Affirmative Action: Jim Webb speaks out.

[Phishfan]

In a situation where 95%+ of the alumni is white, a system that gives preference to the children of alumni (who are likely to have a similar racial makeup) is applying a de facto racial preference.

Nice made up statistic there.

[Fau Teixeira]

Umm, the entire purpose of AA is to fix the problem of de facto racism through legislation.  Are you arguing that AA is ineffective or that it's unjust?  Those are two very different arguments.

I'm arguing that racism breeds racism. And the application of racist doctrine will never eliminate racism.

Bestowing privilege on individuals based on a birthright is antithetical to the very core of what this nation was founded on.  It's arguably even worse than racism.

is it ? i would argue that bestowing privilege on individuals based on birthright is at the very core of the modern american political system. Where you're only identifying this in the facet of nobility or a ruling class. i would say that in modern day America, those that are born into privilege have both a massive advantage in the probability of their future success as well as a much stronger voice in political decisions.

I wasn't born of privilege, when the time comes for me to claim an inheritance, i know it will be absolutely $0. I've worked since I was 17 to help support my family. Never once has my family taken a handout, collected welfare or received a single food stamp. I've never had an instance where my parents have bought me a car or helped out with my rent, much to the contrary. I attended college purely on merit based scholarships. My birthright was common sense, and a work ethic.

You see those in the nobility as having a birthright or those that are born into a monarchy as having privilege. I see those born into a family where the parents own their own house, aren't living paycheck to paycheck or those that have a college fund waiting for them to graduate high school as being born into privilege.

You cannot simply look at these things in a vacuum.  In a situation where 95%+ of the alumni is white, a system that gives preference to the children of alumni (who are likely to have a similar racial makeup) is applying a de facto racial preference.

You absolutely have to look at these things in a vacuum. It isn't tit for tat . The racism directly displayed in AA policies is as a floodlight to the candle of the incidental racism from a legacy program. Universities shouldn't discriminate based on race period. It shouldn't even be part of the admissions process. Enact that policy and you'll see the disproportionate representation of the legacy programs disappear within one generation.

The legacy programs in college admissions aren't racist. They're just a Geiger counter on the topic. 95% of legacy applicants are white you say .. why? .. why is that ? when affirmative action has been around for a generation ?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

We keep saying this isn't a racist policy though. Legacy admittance is applicable to all. How can it be racist if it doesn't discriminate by race. It may be nepotism, but it isn't racism.

Okay lets do it your way.  I am willing to change the AA action program to as follows:

"Gives preferential treatment to anyone who is a descendant of someone who was a slave in the USA at any time between the years 1783 and 1865."

Not all blacks would be eligible for AA (if 100% of their ancestors immigrated to the USA, as opposed to any being brought over on slave ships) and someone who caucasian skin color mixed race person  has one or more ancestors who was enslaved would be eligible.

[Fau Teixeira]

Okay lets do it your way.  I am willing to change the AA action program to as follows:

"Gives preferential treatment to anyone who is a descendant of someone who was a slave in the USA at any time between the years 1783 and 1865."

Not all blacks would be eligible for AA (if 100% of their ancestors immigrated to the USA, as opposed to any being brought over on slave ships) and someone who caucasian skin color mixed race person  has one or more ancestors who was enslaved would be eligible.

reparations are an actual topic, you're presenting this as a hyperbole, but it's an actual topic

Which for the record, I'm of mixed feelings about. Should general non-targeted reparations be paid out, absolutely not. But if you can prove that one of your ancestors was enslaved by a specific corporation or estate still in existence today (but not a descendant), then a claim could be made.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

reparations are an actual topic, you're presenting this as a hyperbole, but it's an actual topic

Which for the record, I'm of mixed feelings about. Should general non-targeted reparations be paid out, absolutely not. But if you can prove that one of your ancestors was enslaved by a specific corporation or estate (but not a descendant) still in existence today, then a claim could be made.

That is a pointless position once you add "not a descendant” and don't allow for general reparation as almost none of the slaves were owned by corporations still in existence today. 

General reparations that would level the economic playing field could very well eliminate the need for AA.

I would support eliminating AA as part of a package that included reasonable reparations.

Likewise I would support eliminating AA as a package deal that eliminating and making illegal other aspects of racism that supports the majority. 

I oppose the elimination of AA while keeping other aspects of institution racism

[bsmooth]

How do you know this?  Or, more specifically, how can you know this?

If I've ever lost out on a position due to my competitor being a woman, I'm not sure how I would even find out.

Since you guys do not want to admit the bad side of it, I will give you factual evidence.

When I was 15 I completed the training program to become certified as a lifeguard. When I applied for a position at the only public pool in my small town, I was told they had to keep the position open in case a minority ever applied. There were no blacks in my town, and the majority of mexicans were illegals who folled the crop harvests. No minority ever applied for the job before I left toen 4 years later.
When I started college, I went to the financial aid office, as I came from a broken home and I was paying for college by myself. The financial aid guy told me he could not get any of the free programs for me. He then told me if I was black, I could get all kinds of money for school. I worked multiple jobs to put myself through school, and I knew multiple black guys who were partying it up with all their free money for school.
Also while in the Law Enforcement program at my school, there were job postings on the board for local and state openings. In 1990 there was a flyer from the CHP stating that they were significantly understrength for black and latino women, so they were desperately encouraging all black and latino females to apply. At the same time, it was a two year wait for non minority males to get into the academy.

So as someone who has been beaten by the AA bat throughout their life, and watched minorities abuse the shit out of a program designed to help them overcome "systemic" racism, I say fuck it. End it and all programs like it. I have yet to have any of my black or latino friends ever say they were clearly denied employment because of the color of their skin. But I have been and I know other just like me it has happened to also. But because we are white men, we are expected to just suck it up and deal with it.

[Spider-Dan]

Nice made up statistic there.

Are you complaining?

I mean, as I understand it, even if it were 99% (and true), your position would be exactly the same.  So what's the problem?

[Spider-Dan]

I'm arguing that racism breeds racism. And the application of racist doctrine will never eliminate racism.

Eliminate it?  No.  Nothing will eliminate it; I doubt even you would claim that abolishing AA would eliminate all racism.

The purpose of AA is to reduce/counterbalance the effects.

is it ? i would argue that bestowing privilege on individuals based on birthright is at the very core of the modern american political system.

The modern American political system generally requires politicians to earn votes.  GWB didn't get to be President because his daddy was President; he got to be President by getting a majority of the American people to vote for him (well, sort of).

Where you're only identifying this in the facet of nobility or a ruling class. i would say that in modern day America, those that are born into privilege have both a massive advantage in the probability of their future success as well as a much stronger voice in political decisions.

Sure.  And a person born into a family with a Harvard-educated parent has a massive advantage in the probability of their future success, based on that fact.  But there's a huge difference between an affluent parent providing the best they can for their kid, and one kid being picked over another kid solely because his parent is a Harvard graduate.

I wasn't born of privilege, when the time comes for me to claim an inheritance, i know it will be absolutely $0. I've worked since I was 17 to help support my family. Never once has my family taken a handout, collected welfare or received a single food stamp. I've never had an instance where my parents have bought me a car or helped out with my rent, much to the contrary. I attended college purely on merit based scholarships. My birthright was common sense, and a work ethic.

You see those in the nobility as having a birthright or those that are born into a monarchy as having privilege. I see those born into a family where the parents own their own house, aren't living paycheck to paycheck or those that have a college fund waiting for them to graduate high school as being born into privilege.

Doesn't this disprove the point you are trying to make?  You're saying that you worked hard, pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.  Yet if you and another applicant were trying to get into, say, Michigan, and his parent was a Michigan grad who provided him with all the things you didn't get, then even if you matched his every achievement, he'd automatically get in over you because of the legacy program.

This is the system you're defending?

You absolutely have to look at these things in a vacuum. It isn't tit for tat . The racism directly displayed in AA policies is as a floodlight to the candle of the incidental racism from a legacy program. Universities shouldn't discriminate based on race period. It shouldn't even be part of the admissions process. Enact that policy and you'll see the disproportionate representation of the legacy programs disappear within one generation.

Which is why there was proportionate representation prior to the enactment of the AA policies.  Oh, wait...

I have a question for you: do you think that the AA programs were ever justified?  If so, what has changed?

The legacy programs in college admissions aren't racist. They're just a Geiger counter on the topic. 95% of legacy applicants are white you say .. why? .. why is that ? when affirmative action has been around for a generation ?

When did I claim that AA immediately and instantly solves all racial disparity issues?  It is an attempt to try to balance out the equation, but it's far from a magic bullet.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

GWB didn't get to be President because his daddy was President; he got to be President by getting a majority of the American people to vote for him (well, sort of).

Actually the majority of people didn't vote for him.  The majority of people in the enough states holding the majority of the electoral college votes, voted for him. Which is what is required by our representative democracy.  (although that is questionable, thank you Florida )  I personally think we would be better off with a direct democracy and a parliament instead of a representative one -- but both beat the hell out of a monarchy.

[Spider-Dan]

Since you guys do not want to admit the bad side of it, I will give you factual evidence.

[...]

Hmmm.  In a way, I guess you might be able to consider yourself fortunate that your prospective employers told you that you weren't going to get the job because of your race, and not because of any sort of lack of experience or qualification (or other objective criteria that you can control).

See, for a minority, telling them that would be kind of illegal.  So when that's the case for a minority (and I'm sure you don't believe that never happens), guess what?  No one ever calls them up and says, "Yeah, we would have hired you, but we were really looking for a less... ethnic... person to fill the job."  They simply don't get a call at all, or they get a call with a boilerplate "The position went to someone else" response.

So while I don't doubt the veracity of your story, there aren't going to be any counterexamples of hiring managers telling a minority that they would have gotten the job If Only They Were White.  Because while that does happen, no one would ever actually say it.

[Spider-Dan]

Actually the majority of people didn't vote for him.

Hence, the "well, sort of."

[Dave Gray]

AA is a racist policy.  Though it counterbalances other racists polices (or unsuccessfully tries to), it doesn't help solve the problem, only stretching it out.

It is causing more racism.  It was a short term fix, but now I think that our laws have caught up.  Now it's up to us to gradually solve the problem organically.

[Phishfan]

Are you complaining?

I mean, as I understand it, even if it were 99% (and true), your position would be exactly the same.  So what's the problem?

The problem is you are about 30% too high for the Univeristy we are discussing (or at least started with). You made up a number and tried to carry on as if it were fact. The state is roughly 74% white. The school is roughly 64% white. The school is actually more diverse than the state itself but you are trying to say they are 95% white. That is my problem.

[Spider-Dan]

The problem is you are about 30% too high for the Univeristy we are discussing (or at least started with). You made up a number and tried to carry on as if it were fact. The state is roughly 74% white. The school is roughly 64% white. The school is actually more diverse than the state itself but you are trying to say they are 95% white. That is my problem.

If I'm not mistaken, you are objecting to my hypothetical figure of 95% and saying that Harvard (or maybe Michigan? I dunno) is actually only 64% white.  Fine.  So, in your opinion, at what % of non-diversity does legacy admission become wrong?  95%?  80%?  Or is legacy admission fine as long as the university is (at least) as diverse as the state it is located in?

This is my problem with your line of objection.  You complain about my hypothetical figure, but it seems to me that if you are to be consistent with your position, it doesn't matter how skewed the student body is... you're still going to defend legacy admissions.  So why quibble over made-up numbers when you don't really care what they are anyway?

[Spider-Dan]

AA is a racist policy.  Though it counterbalances other racists polices (or unsuccessfully tries to), it doesn't help solve the problem, only stretching it out.

It is causing more racism.  It was a short term fix, but now I think that our laws have caught up.  Now it's up to us to gradually solve the problem organically.

This implies that you believe that, at one time, AA was actually needed.

So my question to you is: how have our laws "caught up"?  Specifically, what new laws have been passed (between the start of the AA programs and now) that have solved the problems that caused AA to be created in the first place?  What do you believe has changed?

If your belief is based on statistical evidence, this would be a great time to cite it.