2003.02.17: In Defence of Affirmative Action
In light of President Bush's stance on Affirmative Action, Jim and Enji recently posted some critisims of Affirmative Action.
[A little bit of background: UMich has an Affirmative Action policy where underrepresented minority applicants get 20 additional points. Get enough (150) points, and you get admitted. Barbara Grutter, a white woman, is suing the school claiming that she was denied admission based on her race.]
Enji's post is entitled "c'mon, make me think", so I'm gonna try to do just that.
- Jim and syndromes (in Enji's comments) both critisize Affirmative Action saying that white people who are more qualified are being denied admission due to their race. Jim in particlular advocates "colorblind" applications. If the school doesn't know the race, it can't be racist, right?
Wrong. In this study, conducted by professors at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 5,000 resumes in response to want ads in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune. They found that the "white" applicants they created received one response -- a call, letter or e-mail -- for every 10 resumes mailed, while "black" applicants with equal credentials received one response for every 15 resumes sent.
These resumes don't have race listed on them. The only difference is in the names of the applicants. Tamika, Kareem and Tyrone were less likely to get called back than Brett, Emily, and Jill. This shows that if the employers even unconsciously suspected that the applicant was a minority, they got shafted. Assume with me that the same bias exists for school admissions. Then applicants who have the wrong name, or go to a school that is 90% minority, or give some clue in their personal statemnt that they are a minority will get shafted.
Hiding the applicant's race is not the right answer. (Do we want schools to make more informed or less informed decisions?) Stating the race up front and giving 20 points to offset the evaluator's inherent bias is better. Not perfect, but better. The hope is that eventually we will have unbiased evaluators. Then Affirmative Action won't be necessary. How I long for the day. But we aren't there yet. - Another thing people are focusing on is "qualified applicants". The recurrant theme is "the white girl was more qualified but she didn't get accepted". Qualifications, of course, meaning better grades and test scores. But the schools aren't looking for the best grades and scores, they are looking for the best students. Grades and score are indicitive, but they don't tell the whole story.
Allow me to draw an analogy. Say there is a one mile race. Jill's time is 4:30. Tamika's time is 5:00. Tamika also happened to run the race with a 20 lb weight strapped to her back while Jill ran unencumbered. Who's the faster runner? Jill is more "qualified"--she has the lower time. But Tamika is faster.
Minorities are more likely to be brought up in a home with a lower income, go to worse schools, be malnourished, and get shot at. 20 points seems like a reasonable compensation for the 20 lbs strapped to their backs. - Enji's real complaint is that "Affirmative action at the college admissions level, and in employment, is just compensation for earlier failure". To which I say "Compensation a little late is better than no compensation at all." And if that brings the risk of "A new culture that, abetted by the very phenomenon of racial preferences, comes to expect success as a birthright rather than something earned", then it is a risk I am willing to take.
More importantly, the UChicago/MIT study shows that compensation is needed for present failure. Yes the system is failing the elementary minority students, and Affirmative Action can't do anything to fix that. But the system is also failing college applicants, grad school applicants, and job applicants. And Affimative Action can do something about that.
Someday we might not need Affirmative Action. But we still do today.
syndromes says:
Your arguments for affirmative action are enticing, I can't disagree. If things end up in the right place, through means I oppose, is that an acceptable solution? That's a tough thing for me to answer... But i'll give it a crack anyway ;)
Let me preface by saying that i'm speaking hypothetical here, because I don't have any real experience to draw upon, either way. I don't know that anyone I know was either denied by or admitted because of affirmative action.
I admit to being an idealist in a lot of ways. But I am unwilling to let go of the idealism that people should be judged on their merit as much as possible. I think it's a mistake to assume that because someone is part of a minority that they come from a tougher life-situation than anyone else. Everyone has their own life struggles to deal with, and I don't necessarily agree that they are drawn on racial bounds. To give a latino 20 points simply for being latino? What if they come for a rich family? What if they went to a private school? Affirmative action just seems far too arbitrary a measure of ones merit.
I whole-heartedly agree with you that anyone who denies an applicant based on race, name, weight, sex, etc, alone, should not be in a position to make that judgement at all. That is an abuse of their position, and it may an unfortunate reality.
I'm MUCH more comfortable with shooting for the ideal (my ideal anyway *smile*) of setting certain entrance requirements, and letting anyone who meets those requirements ( regardless of race, social stature, weight, eyesight, insert-random-non-consequential-thing-here ) in. If you're getting too many people who meet the requirements, raise the bar. Too few, lower the bar. And if someone gets screwed over because of their race or any other reason I deem appropriate (remember, this is my utopia damnit!), then they should definately be allowed to pursue recourse (legal action, etc).
I guess I can't get past the fact that basing a decision on something like race is a bad idea. Being black doesn't mean you had to overcome some great struggle in life. Being white doesn't mean i've had everything handed to me. Even if there is a trend one way or another, at what point will things ever be "fair enough" to get rid of a system like affirmative action? What if the pendulum swings the other way, as it undoubtedly will, where the whites are now the minority? Do they to get to plead their case for points?
I just don't see an end to it, and all the time it goes on, the casualties of the policy continue to mount.
We obviously all have the same destination in mind. It's interesting to see how we'd all drive the bus to get there though :)
jim says:
You both present excellent arguments. This is a fascinating topic for me, simply because of the irony that as a white guy in the majority, I feel very much like a member of the minority. Every time the topic of race comes up, I feel somewhat guilty giving an opinion because being white is either considered neutral at best, or a memory of history's oppression at worst.
No, I don't feel victimized :) just fascinated.
Wink, I think there's a significant flaw to be found in the link you supplied. It referred to job resumes. You make the assumption that the same process applies to school applications, which I would contend is a completely different ballgame altogther (although I'd love to see such a study). HR people probably aren't the brightest bulbs in the cabinet, and potential managers of all vocations probably run the gamut of character. We're probably talking jobs in security, sanitation, government, etc. as well as more white color stuff. The filter to this sort of things is looking for an applicant's potential sense of responsibility and accountability. Inherent racist tendencies of people in middle management are bound to come up in situations like this. Racist, definitely, and unfortunate, but not unexpected in a study group of flawed, average human beings.
But we're talking about Academia here. The arena is far different from the job market. University chairpeople and professors are far more intelligent, worldly, aware people who have spent time in higher education and its far, far more racially tolerant atmosphere.
If anything, race is now far too ingrained in the collective consciousness in choosing students. Minorities have the attention because of their race and have the potential to use it to their advantage, whereas I don't. Racial diversity is seen as advantagous to universities. There are so many scholarship programs, workshops, sources of private funding, media attention, and other means that help minorities boost their advantages in higher education. Whites don't have such institutional help. There is no United White College Fund.
I would like to see a world of true balance where people are considered in terms of their intellectual potential, not their skin color. I disagree with Syndrome's concern about things shifting against whites. But I do agree that individuals of every race have adversity to overcome, both as part of our culture, our family environment, or our own personal doubts and demons. I would prefer that college admissions be based on an individual level, measuring intelligence, ambition, creativity, insight, and potential for greatness, regardless of someone's race.
syndromes says:
Damnit Jim Batcho, you're going to force me to read your blog.
I DONT NEED TO READ ANY MORE BLOGS!!
I'm going tangent here, but I was watching a recap of the latest season of 'WWE Tough Enough' on MTV and there was an asian guy on there and some complete hypocrite white girl. She was portrayed as being a bible-thumper who constantly talked about presenting yourself with class and dignity at all times... Of course she worked at hooters and liked to get drunk and dance on tables.
Anyway, she was calling the asian guy, Scott I think his name was, a racist because he belonged to an Asian group at school. "Well if I was in a 'white group' at school, i'd sure as hell be labeled racist!", was her argument. While I agree with her, that yes, she probably *would* be labeled a racist for being in a white-centric group at school, I couldn't believe she was calling someone else a racist because a pro-white organization wouldn't be viewed as PC.
I think somehow I meant to twist that into the AA statements here, but, umm... it's a friday and i'm tired :)
So, food for thought if nothing else.
enjelani says:
thanks for getting the rusty wheels turning again up here. :)
if affirmative action is designed to level the playing field, then it needs to do so by the right criteria. Tamika has a weight strapped to her back when she runs the race: why? because she's poor? because she grew up getting shot at? because she had a single mother and six siblings for a family? these are reasons to give someone extra points in the admissions process. not the color of her skin. yes, the people with these disadvantages are disproportionately minorities. but to award them points based on genetics, rather than economic and social circumstance, can only heighten racial tension. if Jill grew up getting shot at, shouldn't she get points too?
as a woman and an Asian-American, i've been actively courted by universities and corporations, had glossy brochures turn up in my mailbox extolling the great support programs that X College or Company provides for minority women. it makes me uncomfortable. why are you trying to compensate me for hardships i've never experienced? i've had all the advantages that a middle-class white male might have. i want to see what i can achieve on my own merit. bring it on.
i would, of course, feel differently about this if i'd actually endured some hardships. but that's my whole point. it's the hardships that are the issue here, not the demographics.
the study that reveals racism on the basis of names is an interesting one. the question is, what was the subconscious rationale? what ran through the hiring managers' minds as they skimmed over the resumes?
A:
"Tamika. that's a black name. inner cities, drug dealers, single mothers on crack...that's what 'Tamika' says to me. i don't think so."
B:
"Tamika? that's a black name...wonder if she's one of those who gets in everywhere through race quotas. you never know with these people."
if it's B, affirmative action is creating as many problems as it solves. my suspicion is that it's both.
i'm also very concerned about the intractability of affirmative action, as an institution. "one happy day it won't be necessary and we can get rid of it," we're always assured. but when that day comes, will we know it when we see it? will we all agree that it's time to axe the program -- or will different groups interpret the statistics differently, one declaring "the playing field's level" while the other cries "racism lives"? that's happening now. the debate may very well continue indefinitely.
Moonpuddle says:
Ok, as others have noted elsewhere, I don't have the mental muscle for this at the moment, but I do have one comment to make. We are still very, very far from a time when white, employed, straight males have to overcome even a fraction of the obstacles that any other group does. These first few forays into WASP men being enied something they feel entitled to are well-publicized, and the first few cuts always hurt the most, but the hypothesis that we all have things to overcome is a gross over/understatement.
Moonpuddle says:
*giggle* One last thing. As far as whether quotas or AA are the right way to go, I have to agree that there will probably never be a perfect answer. However, as the controlling WASP male majority as a whole (not including, of course, all you reading this) are not in the least likely to step aside and make room for those trying to move up and in to share in the process of society, legislating it seems to be the only way. Volunteers, anyone, to help remove the 20-lb. weights, or help carry them? I didn't think so. (Again, of course, present company excluded.)
syndromes says:
I don't know how you can say I don't carry my fair share of the burden moonie.
*looks at his schwantz*
There's the 20-lbs, right there!
( just kidding all. it's really a cocktail weenie that i'm lucky to get a 1/2 inch out of if i'm excited beyond belief. sorry, was this a serious conversation I just trampled on?? ;) )
Add A New Comment