2003.03.31: In Defence of Affirmative Action (part 4)
There is fundamental assumption regarding Affirmative Action that I'd like to challenge. The assumption is that if race is taken into consideration at all, then the process is racist. The logic then follows that admissions officers should not collect race information at all and merely use academic data to determine admissions. Therefore, a "colorblind" policy would be non-racist. I'd like to challenge this assumption with one principle and two examples.
First the principle: more information is good, not bad. Informed decisions are better decisions, not worse ones. Why do admissions officers ask for recommendations and personal statements? To get more information about the student. Why do they ask for age, sex, and race information? To get more information. A well written personal statement written by a 16 year old whose second language is English is more impressive than that same statement written by a 19 year old whose first language is English. That extra information is important. Informed decisions are better decisions. Let's explore this through two examples.
Example 1. Sports/Music/Extra Curriculars. Good athletes, musicians, etc. are accepted preferentially over other applicants who do not have these skills. Why? And do those same reasons apply to underrepresented minorities? If so, (and since no one seems to have a problem with the preference given to athletes/musicians/etc.) then shouldn't race be a legitimate consideration in the admissions process?
Here are the two main rationales that people put forth when explaining why preferential admission of AME's (Athletes/Musicians/Etc.) is acceptable.
- The AME's had to focus on their activity at the expense of their studies. Thus they should preferred over non-AME's who have better grades. (The "well rounded" rationale is a variation of this one). Does this apply to underrepresented minorities? Yes. But instead of an activity drawing attention away from their studies, it is going to a crummy school/getting shot at/being from a lower SES (Socio-Economic Status) that draws attention away form their studies.
- The AME's bring something of value to the school. This is not a merit based argument at all, but it is there nonetheless, and I think it has some merit. Does this apply to underrepresented minorities? Yes. But instead of bringing in sports and music, they bring in cultural perspectives which are every bit as valuable.
Example 2. Imagine if admissions officers only looked at SAT scores. No name, no race, no GPA, no geographic info, no personal information of any sort. Just a single standardized test. Can't possibly racist now, right? Wrong. The SAT itself is biased against underrepresented minorities. (Even the newer SAT which was supposed to correct for this is still biased. (For a contrary view, see this article [google cache version]. Here are some more reasonable contrary views.)). If you knowingly use a racially biased test as a standard for admission and you do nothing to compensate for it, then you are being racist. Even if you don't know the applicant's race. Finding out the applicant's race and compensating for the racial bias is not being racist.
(Here's an example for those who disagree with my take on the SAT's: Who was the fastest American in 1900? Lets use the Olympic 100 Meter dash as our test. Fair test, right? Wrong. African Americans couldn't compete in those games. This test will give you the fastest white American, not necessarily the fastest American. Using a racist test gives racist results. [Note: The first African American Olympian competed in the 1904 Olympiad, and he was the fastest American in the Games.])
In other words, you need to know the race in order to not be racist. Informed decisions are better decisions.
syndromes says:
I started some long diatribe, and ended up erasing it. I doubt anything I say or do would convince you of my point of view, nor I of yours.
Literally, almost every example etc I read, I read with a COMPLETELY different set of eyes...
It's strange how different sets of experiences and personalities can lead people to such totally opposite opinions about how to better solve lifes various problems :)
Not meaning to be antagonistic in the least, but what are you looking for in the way of responses to this topic? Enlightenment on the other sides point of view? Debate? Curious if you can be convinced of the dark side?
I'm usually just ranting or venting on my blog :) Just curious what your reason(s) were :D
syndromes says:
Hope I don't come off as sounding like I dispise you or anything... ?
I donut :)
( sorry, thats the really sensitive side of me showing through hehe )
wink says:
Syndromes - Don't worry, I dont think that you hate me. I've been reading you long enough to know better than that. And I'm curious to read the comment that you deleted. (I know my examples aren't great. C'mon, make me think of better ones.)
Why am I writing this stuff on my blog? Good question. Though I would love to "enlighten the other side", I don't hold out high hopes for that. And I'd love to spark off a decent debate. But really, I guess I'm mostly venting. When I get certain thoughts in my head, they won't leave me alone until I write them down (or in this case, type them out). When I don't express them in writing, they just keep stewing in my head, and I can't get any sleep.
At any rate, I love a good debate. I love making other people think, and I love being made to think. Can I be convinced of the "dark side"? Probably.
I actually held Jim's point of view when I was in high school. After all, Affimative Action wasn't going to help me get into college, and accounting for race just seemed unfair. Then I went to college and didn't think about it at all. After college, I started getting a better idea of how subtle and pervacive racism is and how it has been institutionalized. And my views began to change.
Affirmative Action would be wrong if it happened with no context. And that's where most people I've talked to who oppose Affirmative Action stop. That's where I used to stop too. But college admissions does not happen in a vacuum. There is a wider context to consider.
Enjelani's arguements have been pretty persuasive because she is taking account of the larger context. She almost has me convinced. If she could find a practical way of implementing her ideals, I'd be completely behind it. But until then, I'm stuck with defending a program that is imperfect, but gets close to the same results that Enjelani's ideal would produce. (OK, you're gonna disagree with me on that, but I do think that the results are closer to the ideal then having no Affirmative Action at all.
Yes, Affirmative Action is not perfect. Give me a better option and I'll gladly support it. But I don't think that "nothing" is a better option.
beefeater says:
Hello there,
You've written, I think, several times that more information is good not bad. I wonder why no one challenged you on this. In fact, there are many contexts in which relevant information is deliberately withheld. Criminal juries are not told of a defendant's prior convictions; figure skating judges must score an act without knowing the opinion of other judges; subjects in a clinical trial don't know whether they are taking the drug or a placebo; examples go on and on.
More information is not always better: It is better only if it is not misused. When the decision makers cannot be trusted to keep their prejudices fully under control, more information may be worse.
Jim says:
I agree, more information is the way to go.
I found this comment really interesting:
I actually held Jim's point of view when I was in high school. After all, Affimative Action wasn't going to help me get into college, and accounting for race just seemed unfair. Then I went to college and didn't think about it at all. After college, I started getting a better idea of how subtle and pervacive racism is and how it has been institutionalized. And my views began to change.
My process was just the opposite. When I was in high school, I thought racism was the most prevalent evil in existence. Then I got to college, where I saw that racism was tempered by intelligent, free-thinking, less fearful people. After a while this protective shell turned into something political, where people were being judged by their skin color even more than in the outside world, except in a more benevolent form. There were black groups, Asian groups, homosexual groups, and an enormous amount of attention given to people more because of the group that they belonged to than their own individual being. This bothered me because I stoped seeing people and started seeing members of racial groups. It was an unfortunate eye opener.
I continue to contend that any institutionalized process that further exacerbates the division among people does nothing more than enhance the problem. Whether it's done positively or hurtfully, it still reinforces the idea that groups are more important than people, that the differences among us are something to base judgements on, and that individuals are simply a representation of their skin color.
I have the same problem with racism that I have with feminism (and I'm a liberal!) — whether manifested as a benefit to the minority or as harm to it, it all involves an building up of the division among people. Just as women shouldn't complain when they're not wined and dined when they say they want to be treated as equals, I don't see the logic in minorities using race when it works to their advantage.
If I sound harsh or hateful, then it's coming out wrong in type. My whole issue is that I wish we could find a way to see the unique humanity that lies in every person, not a point system to placate an unfortunate history of racial hatred.
Add A New Comment