IBARW 3: Affirmative Action

[keilexandra]

As engrossed and fascinated as I am with college research, I can't avoid the topic of affirmative action. But I confess to being a) confused, and b) undecided. What exactly is AA intended to accomplish? Is it succeeding in this goal, and is it the best way to achieve this goal?

PROS
- more African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans ("URM" = underrepresented minority) in selective colleges
- racially diverse campus

CONS
- in practice, raises admission standards for Caucasians and Asian-Americans ("ORM" = overrepresented minority) --Note that Asians are still considered URM by some schools, mostly Midwestern liberal arts colleges.
- does not necessarily lead to a socioeconomically diverse campus

From what I've read and heard, affirmative action has two central (and contradictory) aims. The first is to ensure a racially diverse campus; the second is to compensate for historical societal discrimination, which often leads to lower socioeconomic status. I am torn because I support the ideal of the first goal, but I believe that AA is a flawed approach to the second. Institutional racism has indeed existed in the past, still exists in the present, and in all likelihood will exist in the future. I'll even grant that maybe African-American and Latino families have a lower median income or similar indicator of socioeconomic rank. However, if this is true, a policy of affirmative action regarding socioeconomic status rather than race would still benefit those who needed the help--and stop unfairly benefiting the well-to-do minority families, because they exist too. As a side bonus, such a policy would help poor folks of any color, including white.

Frankly, if you're black--or white or pink or yellow--and making $200k a year, you are not disadvantaged. Sure, society is still racist against you--guess what, it's racist against Asians too, and even more discriminatory against poor white people. Ultimately, money counts for more than race. And all this assumes that AA is the correct way to compensate for institutional racism, a point that some might argue.

But what about ensuring racial diversity? Answer: I don't know. I think that colleges and universities should consider all kinds of diversity, but that race should play no more a factor than geography by today's standards. If you do the research, you'll find that currently race is much more of a "tip" than either socioeconomic status or geographic distribution. Also, balanced against the need for diversity is the need for fair admission of students based on merit--defined holistically, of course. A student may merit admission based on character, extracurricular activities, leadership, etc. The problem with AA is that it helps the rich, mediocre black/Hispanic/NA (though usually not this last) student who would nototherwise be admitted at the nation's most selective colleges.

So you tell me: is affirmative action ultimately good or bad? Somehow, I have a hunch that it's solidly gray.


Disclaimer: I am a college-bound student of Asian ancestry with the biases inherent in that. But note that Asians may be considered URM or ORM, depending on the school, and I am attracted to both kinds of schools.

Comments

I COMPLETELY AGREE.

[beteio.livejournal.com]

Just for the record, I've been reading all of your posts this week, but I couldn't actually think of anything coherent to contribute, so I kept my mouth shut.


I really don't give a shit about the whole racially diverse campus ideal. I mean, it's a great idea in theory, but it has an uncanny resemblance to Communism. They're trying to ensure fairness for everybody, but not only does that raise some people up, it also brings others down.

I'm thinking of a metaphor for Communism that I read once, that seems to apply itself rather well to affirmative action too: if you're a student with a 4.0 GPA, but there are also students who are failing (I'm imagining a 0, but I don't know if that's possible), then would you support averaging it all out and ending up with a 2.0? By all rights you've earned your GPA, and it's the same with earning your wealth and prosperity - no matter if you were born with intelligence/money or not - and you should get to keep it. (It's why I support capitalism, despite all its flaws.)

My point in this is that no one should get into a certain college just because of their race - that is just as unfair as not getting in because of their race. Admissions should be judged solely on merit (which of course they're not; money has a huge say in it), even if it means that there are more whites and/or Asians getting in than other minority groups. Especially in America, where everyone is supposedly created born equal - and I know they're not, but the opportunities that the U.S. tries to give everyone are damn close to being "born equal" - race should have no say in the matter.

I don't think I'd support a form affirmative action based on socioeconomic status, as it still gives preference to a certain group of people - in this case, the poor. The bias is still there, but instead of aiming for a racially diverse campus, they're aiming for an economically diverse campus. The same thing would still be happening, except that the poor student would be accepted not based on merit but on the fact that he is - well, poor.

You start getting the feeling that the higher-ups really don't care at all about the diversity of campuses; they just do it to look good, which in turn means that they get to keep their jobs for another term (assuming you're talking about politicians here). And to the average (white, majority, middle-class or above) person who probably wouldn't look much into it (as it doesn't affect them as much), it does look pretty good.

Conclusion: I don't like affirmative action at all. Of course, I am just as biased as you are, and probably influenced by my parents, who also argue heavily against it. I wouldn't say that it is ultimately "bad", but I'd at least argue that it's a very dark shade of grey.

Re: I COMPLETELY AGREE.

[keilexandra]

Well, I sort of understand the rationale behind a racially and socioeconomically diverse campus. The former brings different viewpoints, which is important, and the latter helps those who don't and can't have the same kind of opportunities. If you're working 20 hours a week during the school year and overtime in the summer, you'll have less time to spend on schoolwork and studying, much less extracurriculars. You wouldn't be able to compete with middle- and upper-class students who can take prep courses, attend private or magnet schools (cf. Charter doesn't provide after-school transportation), or even volunteer because they can't get places (no car, or parents have to use car to get to work).

Re: I COMPLETELY AGREE.

[beteio.livejournal.com]

Okay, well that part makes more sense now. Clearly my bias is taking over here - being of decent intelligence, and also not unprivileged, I tend to lean more to the side of the more fortunate.

In a perfect world...

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I understand your link between affirmative action and well-to-do students.

First off, even if mediocre minority students are let in on the basis of wealth rather than academics, why do you assume it's qualified white and Asian students who are then kept out rather than, say, rich unqualified white kids whose folks are alumni and/or donate a bunch of money to the school?

Secondly, why is there this assumption that anyone let in on the basis of affirmative action is automatically less qualified? Why is there an assumption that they're rich?

Loans, scholarships, and grants exist so that people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford college can. This includes white people as well as minorities.

To be honest, I don't know exactly how affirmative action works, but I think blindly accepting the rhetoric that it allows in unskilled minorities over whites (and Asians) with better qualifications is pretty skeevy, as it falls back on the automatic assumption that everyone who gets in without affirmative action does so on merit and those who need it are less qualified.

Re: I COMPLETELY AGREE.

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

There is a type of affirmative action for poor people. It's called financial aid. People who need it are not necessarily less qualified than those who don't, yet they wouldn't be able to attend college without it. They are given a boost because they do not have the same financial advantages.

Similarly, many colleges look for things like extra-curricular activities and community service as well as grades. Do you really think that someone going to a ritzy high school and someone going to an underfunded one have the same opportunities for extra-curricular activities? If two students have 4.0 GPAs and the white one has played on several sports teams, been in the debate club, gone to France with their French class, etc. etc. and the black student has done none of that, without AA the white student would be priviledged because schools look at that as well as GPA. Not because the black student is any less smart, but because the white student had more opportunities (and yes, it could be a case of a rich white or minority student vs a poor white student or a poor Asian student, and that's not fair either, but at least AA attempts to address some of the inequality).

Re:

[beteio.livejournal.com]

Again, this is definitely my Asian, middle-class bias showing through.

I do support financial aid on the basis that the students receiving it are accepted into the college based on merit - i.e., without regard to the aforementioned race and economic status issues. The financial aid helps them pay for the college, but it doesn't help them get accepted.

I also agree with you in that nothing is ever really fair, and I really can't think of any possible solution to that. Either way, the system (or society, or whatever we choose to blame it on) is flawed, and I guess I'd prefer it being left alone to the government interference (as much as it pains the liberal in me to say that).

You make some excellent points, all of which I should have thought about more before posting.

Re:

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

In a perfect world, college admissions would be fair. Hell, in a perfect world a college education wouldn't be so prohibitively expensive. It would be free, or at least much more affordable.

I thought of another reason why GPA is not the be-all and end-all. Many kids with access to better high schools have GPAs above a 4.0. But that depends on your school offering AP classes in the first place. AA is a patch on the problem, sure, but it is something that hopefully ensures intelligent people who had fewer opportunities in high school still get a chance at college.

[beteio.livejournal.com]

Of course, all of this is in a perfect world - a world that I probably spend too much time in, as opposed to reality. And you've definitely got me stumped with the issue of all the inequality.

In the end, I think my being Asian affects my opinion more than I'd like. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've either read or seen somewhere that AA puts a limit on the percentage of minority races admitted into any given college. I've never been able to verify the legitimacy of that statement, but if it is true, then that is probably the basis for my belief that AA ends up excluding certain races (and by that I mean my race, and I'm trying not to make it all about me, me, me, but it's not working).

God, I wish I could edit these posts. (And seriously, "verify the legitimacy of that statement"? I have no idea where that came from.)

[beteio.livejournal.com]

Uh, see this post (http://keilexandra.livejournal.com/157951.html?thread=406015#t406015), which I was writing while you were writing your post (if that sentence made any sense at all).

[beteio.livejournal.com]

Anyway, I think you've just converted me.

(Also, this is exactly why I shouldn't be attempting anything coherent after 11pm: I don't make any sense.)

[keilexandra]

You're right; you didn't understand my point.

I never said that mediocre minority students are admitted on basis of wealth--I said that those students benefit unnecessarily from AA, which is widely maintained to be compensation for historical inequity that leads to disadvantaged minorities. A wealthy minority student is not disadvantaged, so he/she should not receive the benefit of AA.

In an ideal world, affirmative action would be the tipping factor only in cases of equal merit after adjusting for socioeconomic level. Someone who is more qualified would be admitted regardless of AA; someone who is less qualified MAY still be admitted under AA. That is my main critique of affirmative action.

My socioeconomic adjustment is due to the disadvantage that poor students endure throughout their life, not in regards to paying for college itself. Poor students often cannot afford summer enrichment programs, prep courses, extracurricular activities (i.e. no transportation), or the privilege of studying instead of working.

Far from blindly accepting the traditional rhetoric, I've studied both sides and concluded that AA is very much in the middle of the good-bad spectrum, with reasonable virtues and flaws.

Re: I COMPLETELY AGREE.

[keilexandra]

Financial aid is not affirmative action. The disadvantages of low income affect the student's life far prior to college.

If AA addresses the inequality of socioeconomic situations, why not make base affirmative action on income instead of race? This would address ALL of the socioeconomic inequality directly while being fair to situations like "a rich white or minority student vs a poor white student or a poor Asian student."

[keilexandra]

I don't know which comment notifications you get, but my replies are relevant and I didn't want to leave you out of the debate. ;)

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure as I don't fully understand how AA works myself. And I don't think it's perfect; I think a lot more work needs to go into ensuring everyone has a better education before they get to college as well.

(As an aside, I was curious as to whether my impression of my alma mater (UCLA) having a high Asian population was correct or whether it was just my department (East Asian Studies), but Wikipedia says last year's student body was about 40% Asian (with 35% white and 15% latino as the next highest), out of over 25,000 students, so a cap on Asians is certainly not true everywhere. (Further aside, UCLA is an awesome school! *pimps*))

[keilexandra]

AA doesn't technically limit Asians in applying; it puts each race in separate contention instead of with the entire applicant pool. In practice, this means that Asians have the hardest time getting in because the college-bound group is strongest overall so it's harder to stand out.

[keilexandra]

The UCs are barred by law from considering race in admissions; there is NO affirmative action of any sort. Thus, the high Asian percentage, heh.

[beteio.livejournal.com]

Also, I'm guessing that there is probably a greater number of Asians living in southern California than over here in Pennsylvania, so that may or may not affect how many Asians go to UCLA. (I'm not sure how many people exactly choose to go to colleges closer to home, but I imagine it must be a decent number.)

[beteio.livejournal.com]

Excuse my ignorance, but what does UC stand for?

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

To answer both this comment and your one above, I know financial aid is not affirmative action, but it is similar in that it attempts to help those who would otherwise be unable to attend college. (It's also similar in that many priviledged people think it's something they should be entitled to as well.)

Is Affirmative Action as it is now flawed? Surely. (I think there are a whole lot of things that are flawed about college admissions and tuition.) But I think focusing on rich, underqualified minorities taking away spots that (theoretically) would have gone to better qualified white and Asian students is a red herring.

[tablesaw]

Frankly, if you're black--or white or pink or yellow--and making $200k a year, you are not disadvantaged. Sure, society is still racist against you--guess what, it's racist against Asians too, and even more discriminatory against poor white people. Ultimately, money counts for more than race.

A wealthy minority student is not disadvantaged, so he/she should not receive the benefit of AA.

These are very troubling statements, particularly given IBARW's focus on intersectionality.

As several others have already said (synecdochic is the most recent I've seen, there is no way to rank the positive and negative effects of any particular oppresion/privilege. Doing so trivializes or makes invisible the people who exist in the intersection of those oppression/privileges. And ranking intersections according to who is the least oppressed is just a lesser-known event at the Oppression Olympics.

In an ideal world, affirmative action would be the tipping factor only in cases of equal merit after adjusting for socioeconomic level. Someone who is more qualified would be admitted regardless of AA; someone who is less qualified MAY still be admitted under AA. That is my main critique of affirmative action.

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that "qualified" can't be quantitively ranked. It's tempting to try to do so using the more quantitive aspects of a prospective student's profile (GPA, number of college prep classes, number of extracurricular activities), but doing so eliminates not only large parts of the application, but the larger concept of an individual student's character, which the comprehensive application is ultimately attempting to divine.

Nobody is "more qualified" than any other; students are either qualified or unqualified. And to the extent that admissions departments are determining whether a student is "qualified" to attend their school, they have a great deal of subjective latitude.

If any affirmative-action program is causing "unqualified" students to be accepted into a college (let's define "unqualified" simply as "incapable of meeting the requirements to complete a degree"), then it's doing a disservice to a number of parties, including the disadvantaged students who might have succeeded at a school with different requirements. But that would be on a school-by-school and program-by-program basis, and I haven't seen (or, admittedly, looked for) any particularized data to support such an argument.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

This is one of the times when I think treating Asian-Americans as a group does some of the most needy folks the most damage. Here in the Twin Cities, we have a large Hmong immigrant population. Some of the college-age Hmong kids spent their early years in refugee camps; many more of them were raised by families who spent a lot of time in refugee camps. This is not a way to get strong educational advantages. So for colleges to say, "Oh, we have plenty of Asians," because they have plenty of kids from more established families, say middle-class third-generation Chinese- or Japanese-American kids, totally misses the point of this kind of program in the first place.

Also the "overrepresented minority" idea reminds me of the years when they had an upper bound on how many Jewish kids they'd let into the Ivy Leagues, and that leaves a very sour taste in my mouth.

I can argue both sides of whether that means that we should do something else or whether it means we should tweak affirmative action principles a bit further. But I definitely think there's a problem with how it's implemented.

[keilexandra]

UC = University of California. Sorry, I've been on CC (er... College Confidential) too long.

[keilexandra]

Financial aid helps students afford college, but it doesn't help them get into college in the first place.

Certainly AA is working to an extent since many black and Hispanic students are socioeconomically disadvantaged. (Geez, how many times have I typed "socioeconomic"? Too many o's and c's.) However, when an obvious alternative is available--focus entirely on socioeconomics instead of race--I don't see why it should continue to be held up as successful. As for the "rice, underqualified minorities"--I believe the UCs practice an unofficial form of socioeconomic AA? Obviously they don't consider race, and the percentage of Asians is striking. Somehow I doubt that as long as race is a legal factor in admission, as it will likely continue to be for a long time, private colleges will ever be >25% Asian, even if they are deserving. AA also hurts white students, but not to the same extent because whites are the prevailing majority. Look at the disgruntlement leading to racial slurs against the UCs because of the Asian majority there.

[keilexandra]

"Ultimately, money counts for more than race" because we live in a capitalist society. Obviously I can't back up my opinion with any data--it's just that, an opinion drawn from my own experiences and observations. As a minority, I endure racism and am disadvantaged by that; but I have seen my white friends who are lesser well off endure much worse. I stand by my statement that a wealthy minority student is not disadvantaged, relative to a poor white student. There is no objective way to rank oppressions/privileges; therefore, I make subjective comparisons.

I am defining "qualified" as qualitatively, not quantitatively, ranked; perhaps "merit" is a better word. Note that I made no mention of a student's "stats" in regard to determining qualification/merit. Let the admissions officer judge a student's qualifications based on character, potential, and situation (including socioeconomic status and opportunities or lack thereof); I see no reason why race is necessary as a consideration, other than the separate goal of creating a racially diverse campus.

[keilexandra]

Exactly--AA proponents point at how it has helped needy minority kids, but what about the needy non-minority (or overrepresented minority) kids? Why not just base the same principles on socioeconomic status? --And I have yet to find a satisfactory answer for that last question.

I can see both sides, specifically in regard to the diversity issue, but I lean (with bias) on the side of serious reform.