptional academic ability. The fact that these students get +20 points on their application, simply because of their race, seems especially strange when understanding that the greater ball and chain (economic destitution) is not the harm being addressed.
Second, blacks do badly at every level. Statistically, the race with the lowest achievement at every level, from Harvard to community college, become African Americans (followed closely by latinos again). Of course, this should not be terribly surprising seeing how a +20 advantage is given simply because of skin color. This seems to indicate that the advantage does indeed bring in "underqualified" individuals into a slightly higher bracket. Note: the displacement of other racial candidates is not really my reason for objection - while many people feel that an affirmative action candidate got in and they didn't, they fail to realize that less than half a percent of people are actually displaced due to affirmative action, meaning it is more likely that they just weren't strong enough candidates. My objection, instead, comes from three points. First, a drag on the quality of the institution is inefficient. Second, it seems to be rather horrible to self-esteem when collectively one's race does extremely poorly at every level. Third, doing poorly across all leagues causes people to think that minorities are only there because they are black - or native american.
Third, while affirmative action policies have historically not worked too well for most groups (women being an exception - but the circumstances are quite different [ask me if you are interested]) many other groups have integrated fairly well. In fact, most studies argue that many groups who never benefited from aff-action policies integrated just fine (which isn't to say that aff-action is completely counterproductive always - it is just saying that it is not a necessary condition). But the situation gets more dicey when there is a large percent of the population who do not integrate, and then are isolated uniquely by a policy which not only creates a large stratification between black (low) and asian (high) testing ability in the same classroom, but also encourages placing a stigma upon those who attend a quality school.
The Strange Complaints that We Make.
After the College Republicans' demonstration, many of the Columbia students went nuts. They began to march onto the Lowe Steps in a protest against racism. I was pretty confused - what was so racist about decrying affirmative action policies? For one thing, no one is saying that slavery, or the genocide of native americans, or the mistreatment of latinos was a good thing. Heck, remember World War II and the concentration camps for the Japanese? Or how the Chinese immigrants, Indian immigrants, Irish immigrants, [take your pick] immigrants were maliciously treated by US citizens? That is fine and dandy, but decrying an inefficient policy doesn't make you racist.
Possible Solutions?
I do think that there are several alternative solutions. One possible solution is to adopt a financial-need based affirmative action policy instead of a racial/demographic/etc affirmative action policy. I would argue that the marginal benefit of "diversity" at a school is mitigated by the fact that (a) a lot of clumping occurs and (b) we really don't care all that much because it is not like we are trying to draw a 20% foreign student rate or anything. On that note, I would discount demographic affirmative action (which I believe is a way to get rural whites into school) for the same reasons that I reject racial affirmative action. At least a financial-necessity based policy would actually deal with people who have a ball and chain and give them better access to mobility.
Now the common objection here will be - why won't all these poor people end up doing what blacks do now? Won't they fill up the bottom rungs at every level? But I would respond - I think we should adopt programs that seek out intellectual potential in economically disadvantaged regions. U Chicago has successfully employed such a program, as have many other very driven schools. I do not believe that the poor are less intelligent. On the contrary, many of the more intelligent people that I have met at my stay in Columbia have come from very destitute backgrounds. I just believe that a stronger effort of a search has to be made. Also, it seems to be an empirical point that people from poor backgrounds with a newfound capacity to excel make very good use of it (irrespective of whatever race they are). This would support a $-based as opposed to race-based affirmative action policy.
Finally, I want to note two things. I disagree with the policy initiatives of the UC system. I do not think that we should stop tracking racial data. We need records of this for precisely these kinds of discussions - so that econometric analysis can be done and we can see, for example, if blacks are benefiting from new policy, etc. The only way we know that old ones fail is through such tracking. (Of course, there is a complexity here when such data collection might induce an implicit affirmative action policy, as universities and employers will be in a game in which if a disadvantaged race is underrepresented they may be held as discriminatory and thus they might begin to admit unqualified minorities anyway. But I do not think this harm is as great as explicit aff action.) The other thing I want to note is that it is ok in a prison full of black prisoners, for example, to explicitly hire black guards. Studies show that these prisons are better managed (read: less violent). Apparently, people react better to racial self-rule. Similarly, I think it is ok for a black actor to portray Malcom X, as by necessity, race is a qualification for the position.
I know that was probably a lot longer than you would have liked - but it was a lot more brief than this issue deserves. In hindsight, it was a very superficial discussion of the topic, but hopefully it gets the ball rolling. I hope you have some feedback/comments/opinions on the matter.
Anyway, turns out that this wasn't a demonstration in rapid inflation. It was a thinly veiled protest of affirmative action policies, with different rates for different races, based on "social performance" of the races.
Why Affirmative Action?
There are some fairly compelling arguments for affirmative action policies. First, there has been a documented history of discrimination against non-white groups such as blacks and latinos, and they have historically been portrayed as having inferior skill sets. So affirmative action would combat this disadvantage that certain groups face. Second, a low socio-economic setting is indeed a ball and chain on opportunity and mobility. Third, there is something to be said for the needs of diversity at places such as a university.
Why not Affirmative Action?
Before I start, I want to make it clear that prejudices that I/studies anticipate that people feel are not my own. I am not anti-black or anti-latino or pro-white or whatever. I do think, however, it provides a reasonably good snapshot of what reality affirmative action policies create.
First, I would argue "not affirmative action" because it does not really address the impoverished, destitute student that well. Studies explain that the real ball and chain is cast upon students in economic terms. That is, the force that drags them down the furthest is their own poverty and lack of access to strong educational opportunities. It so happens that a larger fraction of the black population than most other races are in these destitute conditions. Still, most studies point to the fact that of many of the students taken due to affirmative action do not necessarily come from impoverished backgrounds. Instead, a process called "cream skimming" occurs. Many of these African Americans, for example, come from upper-middle class students while other students (of any other race - white, asian, whatever) who are in a poverty trap are systematically disadvantaged in the process, even if they have exceptional academic ability. The fact that these students get +20 points on their application, simply because of their race, seems especially strange when understanding that the greater ball and chain (economic destitution) is not the harm being addressed.
Second, blacks do badly at every level. Statistically, the race with the lowest achievement at every level, from Harvard to community college, become African Americans (followed closely by latinos again). Of course, this should not be terribly surprising seeing how a +20 advantage is given simply because of skin color. This seems to indicate that the advantage does indeed bring in "underqualified" individuals into a slightly higher bracket. Note: the displacement of other racial candidates is not really my reason for objection - while many people feel that an affirmative action candidate got in and they didn't, they fail to realize that less than half a percent of people are actually displaced due to affirmative action, meaning it is more likely that they just weren't strong enough candidates. My objection, instead, comes from three points. First, a drag on the quality of the institution is inefficient. Second, it seems to be rather horrible to self-esteem when collectively one's race does extremely poorly at every level. Third, doing poorly across all leagues causes people to think that minorities are only there because they are black - or native american.
Third, while affirmative action policies have historically not worked too well for most groups (women being an exception - but the circumstances are quite different [ask me if you are interested]) many other groups have integrated fairly well. In fact, most studies argue that many groups who never benefited from aff-action policies integrated just fine (which isn't to say that aff-action is completely counterproductive always - it is just saying that it is not a necessary condition). But the situation gets more dicey when there is a large percent of the population who do not integrate, and then are isolated uniquely by a policy which not only creates a large stratification between black (low) and asian (high) testing ability in the same classroom, but also encourages placing a stigma upon those who attend a quality school.
The Strange Complaints that We Make.
After the College Republicans' demonstration, many of the Columbia students went nuts. They began to march onto the Lowe Steps in a protest against racism. I was pretty confused - what was so racist about decrying affirmative action policies? For one thing, no one is saying that slavery, or the genocide of native americans, or the mistreatment of latinos was a good thing. Heck, remember World War II and the concentration camps for the Japanese? Or how the Chinese immigrants, Indian immigrants, Irish immigrants, [take your pick] immigrants were maliciously treated by US citizens? That is fine and dandy, but decrying an inefficient policy doesn't make you racist.
Possible Solutions?
I do think that there are several alternative solutions. One possible solution is to adopt a financial-need based affirmative action policy instead of a racial/demographic/etc affirmative action policy. I would argue that the marginal benefit of "diversity" at a school is mitigated by the fact that (a) a lot of clumping occurs and (b) we really don't care all that much because it is not like we are trying to draw a 20% foreign student rate or anything. On that note, I would discount demographic affirmative action (which I believe is a way to get rural whites into school) for the same reasons that I reject racial affirmative action. At least a financial-necessity based policy would actually deal with people who have a ball and chain and give them better access to mobility.
Now the common objection here will be - why won't all these poor people end up doing what blacks do now? Won't they fill up the bottom rungs at every level? But I would respond - I think we should adopt programs that seek out intellectual potential in economically disadvantaged regions. U Chicago has successfully employed such a program, as have many other very driven schools. I do not believe that the poor are less intelligent. On the contrary, many of the more intelligent people that I have met at my stay in Columbia have come from very destitute backgrounds. I just believe that a stronger effort of a search has to be made. Also, it seems to be an empirical point that people from poor backgrounds with a newfound capacity to excel make very good use of it (irrespective of whatever race they are). This would support a $-based as opposed to race-based affirmative action policy.
Finally, I want to note two things. I disagree with the policy initiatives of the UC system. I do not think that we should stop tracking racial data. We need records of this for precisely these kinds of discussions - so that econometric analysis can be done and we can see, for example, if blacks are benefiting from new policy, etc. The only way we know that old ones fail is through such tracking. (Of course, there is a complexity here when such data collection might induce an implicit affirmative action policy, as universities and employers will be in a game in which if a disadvantaged race is underrepresented they may be held as discriminatory and thus they might begin to admit unqualified minorities anyway. But I do not think this harm is as great as explicit aff action.) The other thing I want to note is that it is ok in a prison full of black prisoners, for example, to explicitly hire black guards. Studies show that these prisons are better managed (read: less violent). Apparently, people react better to racial self-rule. Similarly, I think it is ok for a black actor to portray Malcom X, as by necessity, race is a qualification for the position.
I know that was probably a lot longer than you would have liked - but it was a lot more brief than this issue deserves. In hindsight, it was a very superficial discussion of the topic, but hopefully it gets the ball rolling. I hope you have some feedback/comments/opinions on the matter.
posted by arun at 9:00 PM
6 Comments:
Really, Arun, when did you become such a self-hating minority? I prob should stop with my sarcasm, two random people commented on my recent post, both took it seriously, one supporting the gay bashing and the other shocked. Apparently, the literal mindset is big these days. And I didn't get the memo.
You know my views on this too. What I'm most pissed off is discussion on this is so volatile. The whole racist charge, even the Katrina effort got into this. No, Bush was slow not because as Kanye says, "he hates black people," it's he's just indifferent and rather incompetent. Many of them saw it as a "well, you didn't leave. You should have taken individual responsibility and now don't bitch about slow response because you could've avoided this altogether."
Right now, the SCourt in the 5-4 decision recently said aff action probably should phase out in 25 years. We'll see if that's true, right around the time our kids go to college.
Ironically, I was driving carissa and venkat to Pasta? yesterday and I told them that I was racist and I hated Indians and Chinese people. I forgot how that came up but anyways..
I remember learning in economics the inefficiency of programs such as affirmative action, which do not effectively address the issues or do not accurately attempt to correct the source of the problem. An example being rent control, which creates a bigger economic deficit than if there were no rent control policies in place.
Accepting a few extra minorities (who indeed might not be of sufficient aptitude to attend the universities they are accepted into) probably doesn't do jack in the long term for the overal racial bloc. I propose a simple solution: The Hermann Project
The Hermann Project is a 3 phase initiative. Step one is to locate the dumbest and poorest sections of the country. These places obviously need the most help. Just because you accept one of these dumb and poor people (no insult intended) doesn't improve the quality of education the community as a whole recieves. If you want to make sure a racial quota is fulfilled, go make enough of them smart so they can earn their way in themselves. Step two: increase funding and improve the quality of education, allocation more resources for the areas in the most need. Here I agree with Arun that the UC policies are a deterrent to tracking the effectiveness of measures taken to address these issues. Step three: send Hermann to their school. I will go and give them an inspirational talk about failure and hopefully enough of them will be inspired not to be like me that they will miraculously increase their GPA to record levels. Consequently I will become the most popular inspirational speaker across the nation for public education and make millions.
As a final note, I want to disagree with everything I just said. I think that we must do all we can to keep the black people uneducated because we are forgetting one very important thing: WE are the ones who need +points against them. Black people can sing. They can rap. They are freaking buff. They can athletically own any of us. The generate an aura of intimidation towards many minorities without even having to be present. And of course, the prowess of their genetalia is legendary. They are most likely the race that has benefited the most from a minus statistic in INT and has +AGI +STR +CHR +MND +DEX and pretty much everything else.
In closing... I'm just kidding. Arun is a nigger. And, I don't really want to make a blogspot to post if im not going to use it so i'll just use anon for now.
-hermann
Well, I generally agree. I think what they have now works okay, but the idea to use affirmative action based on low income or poverty people rather than race is something I've been for when I gave this thought about a year ago myself. However, I'd actually like to do it a different way. I would take the average income of parents of students from the school district one applies from and use that as how high or low to go. Because some students (like myself) really don't have much money, but because I went to a pretty wealthy area school I had an advantage over others whose parents had the same income but came from a ghetto area. So I'd factor in what I've said but maybe to a lower scale use the actual income of the parents because it does hurt to a certain extent.
We've already discussed the actual issue more extensively, but I really get the feeling you're preaching to the choir here. Many, if not most of your readers are middle-class, Asian or white, and obviously have very little vested interest in the system. If you're using this blog as a sounding board, I don't think your feedback is going to be very diverse.
3 years after LD and you still sound like one. Would give some thoughtful insight into what you've posted, but as an engineer I've grown indolent.
Hey there Arun - haven't read your blog in a while so just dropping by. I think the main reason affirmative action by income isn't utilized is because most studies show that such a system would devastate underrepresented minorities, since the exact same racial discrepenices in academic testing for high-income students (Asians, then Caucasians, then African-Americans) exists for low-income students. On the other hand, when affirmative action is done by wealth, rather than by income, the racial disparity disappears. Unfortunately, wealth is extremely difficult for a college to accurately track, so that system isn't feasible either (unless the government mandated such collections). Ultimately, I think the lack of deviation from the current policy is due to implementation and not theory - niether political party has any incentive to deviate from the status quo...
Post a Comment
<< Home