Affirmative action - consolidated

fabrizio · January 2, 2010, 11:37pm

A state can certainly give racial preference to Asians as long as it complies with Grutter. As for your question, I’m surprised that you asked it. Think about it logically. Why give racial preferences? The only acceptable rationale is the promotion of diversity. When forced to reveal all the facts, universities grudgingly admit that without racial preferences, they may not be able to obtain desired levels of “underrepresented” minority enrollment. So which groups would have problems without the preferences? The three I mentioned.

speedo · January 3, 2010, 12:39am

So technically an underrepresented minority could be any race, 50 years from now that could be white people in some states or perhaps Asians in another. Or you could have a mostly black college that decides to recruit whites or Asians and gives them a preference to build that population in their institution. Under current law that would also be legal. Or perhaps, a mostly Asian college that decides it values diversity and gives whites preference. Again that would be legal. So you want to change the law so that these colleges could no longer do that. If a certain college decided to diversify it’s student body by accepting less qualified candidates of a certain race that would be illegal under your proposal. Your law would restrict a college’s ability to mold it’s student body under the penalty of loss of federal funding. Would the funding loss simply be for those students who are accepted AA or would it be more of a collective punishment? For the elites it’s probably not a big deal but for many of the lesser privates who struggle mightily to diversify their student bodies it would have quite an impact - they would be much more reluctant to lose the funding. So the law itself would impact different institutions in different ways. Admission decisions at many colleges would be under more Federal control and supervision. They may even require a Federal Admission compliance officer to go through the apps. Who would pay for that?

But say a college wanted to keep the federal funding and still diversify. They could simply attract highly qualified minority apps by giving them full scholarships, or even paying them to attend. Once again not much problem for the elites and a likely scenario. But a huge problem for the lesser privates. If they wanted to maintain a diverse student body it would cost them millions. Assuming this is legal and I believe it is, minority students could command huge amounts of money at lots of private colleges. The state colleges could, I assume, also set up minority scholarship funds and do something similar if that would be legal in their states. So in fact under your new law, diversity would still be possible but at a substantial cost to the institutions. Of course at selective institutions who don’t value diversity or don’t have the money there may be very few minorities - since they could get paid to go elsewhere. Your proposal would actually have quite an impact on the destination of minority apps.

So who does your new law actually benefit? I’d bet the racial makeup of the elites would remain pretty much the same. Outside of a couple of flagships it probably wouldn’t make much difference. Outside of you feeling good and all of us sleeping safely at night because a tiny area of so-called discrimination has been addressed. What would be the point? Underrepresented minorities would still benefit from their status, and the more qualified ones, the wealthier minorities who already make up most of the elite acceptance would make out like bandits. why bother?

fabrizio · January 3, 2010, 1:30pm

Given the inherent vagueness associated with the phrase, as I understand it, yes - technically, an “underrepresented” minority could be of any racial classification. However, potential demographic changes a half century from now don’t automatically imply that whites or Asians could become “underrepresented” minorities. Remember that at present, Asians make up less than 5% of the United States’s population as a whole, but they are “overrepresented” at many, many research universities and liberal arts colleges. Consequently, while your “50 years from now…” situation is possible, it’s not necessarily all that probable.

My proposal does not ban the consideration of racial classification; rather, it seeks to discourage it. Moreover, it does not bar private universities from accepting “less qualified” candidates of certain racial classifications, even if these universities abide by the proposal. That is your misunderstanding; please do not ascribe it to me. As lockn pointed out on this thread, private elite universities are smart enough to spin-off their research components such that the proposal, if enacted, would not stop the research divisions from continuing to receive potential federal grants. That addresses concerns from several users on this thread and is totally fine by me; any continued use of racial classification after the proposal would be financed entirely by a university’s endowment. That is what I would like to see. The whole point of my proposal is to attach a price to diversity. I never denied that. Look at my old posts on this thread, where I repeatedly mentioned that if it is worth so much, then why shouldn’t they pay for it? Thus, even under my proposal, the colleges you refer to could still give preference to whoever they want. They just have to distance themselves from federal funding. My proposal doesn’t say you can’t do it. It just says you can’t do it without a price. As far as I know, we have a compliance system. It’s the Office of Civil Rights, the same office that Jian Li used to file his civil rights complaint.

You say that colleges that want to keep federal funding and still diversify can simply give “underrepresented” minorities full scholarships or pay them outright to attend. But under my proposal, if they keep federal funding, then they cannot use racial classification as a factor. How do they identify these “underrepresented” minorities? How do they avoid the perception of only giving these scholarships and stipends to “underrepresented” minorities?

You say that my proposal could have quite an impact on the destination of “underrepresented” minority applicants. Maybe it could! Consistent with your “gotta feel elite” tirade, you acknowledge and I agree that “the racial maekup of elites would remain pretty much the same.” And “underrepresented” minorities could still benefit from their status. Like I said, my proposal doesn’t ban the use of racial classification; it attaches a price to it. But like Alec Baldwin said in The Departed, cui bono? Who benefits? According to you, nothing will really change. If that’s the case, then I’m fine with that. Why bother, you ask? You already know - an area of discrimination has been addressed. Unlike you, I don’t believe that racial discrimination is OK as long as it’s on a small scale.

speedo · January 3, 2010, 1:46pm

So then any scholarships specifically allotted to a racial group at a private university would be illegal? But scholarships specifically dedicated to a female or male would still be legal?

As for the LAC’s if they were found guilty of accepting an unqualified black, how much fed aid would they actually lose. I suspect most of their fed aid comes in the form of pells, fed sub loans, workstudy etc. Would they lose all of that for one violation?

fabrizio · January 3, 2010, 4:03pm

Illegal? But didn’t I say that “[m]y proposal does not ban the consideration of racial classification”? How could those scholarships “specifically allotted to a racial group at a private university” be illegal? Especially if the scholarships were funded by external sources, with the universities merely acting as stewards? Such practices would be neither illegal nor impermissible under my proposal, which states that the university cannot consider racial classification in admissions without a price. It doesn’t say anything about third-parties funding scholarships however they like to private universities.

I don’t support gender preferences, a position I’ve repeated several times on this thread as well. My proposal can be easily modified to include gender preferences, particularly since the Courts have ruled that gender is a “quasi-suspect” class.

What do you mean by “unqualified” black? This is your terminology, not mine. As I said, my proposal does not seek to ban holistic admissions or even discourage it. I am unable to answer this question because it is based on a straw man.

speedo · January 3, 2010, 4:17pm

no problem we’ll use your teminology, if a LAC decides to use racial classification in their admission process exactly what funding do they lose - pell grants, work study etc?

Are you including the awarding of finaid as part of the admissions process?

fabrizio · January 3, 2010, 4:28pm

Another straw man. “Us[ing] racial classification in [the] admission[s] process” doesn’t mean “accepting an unqualified black.” I have never mentioned anything about “unqualified” blacks or “less qualified candidates of certain race[s].” Both of those are your words, not mine. What’s more, my terminology is not equivalent to yours.

I can’t answer your questions unless we have an understanding that I am not using the language “unqualified” or “less qualified,” and that language is not equivalent to mine.

Bay · January 3, 2010, 5:15pm

fab,

Under your proposal, you’d have to ban federal funding from colleges which give preferences/tips/hooks to internationals because “national origin” is also a suspect class. Same for preference/tips/hooks related to religion, like Jews, Mormons, etc. and ethnicities, which are also suspect classes. You would probably need to formally prohibit all applicants from including any information that would identify an applicant’s racial/religious/ethnic background on their applications, so the college doesn’t inadvertently run afoul of the ban.

speedo · January 3, 2010, 5:17pm

“Private universities can use racial classification as a factor in their admissions if they so desire. All they have to do in return is forfeit federal funding and finance their desired admissions scheme out of their own pockets (ie. you want it, you pay for it).”

your statement I believe, simple question - exactly what federal funds will a private LAC forfeit? Pell grants? Work Study? Stafford Loan? Perkins Loans?
no games or excuses please.

fabrizio · January 3, 2010, 5:22pm

I don’t support any preferences based on suspect classes. I have always supported the civil rights initiatives that have passed in California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska, all of whom generally use language like the following: “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.”

Thus, your comments do not cause any problems for my proposal, and in fact, I thank you for bringing them up, as they make the proposal better, in my opinion.

Edit

To clarify, I mean expand the proposal to include all types of suspect classes, not just racial classification.

fabrizio · January 3, 2010, 5:27pm

OK, I’m not sure if you’re accepting that my terminology isn’t the same as yours. Even if you don’t, that’s your choice, and I’ve already made my disagreement clear.

According to post 63, federal financial aid goes with the student, not the institution. It’s up the student to decide where the aid is to be used. So, as I understand, the only federal funds that private institutions, be they research universities or liberal arts colleges, will forfeit are federal grants for research purposes. The aid types you mentioned appear to “go with the student, not the institution,” and thus would be unaffected by my proposal.

speedo · January 3, 2010, 6:00pm

so, we have already agreed that your proposal probably will have little effect on the elites, now can we agree that it will have little or no effect on the nation’s LACs?

fabrizio · January 3, 2010, 6:17pm

Since when are liberal arts colleges and elites disjoint sets? When we agreed that it will have little or no effect on the nation’s elites, I thought you were including Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and several other LACs in the grouping.

Edit
As lockn has stated, the most likely consequence of implementing my proposal is the creation of “X Research Institutes,” where X is to be replaced by the name of the elite institution. These research institutes do not consider racial classification in their hiring because quite frankly it is completely irrelevant. Thus, their not considering racial classification has no impact on their research performance, and they continue to receive potential federal grants. The undergraduate and graduate components are free to continue using racial classification.

speedo, thanks for the lively discussion. I remain more convinced than ever that nothing about my proposal is unfair.

speedo · January 3, 2010, 6:19pm

Ok, but there are 100’s of other LAC’s. Are we agreed

“so, we have already agreed that your proposal probably will have little effect on the elites, now can we agree that it will have little or no effect on the nation’s LACs?”

fabrizio · January 3, 2010, 6:32pm

You bet we are.

speedo · January 3, 2010, 7:18pm

So here in my state, outside of the elites and a number of LAC’s I know of no other college that gives racial preferences in admissions. Here, the colleges that give preference to certain races would continue to do so. Your proposal would not remedy the problem. It seems to me that one of the problems with your approach is that there is no significant penalty for giving racial preference. Your statement, “Losing federal aid is a huge penalty.” is for most institutions who practice racial preference in admissions simply not true.

fabrizio · January 3, 2010, 7:49pm

No, it seems that my proposal “would not remedy the problem” (ie. would not discourage the usage of racial classification). It seems that the only thing that would result is the creation of the aforementioned X Research Institutes, which would not consider racial classification and could thus continue to receive federal grants. You are right that one of the problems with my proposal is the lack of a significant penalty for giving racial preference. Thus, while it is fair, it is ineffective. I guess I’ll have to keep thinking about it, then. Much thanks!

By the way, I’m not sure if I said, “Losing federal aid is a huge penalty.” I think someone else said that in response to my proposal.

Edit

Indeed, see post 69. Those were not my words.

speedo · January 3, 2010, 7:50pm

Fab, Just saw your “not unfair” post. My current concern with your proposal has nothing to do with that. “losing fed aid…” post #73

I’m done for the evening but I’ll go back to something I said I think in another thread - I’m not sure you can solve a specific injustice within a system that discriminates in a huge systematic fashion. You plug one hole in the dike and a bigger hole appears elsewhere.

fabrizio · January 3, 2010, 8:34pm

Well, I take it back. I wrote that, and you are right: it does not seem to be a big penalty. I guess I need to think of one, then.

OK. The next time you come back, please tell us how to solve the specific injustice. I assume your plan would focus on fixing the system itself?

Bay · January 3, 2010, 8:41pm

Do Notre Dame, Georgetown and BC give preference to Catholic applicants? If so, they’d be out of the running for federal funds, as well as BYU and others, I guess.

No federal funds for colleges who don’t admit or give financial aid to illegal immigrants, too I suppose.

If you are really concerned about admissions activity that might run afoul of the Constitution, you really ought to ban funds for single-gender colleges, and colleges which admit equal numbers of male/females, and colleges that have age minimums and maximums, as well. Why stop at “suspect classes” when you can put a halt to preferences for “quasi-suspect classes,” too?

Affirmative action - consolidated

CONNECT WITH US