Affirmative Action Ban Voted Unconstitutional

JVB · November-15-12, 05:36 PM

Looks like a federal appeals court has thrown out the 2006 constitutional amendment that banned use of affirmative action in college admissions and government hiring. Source

Maybe I missed it, but have admissions for minorities decreased in the 6 years since this was passed? Or government hiring? Also, women make up the majority of college admissions, will affirmative action address this as well? Interesting developments.

**gazhekwe** · November-15-12, 05:45 PM

Hoo RAH!!! When they stop giving points for privilege, we can stop needing points for lack of privilege.

JVB · November-15-12, 05:48 PM

Shouldn't it be based on income level, not race? Why would a middle class black kid get preferential treatment over a poor white kid? Seems like just more institutionalized racism, in a different form. If the goal is to help poor kids that didn't have access to the same things as the more well off kids, why base it on race?

**gazhekwe** · November-15-12, 06:11 PM

How do you know that happens? Most people have no idea how affirmative action works.

A middle class kid who gets a 3.5 GPA from a recognized school will get a certain number of admission points regardless of race. The students who have good advisors at their high school will get extra information on how to apply and where.

If their parents work for a supporting corporation, they will get the points for that, regardless of race. Ditto if the parents are alumni of the university.

Where the affirmative action comes in is for the kids who didn't go to the good schools and whose parents don't have a relationship with the university.

**AGinthe313** · November-15-12, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Where the affirmative action comes in is for the kids who didn't go to the good schools and whose parents don't have a relationship with the university.

Help me out here...so does this mean that a poor white kid, from a poor area can benefit from AA too? I'm only asking because I don't know the rules.

**brizee** · November-15-12, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

Maybe I missed it, but have admissions for minorities decreased in the 6 years since this was passed? Or government hiring? Also, women make up the majority of college admissions, will affirmative action address this as well? Interesting developments.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume yes.

Public colleges and universities in California and Texas offered preferential admission to minority applicants until the late 1990s. In 1995, minority applicants to the University of California at Los Angeles [[UCLA), the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Texas at Austin, and Texas A&M enjoyed higher average acceptance rates than whites and Asians despite substantially lower grade point averages and group SAT scores that were more than 100 points lower on average.
After preferences were banned in California in 1998, admission rates among black freshmen applicants to Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego fell from 45-55 percent in 1995-7 to 20-25 percent in 1998-2001. Between 1997 and 1998, the fraction of blacks and Hispanics in Berkeley's freshman class fell from 22 percent to 12 percent. System-wide, changes in minority admission were far more muted. In California, acceptance rates fell by about 7 percent for blacks and 4 percent for Hispanics.
Banning affirmative action admissions had similar effects at Texas schools. At Texas A&M the decline began in 1996. Black admission rates fell by an estimated 30 percent and Hispanic admission rates fell by an estimated 15 percent.

JVB · November-15-12, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by brizee

I'm gonna go ahead and assume yes.

I thought this thread was about the Michigan Affirmative Action ban from 2006 that was just overturned. Your link is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Do the numbers over the last 6 years in Michigan not exist? I don't know the answer that's why I'm asking.

**brizee** · November-15-12, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

I thought this thread was about the Michigan Affirmative Action ban from 2006 that was just overturned. Your link is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Do the numbers over the last 6 years in Michigan not exist? I don't know the answer that's why I'm asking.

Yes.

That would be why I said assume.

**gazhekwe** · November-15-12, 08:21 PM

RE: Affirmative action for poor white folks. That would depend on the goals for the university that is administering the program. If they are trying to reach a certain level of minority, female, or disadvantaged persons, people falling in these categories may receive additional consideration. The representation should ideally match that in the community from which the university draws applicants.

Many people mistake that for a quota; it is not a quota, but a goal that matches the representation in the relevant community. If a university is drawing nationwide, then the national population statistics would be used to establish reasonable goals.

The goals can be reached in a measured fashion and one would expect the university to match the community levels by having applications matching the community levels and selecting representative numbers from each category. If white applicants are significantly more represented than minority applicants, then affirmative recruitment is advisable, and working with advisors in high schools that are not achieving reasonable representation of applicants. Increasing the number of qualified minority applicants is the preferred method of reaching community representation levels.

**oladub** · November-15-12, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Many people mistake that for a quota; it is not a quota, but a goal that matches the representation in the relevant community. If a university is drawing nationwide, then the national population statistics would be used to establish reasonable goals.

The goals can be reached in a measured fashion and one would expect the university to match the community levels by having applications matching the community levels and selecting representative numbers from each category. .

Mit and CalTech have the two highest ACT averages of any universities drawing students nationwide. 28% of MIT students and 24% of CalTech students are Asian-American. The U of M has a 12% Asian-American enrollment; higher than their percentage of Michigan or mid-west residents. I guess they will all have to step aside for the affirmative action kids under your guideline. It's a shame because the Asian-American kids I've encountered have worked hard to get where they are. I grew up white working class which is another group that usually gets sacrificed on the PC alter of affirmative action. Didn't some of the Ivy League schools used to put quotas on how many Jews could attend? Same logic.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/eeo/docs/AAPI_univ_map.PDF

**gazhekwe** · November-15-12, 09:04 PM

There you go with the quota thing. It is not about quotas. It is about recruiting more applicants from groups that are underrepresented. Hence, if the Asians are overrepresented, that is not a bad thing, but the schools would best use its resources recruiting applicants from other groups. They don't need to recruit more Asian applicants if they are doing well in that area already.

JVB · November-15-12, 09:16 PM

More discrimination against people based on their skin color - that should do wonders for race relations. I'm almost starting to think the government does shit like this to keep us at each others throats.

**Kevgoblue** · November-15-12, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Mit and CalTech have the two highest ACT averages of any universities drawing students nationwide. 28% of MIT students and 24% of CalTech students are Asian-American. The U of M has a 12% Asian-American enrollment; higher than their percentage of Michigan or mid-west residents. I guess they will all have to step aside for the affirmative action kids under your guideline. It's a shame because the Asian-American kids I've encountered have worked hard to get where they are. I grew up white working class which is another group that usually gets sacrificed on the PC alter of affirmative action. Didn't some of the Ivy League schools used to put quotas on how many Jews could attend? Same logic.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/eeo/docs/AAPI_univ_map.PDF

When referring to Asian students, remember a great number of them are foreign students. http://learningenglish.voanews.com/c...e/1546399.html
As such, quite often they come from wealthy families and have recieved top notched educations prior to getting here. I not sure how much of a genuine comparison of students you can make when the population is so skewed to the side of the successful. I'm sure if you sent the graduating class from the U-M School of Engineering overseas they would be disproportionately successful as well.

As for Asian Americans. From what I've personally seen....they study more.

**gazhekwe** · November-15-12, 09:54 PM

JVB, There you go with the discrimination against poor white people thing. Why does leveling the field look like discrimination to you?

Affirmative action is designed to remedy the present effects of past racism. Not to mention continuing racism. Institutional racism manifests itself in the use of a system to measure non-academic achievement that favors white Americans. Standard achievement tests also have long been recognized to have a racial bias towards mainstream white students. Ongoing efforts to correct testing are part of Affirmative Action. These ongoing institutionalized biases are what Affirmative Action seeks to remedy. For instance, giving preference to high schools with certain criteria, which excludes many urban and rural schools, and favors schools that have mostly white student bodies. Eliminating that preference for particular schools is unpopular, so other means are used to address that.

**oladub** · November-15-12, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

There you go with the quota thing. It is not about quotas. It is about recruiting more applicants from groups that are underrepresented. Hence, if the Asians are overrepresented, that is not a bad thing, but the schools would best use its resources recruiting applicants from other groups. They don't need to recruit more Asian applicants if they are doing well in that area already.

I'm not sure how "recruiting more applicants from groups that are underrepresented" is different than quotas but those schools didn't recruit Asian-Americans as far as I know. The schools set extremely high standards and they were disproportionately met by Asian-American individuals. Idea: Private organizations could point some qualified minority students in the direction of such universities who would top the scores and achievements of Asian-Americans and whites. That would bring scores up in such schools. I would hate to see schools wasting their money sorting out students by race instead of merit but if qualified students were sent their way, broader diversity could happen and the schools would benefit without losing their focus on excellence. [[win-win)

Kevgoblue, The link I took my figures from and cited only listed Asian-Americans and pacific Islanders as far as I know. I took my daughter for a college tour at CalTech. Two students per prof. It was awesome. Those kids were so bright it was like being among a more evolved species. Caltech provides a financial aid package so anyone can go there if they are the best. Race was not a factor. Brains and talent were.

**gazhekwe** · November-15-12, 10:48 PM

They did not have to recruit the Asians, but to even things out, they need to recruit in other areas. No one sees a high population of any group as bad, what is bad is underrepresentation of specific disadvantaged groups.

Recruitment of additional applicants is hardly a quota system. It merely increases the pool of eligible applicants to make it more likely that a representative student population is achieved normally, exactly as you suggest:

Oladub: Idea: Private organizations could point some qualified minority students in the direction of such universities who would top the scores and achievements of Asian-Americans and whites. That would bring scores up in such schools. I would hate to see schools wasting their money sorting out students by race instead of merit but if qualified students were sent their way, broader diversity could happen and the schools would benefit without losing their focus on excellence. [[win-win)

That is one of many different ways to increase eligibility in minority students and interest them in schools where minorities are underrepresented compared to their relevant applicant area.

JVB · November-15-12, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

JVB, There you go with the discrimination against poor white people thing. Why does leveling the field look like discrimination to you?

Is affirmative action, or is it not, racial discrimination? By definition, when you make decisions based on race, you are racially discriminating. Who do you suppose gets the short end of that stick? It's not going to be well connected, rich whites - it's going to be the poor whites.

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Affirmative action is designed to remedy the present effects of past racism. Not to mention continuing racism. Institutional racism manifests itself in the use of a system to measure non-academic achievement that favors white Americans. Standard achievement tests also have long been recognized to have a racial bias towards mainstream white students. Ongoing efforts to correct testing are part of Affirmative Action. These ongoing institutionalized biases are what Affirmative Action seeks to remedy. For instance, giving preference to high schools with certain criteria, which excludes many urban and rural schools, and favors schools that have mostly white student bodies. Eliminating that preference for particular schools is unpopular, so other means are used to address that.

You can't fix racism with more racism, that's just silly. Most suburban schools have a sizable minority student body and they would presumably have access to the same teachers, classes, textbooks and living standard as their white classmates, should they be given preferential treatment over their white classmates? Should black students at Grosse Pointe North get preference over white students in DPS? Do you see why basing it on race is flawed?

Also, what effect does that have on the psyche of these students when the government tells them they are not capable of succeeding without government help? I think that might damage my self-esteem if I were constantly told that I needed assistance and special rules to compete with my classmates. I would think the long term effects of that would be somewhat negative as well. Just a thought.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · November-16-12, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by JVB

More discrimination against people based on their skin color - that should do wonders for race relations. I'm almost starting to think the government does shit like this to keep us at each others throats.

All things being equal, minorities would still get passed over if a white applicant and a black applicant had similar scores and grades for a particular job. AA is suppose to eliminate that from happening, but in the REAL world, it would continue. Minorities would not get a fair shake. Most companies would hire the white applicant, it's been proven.

**gazhekwe** · November-16-12, 08:17 AM

That is correct Cincinnati Kid. It is getting better as the effects of affirmative action in the past put more and more minorities in the middle class to serve as role models for their young people. It is all about what one learns in their family and community that shows them how to proceed in society. In the mainstream world, built by whites for whites over many generations beginning in the early days of this country, doors were shut for everyone who did not "fit in" whether by appearance or style of living and working.

Most people have heard the story of the aquarium with the glass plate on top. The jumping fish learn they cannot jump past a certain point, and the kitties learn they cannot get at the fish. When the glass is removed, the fish don't jump out and the kitties don't bother to try fishing. It is the same with people raised in minority communities, long shut into their own community, with no housing or banking or good employment opportunities outside the community. It takes time to establish a critical mass of people to change the outlook, and that may still not be enough to erase the learning of the white economic world.

Witness how the housing crisis fell most heavily on minorities who were offered only subprime loans even though they qualified for standard loans.

JVB, While it is true that two wrongs don't make a right, remember that many loan, employment and education opportunities are still bound by the white rules which keep minorities out. It is not wrong to counter a wrong that is in process, and that is what affirmative action is supposed to do.

If 50 whites applied for ten jobs, would the 40 who did not get the jobs be discriminated against? So if 50 whites and 10 blacks applied for those 40 jobs and 8 whites and 2 blacks were hired, why is it discrimination against the whites that two black people were hired?

I spent many years of my career in civil rights helping employers all over the country work out affirmative action plans that helped their companies at the same time opening opportunities in minority communities. No whites were harmed in the process, other than increasing competition for jobs.

JVB · November-16-12, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

All things being equal, minorities would still get passed over if a white applicant and a black applicant had similar scores and grades for a particular job. AA is suppose to eliminate that from happening, but in the REAL world, it would continue. Minorities would not get a fair shake. Most companies would hire the white applicant, it's been proven.

I have no doubt that was the case historically, but I can only speak from experience. When I worked in the auto industry for a supplier, we took extra effort to target promising black and arab workers for supervisor positions. There was no affirmative action policy at work, but it just made good business sense to have a diverse work force and the employees responded better to a mix of races in leadership positions. Any smart business is going to do what makes the most sense financially, and I can't think of any situation where it would make the most sense to exclude non-whites.

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

JVB, While it is true that two wrongs don't make a right, remember that many loan, employment and education opportunities are still bound by the white rules which keep minorities out.

Could you give me some examples of these "white rules"?

**oladub** · November-16-12, 11:12 AM

Gazhekwe: If 50 whites applied for ten jobs, would the 40 who did not get the jobs be discriminated against? So if 50 whites and 10 blacks applied for those 40 jobs and 8 whites and 2 blacks were hired, why is it discrimination against the whites that two black people were hired?

It wouldn't be discrimination against whites unless the two blacks were hired using lower standards then two whites on the reject list. If all ten of the hires were black and they scored the highest on whatever the hiring criteria was, that would not be discrimination against whites.

On the other hand, moving a business to Asia, to avoid discrimination lawsuits, Obamacare expenses, and other problems with doing business in the US, doesn't show up on anyone's list as discriminating against either white or black US workers.

**Wesley Mouch** · November-16-12, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

There you go with the quota thing. It is not about quotas. It is about recruiting more applicants from groups that are underrepresented. Hence, if the Asians are overrepresented, that is not a bad thing, but the schools would best use its resources recruiting applicants from other groups. They don't need to recruit more Asian applicants if they are doing well in that area already.

A finding of over or underrepresentation and then actions to adjust this are just quotas. There's nothing wrong with admitting it. Its OK to say you think some people deserve special treatment based on race if that's true. Not OK to hide your desires behind deception that this isn't a quota.

If quotas were legal, there would be quotas. The goal of all this is special treatment. And that's wrong.

**Kevgoblue** · November-16-12, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Its OK to say you think some people deserve special treatment based on race if that's true. Not OK to hide your desires behind deception that this isn't a quota.

If quotas were legal, there would be quotas. The goal of all this is special treatment. And that's wrong.

So you're trying to say for all these years white men have thrived under a quota system, and it's wrong?

JVB · November-17-12, 10:36 AM

Maybe the NBA will adopt a policy of affirmative action to combat the under-representation of whites in the league. I'd be glad to go try out for the Pistons.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · November-17-12, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

Maybe the NBA will adopt a policy of affirmative action to combat the under-representation of whites in the league. I'd be glad to go try out for the Pistons.

If you can find some white players that can play, I'd be all for it. You'd have to look real hard though