Affirmative Action: Jim Webb speaks out.

[Phishfan]

So why quibble over made-up numbers when you don't really care what they are anyway?

Because others may indeed care what the number is. You went to an extreme to try and prove a point. That gets called out in every discussion such as this one. If I threw out fictitious information don't act like no one would comment on it.

[MaineDolFan]

Can't we all just get along?

...my head hurts now.  Thanks, guys.

[Dave Gray]

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

Not really.  I don't even think it's worth discussing that at this point.  It's already done, and I didn't live in the society at the time to make an intelligent judgment about it.  It was probably always a bad idea, but maybe one that was more justifiable on the heels of Jim Crow laws.  Whether it was needed then isn't really relevant though.  It's not needed now, and it causing further division.

[Spider-Dan]

Because others may indeed care what the number is. You went to an extreme to try and prove a point.

That's precisely correct.  Your argument is that legacy admissions are acceptable, regardless of the makeup of the alumni.  If that's the case, then you should have no objections to a legacy program at a university that's 95% white, while still maintaining that it's not a de facto form of racial discrimination.

That gets called out in every discussion such as this one. If I threw out fictitious information don't act like no one would comment on it.

If your argument is that the numbers don't matter, you should expect people to throw out extreme numbers as a counterexample.

[Spider-Dan]

Not really.  I don't even think it's worth discussing that at this point.  It's already done, and I didn't live in the society at the time to make an intelligent judgment about it.  It was probably always a bad idea, but maybe one that was more justifiable on the heels of Jim Crow laws.  Whether it was needed then isn't really relevant though.  It's not needed now, and it causing further division.

How can you reasonably argue that "laws have caught up and AA isn't needed now" without assessing whether or not it was needed in the first place?

I ask again: what, exactly, has changed?  What laws were passed that have fixed the problem?  Because it seems that most of those kind of laws would be affirmative action laws, which you are now seeking to repeal.

Let me be clear: as I've already said, I think AA should be replaced with a system that gives preference to people of low socioeconomic status (usually, but not always, minorities).  I think it's a travesty that a minority of privilege could be given a leg up over a poor white person.  But I think that's a relatively rare example, and to completely discard a program that helps a great majority of the people that it should because it also helps a small fraction of the people it shouldn't is a bad idea.

I'm all for replacing AA with a similar program targeted towards the poor (of all races).  But as for simply removing it and then maybe-we'll-do-something-else-later?  Sorry, I'm not buying that.

[Phishfan]

That's precisely correct.  Your argument is that legacy admissions are acceptable, regardless of the makeup of the alumni.  If that's the case, then you should have no objections to a legacy program at a university that's 95% white, while still maintaining that it's not a de facto form of racial discrimination.
If your argument is that the numbers don't matter, you should expect people to throw out extreme numbers as a counterexample.

And conversely I would have no objections to a legacy program at a 95% black school as well. See how that works both ways. Still not racism.

[Spider-Dan]

I already said it's not (strictly speaking) racism; it's classism which just happens to affect minorities more.

Even at an optimally-diverse university (or a historically black college, take your pick), it's still wrong.  It helps the haves at the expense of the have nots.

[Phishfan]

Kids are still going to get into a school. There are just too many out there. It almost doesn't matter the school anymore unless you are speaking grad school or Ivy league schools anyway.

[Spider-Dan]

And you've just defused your own argument for eliminating AA in school admissions.

Either artificial advantages in admissions matter, or they don't.  Which one is it?

[Phishfan]

And you've just defused your own argument for eliminating AA in school admissions.

Either artificial advantages in admissions matter, or they don't.  Which one is it?

I don't just oppose AA for shcool admissions. I oppose AA for all purposes because it is a policy based on race. So I didn't actually contradict myself at all. Legacy programs are not based on race. Completely different items.

[Dave Gray]

How can you reasonably argue that "laws have caught up and AA isn't needed now" without assessing whether or not it was needed in the first place?

It's not relevant, that's why.  I would never have supported AA from my position now, but I wasn't alive in the 60s, so I can't say for sure.  It's a bad program now.  It was probably a bad program then, too.  Things have come a long way with society, either way.

[bsmooth]

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.

Of course they would not say it because they would get nailed with a serious lawsuit and a fine for discrimination. Yet this same behavior is considered non offensive when it happens to a member of one select group.
I do not believe that it somehow balances out the books by taking away the racism towards one group, and inflicting it upon another group.

[Spider-Dan]

I think there's an elephant in the room, so I'm going to just say it:

I believe that Mr. Webb's recent statement, along with a lot of the current right-wing focus on AA, the NAACP, ACORN, etc., has a great deal to do with who is currently in the Oval Office.  Lest you think that I'm simply playing the race card, let me make two simple statements that should clearly illuminate my position:

1) Had Hillary beaten Obama in the primary and won the general, instead of all this backlash against the NAACP and AA, we would be seeing a bunch of stories on NOW, Title IX, Planned Parenthood, etc.

2) As soon as Obama vacates the Oval Office, Fox and the rest of the right's interest in pursuing race-related stories will fall off suddenly and drastically

I'm sorry, but the timing of this really seems like a modern-day Southern Strategy.  Scare all the white people with stories of brown people taking their jobs, so they turn against Obama and the Democrats.  In Jim Webb's case, I daresay it's an attempt to triangulate and protect his right flank (Virginia is not exactly a deep blue state).

[Dave Gray]

^^ I'm sure that some have political motivations, but I think that you can also make the argument that Obama being in the Oval Office is a sign that blacks now can do whatever whites can.  It also means that race is on the brain.  ...and I think that AA comes up in every presidential cycle.  I definitely had this conversation when Bush was in office, too.

Also, I don't feel that Webb's comments are coming from a sinister place.  Even though others may raise race issues and bring them to the forefront, there's nothing wrong with voicing your opinion about it once it's brought up.  I am against AA, as I've said here, and I think that I'm a liberal thinker and a supporter of the Democratic party, for the most part.  I don't think my feelings toward the issue have anything with having a black guy in office.

One more thing: Politically speaking, why doesn't some group (I would think the GOP would do it) go after AA really hard?  I would think if they were to bring the issue to the forefront, that they'd win in a landslide, in terms of public opinion.  I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd be shocked if the supporters of that legislation were even close to 50%.  It seems like a slam dunk for an election cycle, not to mention that the GOP already has very little African American backing, so there's not a lot of risk.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Also, I don't feel that Webb's comments are coming from a sinister place. 

I do.  And it is very similar to the law passed in AZ.  When ever there is any sort of economic or other trouble the expedient political thing to do is to get the popular support of the majority to scapegoat all the problems on a minority group.

Alabama's problems will all be solved if we stop offering DL tests in Spanish.
Virginia's problems will all be solved if we end AA.
Arizona's problems will all be solved if it wasn't for thee damn Mexicans. 
Germany's lost WWI and its economy was in shambles because of the Jews. 

It is a very effective political position.