Left-wing Questions About Affirmative Action

Nick Gillespie | January 9, 2005

Via the great site Arts & Letters Daily comes this extremely interesting review essay about affirmative action in The Nation.

While taking a long, critical look at The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action, by Terry H. Anderson; Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study by Thomas Sowell; and Affirmative Action Is Dead; Long Live Affirmative Action, by Faye J. Crosby, Michael Berube skewers many of the basic right- and left-wing pieties on the topic and instead poses a series of curious paradoxes, including this one:

In the workplace, affirmative action has been checkered by fraud and confounded by the indeterminacy of racial identities--and yet it's so popular as to constitute business as usual for American big business, as evidenced by the sixty-eight Fortune 500 corporations, twenty-nine former high-ranking military leaders and twenty-eight broadcast media companies and organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action programs in the recent Supreme Court cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).

He also recovers the context that gave birth to affirmative action, one often glossed by conservative and libertarian diatribes against quotas and the like:

In 1964, in Holly Bluff, Mississippi, school officials spent $190 for every white student and $1.26 (note the decimal point) for every black one. As [Terry H.] Anderson sums up, the pace of black hiring in the 1950s meant that "minorities could not expect jobs proportionate to their percentage of the population...among business managers and owners until 2730." As Satchel Paige might have said, don't look back--some glacier might be gaining on you.

That was the world in which the 1964 Civil Rights Act intervened; that was the world changed by JFK's creation of the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, Congress's passage of the Voting Rights Act and LBJ's executive order 11246, which dictated that "the contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

And he ends on this evenhanded note:

As Scott Jaschik reported last summer in the Boston Globe, "The University of Michigan released enrollment figures for next fall showing that the number of black students in its freshman class would be declining by as much as 13 percent. That same day, Texas A&M University--a school that refuses to consider race or ethnicity in admissions--announced its own numbers for the fall. Enrollment would be going up--dramatically--for all minority groups, including a whopping 57 percent increase for black students."

While I hardly agree with everything Berube says, he's written an interesting and honest take on the matter. It's online here.

A while back in Reason, Richard Epstein asked, "can affirmative action be reconciled with liberal individualism?" His answer--as interesting (oh, hell, more interesting) than anything in The Nation--is online here.

Comments

|1.9.05 @ 8:30PM|#

Where's Epstein's link?

|1.9.05 @ 8:37PM|#

And fix the blockquoting! What do we pay you for, Gillespie! Who hid my shoes again? Blue pills are for every other day!

|1.9.05 @ 8:38PM|#

Where's Epstein's link?

Google: richard epstein site:reason.com

You'll get it all.

|1.9.05 @ 8:51PM|#

That same day, Texas A&M University--a school that refuses to consider race or ethnicity in admissions--announced its own numbers for the fall. Enrollment would be going up--dramatically--for all minority groups, including a whopping 57 percent increase for black students.

I am not going to defend AA, but Texas has AA by another name as I recall; namely the admit the top 10% of students from every highschool in the land to its state schools. Since the top 10% of every highschool in Texas are hardly equal in their academic performance, and those that perform least well tend to come from poor and minority dominated districts, you can see how this is backdoor AA.

|1.9.05 @ 8:54PM|#

And Texas highschool students, parents, etc., realize this is backdoor AA from the interviews I've seen on the subject.

Michigan could do the same thing with its undergraduate program (with the law school this is not so readily applicable), but I suspect that many Michigan parents would bitch to high heaven if such a program were brought into being, since it would squeeze out a heck of lot of bright students from affluent area.

Nick Gillespie|1.9.05 @ 9:02PM|#

Tough crowd. I've supplied the Epstein link and fixed the blockquotes.

|1.9.05 @ 10:58PM|#

"...since it would squeeze out a heck of lot of bright students from affluent area."

Why are affluent students going to a state school in the first place? Aren't they the customer base for private schools?

|1.9.05 @ 11:31PM|#

"Why are affluent students going to a state school in the first place? Aren't they the customer base for private schools?"

That's why Michigan are such a good deal for Michiganders; it's a decent enough school that there is high demand from out-of-staters, but they pay very little. When I went there tuition was an absolute bargain for in-staters, considering the national reputation of the school.

Ayn_Randian|1.10.05 @ 2:49AM|#

Libertarians and conservative never "forgot" the context, we knew why it happened, Gillespie. Stop trying to be so "not-conservative" for once and realize that enforced AA, whether private or public, is wrong, and that our society should be based on achievement and ability, not on the color of your skin, no matter which way the sword cuts.

|1.10.05 @ 2:58AM|#

"and yet it's so popular as to constitute business as usual for American big business, as evidenced by the sixty-eight Fortune 500 corporations...filed amicus briefs in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action programs

Well, I'm not so sure that 68 out of 500 is much evidence of popularity, but I was thinking that the appeal might be that if they meet certain quota numbers, they will be able to make their other hiring and promotion decisions with out regard to race.

In 1964, in Holly Bluff, Mississippi, school officials spent $190 for every white student and $1.26 (note the decimal point) for every black one.

Government mistreatment of blacks in no way gives ethical sanction to discriminate against whites. The tragedy of racial discrimination is that it is unfair to real individuals. It is a denial of individuality. Changing the color of the individuals who are the victims of a discrimination with the force of law behind it is no solution to the injustice at all. Affirmative action just creates more injustice.

LBJ's executive order 11246, which dictated that "the contractor will take affirmative action to ensure ...that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

Current government affirmative action programs are clearly racist and would be in violation of that executive order.

Texas A&M University--a school that refuses to consider race or ethnicity in admissions

Good for them! Racial discrimination almost always is unfair to real individuals and should be opposed vigorously by private citizens, not the government. Let alone, government affirmative action programs which actually force racial discrimination.

Also, in the Feb. print issue of Reason, which is on sale now, Julian Sanchez writes about a fascinating study which concludes that elimination of affirmative action policies for law school admissions would result in *more* black lawyers.

|1.10.05 @ 8:54AM|#

Rick Barton,

The point of my statements above is that Texas A&M does consider race, just in a round about way.

|1.10.05 @ 9:19AM|#

On only a slightly different note, Prof Richard Sanders of UCLA just published an assesment of the costs and benefits of affirmative action in the Stanford Law Review.

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Data%20and%20Procedures/StanfordArt.htm

|1.10.05 @ 9:20AM|#

yet it's so popular as to constitute business as usual for American big business, as evidenced by the sixty-eight Fortune 500 corporations...filed amicus briefs in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action programs

I don't know if 'popular' is really the word you want here.

Fortune 500 companies like nothing more than the status quo (so once a racial preference program gets adopted, it aint going anywhere), are constant targets for racial blackmail from hustlers like Jesse Jackson, tend to have government contracts that require affirmative action, and have a host of other reasons, I'm sure, for scoring relatively cheap PR points by filing amicus briefs.

|1.10.05 @ 9:36AM|#

"That was the world in which the 1964 Civil Rights Act intervened; that was the world changed by JFK's creation of the Committee on Equal Employment.."

That's an interesting observation given that black families of the 1950's were largely intact working class families that had yet to discover the taint of drug abuse, burning cities, illegitimacy, crack houses, black power, and the welfare plantation (yes I know about the KKK and the racist south. I also know that the same government that is so frikking popular today is the one that enforced racism by law in the south and other places).

On the actual issue, AA is immoral-as Rick, Ayn, & others have eloquently pointed out.

Warren|1.10.05 @ 10:08AM|#

dead elvis writes:
"Why are affluent students going to a state school in the first place? Aren't they the customer base for private schools?"

That's why Michigan are such a good deal for Michiganders; it's a decent enough school that there is high demand from out-of-staters, but they pay very little. When I went there tuition was an absolute bargain for in-staters, considering the national reputation of the school.

Actually, State Schools (MI, MSU, et al) are a horrible deal for us Michiganders. The out-of-staters barely cover their own cost and don't make a dent in the subsidies paid by the state to it's big schools. Taxpayers like myself have to cover the difference of course. Since the overwhelming majority of student enrollment comes from the most affluent of the state (where the best schools are), state schools are effectively reverse Robbin Hood programs that rob from middle class and give to the rich. A small percentage enrolled via AA doesn't change that. In fact, one of the arguments for AA is that it provides a superior educational environment for the other (read; real) students. There is a ballot initiative effort going on to outlaw AA in college enrollment, but I think this is a case of skewering the hole but missing the doughnut.

Gary,
I don't find T A&M policy as objectionable as AA. It may disproportionately reward black students, but only because blacks account for a disproportionate chunk of the poor population. I think there is great merit in requiring the state to ignore all question of race. This policy is designed to reward poor students, even should more blacks benefit, poor students of all races have equal opportunity.

|1.10.05 @ 10:11AM|#

Warren,

Perhaps, I still think that race is a consideration in all of this, even if the system is somewhat less odious.

|1.10.05 @ 10:16AM|#

futurelawyer,

The Sander study that you linked to is the same one that Julian writes about in the Feb. print issue of Reason. From the link that you provided:

"In the case of blacks, at least, the objective costs of preferential admissions appear to substantially outweigh the benefits."

|1.10.05 @ 10:46AM|#

a superior educational environment

The problems I have with this notion are that 1) a "multicultural" educational environment is expected to be held without proof as a superior educational environment (because you're only right if you're progressive) and 2) the cultural lines are presumed to be bound by "race". Could there be anything more prejudicial than presuming an influx of black culture from an influx of black students? If a small group of 8 white kids from Santa Barbara is joined by 2 black kids from Santa Barbara, you haven't likely introduced any cultural mix except that which the black kids may have identified with on MTV.

|1.10.05 @ 11:00AM|#

Going back to 1964 might justify the origination of affirmative action, but it doesn't justify its continuation today. Can't the defenders bring up more recent conditions?

|1.10.05 @ 11:13AM|#

My understanding is that big companies like affirmative action because it's an easy way to defend against lawsuits (well, except the lawsuits claiming AA is wrong, but you know what I mean).


As to 2 black kids from Santa Barbara joining 8 white kids from Santa Barbara, I've met both of the black kids from Santa Barbara and I think they'd make a great addition to any classroom.

|1.10.05 @ 11:48AM|#

Going back to 1964 might justify the origination of affirmative action, but it doesn't justify its continuation today.

If 1964 began diversity in the universities. I recall there being, before government mandate, controversy over colleges seeking students different from the majority of their traditional student bodies. Different by way of race, ethnicity, religion and geographical origin.

|1.10.05 @ 11:59AM|#

I suspect that many Michigan parents would bitch to high heaven if such a program were brought into being, since it would squeeze out a heck of lot of bright students from affluent area.

This is an extremely racist statement. Children from affluent neighborhoods are no brighter than children from poor neighborhoods. The difference is that the state has provided the children from the affluent neighborhood with a better education. Your logic effectively goes soemthing like this: The people that the state chooses to educate well when young deserve the continued preferential treatment of the state for the rest of their lives. Strom Thurmond would be proud.

|1.10.05 @ 12:28PM|#

One side effect of the T A&M 10% rule is that it prevents some out of state students who would normally get into the school out. Since it doesn't take into account standardized test scores it prevents the eliminations of a lot of low scoring students who wouldn't get in. These students take up spots from out of state students or those smart students from good high school who are not in the top 10% of their class.

Case in point I recall that the year before policy around ten students from my high school(which was in NM) went to T A&M. The following year only one student out of about 15 got in.

Different standards for different people is going to always lead to problems...

|1.10.05 @ 12:36PM|#

It's only a "problem," Dave, if you consider a class made up, overwhelmingly, of white middle- and upper-class kids from the suburbs to be the ideal. If you believe there is a benefit to having the university serve as a place where people from different backgrounds interact with each and bring different points to view to bear on the discussions and classes, then admitting some students with lower grades could be a worthwhile tradeoff.

|1.10.05 @ 12:52PM|#

Gary, you're absolutely correct. I believe that any state university in TX must automatically accept any student in the top 10% of his/her public high school. This is AA by any other name, and does indeed create the problems that Dave mentions.

|1.10.05 @ 2:49PM|#

It's not really a problem, though - Texas state schools should be run for the benefit of Texas, not New Mexico. And, doesn't New Mexico have universities?

Also: I can't cotton on to the notion of the "top 10%" being AA. This actually may be a more optimal strategy, since it takes the brightest, most hard-working kids from around the state, regardless of whether their school system has screwed them or not. The losers aren't going to be the best and brightest - remember, the top 10% still get in! The losers are the B+ students in better neighborhoods who will now have to coast to somewhere else.

Ayn_Randian|1.10.05 @ 3:41PM|#

Wrong, CTD. If the bottom 20% of one school (say, a magnet school) are smarter than the top 10% of another school, how is that taking the best and brightest? In my area of rural Ohio, I could've gone to a backwoods, "k-12 all in one school" with 15 graduating seniors and been top 10%. Does that make me the best and the brightest? Only if you think I am bright for gaming the system.

|1.10.05 @ 4:13PM|#

I could've gone to a backwoods, "k-12 all in one school" with 15 graduating seniors and been top 10%. Does that make me the best and the brightest?

It would make you the best and the brightest in that school; only one person from that backwoods school will graduate in the top 10% of the class. Are you seriously saying that every single person at your magnet school is smarter than every single student at your backwoods school?

|1.10.05 @ 6:02PM|#

Ayn Randian, if you think I'm wrong, you'll have to show that the old system is better. Your absurd assertion doesn't show that, and also is surprisingly snobby for a Randian.

Ayn_Randian|1.10.05 @ 8:54PM|#

I can be snobby if I choose. And what I am saying is that it's possible that every kid, or even the top 11% of the magnet school are smarter than the 10% in the backwoods, ghetto, or toe' up suburb school, meaning you won't get the best and the brightest, period. If you ignore the one kid at the magnet school even if he's smarter than the backwoods valedictorian, you didn't get the best and the brightest, did you CTD?

|1.10.05 @ 9:12PM|#

Ayn Randian, it's worth pointing out that in many states with guaranteed admission for the top 10%, the actual sorting process is somewhat more complicated:

1) Being in the top 10% is usually sufficient for admission, but not necessary. Good students in competitive schools (e.g. magnet schools) will get in even if they didn't make the top 10%. And this is feasible because not everybody in the top 10% will choose to attend the state university system. Some will go to private schools or out of state schools or join the military or do something else after college.

2) Being in the top 10% usually guarantees them admission to the state university system, but not necessarily to the school of their choice. The top 20% at a magnet school may have a better chance of getting into the most elite state school, while the top 10% at a less competitive school might (depending on their grades, test scores, extracurricular activities, etc.) find themselves in second-tier state universities.

So the system still is not completely blind to other qualifications.

(And yes, I know, public universities shouldn't exist, etc. etc. As long as they do exist, we might as well talk about how they're run.)

|1.11.05 @ 11:53AM|#

AR, I will concede your right to be snobby and that the system might be unfair to the magnet 11-percenters. Per thoreau, it appears that has been considered and given a maybe-not-bad real world solution. At least, it smells better to me than the straight 10-percent solution.

Of course, it could all wind up a huge mess, with the kids from schools that did good college prep kicking all kinds of ass and the others poorly assimilated and flunking freshman pre-calculus. It will be fun to see.