The end of Affirmative Action?

Post Reply New Topic

It's time for another "3 reasons why I might be right about the demise of X" thread. This time, the culprit is Affirmative Action in the United States, or more specifically, according to Wikipedia:

"policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an under-represented group" in areas of employment, education, and business"."

To my knowledge, the current controversy about Affirmative Action is about quotas, either explicit or implicit, and that college/university enrolment is the primary battleground.

On this basis, I file the following charges against Affirmative Action (in its current form), which would be likely to bring about its downfall.

1. It is tearing the country apart.
2. It is likely to be ruled unconstitutional.
3. It is discriminating against Asian-Americans.

1. It is tearing the country apart.
This is a recent Pew poll on Affirmative Action:



Now, here are the answers to the same poll by race/ethnicity (percentage in favour:

Black: 62 percent
Hispanic: 62 percent
White: 22 percent

No Asian category (I assume this is because of low sample size, but see below).

A bit of illustration:


In other words, for the last 25 years, there has only been a marginal change in the public perception of Affirmative Action, and my guess is that the increasing support is solely based on the changing makeup of the US population. Those likely to benefit from Affirmative Action (Blacks and Hispanics) make up a larger percentage of the populace today than in 1987.

In 1960, those who were likely to benefit from affirmative action (Blacks and Hispanics) made up 14.5 percent of the population. In 2050, they are estimated to make up 42 percent of the population. Since quota based Affirmative Action is effectively a Zero-Sum game (anyone who benefits does so at the detriment of someone else), the burden of Affirmative Action is likely to increase significantly on those groups not benefiting from it.

2. It is likely to be ruled unconstitutional.
Affirmative Action recently narrowly survived in Supreme Court in Fisher v. Texas. Rather than issuing a substantial ruling on affirmative action in university admissions, the court remanded the case to a lower court with the explicit instruction that Strict Scrutiny should be applied when considering the case.

However, based on cases from 1990-2003, strict scrutiny currently only has a 30 percent survival rate, meaning that 70 percent (gee, thanks, Captain Obvious) of laws that go before Federal Court are struck down when subjected to this level of review. For cases involving fundamental rights (like the 14th amendment), the survival rate is even lower at 24 percent.

Fisher v. Texas: Link
Strict Scrutiny survival rate: Link

And I find that it will be increasingly difficult to defend the constitutionality of Affirmative Action over time, due to...

3. It is discriminating against Asian-Americans.
The figure below illustrates Asian-American admission to elite universities:

[img][800:523]http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/asians-large.jpg[/img]

Compared to the Ivy League colleges, the California Institute of Technology is the only university where enrolment actually represents the rising Asian population in the United States.

Caltech is famous (or infamous, depending on preference) for not using affirmative action, and it is extremely difficult to explain the difference (note that Asian enrolment in Harvard, Yale and Cornell has actually decreased over time) with anything but obvious or covert discrimination, since Asians - on average - outperform Whites, Blacks and Hispanics in the US on academic achievement.

The way I see it, this development will make it increasingly difficult to defend Affirmative Action, both politically and legally, since the policy is generating the very discrimination it was designed to eliminate.

4. Summary.

So, did I miss something? Or is Affirmative Action doomed to fail? And if so, when will it fall, and what will replace it?

There is no need for it. The government should treat us all as individuals, I believe in equality.

[opinion=mine]

I think that Affirmative Action will evolve to be focused not so much on gender or the color of a person's skin, but on his or her economic state. Thus, there will be more poor (but brilliant) people of every color and gender receiving financial aid for university, rather than getting paid by the government to be the "token" whatever of the freshman class, only to drop out in their sophomore year.

[/opinion]

At this point, I think racial preferences for education do more to nurture and maintain racial resentment among the douchebag class than anything else.

I'd rather see preferences based on socioeconomic factors. This would still promote a more diverse student body without bringing race directly into matters. It is not a perfect solution, but it would be better than what we have now... And no matter what you do, douchebags are gonna find something to whinge about.

While poor whites aren't covered by Affirmative Action, they still are able to take advantage of PEL Grants. I should know - both my parents were retired when I went to college, so I went almost entirely on the government dime. Those douche bags who complain about the unfairness and evil of Affirmative Action are usually too dumb to go to college, anyway.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Placements based on race, are inherently racist. Are you in favor of race-based allocations etc.? If you, you are advocating racism. And once again your generalization shows you are a liberal bigot. You are not without sin theirefore you should not cast stones.

ruveyn

Okay, my experience.

I'm not saying AA wasn't needed, but it never was implemented as the "good intentions" behind it would have had it.

It was never about ensuring minorities had the opportunity to get ahead...it became about giving them opportunities they didn't deserve.

You can go to most any urban area and see this. A minority goes for a government job possessing just the minimal skills required to be CONSIDERED for the position, and they are routinely hired over more qualified and experienced applicants. That is racism....especially in a time when there is no disadvantage to compensate for.

Minorities now have the same crappy education opportunities as any white person NOT BORN INTO PRIVILEGE (yes, there are a ton of "poor white" people out there). Time and time again I see minorities who DO NOT apply themselves to the opportunities offered to them. This is because AA has established that they can expect to be hired and promoted when they clearly are not the best qualified for an opportunity.

AA was to encourage the promotion and hiring of minorities. This ultimately was done by suing employers for not being "diverse" enough in their workplace. It didn't matter if no minorities applied who could do the job, the obligation was to have a diverse workforce, not employ qualified people. If the minorities could not qualify, then the employer was "racist" for setting the standards so high that only whites could qualify (never mind that a lot of unqualified white people were turned down for the job as well).

In the end, employers had to "dumb down" jobs so minorities could be hired. Employers had to hire people with poor work ethics and attitudes because they'd be sued if they did not hire them. Employers had to be careful about disciplinary issues because a minority could scream "discrimination" and bring a half-dozen agencies in to investigate when indeed the minority employee was deserving of being disciplined.

To this day, the only way I see government entities avoiding having to lower standards in minority hiring and promotion is to do double-blind processes where in order for a minority to have a shot, they must go through a gauntlet of objective documented evaluations where the hiring person knows not who any of the candidates are until he/she is presented with the finalists. If a minority makes it to the final stage, odds are they will be selected, but at least the employer knows they are getting someone who has proven they have the ability to do the job via the screening process.

Employers have the right to hire the best person for the job. The public has a right to expect that they will be waited on by someone who is skilled and competent. Forcing people to hire someone because of the color of their skin (especially if it means lowering standards) is just wrong. Today, anyone has a relatively equal opportunity to be educated and skilled. You don't need money....just start reading books. You need work experience, go out and start asking to work.

I know of not one "normal" (sic) person who is ABLE to work who can't find work if they are willing to take what they can get and work hard. To say that your skin color holds you back is largely an excuse. To say you should get something because of your skin color is to reject what MLK believed in that all men should be valued on the quality of their character and not their skin color.

AA created an entitlement mentality for entire groups of the US population, and it unfairly punished people who NEVER benefited from slavery or discrimination just because, in spite of their ethnicity, their skin color was white.

Okay, sure… If that’s the definition we’re using I’m fine with saying I favor a racist policy. Racism in and of itself is not necessarily wrong. Racist policies designed to oppress a specific race are wrong. Racist policies designed to promote racial parity and diversity consistent with society at large are not wrong. That’s good for ALL of society.

Let me give you an example where being “too fair” actually wastes public resources.

Just a couple of years ago my state established a lottery-funded scholarship program for higher-ed.

The scholarship has no means testing, quotas, or preferences for traditional students and only requires a very modest 2.5 high school GPA to qualify. The program also has about an 80% attrition rate because all those C+ students simply cannot hack college. The 20% that do manage to keep the scholarship and graduate are mostly white, upper middleclass kids who could afford to go to college, scholarship or not.

So, this “fair” scholarship program is wasting 80% of its resources and spending 20% on freebies for people who don’t need them…
A scholarship program that had higher academic standards and means-testing and/or racial quotas would be much more efficient and beneficial to society, but since it would not be “fair”, the program could never make it through the state legislature…

If they did not waste 80% of that money, they could expand their very limited scholarship program for non-traditional students (with higher standards and means testing there too) and have a much higher college graduation rate--which is what the program was supposed to achieve in the first place.

When I was growing up I expected that affirmative action would happen even if it wasn't legal. I didn't understand the world.

My thought process was that it's harder to kick someone while he's down. I figured that people would naturally start favouring minorities to make themselves feel like they were evening things up even if they weren't legally required to do so.

I've moved away from that view.

I find it pathetic that affirmative action based on race is necessary. It's only necessary to balance out the racial discrimination that is currently happening as long as it is happening. If it's not happening there's no need for legal intervention. If people just stopped discriminating against certain groups it wouldn't even be necessary. If we need it we need it because our society is racist. We shouldn't have a racist society and we shouldn't need it. I'm not so sure that we don't need it. It may very well be necessary and if it is that is just sad.

I suppose Affirmative action is fine according to the media because it would be politically incorrect not to. Yet the media condones this behavior as fine and dandy. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPhrqRLEcGI[/youtube]

The only problem with that video is, it implies this is the common view point of minorities in this country. I sincerely doubt that. In fact, the people shown in this video probably no more represent their various groups than the Neo-Nazis or KKK represent the majority of white Americans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'd say do a poll if I didn't suspect people would lie about this kind of thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if racist beliefs attitudes white people were held more commonly by whites than non-whites. There are self-haters out there.

The thing about affirmative action relating to college placement is it works both ways. We like to think it ONLY benefits minorities, but any time someone from the majority demographic wants to be considered for college admission, scholarships, and so forth, admissions are still required to be fair about it.

In Mississippi, we have "diversity" scholarships. The point is to get improved diversity at state universities by encouraging people to go to schools they might not ordinarily go to. If you are white and you want the cheapest MBA or other master's degree available in the state, you'll want to go to, say, Jackson State or Mississippi Valley. Historically those have been predominantly black universities. A white person can get a virtual free ride to either of those places by applying for a diversity grant (or whatever it is).

Or if a black person wants to go to a predominantly white Mississippi State or Ole Miss, they can apply for the same scholarship.

Who knew? They give out college money for people with the WRONG skin color!! !

People like that are made, not born. If America continues down its current path of amoral, Randian Libertarianism, expect to see a lot more people like that and far worse.

You cannot create an economic system based on dog-eat-dog social Darwinism and expect the people at the bottom to abide by the rules and suffer in silence.

American does not want to face, and honestly solve its problems. We're too busy sowing the wind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsj4s9z-EAE

Schwartzers! Losem geh!! !! ! - Mel Brooks as Indian Chief in Blazing Saddles.

ruveyn

I got "Schwartzers" (blacks), but as my German (close enough to Yiddish) is very bad, please translate the rest.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer