Affirmative Action Bake Sales

[Pangloss]

A John Stossel interview last night on O'Reilly got me thinking about this, and it turns out to have a history going back a few years. The idea is that a group (typically conservative) will set up a "bake sale" on a college campus, but it will have some unusual pricing -- blacks pay less than whites for the same food or beverage. This pricing gives people pause, which allows the operators to point out that their campus is doing exactly the same thing by giving preferential treatment in admissions based on race (an action which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of in 2003).

 

Some background here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_bake_sale

 

And a typical example from YouTube:

 

I think it's a fine idea, more power to 'em. What do you all think?

[lemur]

It gets on my nerves that my internet provider will offer low introductory rates to new customers but refuses to give me the same rates as an existing customer. Is this discrimination, affirmative action for non-customers, or just a business gimmick to lure more customers into a consumption pattern that is ultimately profitable for the business?

 

I think you can look at affirmative action as the same kind of low-cost introductory offer for people who might otherwise not consume expensive higher education. The idea is that once you get people into the universities, they will develop a level of culture that they value to such an extent that they will invest in their kids having the same opportunities. Affirmative action, therefore, is not so much about preferential treatment of minorities as it is about disrupting the working class culture of rejecting education in favor of seeking paid employment as young as possible.

 

It's just a coincidence that when you use demographic classifications to target potential lost customers, minority categories show up on the radar as niche markets. If non-minority demographic classifications started seeking paid employment directly out of secondary ed instead of going post-secondary right away, they would become target markets for special offers (affirmative action) to promote their socialization into the post-secondary education culture. In business, the simple strategy for expanding revenue is to keep loyal customers and get them to spend as much as possible without alienating them and attract new customers by offering them bargains.

 

The real question is whether the costs of higher education are exploitative for those who pay for it and whether it promotes economic exploitation generally by socializing people into a division of labor that distributes economic privileges unequally or otherwise unfairly.

Edited November 11, 2010 by lemur

[zapatos]

I think it is ok. The only change I would suggest is to first make the blacks do all the baking but not pay them. Seems to me that would make this event a more robust analogy to preferential treatment.

[ydoaPs]

I think it is ok. The only change I would suggest is to first make the blacks do all the baking but not pay them. Seems to me that would make this event a more robust analogy to preferential treatment.

I don't see how.

[zapatos]

I don't see how.

I was making reference to past discrimination when I suggested that blacks do the baking but not get paid. The history of affirmative action includes discussions of making reparations for past racial discrimination and to address continuing problems. That portion of affirmative action was left out of the bake sale analogy.

[mississippichem]

I believe in a completely post-racial society; one where the government does not even acknowledge the difference between races. How is giving a minority preferential treatment any better than Jim Crow? It's not, it may be worse because things like affirmative action have a false moral justification. I have African American friends who mark "white" in the race column of applications, and things of that nature because they want to make it solely based on their merit. I have utmost respect for that. I didn't choose to be born a white male.

[ydoaPs]

I was making reference to past discrimination when I suggested that blacks do the baking but not get paid.

Are those who were enslaved and/or segregated using the affirmative action programs?

That portion of affirmative action was left out of the bake sale analogy.

So, you're saying they should have had the grandparents and great grandparents of the black students make the baked goods. Ok.

[zapatos]

Are those who were enslaved and/or segregated using the affirmative action programs?

I don't know. Could be. I remember segregation and I'm not too old to go to school.

 

So, you're saying they should have had the grandparents and great grandparents of the black students make the baked goods. Ok.

No, and for some reason I think you know I didn't mean that. I think if they want to generate a discussion about affirmative action they should discuss it in whole, and not cherry pick only those pieces that are easy to ridicule when taken out of context.

[Pangloss]

I think you can look at affirmative action as the same kind of low-cost introductory offer for people who might otherwise not consume expensive higher education. The idea is that once you get people into the universities, they will develop a level of culture that they value to such an extent that they will invest in their kids having the same opportunities. Affirmative action, therefore, is not so much about preferential treatment of minorities as it is about disrupting the working class culture of rejecting education in favor of seeking paid employment as young as possible.

 

Interesting way of looking at it.

[lemur]

Interesting way of looking at it.

 

And what's really interesting is that if affirmative action would target low-enrollment demographics without any reference to racial, gender, or other identities, they would not give students the opportunity to view themselves as superior to other students in terms of race or gender. In other words, white/male students get the idea that they are genetically superior by thinking that affirmative action indicates genetic deficiencies among students who take advantage of the discounts. That allows relatively less qualified white/male students to identify with whiteness as being inherently intelligent, which insulates them against feeling insecure about their personal mediocrity. Think of how many students would be lost due to drop out if white/male privilege was eliminated at the cultural level. Just think of the effect Rosa Parks and school integration-bussing have had on the racialization of bus-use in white culture. If organizations were fully integrated, would whites not abandon them and seek some other means of relative re-segregation?

Edited November 11, 2010 by lemur

[Pangloss]

That was a point Stossel raised in his segment with O'Reilly as well -- that AA should focus on economic factors rather than race or gender.

 

Unfortunately I think much of the reasoning in support of AA is actually along the lines of "x were harmed in the past". I think a lot of that rationale is based on a supposition of racism that has nothing to do with economics. Economics are seen as a consequence, therefore AA should address the root cause rather than the consequence. AA is, therefore, about fighting racism. Which of course is ludicrous, because if used for that purpose it could only increase it.

 

What I've learned from your point, however, is that there is value in separating the two questions. By turning it into an economic benefit rather than a racial one, the question "is Affirmative Action acceptable in a free and just society" can be viewed as separate from "is it a good idea to fight racism with racism". If that meaning can be attached to AA, then my objections to the second question no longer apply to the first question.

 

Quite interesting indeed.

[JohnB]

I must agree that Lemurs way of looking at it is very interesting.

 

I've always thought that AA on the basis of race or sex was inherently racist or sexist. AA based not on gender or race but on socio economic grounds sounds fair and reasonable. Especially when viewed from the POV as an investment in changing socio groups to more educated.

[lemur]

That was a point Stossel raised in his segment with O'Reilly as well -- that AA should focus on economic factors rather than race or gender.

 

Unfortunately I think much of the reasoning in support of AA is actually along the lines of "x were harmed in the past". I think a lot of that rationale is based on a supposition of racism that has nothing to do with economics. Economics are seen as a consequence, therefore AA should address the root cause rather than the consequence. AA is, therefore, about fighting racism. Which of course is ludicrous, because if used for that purpose it could only increase it.

 

What I've learned from your point, however, is that there is value in separating the two questions. By turning it into an economic benefit rather than a racial one, the question "is Affirmative Action acceptable in a free and just society" can be viewed as separate from "is it a good idea to fight racism with racism". If that meaning can be attached to AA, then my objections to the second question no longer apply to the first question.

 

Quite interesting indeed.

 

 

I must agree that Lemurs way of looking at it is very interesting.

 

I've always thought that AA on the basis of race or sex was inherently racist or sexist. AA based not on gender or race but on socio economic grounds sounds fair and reasonable. Especially when viewed from the POV as an investment in changing socio groups to more educated.

 

Ironically, it's not only a problem that affirmative action uses racial classification to counteract racism caused by the same racial classifications in the past. It's also that when white-identifying people criticize affirmative action for organizations that are still predominately white, they are basically promoting racism as a passive facet of the status quo. In other words, how can one argue against affirmative action unless one is satisfied with the predominately white and/or male identity of a given organization? If you were dissatisfied with it, you would be interested in ways of making the organization more representative without promoting racism/tokenism/etc., no?

 

For example, let's say you have a construction business and you notice that you have few, if any, female applicants. Let's assume you have a social ethic of representativeness and you feel it is a problem that there is relative occupational segregation between men and women in sectors like construction, childcare, etc. Wouldn't you then try to figure out if there was something you could do to integrate more women into your construction business?

 

Now, consider if affirmative action targeted people only on the basis of economic need. What if then you ended up with a great deal of white-identifying lower income students and enrollment of students of color went down? Would you then think that there was something that was deterring students of color from enrolling? If so, how would you address the problem? You could create an affirmative action program, but wouldn't that basically just be paying minority students to tolerate discomfort in order to get a discount education? Is there some way to make higher education institutions more minority-friendly where affirmative action is not even necessary to attract minority students?

 

 

 

[JohnB]

Ironically, it's not only a problem that affirmative action uses racial classification to counteract racism caused by the same racial classifications in the past. It's also that when white-identifying people criticize affirmative action for organizations that are still predominately white, they are basically promoting racism as a passive facet of the status quo. In other words, how can one argue against affirmative action unless one is satisfied with the predominately white and/or male identity of a given organization? If you were dissatisfied with it, you would be interested in ways of making the organization more representative without promoting racism/tokenism/etc., no?

 

For example, let's say you have a construction business and you notice that you have few, if any, female applicants. Let's assume you have a social ethic of representativeness and you feel it is a problem that there is relative occupational segregation between men and women in sectors like construction, childcare, etc. Wouldn't you then try to figure out if there was something you could do to integrate more women into your construction business?

 

It's not a matter of being satisfied with the status quo. It's more a matter of simply hiring the best person for the job. I have as little time for those who hire on the basis of race as I do for those who hire on the basis of racial balance. Anybody who doesn't hire or promote on the basis of best person for the job is cheating their company. In this respect AA is against this basic hiring principle. When hiring I care if the person can do the job, whether they are male, female, black, white, yellow, brown or covered in purple dots is irrelevent.

 

Oddly enough I was in construction. (Exhibitions) Your supposition answers your question, "And you feel it is a problem" logically leads to the idea of solving the problem. I didn't feel it was a problem. Under Australian law, while women are paid the same as men, the working conditions aren't quite the same. In exhibitions there is a fair amount of lifting of wall panels involved and the average panels weighs 17 kilos. Under the law a man can legally lift up to 19 kilos, but the limit for a woman is 16 kilos. I don't disagree with the law, but as you can see it puts the company in a bad position. Hiring women and working within the law means that the female part of your workforce is almost useless for the major part of the job, the building of the walls. Every female I've worked with has always had the attitude of "Bugger the rules, let's get this done" which while admirable means that if there is any sort of injury the company becomes doubly liable.

 

OTOH, a female with a fork lift licence is highly prized. Female forkies tend to be as fast as men, but at the same time more gentle with loads, thus reducing accidents and damage. Females also have a better sense of "balance" when it comes to arranging the furniture on exhibitors stands. This might sound trivial or menial, but believe me it isn't, many a time we've been paid $30k to build the show but had $120k of furniture hire for the show. Balanced over the year, furniture hire is worth at least 40% of annual income. Companies regularly pay tens of thousands of dollars to be at shows and "Presentation is Everything", if they have hired $3,000 worth of furniture from us then they expect the presentation and arrangement of that furniture to be spot on. Females in general are better at this presentation than men are.

 

Consequently a woman with a fork licence is worth more to the company than a man is, but a woman without a fork licence was worth less. Already having a licence rather than expecting us to shell out $4k in training is a big plus regardless of gender.

 

The hiring process is a consideration of a number of factors, each having a different weight. Quite often (as applied) AA attempts to reduce those factors artificially to just gender or race which distorts the process. It also undermines confidence in the staff because the workforce will never be sure exactly why their boss has his or her job. Under a strict "best person for the job" every single person on the floor knows that the reason there is a female Project Manager is because she had proven her abilities on smaller shows and was deemed the best person for the job. Period.

 

Note that as the industry tends to promote from within the ranks, most people will have worked with her before and be well aware of her abilities. This cohesiveness and recognition of ability is destroyed by the simple existence of AA. Also note that the exisence of an AA program is essentially saying to your workforce that gender and race will trump ability, thereby destroying any incentive to work harder and vie for promotion. In short, very bad for morale.

 

Concerning the education. As I said, I support AA for the purposes of encouraging lower socio economic groups to gain further education. If however, a subset of that group decides not to pull their finger out and actually take advantage of the opportunity offered, then stuff them. It is manifestly unfair to penalize people of a lower socio economic group who do want to help themselves by accessing further education to give an extra helping to those of the subset that don't.

 

There is also the question of "Where do you stop?". You start with cheaper rates to encourage the lower socio groups to consider University. If that doesn't work how far are you willing to go with incentives? Free transport to and from Uni? Someone to carry their books for them? Free lunches? Free out of hours tutors? You will have to draw the line somewhere, but where? The longer a community keeps their kids out of University, the more things will be offered to them. Seems sort of counter productive to me.

Edited November 15, 2010 by JohnB

[Genecks]

I think we should do away with affirmative action. Just take it away and let people fight for whatever. The government intervention is unnecessary.

 

Here is another interesting read in relation to schools and affirmative action. I read it a few months ago:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas

 

After an eight-day bench trial in May of 1994, Judge Sparks issued his ruling on August 19, 1994. He determined that the University could continue to use the racial preferences which had been at issue in the litigation.[3]. In his ruling, he noted that while it was "regrettable that affirmative action programs are still needed in our society," they were still "a necessity" until society could overcome its legacy of institutional racism.

 

If I remember correctly, the US state of California is attempting to get rid of affirmative action in its entirety if it's not already gone.

 

Here is another good law case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

 

 

Honestly, after a lot of consideration about higher education, I've considered that private institutions are the place to go for people who want to excel in their education if they're doing well for themselves. In general, I'm trying to say take the power out of the government's hands and slowly move toward privatization of education. Dangerous idea, but I'm sure the strong will succeed and honored for their efforts rather than be discriminated against for something as petty as not being a certain skin color. In a lot of ways, private institutions can't get money as well as government-funded institutions: This is probably why public institutions continue to do well.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Genecks

[lemur]

Concerning the education. As I said, I support AA for the purposes of encouraging lower socio economic groups to gain further education. If however, a subset of that group decides not to pull their finger out and actually take advantage of the opportunity offered, then stuff them. It is manifestly unfair to penalize people of a lower socio economic group who do want to help themselves by accessing further education to give an extra helping to those of the subset that don't.

 

There is also the question of "Where do you stop?". You start with cheaper rates to encourage the lower socio groups to consider University. If that doesn't work how far are you willing to go with incentives? Free transport to and from Uni? Someone to carry their books for them? Free lunches? Free out of hours tutors? You will have to draw the line somewhere, but where? The longer a community keeps their kids out of University, the more things will be offered to them. Seems sort of counter productive to me.

As you note, there are still gendered (as well as racialized) competencies that are the product of a division of labor that has been institutionalized in terms of social identities. Just as feminine cultures have developed that cause many women to work a certain way generally in construction, as you mentioned, there are patterns of inferiority and subservience that have developed due to racial minority status. My black friends tell me that the use of the n-word among blacks is just friendly slang but I think it works as a reminder that blacks are not supposed to strive too much to achieve, lest they be beaten down as they once were as a rule. There is still distrust that if they do achieve, that they will not be met with hostilities in the organizational positions they do get. Thus while some people are brave enough to risk it, many would rather play it safe. If nothing is done to stimulate such people to strive, there is a good chance that they will accept positions of subservience and that this will result in a recurring pattern of racialized class stratification.

 

Some people do not mind seeing stratification continue and they feel perfectly comfortable telling themselves that it is caused by individual choices so if it continues for another 100 generations, it wouldn't bother them a bit. All they care about is that the toilet at their office gets cleaned and nevermind how the person who does it ended up with that job instead of sitting in one of the offices. Other people would like to disrupt the racialized and gendered patterns of relative occupational segregation that have become established. I agree with you that it is important not to hire people into positions they're not qualified for, because that is dysfunctional and embarrassing for the unqualified person. It's called "tokenism" and it has occurred quite a bit because of managers who cared more about compliance than about the individual they were hiring. Still, there is a certain amount of on-the-job training that occurs after people are hired and why wouldn't you expect that a relatively inexperienced person will ultimately gain experience through practice?

 

Finally, I hope you can see that there are lots of people (yourself included maybe?) who have grown accustomed to living in relatively segregated social situations and they aren't that eager to relinquish the social competencies they have achieved. Even if there's not a culture of explicit white supremacy present, there is often simply a culture of white-only where the existence of ethnic minorities in the world is simply ignored when it's not being treated as a problem. Obviously I can't speak for you or anyone else so please don't get defensive, but I have noticed this kind of thing myself in everyday situations that I wouldn't describe as particularly "racist."

[Genecks]

I don't really care if minorities complain, because I can easily say to them, "I'm poor, too."

 

I'm 24 and currently on the SMART and Pell Grant getting all that each grant offers. I suspect I can apply for the MAP grant, too, and get all of that. Obviously, I scored a 0 for my EFC. I'm in debt.

 

I'm poor, too.

 

My father grew up as a workaholic who blew his money on trivial things if not stuffing it in his retirement only for himself with no concern for us children. My mother never really worked too much, but when she did work, she often saved it and saved some up for my college education or vehicle repairs, etc... Lots of repairs through the years. She hurt herself around 51 years of age while working as a lib. aide in a middle school. She hadn't worked for a while. She's back working in a library to help me a little bit.

 

It wasn't until recently that my father has been taking me more serious and has considered giving me a decent amount of money to help me with my schooling. I guess he figured I was never going to make it all the way. I'm not there yet, but I'll have 122 credit hours by the end of this semester. I didn't expect my father to contribute at all, because he's retired, old, and has health issues himself. He's a strong mother*******, because he's fought off cancer twice, and fought off serious infections that should have destroyed his spine. But I know he needs that money for his health.

 

But me? I'm in debt.

 

I'm a white, caucasian, Catholic male; my grandparents were Irish-american. I'm the youngest of my family. My siblings did the following: one started a small carpet/flooring business based on things he learned from all his past carpet/flooring businesses (he's been in business about 14 years now) (he is 36); my brother is on social security and has had over 90+ arrests (he's 40); and my sister had a kid at 16, and she is now a medical assistant (she's 28): she's in serious debt, because she has health issues. My parents are in retirement age. My father is easily retired.

 

But I don't feel that being white should disqualify me from things nor segregate me. In fact, I think offering free education to minorities can be a bit spurious. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Genecks

[pioneer]

The history of affirmative action includes discussions of making reparations for past racial discrimination and to address continuing problems. That portion of affirmative action was left out of the bake sale analogy.

 

The problem with this logic is that people who were never slaves are treated like they were slaves. While people who never owned slaves and may have even been part of the civil rights movement are treated like they were slave owners. This is out of touch with cause and effect, therefore it is irrational. It uses a one size fits all mentality that separates reparation and guilt along racial lines, regardless if one had anything to do with slavery.

 

Racism is not only discrimination of others based on race (one-size fits all), but it is also connected to one's over attachment to their own race. Even without discriminating against another, if one is too for their own race; special interest, they are racists. Retroactive guilt is a way to perpetuate racism since it does not look at each person as a person, but lumps all into a racial divide. Ironically this racism comes from those who say they are the one's who are the most against racism.

 

If we treat all the same, nobody is segregate into a racial divide.

Edited November 16, 2010 by pioneer

[john5746]

I would also change the bake sale from white to Asian.

 

Asians not whites

 

Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants.

 

I think one hope in regards to admitting African Americans to colleges was that it would have an impact on the culture, to improve further generations. That doesn't appear to be working fast enough, if at all.

 

 

Cultural issue

 

“There’s accumulating evidence that there are racial differences in what kids experience before the first day of kindergarten,” said Ronald Ferguson, director of the Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard. “They have to do with a lot of sociological and historical forces. In order to address those, we have to be able to have conversations that people are unwilling to have.”

 

Those include “conversations about early childhood parenting practices,” Dr. Ferguson said. “The activities that parents conduct with their 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds. How much we talk to them, the ways we talk to them, the ways we enforce discipline, the ways we encourage them to think and develop a sense of autonomy.”

[lemur]

But I don't feel that being white should disqualify me from things nor segregate me. In fact, I think offering free education to minorities can be a bit spurious. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

 

When people talk about "reverse discrimination," I wonder if they really envision what things would look like if that were the case. Can you imagine all the most expensive neighborhoods you know of excluding whites from living there? Can you imagine ghettos and other low-income neighborhoods being predominately inhabited by whites? Can you imagine corporate workplaces being predominantly minority with a small number of token whites in relatively prestigious positions except for the various support-service personnel, which would be predominantly white? Do you really expect affirmative action to create such a situation?

 

If anything, what whites/males should be complaining about is discrimination that occurs due to other factors. When there is a great deal of competition for limited positions, what factors influence hiring decisions besides one's qualification for doing the productive work required? Aren't factors such as "personality fit" similar to discrimination on the basis of looks, such as skin tone? Don't employers favor people for all sorts of social reasons that have little to do with the actual productive labor to be performed? Then, they justify this discrimination by claiming that social-fit is part of functioning well in a team. Well, if not being confronted with people you're bigoted against was conducive to better team-work, why wouldn't that be a legitimate basis for not hiring people on the basis of color, religion, sexuality, gender, or anything else that the bigots on the team didn't like?

 

At some point, don't people just have to work together regardless of "social fit" to get the work done? Or should workplaces be social clubs?

Edited November 16, 2010 by lemur

[zapatos]

The problem with this logic is that people who were never slaves are treated like they were slaves. While people who never owned slaves and may have even been part of the civil rights movement are treated like they were slave owners.

I find this to be just a bit of an exaggeration. If someone were really treated as if they had been a slave and are now being compensated for that injustice, I hardly think that a university to consider race as a factor in admitting that person would be considered just compensation. On the other hand, if segregation had resulted in a person having fewer opportunities, then giving them a little extra consideration when deciding if they can attend a school seems like it may be reasonable compensation.

 

I am a white male living in the US and I do not feel as if I am being treated as if I was a slave owner. If you are treated like you were a slave owner can you give some examples of what actions by others have made you feel like that?

 

This is out of touch with cause and effect, therefore it is irrational.

 

It would be irrational if it were true. I think you need to come up with references to support your contention that people are being treated like they were slaves and slave owners due to AA.

 

It uses a one size fits all mentality that separates reparation and guilt along racial lines, regardless if one had anything to do with slavery.

 

It separates reparation along racial lines because the discrimination was along racial lines. Where else would you separate it? And AA doesn't say "white people are guilty". If someone feels guilty and knows they did nothing wrong then that is their problem.

Edited November 17, 2010 by zapatos

[JohnB]

lemur, I'm not too sure how to take your post. It seems that you are saying that the differences between genders don't exist in reality are simply the result of conditioning.

 

Could you please rephrase the post so that I'm sure what you are saying?

[Genecks]

lemur, I'm not too sure how to take your post. It seems that you are saying that the differences between genders don't exist in reality are simply the result of conditioning.

 

Could you please rephrase the post so that I'm sure what you are saying?

 

This topic is focused really on education, I would think, and I would hope that many of us can keep that focus.

 

Men surely are in the minority in terms of employment in the U.S., as women have higher employment than men.

 

With that in mind, I've often considered that part of the reason for a large increase in female education the past few decades is not only due to woman liberation, but due to their higher employment, which may be due to them being favored, socially desired for hiring if not due to their abilities and skills. Now, if you want to get controversial, I'd say that women have become sexist in particular pink-collar jobs in an attempt to exclude men from entering them, cutting into wage profits, and from men possibly using earned wages to educate themselves. I believe health-care fields (and within those fields some historically considered pink-collar jobs) are particularly the fields that have been the media for which women have been seeking employment and using employment to obtain higher education. I wouldn't exclude that women have some control over pink-collar professions.

 

I believe Lemur is attempting to ask if I can imagine a society where, for instance, black men are of the most powerful and prestigious while white men are very much the minority and are hired as tokens in many cases. I'm sure there are a few places, and I could think of such. But I'd say such microscopic social institutions are not a major representation of many important and functioning social institutions in America.

 

Nonetheless, this topic is focused really on education, and I would hope that many of us can keep that focus.

 

If I wanted to get controversial, I could say that asians are starting to pull ahead of whites in the American educational system. That, however, may be due to a few things: higher population of asians, more community-based learning styles, and historically a higher emphasis on education. Combine this with free money for education, it would appear that many Asian-Americans are obtaining a particular fitness for success in America.

 

I've often considered that given enough time, whites would surely be the minority, and asian-americans would become the educated majority. But I think it might take another decade or two to establish such an idea.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Genecks

[CharonY]

According to this unemployment rate differences between women and men can be explained by the different jobs they hold. Also I am wondering whether stay-at-home moms are counted as unemployed (I should check out the methodology). More to the point, according to the last statistics I have seen women are still underrepresented in top jobs and receive lower salaries in similar jobs.

 

If I wanted to get controversial, I could say that asians are starting to pull ahead of whites in the American educational system. That, however, may be due to a few things: higher population of asians, more community-based learning styles, and historically a higher emphasis on education. Combine this with free money for education, it would appear that many Asian-Americans are obtaining a particular fitness for success in America.

 

I would disagree with several points. It is true that there is a high emphasis on education in Asian communities, often paired with strong work ethics. However, increasing number should not be an issue, Asians are still a relatively small proportion of the overall population. Also I do not think that most Asians are elgible for free tuition. In fact, most Asians in universities I have encountered are foreigners. IIRC something ike 50% of all postdocs and 25% of faculty in the US are non-Americans, with Indians and Chinese being among the top groups (numerically).

 

That being said, I would agree that in most cases affirmative action based on social backgroung rather than ethnicity makes more sense. In many cases they are at least somewhat coupled as in many cases individuals above a certain income (or parent's income) are not eligible for certain stipends. There is, however, another aspect to it. How is the selection process? Ideally one would say that it goes to the most talented from a pool of low-income students. However, as several studies have shown in different countries the very same essay can be graded differently depending on the student's name. That is, if they sounded foreign or, in case of the USA had names associated with the black population, they earned lower scores. Personally I would prefer a socially based, double-blinded selection.

[lemur]

This topic is focused really on education, I would think, and I would hope that many of us can keep that focus.

The problem with keeping the focus on education is that few people really use education for education whereas almost everyone uses education to at least some extent as a entry ticket for relatively exclusive professional careers. While it would be wonderful if people could accumulate the same knowledge through non-institutional means and get jobs using that knowledge, the reality is that credentialism basically prevents non-credentialled people from being seriously considered equally to those with credentials or more prestigious credentials.

 

Men surely are in the minority in terms of employment in the U.S., as women have higher employment than men.

Remember that "minority" refers to power more than numbers. More women may be employed simply because they are more deferential to authority (in the eyes of their employers at least). As such, they may be preferred in hiring not because they are powerful but because they are viewed as relatively powerless and therefore non-threatening. This hardly makes female the dominant sex. Still, there are some people who claim that feminine power is growing in dominance, but imo that doesn't really have anything to do with biological females vs. males.

 

It's more about whether social cooperative power succeeds in shunning independence, confrontationalism, directness, etc. and replaces it with "more comfortable" forms of power. Men are just as instrumental in this power shift as are women and some of the people most instrumental in resisting it are women since they have experienced it intimately enough to dislike it.

 

I believe Lemur is attempting to ask if I can imagine a society where, for instance, black men are of the most powerful and prestigious while white men are very much the minority and are hired as tokens in many cases. I'm sure there are a few places, and I could think of such. But I'd say such microscopic social institutions are not a major representation of many important and functioning social institutions in America.

My point was that there's no basis for claiming "reverse discrimination" is rampant. If it were, white heterosexual males would be excluded from the most lucrative organizations and neighborhoods. They would be living in low-income areas and struggling with a much higher unemployment rate than those classified in other racial/gender/sexuality categories.

 

If I wanted to get controversial, I could say that asians are starting to pull ahead of whites in the American educational system. That, however, may be due to a few things: higher population of asians, more community-based learning styles, and historically a higher emphasis on education. Combine this with free money for education, it would appear that many Asian-Americans are obtaining a particular fitness for success in America.

Um, education is not a team sport of races vs. races, is it? If people succeed or fail, isn't that due to their individual effort or lack thereof, or specific forms of discrimination?

 

I've often considered that given enough time, whites would surely be the minority, and asian-americans would become the educated majority. But I think it might take another decade or two to establish such an idea.

I have a hard time imagining that there aren't patterns of family wealth and cultural favoritism that won't maintain white supremacy to some degree, at least until a more egalitarian economy is reached. Cynical as it may be, I just can't believe that current institutions/organizations are not rigged to prevent whites from being subjugated to non-whites. Ideally, subjugation would end and no one would be subjugated to anyone else on the basis of racial identity or anything else. Unfortunately, however, many economic practices still rely on subjugation to a great extent, which requires that certain people be tracked into certain jobs for others not to have to. As long as people don't cook and clean for themselves, there's going to be money in it for someone else - and they're not going to get rich doing those jobs.