Affirmative action - consolidated

fabrizio · January 2, 2010, 7:44pm

Oh luck plays a role, no doubt. It’s one of those inexplicable things. You wake up one day feeling like you can literally take on the world, but a week later, you can’t even get out of your bed, even though you’re not sick and you didn’t do anything differently.

But just as with Bay’s false dichotomy with respect to the value of racial diversity, I also don’t believe that this question is binary in nature. It appears that we may disagree about how much luck is involved in being able to score above 2200 on the SAT. You may believe that luck plays a bigger role than I do, but we both believe that luck plays a role.

speedo · January 2, 2010, 7:58pm

So Fab, as far as I can tell the only racial preference or any other preference you are opposed to is preference for blacks. If that was part of an overall commitment to fair play or civil rights I could understand but it seems to stand alone. Do you have any track record of standing up for anything? Is there a commitment to justice on a larger scale or is your beef strictly with blacks. Perhaps a black did something to you or perhaps you need to blame to make up for some sort of inadequacy. Despite all the legalise there appears to be little logic for your compulsion.

fabrizio · January 2, 2010, 8:35pm

I don’t. If anything, you’re refusing to accept that I have consistently stated in this thread that Grutter has not yet been overruled and thus is still controlling precedent. What’s more, I have repeatedly argued that you vastly oversimplify the issue. Bakke held that racial classification was permissible, but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from ruling in Gratz that Michigan’s former undergraduate affirmative action policy to be un-Constitutional, even though Michigan claimed that they were adhering to Bakke. You can’t just say “race…[is] just fine” and leave it at that. It’s “just fine” if you adhere to Grutter, and even then, you have to make sure that you actually do adhere to it as opposed to merely thinking that you are. In Parents Involved, the school districts all claimed that they were following Grutter, but the Supreme Court ruled that what they did was un-Constitutional. What’s more, that Grutter is still controlling precedent doesn’t negate that the use of racial classification as a discriminatory factor is subject to strict scrutiny.

It doesn’t “get [my] hackles up” because I do not hold the absurd viewpoint of, “If different racial classifications do not have equal results on the SAT, then the SAT is a discriminatory exam.” The SAT is not a discriminatory exam; different racial classifications do not get different versions of the exam because of their racial classification. Blacks don’t get harder exams than whites, and whites don’t get easier exams than blacks. To argue that the SAT discriminates on the basis of racial classification cheapens civil rights history. Decades ago, blacks were given different literacy tests than whites. There’s a famous story of a black Harvard graduate who tried to register to vote. The person-in-charge asked him to read a page of English literature that had stumped other, less educated blacks. Being a Harvard grad, he read it easily. Unsatisfied, the person-in-charge produced page after page of text in foreign languages, both extant and dead. But the Harvard grad wasn’t phased by any of them. Finally, the now tremendously irate person-in-charge gave him a page of text in Chinese and taunted him to read it. The Harvard grad simply said, “It means ‘you do not want me to vote.’”

That was a discriminatory test. The SAT is not.

fabrizio · January 2, 2010, 8:38pm

As far as you can tell? You didn’t catch the italicized “of all kinds” in post 320? Kind sir, you may need an eye exam; I’m sure the spirit of Lowell is displeased that his current incarnation is suffering from poor eyesight.

speedo · January 2, 2010, 8:41pm

So in college admissions what are these “all kinds” of discrimination then, Fab?

Mr_Payne · January 2, 2010, 8:55pm

Who says the playing field will ever be level? People are born with different talents and abilities. Some people will always be smarter than others. Nothing to get alarmed about - some people are taller or shorter than others. Everyone is just going to play the hand they are dealt.

fabrizio · January 2, 2010, 9:49pm

I didn’t say “all kinds.” I said “racial preferences of all kinds.”

NearL · January 2, 2010, 9:54pm

So fabrizio isn’t against de facto preferences for upper-middle class whites? So he doesn’t really care about meritocracy or desert?

Who would have guessed?

fabrizio · January 2, 2010, 9:58pm

By “de facto” preferences, do you mean Bay’s argument of, “Because different racial classifications do not have equal results on the SAT, the SAT is a biased, racially discriminatory exam”?

I don’t know what “desert” is, but I do support meritocracy. Unlike some others, however, I consider the ability to write a good essay to be of merit. I consider consistently placing first at large statewide competitions to be of merit. And so, I have no problems with subjective criteria such as essays and extracurriculars. I am not against the holistic admissions system, and I do not view it as incompatible with the ideal of meritocracy. I simply do not believe that any racial classification should be given preference because of the racial classification itself.

hahalolk · January 2, 2010, 10:09pm

I agree with MrPayne’s latest post. The playing field won’t be level, and certain families will be favored over the others consistently. It’s significantly genetic, and higher scores on the SAT is often due to heredity. I won’t go farther than that (say making an assumption based on race and heredity playing into scores), because doing so would be very controversial either way. I’m trying to make this post as objective and scientific as possible, so if you have a disagreement on what AP Bio has taught me, feel free to educate me, but I am not making a political statement in any way.

NearL · January 2, 2010, 10:12pm

Please, don’t bother with strawman arguments. If I haven’t said or haven’t implied it, don’t try and attribute it to me. No, I don’t mean whatever Bay’s quote means. I’m not Bay.

I’m sure you don’t.

But you find nothing wrong with legacy status, geographic diversity, socioeconomic diversity, or athletic recruiting which are all antithetical to meritocracy. The problem with your argument is that if you support any kind of preferences you don’t actually support meritocracy - you support meritocracy within the boundaries of your own values. You don’t value racial diversity. You do, for some reason or another, do value athletic recruitment, geographic diversity, and legacy status - or at least don’t outright oppose them - and thus you can reconcile them within a supposedly meritocratic system. I think athletic recruitment and legacy status are disgraceful but think diversity is important and beneficial. I can reconcile diversity within my system. In truth, neither of our systems are meritocratic.

I’m fine with that. I’ve been through the admissions process at the elites and recognize that the system isn’t perfectly meritocratic and realize that it never will be. Building a class at the elites is more than picking students. Students are elite colleges are picked for their potential to be leaders after graduation.

NearL · January 2, 2010, 10:20pm

The SAT is not an IQ test. It’s not particularly g-loaded and its completely learnable. I know kids that have increased their SAT scores several hundred points with nothing more than practice. I know an African kid that got a 1500+/1600. He came to America as a poor refugee. His parents aren’t doctors. Or even literate.

fabrizio · January 2, 2010, 10:29pm

Did I misrepresent your position? No, I did not. I asked for clarification, since you neither said nor implied anything. Thus, I asked, “…do you mean…?” and so, I did not straw man you. Remember which logical fallacies are which, and we’ll have a more productive discussion. Now, since it appears that Bay’s argument is not what you meant, what did you mean by “de facto” preferences?

I don’t think it’s fair for you to expect that I understand your typos. I have no idea what you meant by “desert.” Even if you were talking about “dessert,” I still wouldn’t know what you were talking about. Again, remember that I can’t read your mind, and we’ll have a more productive discussion. Would you care to tell me what you meant by “desert”?

Actually, socioeconomic preferences aren’t necessarily antithetical to meritocracy. For example, in my opinion, a good classical definition of the meritocratic ideal can be found in Perikles’s funeral oration: “In name it is called a democracy on account of being administered in the interest not of the few but the many, yet even though there are equal rights for all in private disputes in accordance with the laws, wherever each man has earned recognition he is singled out for public service in accordance with the claims of distinction, not by rotation but by merit, nor when it comes to poverty, if a man has real ability to benefit the city, is he prevented by obscure renown.” Of course, since that is my opinion, you are more than welcome to disagree and interpret what Perikles said differently. In fact, given the incredible diversity of our personal beliefs, I would not be surprised at all if you do. As for the other preferences,

did your brain gloss over the, “Unlike some others,…” remark that immediately followed what you quoted? Under some definitions, my definition of the meritocratic ideal probably doesn’t match up. I acknowledged that.

As I said before, I do value racial diversity. I simply do not value it as much as you do. Moreover, as I also said before, I am not against the right of elite private universities to craft classes however they like. For the n-th time, if they’re going to discriminate on the basis of race, they ought to distance themselves from federal funding.

NearL · January 2, 2010, 10:36pm

If you realize that supporting preferences in admissions is antithetical to objective meritocracy stop using merit to frame your argument against affirmative action. You’d need to get the needle out of your own eye first.

Why should universities distance themselves from federal funding? Affirmative Action as it’s practiced today is perfectly constitutional.

fabrizio · January 2, 2010, 10:51pm

I didn’t “use merit to frame [my] argument against affirmative action.” Let us reread what I wrote, “…I am not against the holistic admissions system, and I do not view it as incompatible with the ideal of meritocracy. I simply do not believe that any racial classification should be given preference because of the racial classification itself.”

Did I say anything to the effect of, “Affirmative action is bad because it violates meritocracy?” No, I did not, and to say so and argue that I did is to create a straw man. I admit that the way I wrote that may have led you to believe that I said something to that effect, and if you were led to believe that, then that is my fault. And so, let me be clear: I do not “use merit to frame [my] argument against affirmative action.” I am against affirmative action because I am against all forms of racial discrimination, be they positive or negative. Moreover, I believe that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. I frame my argument solely around these two points. Is that clear?

And I am still curious. What did you mean by “de facto” preferences?

Well, that all depends. A few cases here and there, and you might be singing a different tune. Michigan thought its old undergraduate affirmative action policy was “perfectly constitutional,” but the Supreme Court didn’t agree.

Any literal reading of Title VI would see that since it forbids racial discrimination, positive racial discrimination is banned. As I’ve repeatedly said, my proposal would seek to implement this literal reading and thus sever federal funding from those private institutions that use racial classification as a factor in their admissions.

hahalolk · January 2, 2010, 11:02pm

NearL, I understand the SAT is not an IQ test, and I never said that. What I am saying is that both you’re parents did well on the SAT, it’s highly likely you will have a similar score. Of course I understand that the SAT can be studied for, but high scores usually come from families with previous high scores, because of simple probability. It’s understandable that the African girl did well on the SAT, because her parents could have genes that would be be beneficial for the SAT (and never knew it because they were never taught to read or even took it). Her success could also be due to random genetic change, or just that the combination of her parents genes lead to a genome that is favorable to doing well on the SAT. I understand that it can be trained for, but given a parent and a child who both have a similar upbringing, I would expect them to have similar scores. I write this to defend my post, and please don’t take this as an attack on yourself.

speedo · January 2, 2010, 11:11pm

Are there legal decisions regarding preferences for other races or is it simply blacks?

hahalolk · January 2, 2010, 11:21pm

@speedo: I think most legal decisions are in regards to minorities in general.

fabrizio · January 2, 2010, 11:21pm

Racial preferences only benefit the so-called “underrepresented” minorities, which include blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans.

Edit

Whether Asians benefit from racial preferences is contested, for they are “overrepresented” at many selective research universities and liberal arts colleges.

speedo · January 2, 2010, 11:25pm

“Racial preferences only benefit the so-called “underrepresented” minorities, which include
blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans.”

how do you know that?

and in some state couldn’t other racial groups qualify as “underrepresented”

But the legal decisions references here on this thread apply only to blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans, so if a state gave a racial preference to Asians, that would be legal?

Affirmative action - consolidated

CONNECT WITH US