New at Reason

December 12, 2006

Cathy Young celebrates the victory of an anti-affirmative action measure in Michigan.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Avon Marxdale? | Main | Witchfinders →

See all 90 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|12.12.06 @ 9:27AM|#

good article. being against affirmative action is one of the most maligned positions in this country today. look at the movies in our culture. the only time you see that position represented in film by a white character, they end up being racist like "american history x".

|12.12.06 @ 9:36AM|#

What would you think of an admissions system that allocated a "beneficial" score (a "plus") based on a lack of applicant representation - and would it pass muster under Prop 2? In other words, let's say out of 100 total law school applicants, only 2 are white and the rest are black. In that system, whites receive a plus. If the 2 are black, blacks receive a plus. Race is still a criteria out of many criteria for admissions, but that we give "credit" to the more different applicants in terms of race - regardless if they are white, black, hispanic, etc.

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 9:43AM|#

Cathy Young, hero of the enfranchised!

|12.12.06 @ 9:47AM|#

From the article:

Affirmative action began as a system of outreach to ensure that minority candidates and women got an equal chance to compete. Today, it has become a system of well-meaning discrimination.

No need to use the "well-meaning" qualifier. There's absolutely nothing well-meaning about telling fair-skinned applicants, "Sorry, we've got enough of your kind" while telling dark-skinned applicants, "Here's a helping hand because we know you can't make it on your own." Racism is racism, and this policy and so many others like it cuts both ways.

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 9:52AM|#

There's absolutely nothing well-meaning about telling fair-skinned applicants, "Sorry, we've got enough of your kind" while telling dark-skinned applicants, "Here's a helping hand because we know you can't make it on your own."

Nobody makes it "on their own", that's the whole point.

|12.12.06 @ 9:57AM|#

Nobody makes it "on their own", that's the whole point.

Yes, we are all nothing more than members of a tribe, and if a beauracrat is kind enough to feed and clothe us then we should be eteranlly grateful.

Personal responsibility and pride in accomplishment are dated concepts. Get with the times, man.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 9:58AM|#

I think AA was a good idea when it was implemented; I think the problem is that it needed a built-in expiration date. I agree with that comment Johnson made (paraphrased here because I don't feel like looking it up) about how if you've been hobbled and chained all your life, and then the chains are taken off seconds before you start a race, it is not true to say you have just as much chance of winning as anyone else in the race.

But AA isn't supposed to be a permanent thing. It's been more than 40 years now, and we should try becoming a meritocracy rather than a nation where different standards exist for different races.

Ryo|12.12.06 @ 10:00AM|#

Her ACT score was pretty low, I'm surprised she even bothered applying.

Anyway, in the case of UofM, they have a wacky admissions system where they award points based on various things.

Grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula? 16 pts.
Took a bunch of AP classes in HS? 8 pts.
Went to a top HS? 10 pts.
Poor? 20 pts.
Black or Latino? 20 pts. (mutually exclusive with the poor criteria - poor black kids would only get 20 pts - not 40).

Since black students were less likely to be from the UP, have access to AP classes or top high schools the points awarded to them was actually kind of an equalizing thing - not a preference thing. Actually, given the point system, you were much better off being a poor white kid from the UP (36pts) than a poor black kid from Detroit (20pts).

|12.12.06 @ 10:00AM|#

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Yes. A law forbidding discrimination is clearly discriminatory and racist.

|12.12.06 @ 10:02AM|#

Dan T.,

Do you really think that applicants' skin color or ancestry is a good guide to figuring out who needs some extra help?

|12.12.06 @ 10:07AM|#

umm, I'm pretty sure Mayor Kilpatrick knew he was paraphrasing Wallace. How very condescending to assume he did not.

Incidentally I voted for the prop.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 10:08AM|#

I think the first "Dan T" comment was the real deal, while the second one was fake. Whoever's doing the Spartacus thing to Dan: why not save it for when he's actually trolling, instead of when he has something of actual interest to say? Just a thought.

|12.12.06 @ 10:16AM|#

Whoever is impersonating Dan T. should at least use a different email address/URL. Then people would know it's a joke. It's one thing to mock someone, but it's counterproductive to actually pretend to be them.

|12.12.06 @ 10:21AM|#

Why would anyone think the second comment isn't genuine. That's Dan T. to a T.

|12.12.06 @ 10:27AM|#

I think we should move to a truly egalitarian system: a lottery. And, for the students who are randomly selected for admission, we can ensure equality of results by eliminating tests and grades. What the heck- curriculum, too. We'll start with the med schools.

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 10:27AM|#

When I said "Nobody makes it on their own", I mean that factors beyond our control contribute heavily to our success (or lack thereof).

I'm sure most students who get into top schools came from stable environments with educated parents who emphasize schooling. This doesn't mean they don't deserve the fruits of their labor, but let's not pretend socio-economic status isn't a major advantage for certain kids…one that they did not earn.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 10:34AM|#

This doesn't mean they don't deserve the fruits of their labor, but let's not pretend socio-economic status isn't a major advantage for certain kids…one that they did not earn.

True, but is there some point where we just have to say "life is unfair and government can't change that?"

Think of this: say I have a health problem, so I need surgery. Surgery is inherently dangerous, so I want the best damn doctor I can find. Doctor A, the son of surgeons himself, had a rich, educated childhood and then graduated from the top of his class at a super-prestigious medical school. Doctor B was raised in the projects. He only got into medical school because of affirmative action--his grades simply weren't good enough on his own. He graduated from med school at the bottom of his class.

Maybe in an alternate universe, Doctor B was raised by responsible parents and grew up to become the greatest doctor in history. But here in our own universe, Doctor B simply is NOT as talented, doctorwise, as Doctor A. And there is no way in hell I'm letting Doctor B perform surgery on me. I want my surgeon to be the guy who's damned good at what he does, not the guy who was held to a much, much lower standard on the theory that he can't compete on the same playing field as others.

Rhywun|12.12.06 @ 10:34AM|#

One of my high-school classmates got a full ride to Harvard, while I, who ranked several rungs above him, paid my way through state college. No big deal; I was happy for him. But there's a bit of a difference between levelling out the playing field and providing a massive, insurmountable advantage like that.

|12.12.06 @ 10:35AM|#

-Dan T

The factors you have pointed out are ones attributed to private institutions, such as family, or community. they have nothing to do with the government. Oh, and socio-economic status is one that is earned, by the parents, the people that make the choices. The same people whos choices are being taken away, by the state, on racist terms.

|12.12.06 @ 10:36AM|#

Go read the latest article in the Washington Post about stereotype stimulation and you'll be a little more cautious about that "we ain't got no problems anymore in society!"

And when libertarians are as hot-under-the-collar about getting rid of legacy admissions as you are about AA, let me know.

|12.12.06 @ 10:40AM|#

This is about Asians more than anything else. White acceptance rates stay about the same regardless of affirmative action. Asian acceptance rates go way down. People used to do this kind of crap in the 40s and 50s with Jews. The presigous schools strictly limited the number of Jews they let him lest they become too Hebrew. Today we strictly limit the number of Asians lest the schools become "too brown". There is just no way around those facts. If you endorse affirmative action, you endorse the outright descrimination limiting of opportunities for Asians.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 10:42AM|#

And when libertarians are as hot-under-the-collar about getting rid of legacy admissions as you are about AA, let me know.

I also oppose legacy admissions. I want everybody judged on their own merits, not their skin color or their parents' alma mater.

Rhywun|12.12.06 @ 10:44AM|#

Well John, if they just dumbed themselves down a bit, they wouldn't have that problem, now would they?

|12.12.06 @ 10:47AM|#

"Well John, if they just dumbed themselves down a bit, they wouldn't have that problem, now would they?"

If they would just get more "authentic" as minorities and start joining gangs, getting pregnant at 16 and shooting each other rather than studying so damned hard all of the time and acting white, they probably would get a lot more love from liberals.

|12.12.06 @ 10:51AM|#

"But here in our own universe, Doctor B simply is NOT as talented, doctorwise, as Doctor A. And there is no way in hell I'm letting Doctor B perform surgery on me. I want my surgeon to be the guy who's damned good at what he does, not the guy who was held to a much, much lower standard on the theory that he can't compete on the same playing field as others."

And your irrational prejudice against poor, hard-working Doctor B (who needs the "practice" more than Doctor A anyhow) is why the AMA doesn't want you to know anything more than that they both have "M D" appended to their name.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 10:56AM|#

In high school, one of my friends was a girl who was salutatorian, and got a full scholarship to a damn good state school. She got it because she was a smart girl who worked her ass off. But she hated AA, because people assumed she only got her scholarship for being a twofer: a woman and a black.

Sincere question for those who still believe affirmative action is a good thing, over 40 years after it began: if I am injured and taken to an emergency room, and there are two available doctors (one white, one black), am I being a racist or showing common sense if I choose the white doctor? Thing is, all I know about these doctors is their skin color, and I know that a white doctor most likely had to make it through school on his own.

As for the black doctor, he might be the greatest doctor ever, but might also be an incompetent guy who only made it through because of affirmative action. I don't know which, and I am not willing to bet my life on it, so I'd prefer to avoid black doctors unless they prove themselves individually.

Is this racist or common sense? The thing is, I truly believe that there's no inherent difference in intelligence between races and ethnicities. But blacks are human just as anybody else, and many humans have the attitude "Why work harder than I have to?" Why bust your balls to get a straight-A average when you know a B average will still get you into Harvard on a scholarship? Why turn down a party invitation to study, when you know you'll pass the test whether you know the material or not?

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 11:04AM|#

Surgery is inherently dangerous, so I want the best damn doctor I can find. Doctor A, the son of surgeons himself, had a rich, educated childhood and then graduated from the top of his class at a super-prestigious medical school. Doctor B was raised in the projects. He only got into medical school because of affirmative action--his grades simply weren't good enough on his own. He graduated from med school at the bottom of his class.

Your point is not a bad one, but would you want the doctor who graduated from the bottom of his class anyway, regardless of what criteria was used to admit him or her?

I don't think AA programs simply fill quotas with whatever minority students are willing to sign up. Anybody admitted to a top med school is going to be an excellent student, and if they graduate and pass the boards then there's no reason to think they wouldn't be at least a good doctor.

I would agree with you totally if AA was used to make sure a certain % of minorities graduated, which would indicate standards being lowered. But being admitted into a school is a means to an end, not an end itself.

AA is about giving opportunities, not guaranteeing results.

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 11:06AM|#

Thing is, all I know about these doctors is their skin color, and I know that a white doctor most likely had to make it through school on his own.

Or, his father wrote a big check to the school.

Rhywun|12.12.06 @ 11:08AM|#

am I being a racist or showing common sense if I choose the white doctor?

Although I don't support AA anymore, I'll answer anyway.... The correct answer is "racist", because there is no affirmative action for graduating from medical school - if you can't perform they'll kick you out regardless of your race.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 11:08AM|#

AA is about giving opportunities, not guaranteeing results.

Maybe in theory, but not in practice. Affirmative action only helps losers: if you're smart and have good grades, you don't need affirmative action.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 11:10AM|#

The correct answer is "racist", because there is no affirmative action for graduating from medical school - if you can't perform they'll kick you out regardless of your race.

Even so, I want the guy who made it into that school on his own merits, not someone who was AA'd in (or legacied in).

For what it's worth, if our president had a brother who's a doctor, I wouldn't let him near me with a scalpel, either. No rich-kid C-average doctors for me, thanks anyway.

Rhywun|12.12.06 @ 11:13AM|#

Even so, I want the guy who made it into that school on his own merits, not someone who was AA'd in (or legacied in).

Well, I can understand that, but how do you propose to determine that? If you look at the black guy and think "AA", it's racism. I suppose you could try asking...

|12.12.06 @ 11:19AM|#

Jennifer,

You make the best point. Once you lower the standards for one group, you devalue the accomplishment of that entire group. Every minority who works hard and deserves it by any standard is assumed to have gotten there because they were minority and had a lower standard. That is not doing anyone any favors.

Also, afirmative action does nothing to address the horrible graduation rates of minority students. For example, less than 50% of black law students ever pass the bar. How exactly are we helping black students by admitting those who are unqualified and won't pass the bar to law school?

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 11:20AM|#

Another point in favor of AA is that grades and test scores don't tell the whole story.

Let's say two people apply for the last spot at your school. Student A has an SAT score of 1300, while Student B scored 1250. However, upon investigation you find out that Student A went to a top high school, never had to work a job, and enjoyed a stable home life. Student B, on the other hand, went to an under-funded school in a bad neighborhood, and had to work at McDonald's part-time to help support his family after his parents split up.

So if test scores were all you cared about, you'd admit Student A. But looking at the whole picture, you could make the case that Student B is actually a better student and is more likely to have success at your school. Is this unfair to Student A?

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 11:21AM|#

Well, I can understand that, but how do you propose to determine that? If you look at the black guy and think "AA", it's racism.

How can you say that, when it's a fact that AA does indeed push through a lot of underachievers? When the government mandates a three-tiered system wherein Asians are held to the highest standards of all, whites are held to a middle-ground standard and blacks are held to the lowest standards, it is racist to notice this?

I'm white, and had grades good enough to get into College A, from whence I graduated. Had I been black with my GPA, I would have received a full scholarship and made it through school for free. Had I been Asian with my GPA, I would not have been allowed into that college at all; Asians are supposed to meet higher standards. How the hell is such institutionalized racism supposed to end racism, exactly? If anything it feeds it; I think all races are intellectually equal, but I know damned well all races are NOT held to equal standards.

So yes, I'll assume an Asian college student is smarter than a white kid at the same college, not because I believe Asians are intellectually superior, but because the government apparently does, and sure as hell holds Asians to a much higher standard than white folks like me.

|12.12.06 @ 11:22AM|#

Afirmitive action, besides its constitutional problems, is utterly retarded on the graduate school level. I think it is safe to say that once someone is applying to law school that the playing field has been leveled.

|12.12.06 @ 11:24AM|#

"Let's say two people apply for the last spot at your school. Student A has an SAT score of 1300, while Student B scored 1250. However, upon investigation you find out that Student A went to a top high school, never had to work a job, and enjoyed a stable home life. Student B, on the other hand, went to an under-funded school in a bad neighborhood, and had to work at McDonald's part-time to help support his family after his parents split up."

If all of that crap matters so much, why are black and hispanic graduation rates so low? There is no way around those rates. AA just admits large numbers of blacks and hispanics to schools for which they are not prepared and never graduate at the expense of qualified Asians and whites all so its proponents can feel good about themselves.

dhex|12.12.06 @ 11:31AM|#

fun fact: the cuny system still gives some preferential admission points to italians.

for some reason it's never been updated since it was implemented 50 something years ago.

Rhywun|12.12.06 @ 11:34AM|#

How can you say that, when it's a fact that AA does indeed push through a lot of underachievers?

Because you're talking about *doctors*. Yes, AA lets some underachievers into medical school, but I'm willing to stake what little reputation I have on the fact that no sane medical school is going to look at an incompetent doctor on graduation day and say, Oh, he got in on affirmative action six years ago, let's pass him. No way.

|12.12.06 @ 11:34AM|#

Whoever is impersonating Dan T. should at least use a different email address/URL.

In the old days, Tim Cavanaugh wouldn't have put up with that shit. Now that the cat's away, the mice are playing.

|12.12.06 @ 11:40AM|#

"Yes, AA lets some underachievers into medical school, but I'm willing to stake what little reputation I have on the fact that no sane medical school is going to look at an incompetent doctor on graduation day and say, Oh, he got in on affirmative action six years ago, let's pass him. No way."

I wouldn't put anything passed academia when it comes to political correctness. But, the low graduation rates of minority law students and med students indicate that you are at least partially right. Again, how is letting in a bunch of unqualified applicants who are going to flunk out and end up with no job proscpects and huge student loan debts helping minorities?

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 11:48AM|#

John, to be fair there are many reasons that somebody might drop out of school without graduating besides not being able to pass classes. I imagine running out of money is a major cause.

Plus, I think most medical schools are designed to "weed out" a certain percentage of their students.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 11:52AM|#

I'm trying to figure out when I fell through the looking glass; how is it possible that "blacks and whites and Asians are equal and should be held to the same standard" makes one a racist, whereas saying "blacks should be held to a much lower standard than whites, who in turn should be held to a much lower standard than Asians" is the mark of a colorblind egalitarian?

|12.12.06 @ 11:55AM|#

Dan T. (or whoever you are),

The stuff you say about scores not telling the whole story when comparing Student A and Student B is legitimate, but has nothing to do with race-based affirmative action. America is full of black and Latino Student As (stable successful family) and white and Asian Student Bs (broken home, no money), so race-based policies that favor blacks and Latinos would be doing the opposite of what you would want. Rather than pointing out something good about affirmative action, you are changing the subject.

Rhywun|12.12.06 @ 12:07PM|#

Jennifer, my point is that blacks, whites, and Asians ARE held to the same standard at some point after admission to school*. Like John said, that's why so many unprepared students drop out. Yes, some doctors are better than others. But to assume the black doctor is worse than the white one without any evidence to back it up is racist. In fact, it's the textbook definition of racism.

*All other things being equal; i.e. I'm cynical enough to believe that athlete and trust-fund admissions are held to lower standards but it's not race-based and therefore not relevant to my argument.

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 12:11PM|#

mitch - my point there was to illustrate how test scores may not always be representative of the quality of someone as a student.

You're correct that not all people from good situations are white, and vice versa. But overall, AA programs have significantly improved the lives of many who were denied opportunties in the past. It's not perfect, but what is?

edna|12.12.06 @ 12:17PM|#

quick dumb q: the issue of legacy admissions was brought up. do public universities use that? certainly the ones i went to didn't.

a private u should be able to do any damn thing it wants. a public one ought not to have separate white and black drinking fountains nor admissions criteria.

|12.12.06 @ 12:42PM|#

a public one ought not to have separate white and black drinking fountains nor admissions criteria.

I'd be happiest if the federal government got out of the education business altogether and took the states with them.

|12.12.06 @ 12:42PM|#

It seems to me that AA is just a tax on whites and asians - some of the fruits of their successes, hard work, and good fortune are discounted and given to minorities students in an application process. The more education you seek the more taxes you pay (although I think AA continues in the work place as well, although to a lesser extent). The tax is not progressive since whites and asians from poor/difficult backgrounds are treated the same as other whites and asians.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 12:45PM|#

But to assume the black doctor is worse than the white one without any evidence to back it up is racist.

You don't consider "lower standards enshrined in law" to be evidence? As I've said, I think the races are intellectually equal. But if I walk on a college campus and see Kathy Wu, Ellen Worthington and Shanequa X standing together, I am going to assume that Kathy had the highest high-school GPA of the three girls, and Shanequa the lowest. Why would I assume such a thing? Because the college admission standards require Kathy to have a 3.5, Ellen to have a 3.0 and Shanequa to have a 2.5 for admission to the same damned school.

But overall, AA programs have significantly improved the lives of many who were denied opportunties in the past.

Do you think there should ever come a time when AA is done away with, or do you think the races wil always have to be held to different standards, now and forevermore?

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 12:55PM|#

lol i'm gay

Larry A|12.12.06 @ 12:56PM|#

You're correct that not all people from good situations are white, and vice versa. But overall, AA programs have significantly improved the lives of many who were denied opportunties in the past.

Actually:
1. AA has improved the lives of many whose ancesters were denied opportunity in the past.
2. AA has also worsened just as many lives of people who were denied opportunities in the present. AA is a zero-sum game.

Let's say two people apply for the last spot at your school. Student A has an SAT score of 1300, while Student B scored 1250. However, upon investigation you find out that Student A went to a top high school, never had to work a job, and enjoyed a stable home life. Student B, on the other hand, went to an under-funded school in a bad neighborhood, and had to work at McDonald's part-time to help support his family after his parents split up.

Obviously the college should look beyond grades. But would you feel the same about a system which, in the above case, gave Student A extra points because his two successful suburban parents were black, while denying preference to Student B because his trailer park mom and absent dad were white?

|12.12.06 @ 1:01PM|#

ATTENTION EVERYONE

Forget the argument that AA is unconstitutional and racist.

ITS DOESN'T ACTUALLY WORK, AND USUALLY MAKES THINGS MUCH WORSE

From wikipedia....

Dr. Thomas Sowell, an economist and an African-American, identified the following as results of affirmative action based on a review of Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study

They encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e. primary beneficiary of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies;

They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., wealthy blacks), oftentimes to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor whites);

They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best - the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile - thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and

They engender animosity toward preferred groups as well as on the part of preferred groups themselves, whose main problem in some cases has been their own inadequacy combined with their resentment of non-preferred groups who - without preferences - consistently outperform them.

Also, look at black crime rates and out of wedlock births before the expansion of the welfare state and state sponsered racism and afterwards.

People are not objects who you remedy simply by looking at facts and numbers and trying to balance things out like a check book. Every government action has an economic and psychological reaction. Reward poverty? People will try to be, or at least appear poor. Reward being a member of a preferred group? They don't try as hard. Treat people like members of a group instead of individuals? They start to act like it.

Here's the site....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#Results

D.A. Ridgely|12.12.06 @ 1:16PM|#

(1) Schools don't admit students on the basis of scores, alone. For example, a student with very high SAT scores but so-so grades (from a so-so school) will be suspected of being an underachiever and probably not be accepted.

(2) Whatever the rationale for its past, AA no longer has anything to do with the socioeconomic level of the applicant. It's about "critical mass" diversity, an inherently BS idea. Most black folks in the U.S. are middle class or better off. While there's nothing per se wrong about colleges trying to help people of any racial background who come from poverty, that is a separate topic.

(3) Those who say AA is only about admissions are fooling themselves or trying to fool others. The same standard bending that occurs from high school to college occurs from college to graduate or professional school.

(4) Most colleges are noncompetitive, anyway, so we're only talking about selective colleges to begin with. The problem with AA isn't that the slightly less qualified black student couldn't get into a med school or law school but that he couldn't get into Harvard or Stanford with those credentials if he were white. This means that a slightly better qualified white student was not admitted to make room for him, ended up at a slightly less prestigeous school where the same phenomenon occurred; that is, *their* AA admits meant *their* slightly better qualified non-minority applicants had to go elsewhere, etc. Aside from the inherent unfairness of this to those non-minority applicants, this leads to marginally less efficiency throughout the system and, as others have pointed out, to the unfair social stigma attaching to the minority member who did not require the AA boost. (Some black applicants, after all, will be fully qualified to get into some ultra selective schools regardless of their race, but how will anyone ever know that?)

Rhywun|12.12.06 @ 1:19PM|#

But if I walk on a college campus and see Kathy Wu, Ellen Worthington and Shanequa X standing together, I am going to assume that Kathy had the highest high-school GPA of the three girls, and Shanequa the lowest.

Now I think you're just being obstinate. I agree that, with AA, on average you'd be *statistically* correct to make that assumption. But unless you're socially inept or something, I can't believe that in a real-world situation you'd jump to that conclusion without at least speaking to the three students in question.

|12.12.06 @ 1:41PM|#

"But AA isn't supposed to be a permanent thing. It's been more than 40 years now"

Jennifer,

Congratullations on earning your 40-year pin.

- Bill

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 1:49PM|#

Now I think you're just being obstinate. I agree that, with AA, on average you'd be *statistically* correct to make that assumption. But unless you're socially inept or something, I can't believe that in a real-world situation you'd jump to that conclusion without at least speaking to the three students in question.

Who's being obstinate here? What I said would indeed be my *first* impression. Note the meaning of the word "first," as in "before speaking to anybody. Why would that be an erroneous assumption? If the college requires Asians to have much higher GPAs than whites, why is it foolish for me to assume an Asian student on campus has a higher GPA than a white student?

Here's another assumption I'm going to make: if I see a video of a mall in Saudi Arabia, I'm going to assume the burka-clad women there have lives which are much more restricted than mine. I'm sure that some of them are actually wealthy Saudi princesses who regularly fly to their London townhomes and Vail condos, and have much more freedom and money than I ever will and wouldn't want to trade places with me because that would be a SERIOUS step down for them. Nonetheless, I'm going to stick with my *statistically* correct assumption that Saudi women have it worse than me.

|12.12.06 @ 1:51PM|#

"In the old days, Tim Cavanaugh wouldn't have put up with that shit."

That's because he was a hack writer who could find no other way to get the attention he desperately craved.

The LA Time fired its writers and hired him because they're short of cash. He's really just a scab.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 2:04PM|#

Well, that anti-Tim rant came in way the hell out of left field.

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 2:12PM|#

I must confess that I'm enjoying Jennifer's meltdown here a little.

|12.12.06 @ 2:14PM|#

"Well, that anti-Tim rant came in way the hell out of left field."

You're kidding, right?

Tim is the perfect example of the intellectual folly of pro-AA.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 2:15PM|#

I don't think of it as a meltdown, Dan. But since you do, perhaps you could answer the question I've posted here multiple times: do you think AA can end anytime soon, or do you think the races will forever have to be held to different standards?

|12.12.06 @ 2:27PM|#

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 2:32PM|#

Parse, I'm not arguing that racial discrimination does not exist; I am saying that government-mandated racial discrimination is a dumbass way to try and create a colorblind society. I also wonder why the government has so little respect for black people that it say "Oh, poor stupid dears, you can't be expected to meet high standards! Doing well on tests is what white people do. Not black people."

Rhywun|12.12.06 @ 2:32PM|#

Who's being obstinate here?

Yeah, me too.

why is it foolish for me to assume

Because assumptions can often lead to embarrassing situations. Better not to make such an assumption, especially in polite society and especially on such a touchy subject.

do you think AA can end anytime soon

I think it should, but dealing with the fallout will be a painful process for everyone.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 2:43PM|#

Because assumptions can often lead to embarrassing situations. Better not to make such an assumption, especially in polite society and especially on such a touchy subject.

Well, I'm certainly not going to verbalize my assumptions when I talk to Shanequa, but I will continue to assume that if a school sets high standards for Asians and low standards for blacks, that means the Asians at the school met higher standards than the blacks.

If the government would stop making racial inequality a legal mandate, such assumptions would no longer be valid. But, Christ! I grew up in the South surrounded by people who said "Blacks are stupid. They can't do as well as whites." At least down South, such people wore pointy white hoods and came right out and said "Yup, I hate niggers." But now, the ones saying blacks can't do as well as whites are the ones who claim to LIKE black people, and those of us who say "whites and blacks can do the same damned work and should be held to the same damn standards" are racist? What the hell?

Rhywun|12.12.06 @ 2:51PM|#

those of us who say "whites and blacks can do the same damned work and should be held to the same damn standards" are racist? What the hell?

I didn't say you were racist. I said making an assumption based on race without specific evidence is racist. Affirmative action is racist, but so is assuming someone benefitted from it just because they're black.

"Yup, I hate niggers."

Sounds like my stepfather's family. They're from Pennsylvania.

|12.12.06 @ 2:55PM|#

"But now, the ones saying blacks can't do as well as whites are the ones who claim to LIKE black people, and those of us who say "whites and blacks can do the same damned work and should be held to the same damn standards" are racist? What the hell?"

Because PC, like AA is a lie liberals tell themselves so they can sleep safe and smugly at night.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 2:57PM|#

I said making an assumption based on race without specific evidence is racist.

And I'm saying that if a college requires Asians to have higher grades than blacks in order to be admitted, that is evidence enough for an initial assumption that the college's Asian students had higher grades than its black students. Just as Saudi laws restricting women's freedom justify my initial assumption that the Saudi women in a Riyadh shopping mall have less freedom than I do.

I'm completely certain that in both cases you can find individual instances where I'm wrong. But also in both cases I'm right often enough that the initial assumption is a valid one to make.

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 3:00PM|#

Watching Jennifer lose her mind is quite amusing. And yes Jennifer, you are racist.

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 3:02PM|#

Dan, are you going to answer my questions or are you only going to toss ad hominems from the sidelines? Probably the latter, knowing you.

Rhywun|12.12.06 @ 3:13PM|#

Well, Jennifer, there's a difference between making generalizations about a group and making assumptions about a specific individual. It is not racist to point out the obvious fact that lots of blacks have benefited from AA. It IS racist to see a black doctor and assume he can't be as a good as a white one - I don't care if the existence of AA "proves" it to you.

|12.12.06 @ 3:15PM|#

"Affirmative action is racist, but so is assuming someone benefitted from it just because they're black."

No, that's not racism... it's basic probability.

If people in one group (female Boston marathoners aged 30-35) are required to meet a lower qualification standards than people in a second group (male Boston marathoners aged 30-35), and you happen to come across one randomly selected person from each group, would you rationally assume that the two people were equally capable?

Sure it's possible, but it's not likely. The greater probability is that the individual who had to meet the higher qualification standard is more capable.

Now substitute "female Boston marathoner" and "male Boston marathoner", with "black/hispanic college student" and "white/asian college student".

D.A. Ridgely|12.12.06 @ 3:18PM|#

For anyone interested in what happens when AA is eliminated from a state higher education system, here is an Economist article on California's experience since 1995.

Dan T.|12.12.06 @ 3:27PM|#

omg i pwned u jenifer

i'm a troll lolerz

|12.12.06 @ 3:32PM|#

When White folks leave a neighborhood it's called "white flight" and it is viewed as racist.

When White folks return to a neighborhood it's called "gentrification" and is viewed as racist.

We get you going and coming.

|12.12.06 @ 3:32PM|#

Fuck this mentality that wants to punish Asian kids because kids with the same skin color as them spend time learning math and reward black kids because other black kids like to listen to rap music and smoke weed.

I'm convinced that most times the simplest eplanation is the correct one. Black kids don't do well because "black culture" is poison and Asian kids do well because they study hard. It takes a PHD in sociology or some other psuedo-subject to say otherwise.

The world is insane.

|12.12.06 @ 3:34PM|#

Grand Chalupa gets it...

|12.12.06 @ 3:46PM|#

Y'all better get with the program. Schools are not about edumacation. They're about diversity. multiculturalism, and inclusion. Readin', writin' an 'rithmatic must take a back seat to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference and sexual identity. It's right there in the Constitution.

|12.12.06 @ 4:21PM|#

As usual I'm late to the party, but this legislative victory made me so happy I feel compelled to toss in my two cents.

Re: ending AA - I more or less echo the sentiments of Jennifer and a few others - AA had its day, but sadly it is now hindering the transition to a truly color-blind society. Ending it will be somewhat painful in the near term, but the benefit of having a truly meritocratic society is substantial.

Re: ending legacy admissions - I'll be a Yale grad in a few months, and I plan on having kids at some point, so this could potentially benefit me (Yale still has a legacy admissions policy, although it doesn't count for as much as it once did), but I'd be the first to do away with legacy admissions. Applicants should be admitted based on merit, not whether their parents graduated from the same University.

Re: Grand Chalupa - I'm not convinced that the whole story is this simple, but your comment still made me laugh.

|12.12.06 @ 4:48PM|#

Grand Chalupa: "I'm convinced that most times the simplest eplanation is the correct one."

The simplest explanation is that asian kids are smarter than black kids.

Go ahead and call me a racist now.

|12.12.06 @ 4:57PM|#

That's why I pointed people towards the Washington Post article on stereotype threat:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000712.html

The article points out how people can be unconsciously triggered to conform to stereotypes about their race or sex abilities on tests.

It's not that easy. Saying "the playing field is level" is one thing. Having it be actually true is another.

MIT noticed, after tracking GPA vs. incoming SAT scores, that women performed better than their SAT scores would predict. So now every female applicant has a carefully measured "fudge factor" added to their SAT score. Is this AA?

Jennifer|12.12.06 @ 6:00PM|#

MIT noticed, after tracking GPA vs. incoming SAT scores, that women performed better than their SAT scores would predict. So now every female applicant has a carefully measured "fudge factor" added to their SAT score. Is this AA?

I consider it more evidence for the uselessness of SAT scores, but that's a whole other issue.

|12.12.06 @ 6:02PM|#

As an aside, when I was applying the universities in Ontario, Canada, we had a remarkable application system was truly colour-blind.

All the applications for all the graduating high-school students in the province were collected and distributed to the appropriate admissions departments by a centralized bureau called the Ontario Universities Application Center (OUAC).

All the university admissions department received from the OUAC was your anonymous applicant number and your grades in six pre-specified courses, depending on the program you were applying to. (e.g. if you were applying to an B.Eng. program, you had to submit your grades in Physics, Chemistry, Algebra, Calculus, English and one elective)

What they didn't receive was your name, age, sex, race, school, home address or any other information that could be employed to influence an admissions decision.

Unfortunately, the OUAC restricted each student's applications to a maximum of three programs, but one was free to apply to any number of universities outside the province.

I'm not sure if the system is still in place a decade later, but I nonetheless think it was about as color-blind and level a playing field as one could hope for.

|12.12.06 @ 6:08PM|#

"MIT noticed, after tracking GPA vs. incoming SAT scores, that women performed better than their SAT scores would predict."

It might that have something to do with the fact that GPA's are made up of a variety of evalutation formats (examinations, assignments, term papers, and class participation) while SAT scores are determined purely by examination?

I would hypothesize that male students perform relatively better on examinations than the other forms of evalution.

Paul|12.12.06 @ 6:44PM|#

Nobody makes it "on their own", that's the whole point.

Big Dan T.

I am so tired of this glib comment which suggests that all the whiteys in the world get what they got 'cause someone helped them get it.

Due to this comment, Dan, I'll have to assume that you're in the camp that believes that the black man is much like the wild orchid, and needs care, feedin' and cultivatin'.

|12.12.06 @ 9:24PM|#

MIT noticed, after tracking GPA vs. incoming SAT scores, that women performed better than their SAT scores would predict. So now every female applicant has a carefully measured "fudge factor" added to their SAT score. Is this AA?

I would say no, and here is why: college admissions boards are in the business of using the best data on the applicant's merits and strengths to make a prediction as to whether the student will do well in higher education. If they are finding that the data (in this case SAT scores) has better predictive value for females when adjusted, then it is fair to use that information in making a prediction as to the potential success of that applicant. It is also fair to use that information to make a decision regarding whether to admit the student.

As to why it is the case that females do better than their SAT scores would predict, it is an interesting question. My guess is that SAT scores only measure native ability, and say relatively little about effort, fastidiousness, studiousness, etc, which are also important to success in higher education. So, while a female student might the same native ability as a male counterpart, as indicated by an SAT score of 1350 for example, she might perform better than the male student due to greater studiousness. In my experience, the female students work harder than their male counterparts on average.

I worked as TA in several college classes as an undergrad, and graded a lot of papers in that time. I had a fair pool of male and female students to draw from. My biggest impression in grading essays was that (again this is on average) a lot of males would either skim the assigned reading very superficially or skip it entirely, then come up with answers which were often pretty creative and interesting, but which I really couldn't give better than a C due to the fact that it didn't really address what was asked. The female students, on average, did the assigned reading and generally got Cs only if the quality of writing was terrible or the logic of their claims radically tortured (which did happen quite a bit, unfortunately. Hey, it was a state school.) On average, I would guess, the females did better than the males, despite apparently equal intelligence between the two groups (truth be told, it's rare to get more than 3 students out of a class of thirty who have any real ability anyways. I can still remember all the really smart ones, and that group actually includes slightly more males than females.)

One would think that the easy way to counterbalance this is with a healthy respect for GPA in addition to standardized test scores, which should act as a proxy measure for studiousness in theory. However, many American public high schools are so easy that it is hard to take seriously a 4.0 GPA in the age of grade inflation. It helps if students have a track record of success in difficult classes, particularly AP classes. Unfortunately, access to AP classes is not uniform. An argument for school choice, perhaps?

|12.12.06 @ 9:53PM|#

Jennifer, do you believe that if affirmative action were ended, the result would be that "the races are held to the same standard"? Do you believe that there are not still instances in the United States where qualified African Americans face discrimination because of their race? Is affirmative action-inspired discrimination against whites and Asians the only type of racial prejudice you are currently aware of?

Parse, do you believe that if affirmative action were continued, the result would be that "the races are held to the same standard"? Do you believe that there would not still be instances in the United States where qualified African Americans face discrimination because of their race? And is discrimination by private individuals against blacks the only type of racial prejudice we should care about?

Embedded in your first question is the assumption that AA is, in fact, an effective solution for racial prejudice. Is it? Or does it just fuel interracial resentments and cast doubts on the actual abilities of those who are "helped" by it?

Affirmative action may make some of us feel good, but the question of whether it does more good than harm is not irrelevant. Should we really be wedded to the idea that the best way to fight discrimination on the basis of race is to justify it?

|12.12.06 @ 9:55PM|#

Please recast sentence:

Or does it just fuel interracial resentments and cast doubts on the actual abilities of those who are "helped" by it?

As:

Or does it just fuel interracial resentments and cast doubts on the actual abilities of those who "need" its help?

|12.14.06 @ 2:04PM|#

Race based prefernces are unconstitional, and counter productive. The citizens of Michigan deserve a "Thumbs Up" for the overwhelming passage of Prop 2.

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Reason.com