An Analogy

[keilexandra]

If affirmative action is a band-aid over a bleeding wound, then the collateral casualties (whites and often Asians) must be the nerve cells of the healthy skin around the wound. Is it important to staunch the bleeding before healing can begin? YES.

But I refuse to believe that the bleeding requires a band-aid to be continually ripped off and replaced, when a piece of gauze and an Ace bandage would suffice.

Comments

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

Also, what exactly would you attribute increased diversity to, in that case?

[keilexandra]

Progressive value-changes in society should play a role, for instance, in more women choosing to go back to work after childbirth.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

Women choosing to go back to work after childbirth is quite useless if there are no jobs for them to be in. As the many women in the United States could have told you at the turn of the 20th century when many women fought to get a college education, but were not allowed to be employed. see When and Where I Enter (http://www.amazon.com/When-Where-Enter-Impact-America/dp/0688146503)


see also: A history of Affrimative Action 1619-2000 (http://books.google.com/books?id=VgMRHB3dvNIC&dq=hartman+who+has+benefited+affirmative+action&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0) and WHo has benefitted from Affirmative Action Employment (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=49t7-jYfXvsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&ots=iJdyil8rE0&sig=2pF8CSSHhDAxgdsCw2zBN09e8_c#PPA77,M1) and Affirmative Action Review:Part 3: Empirical Research on Affirmative Action and Anti-Discrimination (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_gov_aa_03.htm) via:sparkymonster

[sparkymonster.livejournal.com]

FYI, leading economists would disagree.

Including John Leonard who wrote an early paper (http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/1310.html) on this topic.

[keilexandra]

Replying here because I think unusualmusic will also get notification from upthread:

I'm not so naive to think that affirmative action has done no good. I think it has done a great deal of good. But I consider the means of doing that good unethical. And with regard to employment, I don't think any one program is the sole cause of an effect. That's too simple an answer--and hence why I think the Focus on Affirmative Action site is overly biased, as it implies that all/most of society's gains in diversification are due to AA.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

so what exactly would you consider an ethical way of making society be less structurally racist?

EDIT: before we even go there...what exactly is unethical about it? As a matter of fact, what is your definition of affirmative action, exactly?

[keilexandra]

See my comment below for a sort-of definition of affirmative action. Short answer: outreach is not AA, "special consideration" is.

And outreach is an ethical method of combating institutional racism; others are, of course, needed. But the lack of an equal alternative does not make affirmative action any LESS unethical, of its own merit.

[keilexandra]

"Nothing about affirmative action requires employers to hire or promote unqualified candidates. What is required is that employers take affirmative steps to ensure that their pool of candidates is as inclusive as possible, that everyone who potentially meets job standards learns about the opportunity and has a chance to apply for it, and that everyone who meets the standards is considered fairly."
--THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DEBATE by George E. Curry and Cornel West

Is this--by itself--affirmative action? I don't view it as such; I see it as outreach, and I fully support outreach efforts. Affirmative action would be taking two equally-qualified candidates and choosing the woman or the minority instead of rolling the dice or looking for some other distinction. At the more extreme end, affirmative action involves the establishment of quotas or the addition of "points" on the basis of race/gender/another protected class.

To give an example from the area I'm most familiar with, admissions--Stephen Carter related an incident from his applications to law schools. One law school mistakenly thought he was white and issued him a rejection letter; later it discovered its mistake and retracted the rejection, instead offering him acceptance. (He declined and went elsewhere, but that is beside the point.)


From Focus on Affirmative Action:
"The University of Michigan's point system has been criticized for granting 20 points to students from underrepresented racial minority groups. In fact, it turns out that there were all kinds of points awarded under the University of Michigan system that would have been nearly impossible for students of color to get. For instance, 10 points were awarded to students at elite high schools, very few of which include students of color. Eight points were awarded to students with AP-laden course loads, courses that are often impossible to take at most of the schools attended by students of color, which rarely have a full complement of such classes. Six points were allocated for students from "underrepresented counties" in rural Michigan -- counties that are largely white. And, 4 points were given to students whose parents attended the University of Michigan -- the vast majority of whom are white."

It is true that many of these point favor white people. But it is not "nearly impossible" for a black student to take a heavy-AP course load, or attend an elite school; it is merely less likely. And what of the middle-/upper-class black student who does very well in a private school, with high test scores? Why should this student get 20 extra points just for being black? It is fundamentally unethical to discriminate on the basis of race or gender, particularly when the effects of those attributes do not apply across the board. Context is important and "severe obstacles" ought to be accounted for--but a wealthy black/Latin@ student has not necessarily experienced "equivalent" hardship to a poor white/Asian student, as much as it's possible to equalize such things (you can't, but the point system forces you to).

Also, the socioeconomic AA argument is not restricted to conservatives who don't particularly care about "the plight of the working poor"; I consider myself socialist more than anything, and I was arguing class-based AA before I knew what socioeconomics meant.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

It is true that many of these point favor white people. But it is not "nearly impossible" for a black student to take a heavy-AP course load, or attend an elite school; it is merely less likely. source?

Is this--by itself--affirmative action? I don't view it as such; I see it as outreach, and I fully support outreach efforts. Affirmative action would be taking two equally-qualified candidates and choosing the woman or the minority instead of rolling the dice or looking for some other distinction. At the more extreme end, affirmative action involves the establishment of quotas or the addition of "points" on the basis of race/gender/another protected class.

so you are simply going to redefine what affirmative action means (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/racialjustice/affirmativeactiondefinition.pdf) (PDF) so that it fits better with your argument? Nice method of argument there. And you speak of context. You completely (http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=302&section=employment) ignore (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html) the (http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/aa/15822prs19990727.html) context (http://www.advancingequality.org/affirmativeactionpubs/) in (http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm) which those decisions are made.

Also, the quota argument is bullshit (http://www.ethnicmajority.com/affirmative_action.htm)

[keilexandra]

Er... Let me quote the definition of affirmative action you gave me.

"Any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, that permits the consideration of race, national origin, sex, or disability, along with other criteria and which is adopted to provide opportunities to a class of qualified individuals who have either historically or actually been denied those opportunities and/or to prevent the recurrence of discrimination in the future."

What part of that definition am I contradicting? Outreach = encouraging more PoC/women to apply, for instance by recruiting in inner-city schools or starting female-focused engineering summer programs. It does not use a protected class as a criteria for consideration in admissions/hiring. TASS is a great example of how to promote outreach without being discriminatory. On the flip side, some colleges have multicultural-focused pre-orientation programming both mixed and separate (the latter, a new opt-in program directed specifically at domestic white students, has generated quite a bit of controversy).

I'm not sure really sure of what context you are specifically pointing out in your many links. Could you explain/summarize your point there?

Quotas are illegal, as are "point" systems. I don't know whether they have ever been implemented, although I'm wary of the thin line between "goal" and "mandate." Regardless, watch your language in my journal.

[unusualmusic.livejournal.com]

*Sigh* Affirmative action includes the outreach that you are straining so hard to define out of it so that you can continue to cling to your view of teh world. And you claimed that at its extreme end affirmative action includes quotas. Which my link advised you was untrue. And my many links demonstrate the context of choosing a woman or other minority all other things being equal is the fact that women and minorities are not going to be hired otherwise. Period. Until employers stop being bigoted asses, that fact will remain, no matter how hard you try to avoid it.

Interestingly, I wonder why is that while sparky and I have offered tons of links to back up our assertions, you have continued to make your own assertions without any citations whatever? At the moment I am getting the impression that you have made up your mind based on anecdata, which as we all know, is NOT data.

[keilexandra]

Quotas do not exist, yes, I know--but have de facto quotas ever existed? I don't know and I don't think that is provable either way.

I still don't understand how affirmative action includes outreach, by the definition you have given me, but let us accept that it does. I object, then, to the part of the policy that advocates direct consideration of race/gender/etc. I have no problem with outreach and indeed I advocate the use of outreach instead of direct criteria. And I remain optimistic that someone really smart will come up with an effective way of prodding employers away from bigotry--without compromising basic ethics. Because I do view the idea of nondiscrimination--no matter the result or intent of any discrimination--as basic ethics.

Since I am not making assertions but presenting my personal opinion, I'm not sure what I would be citing. I did cite examples of outreach that I find acceptable as "affirmative action" (although I don't consider it affirmative action, but in any case, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition). Please point out what lacks citations and I will try to rectify the situation, or admit my fault, whichever is the case.