Comments

1. Cindy wrote:

   I will be the first to agree that affirmative action is a flawed concept/law. I also firmly believe that if affirmative action were overturned/nullified throughout the country, the discrimination practices of old would return, in some cases, instantly.

   Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 10:49 am ¶

2. Just A Thought wrote:

   Hmmm…

   While I intellectually agree with your point about not automatically painting opponents of affirmative action as seething racists, I have a hard time not ascribing their motives to racism. Ninety-nine point nine nine nine percent of the time, if someone is opposed to affirmative action, their opposition is usually voiced through complaints about “less qualified” blacks getting opportunities that “belong” to more qualified white people (men). In my lived experience, I’ve had coworkers, peers, and social acquaintances assume that my qualifications were lesser, that I was not as intelligent or capable, simply because of the color of my skin (and to a certain extent, gender). So I do not think, especially since affirmative action is cast as a “black” issue, that you can discuss it without dealing with race and those with negative racial attitudes.

   Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 10:52 am ¶

3. Chanda wrote:

   While I agree that it’s never useful to oversimplify someone’s position in an argument, I think it’s fair to call racism when people start talking about minorities who aren’t qualified. Sure, it displays a real ignorance about affirmative action, how it works, and why it could be important. But so much of racism is essentially ignorance. I’m tired of being told that I shouldn’t call it by its name simply because it’s _also_ ignorant.

   Speaking as a Black woman scientist in academia, my personal observation is that most opponents of affirmative action in my arena are in fact relying on the racist idea that I, and people like me, somehow got ahead without having the brains to do it. I personally suffer because of this, and I think white women and scientists of color suffer because of this.

   However, the answer is not to eliminate affirmative action but to enhance the dialog about what it does. We need to eliminate the privileged idea that everyone comes to the table (the application pool) as equals. Until someone can show me that having an “ethnic” name is no longer a hindrance to one’s chances of success in getting a job or being admitted to a program, I’m convinced that we need affirmative action (or something like it) to level the playing field.

   I also think we should be flipping this debate and talking about the real beneficiaries of affirmative action: rich people. Nothing gives you unfair advantage in receiving a quality education like having money. As a prospective student at Harvard, I was told that I and most of my Black future classmates were affirmative action cases. I spent four years knowing that we were more likely to be low-income, without the benefit of SAT courses and private schools that gave us time off to study for AP exams. So, who had to work harder to get in?

   As a college-bound high school junior when California’s Prop 209 passed, I can tell you how we all felt: like white California had made it really clear where motivated students of color could stick it. In other words, while I’m sure plenty of people think they have (and might actually have) nuanced arguments against affirmative action, I also think many more (particularly those who head into the ballot box rather thoughtlessly and make life-altering decisions for the rest of us) are quite happy to rely on arguments that are substantiated by overt and covert racism and fail to acknowledge the larger picture.

   All of that said, I appreciate that you’ve made the point about recognizing that there are a lot of minority groups that are suffering from discrimination (including low-income white folks), and it’s time that we stop using the Black/Latino-proxy as an excuse to forget/ignore their voices and needs.

   Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 11:19 am ¶

4. waxghost wrote:

   Everyone that I have ever known who opposed affirmative action did so out of racism. Not “seething racism” but subtle, ignorant racism like Cindy and Chanda have already talked about. It’s always a double-whammy of being ignorant about what affirmative action really does plus believing that no minority could possibly be as talented/hard-working/intelligent as them.

   But I’m curious: if you don’t see it as racism, what is it?

   Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 11:50 am ¶

5. Beth wrote:

   Thanks for this post, Jenn.

   @Chanda,

   I hear you. When you said, “While I agree that it’s never useful to oversimplify someone’s position in an argument, I think it’s fair to call racism when people start talking about minorities who aren’t qualified. I’m tired of being told that I shouldn’t call it by its name simply because it’s _also_ ignorant.”

   I find it troubling that we’re entering an age in which some assume that the damage of being called racist is somehow worse than suffering the actions of racists. (I am not saying you think this, Jenn. Rather, I’ referring to a phenomenon I’ve observed that relates to Chanda’s sentiments.)

   Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 12:03 pm ¶

6. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

   I believe in affirmative action.

   Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 12:15 pm ¶

7. kuriusjurge wrote:

   I think the problem is that AA is pointed out as a “reward” or “consolation” for being part of a discriminated against group and for having to deal with racism. It’s actually not even meant to deal with discrimination on a personal level. IT’s supposed to address the CONSEQUENCES of historical racism. That the distinction that needs to be made.

   Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 12:16 pm ¶

8. lodown wrote:

   I disagree with the post’s last part. I think a lot of the opposition to Affirmative Action is fueled by the racist (because the issue is framed mostly in terms of race) idea that people of color are never qualified. Their achievements are always with a bullet. The complaints about the injustice or inequity of AA are nearly always a cover, just like many apparently neutral positions involving race are cover.

   Example: There was a recent piece in the NYT about quadruplets who got accepted to Yale and there were quite a few comments about the kids’ race and qualifications (or perceived lack thereof).

   Of course, the people making those comments covered their own racism by arguing that the kids weren’t in the top 1% of their classes, etc. and thus, did not deserve to get admitted to such a prestigious school. This, despite common knowledge that college admissions decisions involve more than just numbers. They ignored the kids’ overall achievements and focused on their race because the accompanying picture showed that they were not white. (But I agree with the early part of this post that gender is often ignored…I doubt the pissed off comments about AA would have been posted to the NYT blog if the story had been about white female quads).

   Arguments about fairness and equality oftentimes crumble under a bit of scrutiny to reveal the racist ideas beneath.

   Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 12:18 pm ¶

9. Maria M wrote:

   I am not opposed to AA when it comes to education. If I were not a WOC, I probably would have not gotten into the college that I ultimately attended. That being said, I did not feel unprepared or intellectually inferior compared to my classmates.

   I would, however, like a little more transparency into the process (i.e. points system, quotas, etc). Perhaps, when it comes to AA and university admittance, things should be handled on a case by case basis. Examine each candidate in the context of his or her background.

   When I was in high school, 2 students applied to Dartmouth. A white girl from a modest background and a black boy whose parents had serious money. The white girl had a better class rank and SAT scores, activities, etc than the black boy, but in the end, she was rejected and he was accepted. Who is to say that either one of them “deserved” it more…but his family had money, he did well in school – one cannot say he came from a disadvantaged background. So perhaps AA should address the entire socio-economic story, not just what ethnic background someone comes from.

   Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 12:18 pm ¶

10. Winn wrote:

    I’m with the other commenters here: while affirmative action in its implementation has been flawed, and while it does not address the intrinsic roots of the problem of educational and employment discrimination, the majority of opposition to it that I have observed, both anecdoctally and in published studies, has emerged from racist notions about what it is intended to do, why it is needed, and who benefits. From the college campus “affirmative action bake sales” to the accusations of Barack Obama as an “affirmative action President”, of all things, to the recent debate over the Ricci case, there is a constant meme of “unqualifed” minorities, which almost always reads as black or Latino, getting jobs, government contracts, or college placements they do not deserve, and the underlying suggestion is that these opportunities are undeserved because “minorities” are too lazy, stupid, or entitled to work hard like whites do. There is a reason that despite over thirty years of evidence about who the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action are, these salient facts are ignored to use affirmative action as a bludgeon against blacks and Latinos, even by other blacks and Latinos. I think its possible that there are truly nuanced and cogent arguments both against and in support of affirmative action that are not necessarily race-based, but I’m not sure I’ve heard them. And when you consider the recent data about African American unemployment and college graduation rates, you have to wonder what non-race-based opposition there could be, since the group most associated with and demonized by the label of affirmative action seems to actually be benefitting from it the least.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 12:40 pm ¶

11. steps wrote:

    When I was a senior in high school and college admission letters started rolling in, every letter that I got from a top-tier school was “blamed” on affirmative action by a girl in my class (she, too, had applied to the same three schools and had been rejected or wait-listed), and every letter I got from a school that she couldn’t care less about, she said that it was expected because the school was already filled with other Asians like me. I guess she didn’t realize that affirmative action, like it has been pointed out, is NOT purely a racial issue–she, in fact, falls into several of the categories that affirmative action was intended to aid–but she didn’t understand that.

    So, yeah, it was some crazy racial prejudice on her part. Now, several years removed, I still think about her sometimes and wish I could go back, take the low road, and kick her in the face for the things she said to me. The thing is, she ended up at an Ivy-league anyway where BOTH her parents are professors…

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 12:56 pm ¶

12. Umm....wut wrote:

    I think the terrain of the debate changes a lot if you remove blacks and Latinos from the debate. I think that if those two groups didn’t benefit from the policy, then it would be far less controversial and that’s worth noting. There is nothing concrete that opponents of AA can point to that would maintain any significant inclussion of black and Latinos in higher education or the workforce.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 1:10 pm ¶

13. jen* wrote:

    Anecdotally, I’ve never encountered a person opposed to AA due to non-racist reasons. And maybe I’d be more inclined to believe people weren’t racist if they had come up with an alternative solution that worked better, but no one ever does.

    I don’t think AA is unflawed – just the best option at the moment. Though I have to say, I haven’t dedicated a lot of time to thinking of alternatives. But I recognize the need for AA. The people I come in contact with who oppose AA tend to believe that there may have been disproportionate opportunities for whites in the past, but MLK fixed all that with his march on Washington (that’s right, they’re BIG history buffs when it comes to the War of Northern Aggression, but after that – not so much).

    So I have no idea about numbers – most, majority, whatever. What I know is that racism is the underlying reason against AA that I hear from the detractors I come in contact with. Maybe it’s cuz I live in the South…but then this fellow lives in Detroit…

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 1:31 pm ¶

14. Val wrote:

    I always wonder if Affirmative Action in some part, be it small or large, helps to keep in place the status quo of bad high schools that many minority kids attend.

    AA is like a band aid on a breach in a dam. The focus shouldn’t really be on AA but on why we still need AA in college admissions.

    American Public Schools are just about as segregated now as before the end of legal segregation. So is it really a surprise that majority minority schools are so bad.

    The entire educational system with regard to race needs to be addressed. Until then AA will only help a few minority kids get into college while leaving most locked out.

    However, until we figure a way to fix Public schools we still need the band aid of Affirmative Action.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶

15. Monica wrote:

    I don’t understand how the linked article makes the leap from the fact that white women have make the most advances in the last 30 years to the fact that affirmative action caused this. I agree that subconscious bias is an issue, and so are underperforming high schools. But I think that author makes an ENORMOUS logical leap to suggest that affirmative action (which is distinct, I believe, from “non-discrimination) actually helped white women in meaningful numbers.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 2:42 pm ¶

16. A white woman for AA wrote:

    The biggest argument I’ve seen empirically for AA has been working in places (yes, mainly in the South) where the AA minority percentages looked grade A but when you watched the work politics of who got listened to– despite equal or better qualifications– promoted or even talked to things were screwed up and just as racial/gender/sexuality/creed segregated as ever. Lunch table politics, ahoy!

    Really, anyone want to tell me those people who get ignored would have even been considered for hiring by the people blatantly ignoring them if there weren’t legal repurcussions?!

    My own college had a nice policy of firing female, gay and minority professors just before they could get tenure– or keeping them on perennial adjunct. Anyone want to tell me that those people with PHD’s somehow lacked qualifications?

    And I can tell you that having a non-English/Germanic/French name, despite being white, screwed me over in the South as well– the change in rapidity of hiring and rate of pay offered elsewhere was blindingly fast. Just not going to the same church screwed you over for getting hired many places!

    So, god knows what the curve was for being non-white there if they were that prejudiced against white people who weren’t exactly like them!

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 3:04 pm ¶

17. hasra wrote:

    I’m not at all clear why Dawsey believes that white women have been the prime beneficiaries of affirmative action. This statement links to an article that merely says that white women are the least negatively impacted by the struggling economy, in terms of their unemployment rate. It seems a big a stretch to extrapolate that white women are the ones most benefitting from affirmative action.

    Furthermore, college admissions officers have been trying to maintain gender balances at their schools, despite larger numbers of women applying to college, and have therefore been enacting affirmative action for MEN. And there has hardly been publicity or outcry. Search “affirmative action for men” to find many articles like this one:

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/03/27/admit

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 3:09 pm ¶

18. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    For those wondering why white women are often designated the people who benefit most from AA, the results appear to be measured by who has made the most progress in closing the education and financial gaps. There was also a 1995 Department of Labor report that gave the same verdict. See here:

    http://www.theroot.com/views/real-affirmative-action-babies

    http://aapf.org/focus/episodes/oct30.php

    Or, as explicitly stated by the NY Times:

    The Labor Department study found that since the 1960’s, affirmative action had helped five million members of minorities and six million women move up in the workplace. In 12 court cases, affirmative-action programs were challenged and upheld. Six cases led to an affirmative-action program being invalidated or re-examined.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/31/us/reverse-discrimination-complaints-rare-labor-study-reports.html?pagewanted=1

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 3:42 pm ¶

19. Chanda wrote:

    @steps
    This is going to sound not great, but I’m glad to hear someone of Asian descent telling a story like this because I think it challenges the stereotype that “Asians don’t have these sorts of problems.” I’ve been trying more and more recently to raise awareness about the unique issues faced by Asian women in science (which are notably distinct from other groupings of women of color), and it’s really hard to get people to talk about it.

    On the subject of getting told crap about college admissions: the day I got into Harvard I had two conversations at school. One was with a white girl who had spent the previous year bragging a lot about the places she was going to get into. She only got into one school in the end, but while she was waiting (I was early admission) she told me I had only gotten in because I was Black.

    The other was with two white boys who sat me down and told me that no matter where I went to school, they would “always be better” than me (exact words). Thankfully I went to a relatively diverse school where people crossed color lines (shout out to LAUSD’s fairly successful Magnet system, which recently survived an anti-affirmative action challenge), and I also received a lot of positive feedback from people of various backgrounds who recognized that I had worked hard, was passionate about physics and had earned recognition for my work. But that didn’t change the sting of my first experiences with having my achievements reduced to racist arguments about the form and function of affirmative action.

    I wish it had been the last time, but I think besides actually doing physics, it’s one of the few constants of the ten years that have since passed.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 3:49 pm ¶

20. Ras wrote:

    I’d be curious to see what the Dept. of Labor’s methodology was in concluding that white women were the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action. The NY Times article didn’t say, and the other articles are just basically saying that the proportion of women in various professional jobs have increased, and most of them are white. That’s true enough, but as a social scientist I have to caution against drawing such a sweeping conclusion about causation. The implementation of affirmative action is not the only significant social change which occurred during the post-1973 period. The data is interesting, but it’s not sound statistical interpretation to jump to the conclusion that “white women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action.”

    This is not to say that no white women have benefited from affirmative action programs. Many continue to benefit today, particularly in certain areas where women continue to be underrepresented.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 5:36 pm ¶

21. Digital Coyote wrote:

    Like other posters, I’ve long been frustrated by others assuming my success had to do with skin color instead of merit or ability (especially if I’d made it some where they didn’t). The “talk” about how my accomplishments would be suspect or less than compared to my white peers because I “had help” from an imaginary quota system came from professors and “friends” alike when I got to college. A student run newspaper, the Pack Patriot, published an editorial cartoon linking the amount of financial aid a student received to a gradient scale depicting skin color in its first edition. It received a lot of positive feedback from people who felt they were victims of “reverse racism,” that it wasn’t fair there are no whites-only scholarships or grants, and that they were tired of being passed over for certain groups. The engineering and science majors who identified themselves seemed especially perturbed by the perceived increase of non-white Asian students in their programs. In my mind, incidents like these support Dawsey’s argument about the basis of opposition to Affirmative Action (AA).

    The arguments against AA I’ve encountered came from white individuals and alluded to the programs being a “handout” to put people who didn’t deserve to be in good jobs because they couldn’t hack it otherwise; the undeserving are almost exclusively not white and assumed to be ignorant or under qualified. Pointing out that their mothers may have benefited from AA lead to the “bootstrap” myth being retold: their mothers didn’t have help, they did it all through hard work and dedication, so why can’t the rest of you? (I believe this is associated with one of the criticisms of the “mainstream” American feminist movement as it exists now. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

    Funny thing is when programs that reward people for doing just that, like Texas’ Ten Percent Plan, come under fire as soon as white individuals of either sex no longer dominate the potential benefits or threaten pre-existing AA programs in the form of legacy or donation-linked admissions.

    AA is not a cure-all for what ails American society, but it’s not a snake oil either. I’m not sure how to change its perception as the latter, since its existence has become cannon fodder for the type of dog-whistle politics that pit “average hard-working Americans” against everyone painted as “other.”

    Jenn is right in saying that it is hard to engage in meaningful conversation if the whole thing turns in to name-calling and finger-pointing, but AA opposition turned the situation that way a long time ago. The racism in their arguments needs to be put in the spotlight: it may give some people who have bought in to them pause and make them really think about what they’re saying (since a lot of people still think racism has to be over-starched-sheets-and-flaming-lumber-on-the-lawn obvious) and if that line of reasoning becomes publicly and widely “unacceptable,” they’ll have to come up with more sound arguments.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 6:58 pm ¶

22. grh wrote:

    I worked as an assistant director of admissions at an elite university from approx. 2005-2007. Our diversity objectives (i.e., Affirmative Action policies) did NOT favor white women, and had a particularly unfavorable impact on Asian women.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 7:51 pm ¶

23. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    People, please keep in mind Affirmative Action happens outside of colleges – this also includes government programs, small business funding and initiatives, government, and some diversity initiatives in the corporate world. Though most people’s direct experience is through college, it is a large, sprawling imitative.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 8:11 pm ¶

24. mieko wrote:

    Many of those who I’ve talked to who disagree with AA say that it should be linked to socio-economics rather than race. My reply to them was that while yes, socioeconomic status is a big factor in access to education and types of experiences studies have shown that black people (the only studies I have read compare black/white) without a felony charge have the SAME CHANCE of getting hired as a white person with a felony charge. And we’ve all read the racialicious article of how education still makes little difference unemployment levels for AfAms.
    Also, I remember this one high school girl telling me about the “Affirmative action for whites” program in her wealthy, largely white, suburban public high school (any Hoosiers out there? You’ll know what I’m talking about). According to her, they’d done away with the valedictorian system and replaced it with a system honoring more “well rounded” students, because the Asian kids kept ranking tops in their classes.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 8:41 pm ¶

25. laura wrote:

    I remember when I was in graduate school. Out of 30 people in the class 4 of us were black women, which was very unusual.

    Finally, one of my white classmates, who thought it was safe to broach the subject to me (probably because I was Canadian which I guess made me less dangerous) said ‘I guess they were looking for black women this year’.

    I considered the possible responses and replied ‘yeah but looks like they got lucky because we’re all really good’.

    Then I decided to get an answer of my own; ‘So what kind of quota do you think they had for untalented white people? Because some of the white folks in this class aren’t really very good and I’m sure that there were better white applicants out there. So, how did they get in?

    It’s only affirmative action when applied to black or brown people. When it’s white women it’s just progressive. When it’s white men, it’s George Bush.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 9:25 pm ¶

26. Phrone wrote:

    I do know some people who have legitimately thought that affirmative action was unfair because, in their opinion, it was a “two wrongs don’t make a right” deal. I have problems with this argument because no one seems to be in any hurry to go away with the benefits of being a “legacy” child.

    Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 10:03 pm ¶

27. Chris wrote:

    I remember the University of Michigan having quite a number of black students but none (one) from the City of Detroit. That sums up my reservations about how AA is administered.

    Posted 30 Dec 2009 at 12:05 am ¶

28. Bobby wrote:

    Here’s a recent report from Time.com:

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944495_1944497,00.html?cnn=yes

    “Talk about a dream deferred. African-American and Latino schoolchildren are more segregated, according to a January report from UCLA’s Civil Rights Project, than they were at the time of Martin Luther King Jr.’s death, in 1968.”

    Posted 30 Dec 2009 at 1:57 am ¶

29. Leah wrote:

    I’m seconding Bobby about segregation in schools still rampantly existing– from my college experience at a nice little southern school that was supposed to be all progressive and liberal. We had a black lunch table, eventually a black dorm… it was ridiculous. And they really weren’t happy when a group of students got together and labelled tables, pre-Civil Rights style, as “blacks only”, “whites only” in protest.

    And seconding Mieko about Indiana’s racism.

    Posted 30 Dec 2009 at 11:41 am ¶

30. Observer wrote:

    Living in NYC and growing up around a number of white-ethnic groups I’ve noticed a definite anger on the part of friends and former friends when broaching the topic of affirmative action. Many of them were under the impression that it was a program that solely benefitted people of color and ironically some of the angriest conversations i’ve had have been with white women absolutely furious at the thought that quite possibly I could be admitted to a university or gain employment over them by nature of my color. Nevermind that I ranked highly in the honors classes I took with these people and that I was one of possibly 4 POC in these AP/Honors classes. Unfortunately, many of my friendships dissolved due to this idea that I had something over them as a Black/Latina. When discussing affirmative action there needs to be a clarification about what exactly we’re talking about. To many it is a hand-out for POC and has nothing to do with merit or hard work or correcting the legacy of historical discrimination against POC or what that means exactly. For example, if one considers land ownership to be one of the foundational steps towards the accumulation of wealth in this country and factors in historical policies and actions taken by the government to enforce policies which strategically rejected groups of colors’ claims to land ownership in favor of a specific race (i.e. Whites), then one could posit that theoretically white wealth can be traced back to discriminatory practices on their behalf which eliminated competition over resources, such as land. This is not to say that Whites have never worked hard or suffered for what they’ve achieved but it is to say that despite this possibility they have historically commanded access to resources that have been integral to achieving any semblance of an “American Dream” in this country at the expense of POC. I believe it speaks volumes that almost every white female I’ve come into contact with and had a discussion about AA with has not seen themselves as a beneficiary of the policy and were mostly ignorant to the fact that they are included as a “minority” group within the language of the policy. So, as far as AA being a policy intended to bring minority groups up to par with white males in fields of academia and employment, mission accomplished for white women, many of whom don’t even recognize themselves as a group which has been historically disadvantaged vis-a-vis white males due to their apparent success in gaining access to education and well-paying jobs in the present.

    Posted 30 Dec 2009 at 1:17 pm ¶

31. GENQ10 wrote:

    When discussing issues of Affirmative Action, the thing that most bothers me is how so many people use anecdotal evidence instead of statistics on which to base their opinions and decisions and “facts”. Also, one university/college/business does not equal all universities/colleges/businesses in terms of how they handle A.A. decisions.
    @the poster who wants to see “points systems” or “quotas”. I can check again, but I’m pretty sure that those are illegal.

    Posted 30 Dec 2009 at 7:44 pm ¶

32. GENQ10 wrote:

    @grh
    you wrote:

    I worked as an assistant director of admissions at an elite university from approx. 2005-2007. Our diversity objectives (i.e., Affirmative Action policies) did NOT favor white women, and had a particularly unfavorable impact on Asian women.

    Could you explain this a little more? What counts as “favoritism”, and “unfavorable” policies? Why were they favorable or unfavorable? My experience with admissions officers is that they looks for a diversity of talents and potential, which sometimes isn’t reflected in perfect SAT scores.

    Posted 30 Dec 2009 at 8:02 pm ¶

33. PatrickInBeijing wrote:

    We should be careful about a couple of things. AA is not intended to make up for historical discrimination, it is intended as a counter-balance to the pervasive and on-going discrimination that exists in our society.

    The historical argument is a political argument successfully sold by AA opponents who then often go on to claim that since discrimination no longer exists, AA is no longer justified.

    It is a total lie and a total distortion of reality. Sigh… (i feel better, don’t want to offend anyone, but really this one drives me crazy!)

    As to the argument that AA is a flawed program, um, what programs do we have in this life that aren’t flawed? Is it more flawed than say, Pentagon Accounting? Than the US Senate? Than General Motors management? Then the banking system?

    This argument (again) is a set up. It basically suggests that since AA is not perfect, it shouldn’t exist. Duh!! Since I am not perfect, therefore I don’t exist?? No way!! And the people making this argument aren’t perfect either. It sets a standard for AA that we don’t apply to anything else in life, and is ridiculous!! No one should have to apologize for AA being imperfect. Ask the person who says this to give three examples of perfect systems or programs. Then pick on them. It’s fun!!

    Racial Prejudice (racism) is ongoing in America, so AA needs to be ongoing. Merely making it illegal doesn’t end it, it merely makes it illegal. (smoking pot is illegal, so like no one does it? running red lights? cheating on taxes? not cleaning up after your dog?) (these are merely examples of common behavior that is illegal, it is NOT my intent to list them as exquivalents of racism in any way, except as to their common existence in society!!!)

    As to the opposition being racist, the hardcore opposition certainly is. Some of the rest may be merely confused by the lies told by the opponents. (The media routinely repeats these lies without thought, and yes, they know better, they have been called on it many times, but frankly, they don’t give a damn.)

    We have a long way to go to get to equal opportunity, and in the mean time, AA is a useful counter-balance. Or it would be if it weren’t in need of some AA itself!!

    (Happy New Year!! Enjoy your holidays!)

    Posted 31 Dec 2009 at 9:21 pm ¶

34. octogalore wrote:

    I don’t think the explanation in #18 works, particularly because per the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, black women have closed the gap with white women re after-bachelors-degree income. The info in #18 is simply numerical results, *not* an explanation of the reason for those results, and therefore would not meet any requirement for statistical accuracy as a conclusion.

    To demonstrate that white women are beneficiaries, one would need to show that the gap between white women and white men in terms of starting criteria (grades, Boards) is substantial. I’ve never seen such a study. I believe white women have closed that gap, and I think women of color are pretty close to closing it too. What this discussion ignores is the JBHE analysis showing that the discrepancy is most significant when looking at men.

    Posted 31 Dec 2009 at 11:43 pm ¶

35. Ms.Frost wrote:

    Mieko, I’m pretty sure I attended said Hoosier, wealthy, largely white, suburban public high school, and we did have weighted GPA’s which I believe took extra-curriculars into account, so maybe that’s what she was referring to.

    I was in the honors program there and it was truly amazing how much vitriol there was for perceived school biases towards POC applicants, while everyone had personal SAT trainers, parents on advisory boards to the colleges, weekend trips across the country to meet admissions, and a mom to feed them energy drinks while they studied. Yeah, you did it all by yourself!

    Posted 01 Jan 2010 at 2:12 am ¶

36. little mixed girl wrote:

    First off, Happy New Year! w00t!

    I was quite surprised to see a shot of the diag up there in black and white.

    For the longest time I’ve been trying to tell people that Aff.Act is NOT just a race thing and that it DOES look at a person’s socioeconomic status, etc, but I guess that’s not a popular view.

    It also seems like everyone has some story about some “undeserving” minority that came and stole a spot from a “deserving” white person.
    I find it so sad/sick that the thousands of white people who make it into university/good job positions got there by hard work, but all the minority applicants just showed up and got a pass.

    Finally, the way Aff.Act is defined at the the university level varies from school to school, right? There’s no one manual that all schools use to decide what is or isn’t Aff.Act.

    As to white women getting the most out of Aff.Act, I was under the impression that it came from admission numbers.

    Before Aff.Act. came into play, women were a minority on the Michigan campus, but now we are the majority.
    (same goes for a lot of other universities)

    Posted 01 Jan 2010 at 4:31 am ¶

37. karinova wrote:

    Observer makes a really REALLY important point that wish came up more often in discussions of affirmative action:

    …white wealth can be traced back to discriminatory practices on their behalf which eliminated competition over resources, such as land. This is not to say that Whites have never worked hard or suffered for what they’ve achieved but it is to say that despite this possibility they have historically commanded access to resources that have been integral to achieving any semblance of an “American Dream” in this country at the expense of POC.

    White people (especially working- and middle-class WP) get angry about AA because they think their ancestors “pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps,” and they see AA as some sort of “reparations” for slavery— to which they say, “well, my family never owned slaves.” Which means something like, “I never benefitted at the expense of POC.” Truth is, most of these people have never even thought about the matter, so they simply don’t know. They just assume it to be true. Most Americans have no awareness of the benefits that the US has bent over backward to offer WP— at the specific expense of POC— in modern times. As in: well after slavery. As in: them, personally, today.

    I’m not speaking abstractly here of random nebulous racism. I’m talking specific institutional initiatives— housing, jobs, political patronage, credit, education. Tens of millions of living, present-day white Americans have personally benefitted from these programs without even being aware of their deliberate white bias.

    In particular, possibly the largest and most sweeping affirmative action program the US ever instituted was specifically designed to apply to straight white men almost exclusively, and it effectively reversed the bulk of the social and economic gains made by women and POC during WWII. It was the GI Bill. The American Dream as we know it today (college > a good job with benefits > suburban homeownership/a car in the garage/college for the kids/comfortable retirement; all on one income, and all very white) would, and could, never have existed if not for the GI Bill. Oh yeah, and redlining, which continues in various forms literally to this day (ref: subprime lending).

    For the interested, I highly recommend the thought-provoking essay “White Benefits? A Personal Assessment” by Paul Kivel (link below). It’s one of the most accessible intros to the subject of white AA I’ve seen in ages, and because he’s talking about himself, even angry white people can read it without getting defensive. And it’s actually quite a page-turner, considering. Basically, Kivel explains some of the “hidden” white AA that directly helped his family over the past 60 years— his father, mother, sister and himself (and briefly, his dirt-poor Jewish immigrant grandparents). He touches on Jim Crow, the GI Bill, pensions, college, Social Security, FHA loans, draft deferment and more. Seeing it all together is sobering. It’s simply amazing how much has been done to help WP advance, and how invisible it all is. If more white Americans honestly completed this assessment exercise, maybe we’d hear fewer knee-jerk objections to affirmative action. “Nobody’s ever done anything to help me!” Oh really?

    http://www.paulkivel.com/articles/whitebenefitsassessment.pdf [PDF]

    Posted 01 Jan 2010 at 6:59 pm ¶

38. alegna wrote:

    One of the main problems with Afirmative Action is that the label is applied to a variety of strategies that weigh and balance different things. There isn’t one system used by every college, university or government institution. Many people who complain about AA have know idea what it is, nor how it is applied. Many supporters lack this knowledge as well.
    It makes it difficult to have a real conversation about the pluses or minues of it. And the fact that we live in a society that is extremely fearful and dishonest when discussing race and that still prefers to demonize public policies by linking it to blacks or latinos makes it even more impossible.
    Honestly, if we were past this or had a monolithic society we would have had free public health care by now.

    Posted 02 Jan 2010 at 12:21 am ¶

39. alegna wrote:

    karinova,

    Great post and great link.

    Posted 02 Jan 2010 at 4:34 pm ¶

40. RCHOUDH wrote:

    I too agree that AA is most often opposed based on racist grounds. Thanks to the media basing discussions and stories regarding AA around race (and not other factors like class, gender, etc), most people are influenced into thinking in racial terms when it comes to AA. It’s similar to how the media based discussions and stories about welfare recipients around race (”welfare queens) so when you find opponents of welfare you find their opposition based on racist grounds because they think black/brown women are the biggest recipients of welfare and not poor whites which is actually statistically the case.
    @Karinova
    Thanks for that great link also! To think the GI Bill is hardly ever considered by anyone in mainstream American society as AA for straight white men! But you know I can imagine some racist arguing that the GI Bill is not AA because the GI’s fought for the country whereas AA is given out to people who “haven’t contributed anything of value to American society”.

    Posted 02 Jan 2010 at 5:18 pm ¶

41. octogalore wrote:

    @little mixed girl, re “As to white women getting the most out of Aff.Act, I was under the impression that it came from admission numbers. Before Aff.Act. came into play, women were a minority on the Michigan campus, but now we are the majority.
    (same goes for a lot of other universities)”

    I spent some time at U-M as well — great to meet a fellow alum.

    I don’t think the admission #s tell the story. There is no preference for women, since women now make up 54 percent to 46 percent male college students. Women’s high school class rank is on average significantly higher, verbal SAT the same, and math SAT only 30 points lower. So there is no reason for AA for women going into school; in fact, there is talk of AA for men to even out the student body. There has been a lot of literature on male school performance; the gender concern these days is to help the guys catch up, not vice versa.

    There is a difference between correlation and causation.

    I think there are good arguments for AA, but that it should be tailored to (1) ensure the beneficiaries are not simply the top 10-20% most advantaged in the category, which is how it sometimes applies and (2) ensure that its beneficiaries are able to benefit from it once they enter the school or workplace.

    Posted 02 Jan 2010 at 11:47 pm ¶

42. alegna wrote:

    I think some people are missing the point. Afirmative Action was NOT designed to help people who had low scores. It was designed to make sure that QUALIFIED people weren’t over looked because of race, gender, religion, (”minority” status). The scores of the current generation of white women in this context are irrelevant. It was the AA that created space for white women to enter formally all white male college spaces to begin with(and college prep programs at the public school level that prepared these women). In the past they didn’t care about your scores or qualifications.

    Also as a society we have been trained to rethink gender due to the feminist movement, the civil rights movement, and the policies of Afirmative Action. This has not happened when it comes to other types of status like race. We still operate off of largely racist assumptions. That is why this site is so valuable. It helps us to uncover and name it.

    Posted 03 Jan 2010 at 8:56 am ¶

43. K wrote:

    I think one valid concern about AA wrt college admissions and scholarships is that it doesn’t take economic background into account. Many people brush it off and compare minority-only scholarships to legacy admissions, but that only applies to maybe 5-15% of white people, and even THAT is estimating high.

    This isn’t to say OH THE POOR WHITES, of course, but something to think about.

    Posted 03 Jan 2010 at 11:38 pm ¶

44. octogalore wrote:

    “Afirmative Action was NOT designed to help people who had low scores. It was designed to make sure that QUALIFIED people weren’t over looked because of race, gender, religion, (”minority” status).”

    AA was originally set up to proactively administer the Civil Rights legislation, but in its current expanded form, can operate to slightly ease numerical entrance requirements for various groups. Some programs are “all other things being equal,” others allow, for example, a 200-300 point deficit in SAT scores, or a 10 point deficit in LSATs. The lack of proportional representation is the issue to be addressed.

    Currently, and for years, there has been no lack of proportional representation for women. There are more women applying to college than men, and the female applicants have, on average, better numerical criteria. So the scores are actually quite relevant.

    As to the claim “It was the AA that created space for white women to enter formally all white male college spaces to begin with,” we again are presented with an issue of correlation vs causation. There were so many other social and economic phenomena at play that simply stating a result, without any further rigor, does not provide any information about the reason.

    “In the past they didn’t care about your scores or qualifications.”

    On the contrary. I have family members who’ve been in academia over 40 years, and at the beginning of that span, they very much did care. In fact, at that point, extracurrics didn’t play the ameliorating factor they do now.

    “Also as a society we have been trained to rethink gender due to the feminist movement, the civil rights movement, and the policies of Afirmative Action. This has not happened when it comes to other types of status like race.”

    Sounds like oppression olympics to me.

    Posted 04 Jan 2010 at 12:51 pm ¶

45. Alegna wrote:

    @Octogalore

    “AA was originally set up to proactively administer the Civil Rights legislation, but in its current expanded form, can operate to slightly ease numerical entrance requirements for various groups.”

    Let’s not move too quickly from why and how AA was originally set up. History is important especially when talking about policies that were created to remedy past and present problems. It is important to remember that these laws came about because of court cases. The original cases were not about public schools but colleges and professional schools. Charles Hamilton Houston’s whole legal strategy was built around the fact that qualified and over-qualified African Americans were being denied entrance to professional schools based solely on their race. (This is how he was able to create the precedent that led to Brown). Denying them admission had nothing to do with their qualifications (they had the grades, scores) and the denying institutions admitted this. It was only about minority status. An example, Thurgood Marshall was denied entrance to the University Of Maryland Law School solely because he was black. (The result of Maryland’s actions brought Marshall to Howard where he was mentored and guided by Houston.)

    “In the past they didn’t care about your scores or qualifications.”On the contrary. I have family members who’ve been in academia over 40 years, and at the beginning of that span, they very much did care. In fact, at that point, extracurrics didn’t play the ameliorating factor they do now.”

    Here you are changing the meaning of what I wrote. I was not arguing that grades did not matter but this—those who had the top scores and met all of the required criteria were not admitted because of their minority status. They didn’t care that you were “good, great, the best”. Your color, sex etc disqualified you.

    “Currently, and for years, there has been no lack of proportional representation for women. There are more women applying to college than men.”

    This is probably true in some areas. But why is it true? You are correct in saying there are a lot of factors that encouraged this shift but AA is main among them and probably the most important of them.
    When looking at certain fields/programs, like engineering, this disappears. Academia is special in that their processes are more easily audited than what happens in employment. Despite how far we have moved as a society, white women still only earn about 70 cents for every dollar earned by white men. And had Congress not passed additional legislation, you would not be able to complain about it thanks to the court’s decision in Ledbetter last year.

    “There were so many other social and economic phenomena at play that simply stating a result, without any further rigor, does not provide any information about the reason.”

    Just to go back to this—without and even with AA, discrimination based on race and gender is still happening. Without AA is it is logical and reasonable to conclude that the result would be more, not less discrimination, even with all of those other wonderful forces at work. Therefore we can conclude that AA has been significant in creating these changes and opportunities.

    “Sounds like oppression olympics to me.”

    I love the dismissiveness of this. Made more interesting because your whole argument supports my assertion, that we have moved further in gender equality than other forms of discrimination. This is a fact you come back to again and again in touting the admission of white women in colleges in comparison to white men.

    “Some programs are “all other things being equal,” others allow, for example, a 200-300 point deficit in SAT scores, or a 10 point deficit in LSATs. The lack of proportional representation is the issue to be addressed.”

    The SAT is not a good predictor of success in college—and this is the purpose of the test. From Fair Test. org: “The more than 740 colleges and universities that already admit substantial numbers of freshman applicants without using any test scores have shown that class rank, high school grades, and rigor of classes taken are better tools for predicting college success than any standardized test”. http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm

    Those other factors are more predictive of success than the SATs or LSATs.

    Posted 04 Jan 2010 at 6:57 pm ¶

46. Slush wrote:

    @Latoya and Octogalore, re statistics:
    Those numbers from NYT also make so sense because they act like women and minorities are discrete groups. It’s like a little failed logic puzzle: If “affirmative action helped five million members of minorities and six million women move up in the workplace” how many total people moved up? 11 million? Or 7 million, because half of them were women of color?

    Posted 04 Jan 2010 at 10:13 pm ¶

47. octogalore wrote:

    We aren’t in dispute on why AA was originally set up. However, the discussion here relates to how it is currently understood. If we are talking about AA as originally set up, then I agree with you that white women have benefited most from removing discriminatory obstacles.

    However, if we are talking about AA as currently understood – eg, doing more than simply proactively enforcing civil rights laws – then I do not agree with that statement.

    Note: Ledbetter dealt with statutes of limitations. There are rules on the books that offered the same protections but with different timetables. So the “you would not be able to complain” analysis is incomplete.

    I am confused as to why ““Also as a society we have been trained to rethink gender due to the feminist movement, the civil rights movement, and the policies of Afirmative Action. This has not happened when it comes to other types of status like race” isn’t oppression Olympics. I think it’s fairer to say that the thinking on both race and gender has evolved but in both cases the evolution is far from optimal. Your statement implies a ranking that is what people typically refer to when they talk about OO. I don’t think my statement was dismissive.

    Also, I’m “touting” not just a white woman-white man comparison, but a woman-man comparison (see: above comment). Looking at the Journal of Blacks in Higher Ed, you’ll see the same comparison exists for black women and men, and in fact is even more marked. The ratio of black women to men in college is 65:35.

    Finally, the “Fairtest” goal is “to end the misuses and flaws of standardized testing” Not exactly an unbiased source. More neutral sources state that a combination of SATs and grades is necessary, due to grade inflation: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/06/18/high-school-grades-and-sat-still-best-predictor-of-college-success-study-says.html.

    Posted 04 Jan 2010 at 10:39 pm ¶

48. Alegna wrote:

    @octogalore

    I don’t want to get into Ledbetter which was about more than SOLs but about wage discrimination because that would take us off into another discussion perhaps another post will come up to discuss this. I was merely pointing out that AA is still necessary for women and Ledbetter highlights this.

    “Finally, the “Fairtest” goal is “to end the misuses and flaws of standardized testing” Not exactly an unbiased source. More neutral sources state that a combination of SATs and grades is necessary, due to grade inflation: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/06/18/high-school-grades-and-sat-still-best-predictor-of-college-success-study-says.html.”

    From your link “That was one of the key findings contained in a study released this week by the College Board, which owns the SAT. The study says high school grades continue to be a slightly more accurate predictor of college success than SAT scores”.

    Linking to a site that is repeating the findings of the creators of the SAT is much more biased than my link to Fair Test. Fair Test isn’t working for any specific test or testing company but evaluating ways to make testing valid. Obviously College Board has a financial stake in maintaining the SAT and selling it as a predictor.

    “I am confused as to why ““Also as a society we have been trained to rethink gender due to the feminist movement, the civil rights movement, and the policies of Afirmative Action. This has not happened when it comes to other types of status like race” isn’t oppression Olympics. I think it’s fairer to say that the thinking on both race and gender has evolved but in both cases the evolution is far from optimal. Your statement implies a ranking that is what people typically refer to when they talk about OO. I don’t think my statement was dismissive.”

    We both seem to agree on why AA was set up. We both seem to agree that women, white women, in general, have benefitted from AA more than any other group. We both seem to agree that our society still has issues with both gender and race. Where we disagree is this—I believe we have not moved as far in the area of racial discrimination as in gender discrimination. You seem to believe that the movement has been equal. My statements have nothing to do with being “fairer to one group” but stating a fact and clearly we aren’t even talking about exclusive groups. This statement has nothing to with pity or pitting women against racial minorities, that would be idiotic and that is the type of idiocy the term–Oppression Olympics is addressing. Even stating that white women have benefitted more than other groups isn’t about pitting white women against racial minorities or saying that white women should pity these groups. It is a fact that the effects of racial discrimination are greater than the effects of gender discrimination. This fact is bore out in countless studies around education, housing, employment, etc. We have made tremendous progress, particularly, in how women are treated and viewed in this society. I think this is a good thing. But I also recognize we have a much further distance to travel when it comes to racial discrimination. Unfortunately, for all of us, our country and its institutions were established with the idea of creating rigid racial hierarchies that are still operating today. That these hierarchies persist in the present, is why a site like this exists.

    “However, the discussion here relates to how it is currently understood.”

    The discussion taking place here is about whether or not the people who reject AA do so based on racist notions. Thus this isn’t a conversation just about how AA is understood but why people oppose it. I agree that racism is at the heart of a lot of the opposition. AA is complex and works in different ways based on the field, school, and sector of the economy—jobs, housing etc. Many of the people who oppose it do not seem to do so from substantive policy concerns but from knee-jerk racism. These racist notions did not just pop into existence today so discussing AA today without looking at the cause is an exercise in futility. Until we fully understand how these hierarchies were created, we are going to have a hell of a time dismantling them. The past is very much still part of the present and we don’t have to go back too far to see this. Because too many of us, and I mean all of us beyond this blog of thoughtful people, are unwilling, afraid or unknowledgeable about the past, this slows our growth in the present.

    Posted 05 Jan 2010 at 7:50 pm ¶

49. Yetunde wrote:

    As a child of highly educated, wealthy African immigrants, I’ve given AA a lot of thought. I’ve mostly been wondering where on earth I stand as someone who is not technically a member of a historically oppressed group and not financially disadvantaged. I’ve ping ponged back and forth between support for AA and repealing AA. Right now I’m back to being against it — at least in regards to race or gender preferences in college admissions. I doubt that my views will change this time.
    The book that changed my mind was Losing the Race by John McWhorter. It’s a rather controversial book that discusses elements of black culture that the author thinks hold the community back. The author makes his case against AA by refuting popular beliefs such as, the belief that most minorities that were accepted into prestigious universities come from bad schools, the belief that the term “middle class” usually means “struggling working class” for black people, and the belief that the SATs are culturally biased and have low predictability for college grades. The author also talked about graduation rates for minorities compared to whites and Asians.
    There’s a lot more that he talked about, but this post is long enough. Overall, it was a pretty thorough case against AA. It left me wondering why on earth I ever supported it.

    Please don’t shoot me down for this. I’m just expressing my opinion.

    Posted 05 Jan 2010 at 10:41 pm ¶

50. GENQ10 wrote:

    @Yetunde.
    Not to disrespect your opinion, but you should know that John McWhorter is a conservative who doesn’t exactly have the best interests of the black community in mind. Also, he’s incredibly wrong about many things. It has been shown time and time again (read “Breaking Down the Gates”) that the SATs are best at predicting family income, they are do poorly predict grades in the long run, and the SATs are also (I know, because I was an SAT tutor) disgustingly culturally biased.

    Posted 14 Jan 2010 at 11:22 pm ¶