Burnt Orange Report

Byron,

I don't see any merit to your argument. You really need to quit behaving as if racial groups have rights. They don't -- only individuals have rights.

You see, your claim is that since legacy admissions benefit whites more than blacks, it is fair to turn around and create another admissions policy that benefits blacks. First this presupposes that an intent to benefit a racial group is not a morally relevant factor, and then also assumes that justice is served by treating people not as individuals, but as placekeepers in racial categories.

To wit, I grant that whites are benefitted more by legacy admissions, but the fact is that legacy admissions hurt all those whose parents did not attend that specific college, most of whom are not, in fact, minorities. So unless blacks collectively have rights collectively against whites, you cannot say that justice is served by using affirmative action to 'make up for' legacy admissions.

But consider this: What if we did accept your logic? Would the fact that there is more black on white crime than the reverse justify racial profiling, or mandating higher sentences for black offenders? After all, we've already decided that racial groups have collective rights, and so whites are collectively being victimized by blacks!

That is, of course, the beginning of the insanity of racial politics, and it's a hole you need to dig yourself out of.

Whatever the ethnicity of those involved, the legacy preference is a form of affirmative action. It's a preference which favors the wealthy. Since a larger percentage of whites than blacks is filthy rich, the legacy system favors whites by default.

The most prominent beneficiary of such legacies is the Flightsuit-in-Chief himself, George Walker Bush. Were it not for his family background, Dubya never would have gotten into his fancy New England prep school nor Yale. His admission to Yale meant that some high school senior with better academic credentials was denied an education there.

The legacy system has nothing to do with meritocracy.

The simplest way to reform affirmative action is to make it class-based. It will still primarily benefit racial / ethnic minorities because they constitute a greater percentage of the lower socio-economic strata than their overall numbers.

Such a policy is race neutral, so no one can call it "reverse discrimination," and hence no backlash. Most importantly, it would benefit those most in need - first in their family to go to college, grew up in a ghetto / trailer park with crappy schools, etc.

Like Bill Clinton said about Aff. action, "Let's mend it, not end it." Ultimately, leaders in the minority community are going to have to make the case for class based affirmative action. It is in their best interests to do so, because (i) their communities will be the overwhelming beneficiaries; and (ii) if they do not, they risk losing the whole
concept of affirmative action (A Hopwood type system was a vote away from being the law of the land)

Concerning legacy admissions, there is no way getting around the phenomenon in private schools. It is an integral part of fund-raising. While it may not be based on a meritocracy, without it there would be no private school for anyone to attend, based on merit or not. While legacy admissions contradict our notion of meritocracy in admissions selection, especially at the Nation's more premere schools (e.g. Harvard, Duke, Stanford), they are a necessary "evil." As an aside, while the US Constitution prohibits discimination on the basis of race, inter alia, it does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of where mommy or daddy went to college. Hence the issue is not a legal one, but rather one of public policy.

A&M poses a little more of an issue - it is a State funded school, and so one could argue that the legacy system is unnecessary to finance the school's operations. However, even State schools derive some of their budget from Alumni gifts. (And thanks to this Republican State Legislature, there is less money for Higher Education and more of a need to go trolling to Alumni in addition to squeezing students with higher tuition). I am interested to see what percentage of A&M's budget is funded through Alumni gifts. I do not have a "magic number" off hand, but there would seem to be a percentage below which it makes sense to scrap legacy admissions.

This "groups have no rights" argument is tired. It's a simple tact to dismiss the complaints of people who are discriminated against.

It's also historical ignorant. Women, as a group, have not had the rights of men, such as the right to vote. Slaves were discussed as a group in laws, such as the 3/5 compromise. Of course, the slaves didn't get to vote. And effectively, in spite of Constitutional Amendments, the rights of blacks were diminished with Jim Crow laws.

There's nothing like ignoring a problem to solve it.

Tx Bubba,

You aren't making any argument. All you are doing is asserting that my argument is wrong without sufficiently explaining why.

But let me respond to what you do assert. Sure, groups of people have been historically discriminated against. It is also true that individuals suffer great disadvantage, and that other individuals, in spite of the historical group disadvantage, experience an advantaged socio-economic background.

There exists poor white trash and a black middle class. There exists children of broken homes who can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower, and children of Eastern European immigrants who have wealthy, stable homes. Individual discrimination, then, is multi-faceted. Group discrimination, however, tells us nothing about a person because it was not done to that person, but to their ancestors.

So even if I granted that individual disadvantage was a grounds for offering societal benefits above and beyond what one's qualifications justify, it does not follow that we should generalize this based upon race as a catch-all using group disadvantage. Indeed, the most that this would justify is something similar to what 'Who Me?' suggested -- a race-neutral program aimed at the nebulous factor of 'disadvantage' in a person's life (something virtually impossible to quantify).

So all you are throwing out are cliches aimed at prompting people to ignore my reasoning, which you don't seem to be able to refute.

Owen, you've not made an argument.

Geez. That was easy.

Group discrimination, however, tells us nothing about a person because it was not done to that person, but to their ancestors.

Really. And blacks could attend A&M as of when? Women? People are alive today that were affected by that discrimination.

Surely, we've made strides against racial discrimination, but let's not dismiss it by saying that it was something that affected "ancestors."

As I have written in other threads on this site, I have my criticisms of affirmative action. But I have far more criticisms for the pollyanna view that I hear from most conservatives: Discrimination is a thing of the past, so let's move on.

There is a persistent problem. Sure, you can point to some individuals who have overcome their disadvantages, but you can't ignore the facts. White/Anglo families have nearly 10 times as much in assets as black families and more than 8 times as much Hispanic families. Incomes tell a similar story, though not as dramatic a difference.

These groups continue to be financially disadvantaged, which tranlates into many other disadvantages--such as healthcare and education. Now, I don't think that these groups make and have less because they are dumb or lazy. I think the disparities are there for many reasons, such as the lack of well paying jobs where they live and poor schools. But the effects of group discrimination of the past and today are also partly responsible for the differences. You can claim that legacy discrimination shouldn't affect you, but it certainly affects them. In fact, if we go with the idea that there is little or no racial discrimination today, you've made an even greater argument that legacy discrimination affects minorities.

I like the idea of focusing aid based on economics, or class. Just because you are white and poor doesn't mean that you shouldn't be helped if you need it. Likewise, just because you are black or hispanic doesn't mean that you have an advantage. I don't necessarily disagree with that part of your latest post. After all, the point has to do with economic inequalities.

But show me that your solution addresses the problem. Show me that focusing on individuals as individuals solves the problem. If you plant potatoes, you get potatoes.

The idea behind affirmative action was to plant something else. All things being equal, hire or admit a minority or a woman. It's a solution that still respects the individual but offers a means to address the problem of inequality and prejudice.

So unless blacks collectively have rights collectively against whites, you cannot say that justice is served by using affirmative action to 'make up for' legacy admissions.

You assume that using affirmative action requires the idea of "group rights." That gives you a nice little idea to refute, and, voila, you have in a fell swoop slain the argument for affirmative action.

Now, that's a good strategy. It's a little more subtle than the strawman argument but not much.

As I have shown (with facts), there are great inequalities among racial groups. Significant ones. I don't have to rely on your idea of group "rights." That's convenient for you, but that hardly makes it a requirement. It's a valid problem-solving strategy to address a problem among a group of any sort by focusing on that group and giving it more attention. WhoMe? just modified the definition of the group from a racial to an economic basis. Maybe that solves the problem better, but the strategy is still the same.

Tx Bubba,

Owen, you've not made an argument.

Geez. That was easy.

Don't be a jerk. All you did was string together a bunch of vapid statements (i.e. 'There's nothing like ignoring a problem to solve it') and dubbed it a valid argument. That doesn't fly. Perhaps it would be considered a 'zinger' if this were a televised debate, but that's about all I'll give you.

Really. And blacks could attend A&M as of when? Women? People are alive today that were affected by that discrimination.

A remarkably small number of them are actually applying to college today. You're still talking about previous generations when you refer to institutionalized discrimination vis-a-vis affirmative action, and you dang well know it.

As I have written in other threads on this site, I have my criticisms of affirmative action. But I have far more criticisms for the pollyanna view that I hear from most conservatives: Discrimination is a thing of the past, so let's move on.

There is a persistent problem. Sure, you can point to some individuals who have overcome their disadvantages, but you can't ignore the facts. White/Anglo families have nearly 10 times as much in assets as black families and more than 8 times as much Hispanic families. Incomes tell a similar story, though not as dramatic a difference.

And this is all, or even mostly, attributable to racist whites? Please. Even if I bought that, it would justify racist government policy. The government is held to a much higher standard in the treatment of individuals than are the individuals themselves. It shouldn't play tit-for-tat with racial groups; it ought to respect the rights of individuals. That's the entire point of a liberal democracy.

You can claim that legacy discrimination shouldn't affect you, but it certainly affects them. In fact, if we go with the idea that there is little or no racial discrimination today, you've made an even greater argument that legacy discrimination affects minorities.

'Legacy discrimination,' as you call it, affects EVERYONE who isn't a legacy. Most of these people are whites, Bubba, as I said before. I myself had no family members who attended A&M, and so I would have been disadvantaged had I applied there. Why should race even enter the picture, then? If you feel it is unfair to have legacy admits, how does an openly racist admission policy rectify that?

That brings us back to my original argument. You cannot claim affirmative action makes up for legacy admissions unless you subscribe to a view whereby racial groups collectively have rights and responsibilies -- a view that justifies all manner of racism.

But show me that your solution addresses the problem. Show me that focusing on individuals as individuals solves the problem. If you plant potatoes, you get potatoes.

My 'solution' is to stop thinking of people as members of racial categories, which solves the problem by considering racial statistics meaningless. If we are to be concerned with poverty, broken homes, etc, then we should be concerned with all poverty and all broken homes. We shouldn't just sequester the problems into racial categories and start a whole new program of institutionalized discrimination.

Until we can do that, then we won't solve anything. Affirmative action, then, is clearly counterproductive, and has helped hinder racial progress. After all, how can we make race less meaningful when the government makes it meaningful?

As I have shown (with facts), there are great inequalities among racial groups. Significant ones. I don't have to rely on your idea of group "rights."

Ok... You've shown racial disparities exist. And?

I think you're attempting a non-sequitur. You seem to believe that the existence of racial disparities makes it self-evident that a problem exists which mandates the government recognition of race and the subsequent unequal treatment of people based upon race. The problem is that you need a further justification for this unequal treatment -- it isn't enough to simply assert that blacks tend to be poorer than whites. That alone doesn't justify violating individual rights and governing by racial generalization.

The only solution to that is to argue that blacks collectively deserve certain societal benefits, a 'boost' in employment and college admissions. Yet this requires that you have a concept of racial rights -- that people collectively, by virtue of ethnic background, are entitled to certain rights above and beyond their individual selves. That's what I find so problematic, and I've explained why.

Don't be a jerk. All you did was string together a bunch of vapid statement

And all you did was string together a bunch of pretentious sentences. You're calling me a jerk is certainly the pot calling the kettle black.

I know you're rather proud of your argument, judging by your smug repost on your own site. But you've done nothing more than make an easy argument for you to refute.

You're still talking about previous generations when you refer to institutionalized discrimination vis-a-vis affirmative action, and you dang well know it.

Owen, we are talking about people who are alive today who were affected by that institutional discrimination. 1968 or 1963 might not have been your generation, but that generation is still around.

Again, you are doing nothing more than denying that there is a problem.

Even with the removal of many forms of institutional discrimination, discrimination is still pernicious. I worked in a very large U.S. technical company and had someone in my group recommend a black friend for an open position. The black candidate was certainly qualified and was interviewed, but he was rejected. The hiring manager said, Do you see any blacks here in engineering? No. And I sure won't be the first.

Not only did he admit his own prejudice, he admitted a common prejudice not to hire blacks. Last year for a different company, I heard a vice president during a "happy hour" say that he didn't think women were as smart or hard working as men. Not surprisingly, two female engineers were released within the next month.

I heard guys recently during lunch go off on their anti-PC rants when one said, "I'm so glad that we don't have any minorities working here." Two people nodded in agreement, but no one said a thing until I did. Discrimination is alive and well.

I have been part of hiring and interviews for many years with three companies, and concrete qualifications are generally just the entry fee for an on-site interview. First, the interviewers check to see that the candidates know and can do what they claim. But, then, they find out about the person. And this is valid because having people who can work well together is often far more important than how well the candidate can do X. And I've heard more than one hiring manager ask of the interviewers, "So, could you work with this person? Could you share an office with this person?" Many times a technically qualified candidate has been rejected because of a negative response to this question.

BUT, this is a fudge factor with a lot of room for fudging. I have heard two interviewers later comment negatively on the sex or race of the candidate. This is how minorities and women can be rejected without really ever stating the prejudice. It's how that department of 100+ people managed not to hire a black.

So, getting rid of much of the stated institutional discrimination is a great step forward, but don't think that there isn't still widespread discrimination. This is the real world.

'Legacy discrimination,' as you call it, affects EVERYONE who isn't a legacy. Most of these people are whites, Bubba, as I said before.

I said "legacy discrimination," not "legacy admission." I was using "legacy" in a more generic way, as something transmitted from the past. So, let me rephrase my statement.

You can claim that past discrimination shouldn't affect you, but it certainly affects them. In fact, if we go with the idea that there is little or no racial discrimination today, you've made an even greater argument that past discrimination affects minorities today.

Ok... You've shown racial disparities exist. And? I think you're attempting a non-sequitur.

So, you're saying these differences in income and assets are, what, coincidental? Let's see, this country has a history of institutional discrimination against minorities, but that discrimination has no role in the disparities? Are you arguing that these disparities are due to the individual failings and inabilities of these groups?

I've said that there are probably other contributing factors. By calling it a non-sequitar, you're saying that there is no connection. But one way to see if what the cause is to look at other measures. I'm not going to duplicate that evidence and those arguments here, so I suggest you start with articles like this and read the publications listed at the end.

The only solution to that is to argue that blacks collectively deserve certain societal benefits, a 'boost' in employment and college admissions.

Okay, you seem to understand here why affirmative action can be justified. If a group is discriminated against, then you have to find solutions that help that group.

What's interesting is that you find helping an economic group palatable, but not a racial group.

I'm hardly opposed to helping the impoverished of all creeds and color. But my point was clear: Show that that group solution addresses the racial disparaties. It may or may not.

Yet this requires that you have a concept of racial rights -- that people collectively, by virtue of ethnic background, are entitled to certain rights above and beyond their individual selves.

Let's back up a second. Affirmative action is not a quota system. The latter is merely one attempt to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally." I said this in another thread, so I'll repeat it here: I don't believe in quotas. And this is the application that group vs. individual rights arguments often deal with.

So, if you're talking about quotas, I'm not defending that. There are occasions where they could be justified, so I won't reject out of hand, but quotas are not a solution in my opinion. That bit started with the Philadelphia Plan during the Nixon administration.

Being conscious of race is warranted, however. Hiring a minority or a woman--especially in a context where there has been disrimination--who is equally qualified is justifiable. Making concerted efforts to recruit minorities and women is good. These actions are not assuming "group rights."

Quite the opposite: They are trying to ensure the rights of individuals who are part of a group that is discriminated against. Supposedly throwing out any consideration of race is naive, as my experience and research shows, because it assumes either that there is no more racisim or that it will correct any racial or gender disparities. Yet, when you work and live outside think tanks and universities, you see that racism is not dead or a thing of the past.

But let's go back to the father of the arguments you're regurgitating, Nathan Glazer, who wrote Affirmative Discrimination in 1975. Changing his mind on affirmative action, he writes, "the fundamental refusal of other Americans to accept blacks, despite their eagerness, as suitable candidates for assimilation." Or, as he writes elsewhere, "The battle over affirmative action today is a contest between a clear principle on the one hand and a clear reality on the other."

Legacy admissions considers a non-performance attribute. They justify giving legacy points. Yet, given its history of discrimination (I say that as an Aggie), Texas A&M does not consider race at all. This is not consistent policy or reasoning.

If you do not balk at legacy points, why do so at points for race?

We need to become anti-affirmative action; it is imposed by aggression. Aggression is immoral; therefore the racial quotas are too. It is alternative welfare, and costs at least twice as much as relief checks most commonly, and corrupts the standards of performance throughout the society. If we should be anti-quotas, as against the antique kind which fixed a limit, isn't it worse for the majority to have a series of quotas which become more restrictive against them every year?