I hope this isn't too political, but I wonder why "disadvantaged groups" are defined by things like race rather than poor academic performance, poverty, criminal history, mental health, not being interested, not desiring prosperity, etc. There are so many reasons people don't get education and so many ways to slice and dice the population into groups.
The whole thing reeks of "bigotry of low expectations".
I didn't know affirmative action was a thing. Being a minority who entered/graduated University, I hate to think that I could possibly have been admitted into University because of my status as an ethnic minority rather than because I was actually qualified.
An expert in this field may have more informed views that I, but my understanding is the following:
1. Race is, for the most part, relatively easy to determine. Some of the other groups you mention are less easy to determine.
2. The laws came into being in a time that very (extremely?) qualified minorities were being passed over for basically racist reasons. Once an entitlement like this is given in the US (to anyone), it is typically difficult to take away. Fwiw, I personally don't believe that we are at a race-blind state such that taking away preferences should be eliminated, but I believe that these preferences will persist even after a point that we become "race blind" just due to the nature of the system. Any politician who votes to end affirmative action is essentially condemning themselves to the label of "racist" (rightly or wrongly). This will only potentially be resolved, imho, when being mixed is the norm "race", so racial identity will largely be an anachronistic concept. I'm not sure when we will see that state, if ever.
3. If something like low socioeconomic status (SES) is considered, then whites will again likely be over-represented. While some races might be disproportionally low SES, white people have a higher absolute number of low SES members. The difference is that an aspirational white person who wants to social climb has a much easier time of it than a person from other races.
4. Note that race is not the only factor in affirmative action. There is an implied consideration of being discrimated against, being low SES, etc. This is why Asians are typically not considered "oppressed minorities". Interestingly, race blind admissions tend to favor Asians more than whites by a lot. Check data on Berkeley and Stuyvesant for data on this topic.
There are efforts aimed at people whose parents didn't go to college and they don't have anything to do with race. But to answer your question, I think many of the groups that ostensibly were founded to fight racism are more aimed at getting better treatment for their particular race than actually doing away with racism overall. As long as we are trying to treat some people better because of their race, we are necessarily treating other people worse because of their race.
If people want to fight against racism we'd be better off with groups that are fighting against people being treated differently because of their race--regardless of what race they happen to be. Imagine an organization that is just as upset about Asians needing higher test scores to get into Ivy League schools as they are about a black person being treated worse by the police than someone with lighter skin in the same situation.
College also seems a bit 'late' to be stepping in and trying to level the playing field. By that point at least 15 years of lost opportunity for advancement can have occurred.
Poor academic and other performance is just one small symptom of larger systemic issues.
In order for the US to move in a positive direction broken social divisions must be smoothed, opportunity for all must be increased, and the military industrialization of community servants must be reversed to return those groups to helping instead of harming citizens.
I believe some disadvantaged groups are defined the way you describe. But, consider that black people, for example, harassed or even shot and killed by police because of the color of their skin, regardless of their academic performance, income, etc.
There are plenty of studies and articles out there on the effects of systemic racism if you are interested.
I do agree that we can do better in acknowledging and enacting policy to recognize and minimize the difference between economic classes.
That's true and many of those criteria are interrelated such as race and poverty. That said, there are a couple of points that distinguish race over these other issues.
First, the numbers for underrepresented students are pretty terrible. I spent some time doing outreach programs for graduate students, so I'll speak to that. AMS runs a survey of recent Ph.D. graduates in math and I just pulled the report for the 2013-2014 year (http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/2014Survey-...). During that period, 920 U.S. citizens received a Ph.D. in math. Of those, 25 were African-American and 29 were Hispanic. That means that of those that graduated, 2.7% were African American whereas they comprise 13.2% of the population and 3.1% were Hispanic whereas they comprise 17% percent of the population. Clearly, there's a disconnect here, which should raise eyebrows.
As to why the numbers are that bad, it's complicated. In truth, it's hard to sell graduate school to underrepresented students since they tend to be poor. Imagine if you're the first person in your family to graduate from college with a technical degree. You can go out and immediately start making something like $60-70k/year on a job or make $25k/year as a graduate student for the next eight years. Eventually, a graduate degree pays itself off, but it's a hard sell especially with family pressure. That said, this does correlate with poverty.
In addition, there is a bias in admissions in favor of students who went to tier-1 research or Ivy League schools. Students from schools like Columbia are seen as better candidates than students from state schools. This hits underrepresented students hard in two ways. One, fancy schools are expensive and they tend to be poor. Two, family structures are such that it's less accepted for a student to move that far away from family, so they go to a state school and perhaps get a wonderful education, but they have a disadvantage getting into graduate school since they didn't go to a fancy school.
Also, as I alluded before, family and cultural issues different between races. Successful recruitment needs to be mindful of family structures and how to engage the family into making the transition to a graduate school that is likely not in their hometown easier. Candidly, we don't have good research universities in every town and family ties and values differ between races.
Now, bringing a student into a program that they're not qualified for is terrible for everyone around. It's bad for the student since it crushes their confidence and waists their time if they fail. It's bad for the department since it saps what little money they have for stipends. Good outreach programs spend their time and money looking for qualified students and encouraging and sometimes helping them to work through the process. That takes time and money, which is why these programs require funding.
As a last note, also be aware that in the past, there was explicit segregation based on race at the university level and that kind of imbalance takes a very, very long time to rebalance. For example, Rice University disallowed non whites from attending until 1964. Though, for a time, certain Asians were seen as white enough to make the cut. How long it takes to rebalance that equation is certainly up for debate and I personally don't know how long. That said, there is a moral argument that certain institutional disadvantages require rebalancing and that we may not be finished with that process.
So, yes, there are bad programs out there, but I contend there are some really good programs that have found some diamonds in the rough. Getting these students into school has been good for the community and country. Yes, this costs money. Yes, this money could be allocated elsewhere. I will contend, though, that many programs have paid off their tax dollars in spades.
"The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times."
The applicants who are most discriminated against are Asian applicants. Asians are basically the Jews of yesteryear when it comes to college admissions.
A common criticism is that Asian applicants "game" the system by getting good grades, scoring well on standardized exams, and loading up on extracurriculars. Compare that with sending your kids to an elite private feeder high school. That's not gaming the system at all /s
Affirmative action in today's implementation is less about equal opportunity and more about equal outcome. I don't even see it as a race thing as even the POC applicants that benefit from these policies are almost always economically advantaged. What we need is economic affirmative action. If you come from property you should get second consideration. Infinitely harder getting good grades while impoverished vs a 4.0 at the local 40k/year private high school Ivy feeder.
Article takes too long to huff and puff and fluff before it gets to the heart of the matter (and then veering off into tangents shortly thereafter):
The Supreme Court has ruled that the educational benefits that flow from having a diverse student body can justify using race as one factor among many in a “holistic” evaluation, while rejecting blunt racial quotas or race-based point systems. But what that permits in actual practice by universities — public ones as well as private ones that receive federal funding — is often murky.
It is impossible to provide easier admission to college for one race without making it harder for other races. Treating people differently because they are of a certain race is the definition of racism. That part is simple.
Now there are all kinds of arguments about whether letting in lower scoring students of one race are actually beneficial to their race and there are lots of people arguing that if someone was descended from slaves they should be given preferences that exceed what they would get based on their own skill, but it doesn't change the fact that affirmative action is a way to create a type of racism. People can argue that this type of racism is a good thing, but it is still treating people differently based on their race.
Oh dear, the NYTimes should have really gone with "anti-white and anti-asian bias" in their title (as mentioned in the article) instead of just anti-white. Otherwise they are somewhat priming their audience. And well, everyone who will only read the title.
I think making it about race just creates more division and is really really dumb. Scores should be normalized by income, stability of household, then holistic factors such as extraneous circumstances, health, etc. Race should have no impact except in extraneous circumstances in rare cases
Make higher education a national priority, and free for everyone, and this issue would go away (though systemic racism and class-based oppression would not). There are lots of benefits to having an educated populace.
1. Stop making a college degree a requirement for relatively pedestrian jobs.
2. Make education at any level widely available and very cheap or free to those who want it and demonstrate the motivation to perform well in their studies.
Most current education, even that at the high school level, is completely wasted because the participants and their communities simply don't value it (or worse, negatively value it). Note that this disdain for education is largely race-blind.
I suggest getting rid of anti-discrimination laws completely for things like college admissions. Affirmative action is probably not bad enough to be worth the effort either.
I'm sure they'll find a way to screw this up (because it's Trump), but affirmative action does need reform. In its present state, it can theoretically benefit affluent under-represented minorities at the expense of impoverished Midwestern whites (and especially screws over disadvantaged Asian applicants). Affirmative action should be predicated on family income/net worth. As they presently stand, such programs are literally racist.
[+] [-] averagewall|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hasenj|8 years ago|reply
I didn't know affirmative action was a thing. Being a minority who entered/graduated University, I hate to think that I could possibly have been admitted into University because of my status as an ethnic minority rather than because I was actually qualified.
[+] [-] csa|8 years ago|reply
1. Race is, for the most part, relatively easy to determine. Some of the other groups you mention are less easy to determine.
2. The laws came into being in a time that very (extremely?) qualified minorities were being passed over for basically racist reasons. Once an entitlement like this is given in the US (to anyone), it is typically difficult to take away. Fwiw, I personally don't believe that we are at a race-blind state such that taking away preferences should be eliminated, but I believe that these preferences will persist even after a point that we become "race blind" just due to the nature of the system. Any politician who votes to end affirmative action is essentially condemning themselves to the label of "racist" (rightly or wrongly). This will only potentially be resolved, imho, when being mixed is the norm "race", so racial identity will largely be an anachronistic concept. I'm not sure when we will see that state, if ever.
3. If something like low socioeconomic status (SES) is considered, then whites will again likely be over-represented. While some races might be disproportionally low SES, white people have a higher absolute number of low SES members. The difference is that an aspirational white person who wants to social climb has a much easier time of it than a person from other races.
4. Note that race is not the only factor in affirmative action. There is an implied consideration of being discrimated against, being low SES, etc. This is why Asians are typically not considered "oppressed minorities". Interestingly, race blind admissions tend to favor Asians more than whites by a lot. Check data on Berkeley and Stuyvesant for data on this topic.
[+] [-] troupe|8 years ago|reply
If people want to fight against racism we'd be better off with groups that are fighting against people being treated differently because of their race--regardless of what race they happen to be. Imagine an organization that is just as upset about Asians needing higher test scores to get into Ivy League schools as they are about a black person being treated worse by the police than someone with lighter skin in the same situation.
[+] [-] mjevans|8 years ago|reply
Poor academic and other performance is just one small symptom of larger systemic issues.
In order for the US to move in a positive direction broken social divisions must be smoothed, opportunity for all must be increased, and the military industrialization of community servants must be reversed to return those groups to helping instead of harming citizens.
[+] [-] adamsea|8 years ago|reply
There are plenty of studies and articles out there on the effects of systemic racism if you are interested.
I do agree that we can do better in acknowledging and enacting policy to recognize and minimize the difference between economic classes.
[+] [-] kxyvr|8 years ago|reply
First, the numbers for underrepresented students are pretty terrible. I spent some time doing outreach programs for graduate students, so I'll speak to that. AMS runs a survey of recent Ph.D. graduates in math and I just pulled the report for the 2013-2014 year (http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/2014Survey-...). During that period, 920 U.S. citizens received a Ph.D. in math. Of those, 25 were African-American and 29 were Hispanic. That means that of those that graduated, 2.7% were African American whereas they comprise 13.2% of the population and 3.1% were Hispanic whereas they comprise 17% percent of the population. Clearly, there's a disconnect here, which should raise eyebrows.
As to why the numbers are that bad, it's complicated. In truth, it's hard to sell graduate school to underrepresented students since they tend to be poor. Imagine if you're the first person in your family to graduate from college with a technical degree. You can go out and immediately start making something like $60-70k/year on a job or make $25k/year as a graduate student for the next eight years. Eventually, a graduate degree pays itself off, but it's a hard sell especially with family pressure. That said, this does correlate with poverty.
In addition, there is a bias in admissions in favor of students who went to tier-1 research or Ivy League schools. Students from schools like Columbia are seen as better candidates than students from state schools. This hits underrepresented students hard in two ways. One, fancy schools are expensive and they tend to be poor. Two, family structures are such that it's less accepted for a student to move that far away from family, so they go to a state school and perhaps get a wonderful education, but they have a disadvantage getting into graduate school since they didn't go to a fancy school.
Also, as I alluded before, family and cultural issues different between races. Successful recruitment needs to be mindful of family structures and how to engage the family into making the transition to a graduate school that is likely not in their hometown easier. Candidly, we don't have good research universities in every town and family ties and values differ between races.
Now, bringing a student into a program that they're not qualified for is terrible for everyone around. It's bad for the student since it crushes their confidence and waists their time if they fail. It's bad for the department since it saps what little money they have for stipends. Good outreach programs spend their time and money looking for qualified students and encouraging and sometimes helping them to work through the process. That takes time and money, which is why these programs require funding.
As a last note, also be aware that in the past, there was explicit segregation based on race at the university level and that kind of imbalance takes a very, very long time to rebalance. For example, Rice University disallowed non whites from attending until 1964. Though, for a time, certain Asians were seen as white enough to make the cut. How long it takes to rebalance that equation is certainly up for debate and I personally don't know how long. That said, there is a moral argument that certain institutional disadvantages require rebalancing and that we may not be finished with that process.
So, yes, there are bad programs out there, but I contend there are some really good programs that have found some diamonds in the rough. Getting these students into school has been good for the community and country. Yes, this costs money. Yes, this money could be allocated elsewhere. I will contend, though, that many programs have paid off their tax dollars in spades.
[+] [-] ithinkinstereo|8 years ago|reply
The applicants who are most discriminated against are Asian applicants. Asians are basically the Jews of yesteryear when it comes to college admissions.
A common criticism is that Asian applicants "game" the system by getting good grades, scoring well on standardized exams, and loading up on extracurriculars. Compare that with sending your kids to an elite private feeder high school. That's not gaming the system at all /s
Affirmative action in today's implementation is less about equal opportunity and more about equal outcome. I don't even see it as a race thing as even the POC applicants that benefit from these policies are almost always economically advantaged. What we need is economic affirmative action. If you come from property you should get second consideration. Infinitely harder getting good grades while impoverished vs a 4.0 at the local 40k/year private high school Ivy feeder.
[+] [-] lr4444lr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lr4444lr|8 years ago|reply
The Supreme Court has ruled that the educational benefits that flow from having a diverse student body can justify using race as one factor among many in a “holistic” evaluation, while rejecting blunt racial quotas or race-based point systems. But what that permits in actual practice by universities — public ones as well as private ones that receive federal funding — is often murky.
It would have also behooved a general audience to be given some history: https://www.britannica.com/event/Bakke-decision
It's not an easy issue.
[+] [-] troupe|8 years ago|reply
It is impossible to provide easier admission to college for one race without making it harder for other races. Treating people differently because they are of a certain race is the definition of racism. That part is simple.
Now there are all kinds of arguments about whether letting in lower scoring students of one race are actually beneficial to their race and there are lots of people arguing that if someone was descended from slaves they should be given preferences that exceed what they would get based on their own skill, but it doesn't change the fact that affirmative action is a way to create a type of racism. People can argue that this type of racism is a good thing, but it is still treating people differently based on their race.
[+] [-] simonsarris|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edison85|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|8 years ago|reply
Why?
[+] [-] adamsea|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csa|8 years ago|reply
1. Stop making a college degree a requirement for relatively pedestrian jobs.
2. Make education at any level widely available and very cheap or free to those who want it and demonstrate the motivation to perform well in their studies.
Most current education, even that at the high school level, is completely wasted because the participants and their communities simply don't value it (or worse, negatively value it). Note that this disdain for education is largely race-blind.
[+] [-] yuhong|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp527|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scarface74|8 years ago|reply
http://www.collegeconfidential.com/admit/legacy-applicants-h...
[+] [-] arkona|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] adamsea|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anon4728|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]