Affirmative Action

[Ten oz]

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html?referer=http://www.google.com/

 

This is a sensitive issue but one that isn't being ignored by Universities, businesses, or political institutions. So what do you all think? I will start with that simple question rather than jump straight into stats and studies. There is a lot of propaganda out there, as with all political issues, so please ensure anything being treated as fact to support a position is legitimate and used in its context. 

[MigL]

Is this a discussion of Affirmative Action or a discussion of the Trump Administration's policy regarding it ?

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

Is this a discussion of Affirmative Action or a discussion of the Trump Administration's policy regarding it ?

Both, the action seems to be a step toward throttling back affirmative action. So the discussion is about whether or not it is useful.

[iNow]

Gosh... It's about time white people were given a fair shake. SO tired of the deck being stacked against them due solely to the melanin content of their skin.   </sarcasm>

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Gosh... It's about time white people were given a fair shake. SO tired of the deck being stacked against them due solely to the melanin content of their skin.   </sarcasm>

No doubt!! However they're real feelings that whites are disenfranchised. Some of those feelings are responsible for several things happening in U.S. politics currently. So it is worth a real discussion. 

[StringJunky]

44 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No doubt!! However they're real feelings that whites are disenfranchised. Some of those feelings are responsible for several things happening in U.S. politics currently. So it is worth a real discussion. 

This is one of the consequences of affirmative action (AA); one side has to suffer. AA is a temporary policy to correct some perceived imbalance in the social order. It's never going to be popular with those that are being biased against. Essentially, one has to turn a deaf ear to the discontent until the objective is achieved.

Edited August 2, 2017 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

25 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This is one of the consequences of affirmative action (AA); one side has to suffer. AA is a temporary policy to correct some perceived imbalance in the social order. It's never going to be popular with those that are being biased against. Essentially, one has to turn a deaf ear to the discontent until the objective is achieved.

One thing that one should add that the effect for the majority is actually really small. Studies as early as in the late 90s (Kane 1998) have shown that racial preferences are  a) concentrated in the top universities and b) even in extreme calculations the likelihood for admission of non-minority student  barely changes (roughly around 1%). 

[StringJunky]

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

One thing that one should add that the effect for the majority is actually really small. Studies as early as in the late 90s (Kane 1998) have shown that racial preferences are  a) concentrated in the top universities and b) even in extreme calculations the likelihood for admission of non-minority student  barely changes (roughly around 1%). 

As a long-term consequence of applied AA? It doesn't really affect non-minorities much applying such a policy? Is there a generally accepted figure for the % of annual admissions that should be proactively biased for towards minorities?

Edited August 2, 2017 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

As a long-term consequence of applied AA? It doesn't really affect non-minorities much applying such a policy? Is there a generally accepted figure for the % of annual admissions that should be proactively biased for towards minorities?

"6,500 randomly selected professors from 259 American universities. Each email was from a (fictional) prospective out-of-town student whom the professor did not know, expressing interest in the professor’s Ph.D. program and seeking guidance. These emails were identical and written in impeccable English, varying only in the name of the student sender. The messages came from students with names like Meredith Roberts, Lamar Washington, Juanita Martinez, Raj Singh and Chang Huang, names that earlier research participants consistently perceived as belonging to either a white, black, Hispanic, Indian or Chinese student. In total, we used 20 different names in 10 different race-gender categories (e.g. white male, Hispanic female)."

"Professors were more responsive to white male students than to female, black, Hispanic, Indian or Chinese students in almost every discipline and across all types of universities. We found the most severe bias in disciplines paying higher faculty salaries and at private universities. In a perverse twist of academic fate, our own discipline of business showed the most bias, with 87 percent of white males receiving a response compared with just 62 percent of all females and minorities combined."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/opinion/sunday/professors-are-prejudiced-too.html

 

There are built is advantages to being white it seems. Hard to quantify because they are not writing policy yet detectable when studied. The researched linked above is not an apparition. I am sure you are familiar with many of similar studies.  We know poorer communities have worse grade schools and are more likely to be communities of color. Worst schools generally means worse higher education options. Additionally these trends re long standing. Just 60 years ago we still had legal segregated communities where purposefully disadvantaging entire group of people was standard practice. 

 

What evidence is that that affirmative action has negatively impacted white communities. Are rates of higher education obtainment down, average income down, or some other messurable standard? 

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

"6,500 randomly selected professors from 259 American universities. Each email was from a (fictional) prospective out-of-town student whom the professor did not know, expressing interest in the professor’s Ph.D. program and seeking guidance. These emails were identical and written in impeccable English, varying only in the name of the student sender. The messages came from students with names like Meredith Roberts, Lamar Washington, Juanita Martinez, Raj Singh and Chang Huang, names that earlier research participants consistently perceived as belonging to either a white, black, Hispanic, Indian or Chinese student. In total, we used 20 different names in 10 different race-gender categories (e.g. white male, Hispanic female)."

"Professors were more responsive to white male students than to female, black, Hispanic, Indian or Chinese students in almost every discipline and across all types of universities. We found the most severe bias in disciplines paying higher faculty salaries and at private universities. In a perverse twist of academic fate, our own discipline of business showed the most bias, with 87 percent of white males receiving a response compared with just 62 percent of all females and minorities combined."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/opinion/sunday/professors-are-prejudiced-too.html

 

There are built is advantages to being white it seems. Hard to quantify because they are not writing policy yet detectable when studied. The researched linked above is not an apparition. I am sure you are familiar with many of similar studies.  We know poorer communities have worse grade schools and are more likely to be communities of color. Worst schools generally means worse higher education options. Additionally these trends re long standing. Just 60 years ago we still had legal segregated communities where purposefully disadvantaging entire group of people was standard practice. 

 

What evidence is that that affirmative action has negatively impacted white communities. Are rates of higher education obtainment down, average income down, or some other messurable standard? 

My question to CharonY was not whether bias against minorities existed but what was the agreed proportion of minoritiesthat  should be proactively chosen by institutions to redress the balance in an AA policy . I'm asking questions not asserting a viewpoint.

[MigL]

My opinion n the subject is very conflicted.
( discussing the Trump Administration's policy would have been easier )

While I understand the need to right past wrongs which have disadvantaged minorities, combatting the effects of racism with more racism doesn't seem to make sense.

[Ten oz]

23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

My question to CharonY was not whether bias against minorities existed but what was the agreed proportion of minoritiesthat  should be proactively chosen by institutions to redress the balance in an AA policy . I'm asking questions not asserting a viewpoint.

I was also considering thoughts from your initial post in my response. It wasn't being adversarial in any event. Rather pointing out that even with affirmative action in place there doesn't seem to be any measurable harm to whites being done. While CharonY posted 1% may have their admissions impacted (not sure if that is accurate) rates of whites obtaining education, pay, and etc isn't measurable impacted at all. 

 

What the proportion should be is a bit of a loaded question. There isn't yet any agreement there should be any proactive step.

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

My opinion n the subject is very conflicted.
( discussing the Trump Administration's policy would have been easier )

While I understand the need to right past wrongs which have disadvantaged minorities, combatting the effects of racism with more racism doesn't seem to make sense.

Yes, this is a hard conversation. Has been since long before Trump.

 

"Right past wrongs", as to imply the wrongs have end or are no longer impactful enough for acknowledgement? That is one of the issues. Good ole boy networks and discrimination are still real problems in my opinion as the study I previously linked highlights. As such it isn't accurate to say combat the effects of racism with racism. Rather it is an attempt to ensure there isn't structural discrimination in place by attempting to promote diversity. 

[MigL]

Whether it still goes on or not is not the issue being discussed.
And I agree that something needs to be done; I'm just not sure AA is the right vehicle for change.

The past ( and arguably present ) wrongs come to light when two equally qualified people apply for the same position and a choice is made to fill that position based on skin color, sex and orientation, age, etc. Always to the detriment of the visible minority.
AA provides a 'solution' to this problem, such that, when two equally qualified people apply to fill the same position, the choice is AGAIN based on skin color, sex and orientation, age, etc. Except that now it is to the detriment of the non-visible minority.

And I'm not too comfortable with that.

In another thread Imatfaal and CharonY made the argument that human rights must apply to everyone.
Why is it OK to deny even 1% of non-visible minorities their rights, in order to correct the wrongs perpetrated against  much larger numbers of visible minorities ?

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

And I'm not too comfortable with that.

Unless you plant the right seeds in the right places you will not get the result you desire; the prevailing landscape won't allow it, If there are no minority models in whatever position how can the minority youngsters be inspired when they don't see any people like them in the goals they desire. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Whether it still goes on or not is not the issue being discussed.
And I agree that something needs to be done; I'm just not sure AA is the right vehicle for change.

The past ( and arguably present ) wrongs come to light when two equally qualified people apply for the same position and a choice is made to fill that position based on skin color, sex and orientation, age, etc. Always to the detriment of the visible minority.
AA provides a 'solution' to this problem, such that, when two equally qualified people apply to fill the same position, the choice is AGAIN based on skin color, sex and orientation, age, etc. Except that now it is to the detriment of the non-visible minority.

And I'm not too comfortable with that.

In another thread Imatfaal and CharonY made the argument that human rights must apply to everyone.
Why is it OK to deny even 1% of non-visible minorities their rights, in order to correct the wrongs perpetrated against  much larger numbers of visible minorities ?

That isn't how AA works.

 

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

As a long-term consequence of applied AA? It doesn't really affect non-minorities much applying such a policy? Is there a generally accepted figure for the % of annual admissions that should be proactively biased for towards minorities?

 

To clarify, the calculations were based on the nationwide likelihood of a white candidate being accepted with affirmative action (25%) and without (~26%). It is not the rate of students actually being impacted (Bowen and Brok).  The impact is actually concentrated on the minority population. I will add that the calculations were done around 2000, but numbers from 2012 Harvard admission data also found a maximum increase of 1.2%- and that is under the assumption that none of the minorities would have gotten admitted without affirmative action (which is clearly laughable). 

If we want to discuss how many more white students would be admitted, the increase is less than 1% (I believe around 0.3%, but I have to hunt down the source again). Quotas would mostly impact Asians (the shift in admission chance is closer to 5% IIRC). However, I find it interesting that the discussion is often about how it unfairly benefits e.g. Hispanics or blacks but not how it actually also benefits whites over Asians. I.e. if you are Asian, it is more likely that a white person took your seat than a black one (simply because there are more white candidates). I will have to look at numbers, but I think especially in highly competitive schools abolishing affirmative action is likely to increase Asian population, rather than white.

It is important to note that affirmative actions are not quotas. They are more like guidelines, which allows admission officers to take race (which often can be correlated with school districts) into account in what is described as a holistic approach. This also includes e.g. extracurricular activities. Especially the latter can be said to further disadvantage groups that have less access to such activities, be it for financial and/or infrastructure reasons.

Edited August 2, 2017 by CharonY
no can English good.