<p>I totally agree, Trackbabi. But no matter what their intentions are, to do their job properly adcoms have to recruit URM's. Which is nice (not to have to depend on intentions - I trust markets more than people). That sounds freaky, actually, so I'll clarify. On a large group level, I trust markets more than people. I do trust people as individuals (some of them, anyway).</p>
<p>spideygirl,</p>
<p>It may be true that many are against AA because they fear that a lesser qualified minority will take the place of a better qualified non-minority. Thats not how I feel, though. I oppose modern affirmative action on the principle that no one should be discriminated against or given preferential treatment based on his race, gender, nationality, religion, and so forth. I have no problems, however, giving preferential treatment to candidates with high GPAs, dedicated community involvement, and demonstrated ability. Why? Because any candidate of any race, gender, nationality, and religion can be a strong student and positive role model.</p>
<p>Its true that giving someone more points based on race is no more preferential than anything else. I dont contest this point. I question, however, whether we should give preference for these types of factors. Anyone can be a strong applicant, but only a [insert race here] applicant can call himself [X race]. Thats the difference in my eyes.</p>
<p>If I were an adcom at a private university, and I had no black bio majors, I would increase outreach and encourage all students of all races to apply. But, once I began the application review, I would give no preference based on race.</p>
<p>Some patients want black doctors. I dont care what race my doctor is. In my opinion, that is a completely irrelevant factor. I reiterate completely irrelevant. As long as he can do what I want him to do, my utility is maximized.</p>
<p>I am in the market for good health care from any provider. I do not belong in the same market as a person who is looking for good health care from [insert race here] providers. If these people consider only [insert race here] doctors, then that is their prerogative and they are free to spend more time searching for [insert race here] doctors. Their market will still have an equilibrium whether modern affirmative action is applied or not.</p>
<p>I believe we have different criteria as to what sets the equilibrium. I believe that the equilibrium occurs when modern affirmative action is not used (e.g. UC Berkeley after 1996). It appears as if you believe that the equilibrium occurs when modern affirmative action is used.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>Im a bit confused as to how you state E&Cs finding refutes the idea that Asian applicants are discriminated against in admissions. They are the only group who see an effective (i.e. as if) decrease in their SAT scores. Black, Hispanic, legacy, and athletic recruit applicants have major boosts. Only non-legacy non-athlete whites are unaffected.</p>
<p>I think people should be wary of justifying modern affirmative action by saying things like, Nobodys spot is being taken. If you werent admitted, you just werent in demand. This train-of-thought was once used to justify segregated schooling and other acts we now (rightly) deem heinous and unjust.</p>
<p>To Trackbabi,</p>
<p>Heres another thread that shows a person being hesitant to put his asian race because of the notorious disadvantage they have. Why? You Tell me!</p>
<p>because people on CC have scared him into thinking asian=auto reject...</p>
<p>Fabrizio - I'm not sure that I even like the term "Affirmative Action". I can't think of another one, though. </p>
<p>Basically I think that there really isn't much of a difference between choosing someone from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group and some other trait or factor which is in short supply in an incoming class of students or employees. </p>
<p>I don't believe it is "preferential treatment" if a racial group is underrepresented in a certain market and you seek to bring in more people from that group. You aren't giving preferential treatment to anyone - you are meeting market demand. The very next day some other trait could be in short supply, and you'd focus on recruiting people with that trait. "Preferential treatment" connotes a focus on the individual or group being recruited, but that isn't really what is happening today. You aren't giving anyone a "break" because of the color of their skin, you are meeting the needs of a college which seeks a diverse campus, or an empoyer which wants an diverse group of employees. Not acknowledging that these needs exist is myopic - it is real. And to continue the doctor analogy, if patients wanted to see an African American doctor, that doesn't mean that they would only see African American doctors. It probably would mean that if they go to a hospital regularly and bring their children there, they might like it if someone on the staff is from their racial group. As a woman, I always like to see woman a little bit here and there in positions of power. It doesn't mean that I would only go to a woman for a particular business relationship. </p>
<p>Things just work better when society has some sort of natural balance. When meeting customer demand is the focus in a functional society such as ours, a balance of representation from different groups is a very beneficial result. If you are against colleges and companies recruiting URM's specifically, than you would be stopping market forces from working. You wouldn't be stopping preferential treatment.</p>
<p>"You aren't giving preferential treatment to anyone - you are meeting market demand. The very next day some other trait could be in short supply, and you'd focus on recruiting people with that trait."</p>
<p>So you are meeting market demand by recruiting a trait that is in short supply; that is, you are putting more attention on certain uncommon traits than on others. Preferential treatment.</p>
<p>""Preferential treatment" connotes a focus on the individual or group being recruited, but that isn't really what is happening today."</p>
<p>Isn't it? Preferential treatment DEnotes that one thing is given advantage over another thing by the deciding party. It is undeniable that URMs have a significant advantage over ORMs in the college admissions process. Doesn't it then follow that URMs receive preferential treatment over ORMs in this manner?</p>
<p>"You aren't giving anyone a "break" because of the color of their skin, you are meeting the needs of a college which seeks a diverse campus, or an empoyer which wants an diverse group of employees."</p>
<p>I don't see how accepting a URM over an ORM allows for greater diversity, since everybody is inherently different from one another. A practice of accepting different races just because they are different races might make a campus more colorful, but it would not make the campus any more diverse. Furthermore, this argument is excessively broad. It opens up the field to literally every type of discriminatory practice possible. For instance, IBM chooses a big-nosed applicant over an equally-qualified-but-small-nosed adversary. Microsoft runs out of employees with the name 'Steve' and begins an aggressive recruiting campaign designed to 'increase name diversity.' Nike decides that it needs a few employees who have won tap-dancing awards in the past 7 years. The Catholic Church issues a decree stating that only people under 5 foot 6 at age 18 may be baptized because too many tall people are going to heaven. Diversity indeed.</p>
<p>"If you are against colleges and companies recruiting URM's specifically, than you would be stopping market forces from working."</p>
<p>The statement is backwards. If you are against colleges and companies recruiting URMs specifically, you are promoting free-market competition by refusing to given preference to one party over another based on skin. You are promoting fair competition by stopping preferential treatment.</p>
<p>LOL @ "it isn't preferential treatment". You'd make a good politician.</p>
<p>Ok, I don't want to get sucked into the Affirmative Action debate, but here is a really interesting article from the WSJ that I found (most of it is copied into this blog post).</p>
<p>spideygirl,</p>
<p>I also do not like the term “affirmative action.” It is both a euphemism and a vague phrase.</p>
<p>In other parts of the English speaking world, the phrase “positive discrimination” is used. (This phrase is also used in Spain.) How about we use “positive discrimination” instead of “affirmative action”?</p>
<p>I have heard statements similar to your thought that “there really isn't much of a difference between choosing someone from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group and some other trait or factor which is in short supply in an incoming class of students or employees” before. I politely disagree. I do not view an act of God (i.e. the “race” we are) as equal to countless hours spent in front of a textbook and a stack of paper, in the gym lifting weights, in the music room making sure the notes are played cleanly, or in the streets doing volunteer work. The first thing is randomly determined. The other cases require conscientious effort and drive.</p>
<p>Under free market systems, there’s no such thing as “under-representation.” The equilibrium is reached when the incoming class is filled or when the company has hired all the employees it is willing and able to hire. If the number of people of [insert race here] is below their nationwide Census percentage, then that is the equilibrium. No “under-representation.” To attempt to “bring in more people from that group” and only that group would disrupt the existing equilibrium. You’d create a new equilibrium, yes, but then this equilibrium would be the product of intervention (c.f. free market forces).</p>
<p>What kind of diversity are we talking about here? Are we talking about the extreme leftist kind where as long as the percentages match the Census figures, it’s diverse, or are we talking about the kind which respects the inherent individuality of each human being on this planet? I love the second. I don’t care much for the first.</p>
<p>Things do work better when society has some sort of a natural balance. As I wrote in 482, it appears that we have different requirements as to what makes this “natural balance.” I believe it occurs when people are neither discriminated against nor given preferential treatment. UC Berkeley’s current demographics are a natural balance in my opinion. The admission results after Michigan was forced to comply with their state’s decision are also an example of a natural balance. The admission results before they complied are not a natural balance. They demonstrated intervention.</p>
<p>I believe you’re first to use free markets to defend positive discrimination. Again, we probably have a different definition as to what makes markets free. If someone is conscientiously seeking a “balance of representation” as opposed to being satisfied with “what happens,” then he’s not really for free markets. He’s for intervention.</p>
<p>I agree with enderkin's points made in 487.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have no problems, however, giving preferential treatment to candidates with high GPAs, dedicated community involvement, and demonstrated ability.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Essentially, those URMS being considered for admission to various selective schools, meet these requirements.
You know you could take the top URM's meeting those requirements and have them in the admission class of ONE selective school. There dozens upon dozens of these schools for the rest of ORM's and everyone else to clamor over. It amazes me that URM conversation stoke so much interest when the number of representative URM's as a whole are so small.</p>
<p>The whole thing with the natural balance is based around the fact that the natural power balance was institutionally disturbed. If all races are equally intelligent as is believed, then it would be natural that all races would perform to roughly the same standards. Because that is obviously not the case, "affirmative action" is taken to bring back that balance so all races are "starting from the same point". </p>
<p>Fabrizio, you're simply bringing personal opinions into the matter. Saying that you have "no problems, however, giving “preferential treatment” to candidates with high GPAs, dedicated community involvement, and demonstrated ability." Well those traits are traits valued by universities, in addition to diversity. </p>
<p>Think about it, who dictates that the ability to organize a fundraiser is "better" then the ability to weave baskets? It's simply what the university wants, what is in demand. Diversity is in demand because it is something of value to people. Whether or not you personally place any value on racial diversity is your personal opinion, but obviously many other people value racial diversity because it is in large demand in almost all fields of society, our nation is based around it. </p>
<p>And what spideygirl was saying, enderkin, is that AA is simply preferential treatment of a TRAIT, in this case diversity. Just like giving preferential treatment to the ability to play the tuba. </p>
<p>Fabrizio, equlibrium is, like you said when a company/school hires/admits all that fufill what is in demand. So in banning AA like in Michigan and California, you are upsetting equilibrium. Affirmative action exists because that equilibrium was already upset by "product of intervention".</p>
<p>Your definition of a free market fabrizio would be one where an entrepreneur was not able to sell what was in demand.</p>
<p>madville,</p>
<p>I do not doubt that the “under-represented” minorities being considered for admission to our nation’s selective schools have high GPAs, are dedicated to their activities, and have potential to improve further. Consequently, I believe positive discrimination is unnecessary. These students will apply anyway and are competitive candidates. That there may not be many of them is no reason to grant them a license of preference.</p>
<p>I also believe that we could take the strongest, most competitive “under-represented” minorities in our country today, and the total number would be sufficient for just one selective university to have the privilege of calling itself “diverse.” To me, that’s a problem, a problem that positive discrimination can’t resolve.</p>
<p>There truly are many great universities in our country. If these schools are recommended to non-“under-represented” students with great fervor, then they should also be recommended to “under-represented” students with equal fervor.</p>
<p>Yet another post I like that I want reposted.....</p>
<p>"The whole thing with the natural balance is based around the fact that the natural power balance was institutionally disturbed. If all races are equally intelligent as is believed, then it would be natural that all races would perform to roughly the same standards. Because that is obviously not the case, "affirmative action" is taken to bring back that balance so all races are "starting from the same point".</p>
<p>Fabrizio, you're simply bringing personal opinions into the matter. Saying that you have "no problems, however, giving “preferential treatment” to candidates with high GPAs, dedicated community involvement, and demonstrated ability." Well those traits are traits valued by universities, in addition to diversity.</p>
<p>Think about it, who dictates that the ability to organize a fundraiser is "better" then the ability to weave baskets? It's simply what the university wants, what is in demand. Diversity is in demand because it is something of value to people. Whether or not you personally place any value on racial diversity is your personal opinion, but obviously many other people value racial diversity because it is in large demand in almost all fields of society, our nation is based around it.</p>
<p>And what spideygirl was saying, enderkin, is that AA is simply preferential treatment of a TRAIT, in this case diversity. Just like giving preferential treatment to the ability to play the tuba.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, equlibrium is, like you said when a company/school hires/admits all that fufill what is in demand. So in banning AA like in Michigan and California, you are upsetting equilibrium. Affirmative action exists because that equilibrium was already upset by "product of intervention".</p>
<p>Your definition of a free market fabrizio would be one where an entrepreneur was not able to sell what was in demand."</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>Whenever you use words like “obviously,” you’re also injecting your opinion into the matter. Positive discrimination is a values judgment; it is unsurprising that opinion is frequently brought up.</p>
<p>Deferring to “simply what the university wants, what is in demand” has a dangerous side to it. Please do not forget that fifty years ago, all-white schools were “simply what the university want[ed], what [was] in demand.” Praise Allah, that is no longer the case.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is simply preferential treatment of diversity? What kind of diversity are we talking about here? The “diversity” where the demographics match the U.S. Census figures, or the real diversity that occurs naturally on account of inherent individuality? </p>
<p>What I wrote to spideygirl also applies to you; we have different definitions of what the natural balance (i.e. equilibrium in a free market) is. I say the natural balance is when universities neither discriminate against nor grant preferential treatment to students. Berkeley is a longstanding example since California was the first state (1996) to revise its Constitution such that no one be the victim of discrimination. The demographics before and after 1996 are markedly different. The numbers before are representative of the previous system of intervention. It was an equilibrium, but it was not the result of free market forces (*). The numbers after, however, are representative of free markets at work.</p>
<p>It’s true that we used to not have a natural balance. After all, segregation was absolutely a “product of intervention.” I hope you’re not suggesting that we right that wrong with another wrong. The way to right the wrong is to do no wrong, that is, discriminate against no one and for no one.</p>
<p>You have misunderstood my definition of a free market. In fact, what you have understood as my definition is not a free market at all since the price can’t adjust in your definition. If we no longer use positive discrimination, does that mean that “under-represented” minority students can’t be admitted? Preposterous. They will continue to be admitted in high numbers.</p>
<p>(*)</p>
<p>Even when the government places restrictions on markets (e.g. minimum-wage, rent-control), equilibriums still exist. They are just inefficient compared to unrestricted markets.</p>
<p>Well wasn't ending AA in California a restriction on free market???</p>
<p>Nobody was forcing Cal to seek diversity before, it was their free will.</p>
<p>And when you say nobody be discriminated for or against, based on what? Because if you isolate that and say only race, then you aren't using natural equilibrium. You could easily say based on musical ability, community service, or anything else not directly related to university experience.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>Since you edited your post to include a new paragraph, I’ll respond to that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The whole thing with the natural balance is based around the fact that the natural power balance was institutionally disturbed. If all races are equally intelligent as is believed, then it would be natural that all races would perform to roughly the same standards. Because that is obviously not the case, "affirmative action" is taken to bring back that balance so all races are "starting from the same point".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I wrote in 496, I hope you’re not suggesting that we right the wrong of segregation with another wrong – positive discrimination. The way to right wrongs is to do no wrongs, period.</p>
<p>The natural balance is where people are evaluated based on their merits regardless of their race. We used to distort the natural balance through segregation. Now, we distort it through positive discrimination. In both cases, we give preference to people from certain groups. Preference, it must be understood, is not a guarantee. During segregation, not all white applicants to universities and jobs were accepted. Likewise, today, not all “under-represented” minorities to universities and jobs are accepted.</p>
<p>If we define “affirmative action” to be “a measure to ensure that all be treated equally without regard to race, gender, religion, and nationality,” then I am for this affirmative action. I believe it should be done. If it’s a system where we quote-quote un-quote boost certain applicants and pull down others in practice, then I don’t believe it should be done. +220 ==|== -50. (Numbers from Espenshade and Chung.)</p>
<p>As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, “The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.”</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well wasn't ending AA in California a restriction on free market???</p>
<p>Nobody was forcing Cal to seek diversity before, it was their free will.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did California end affirmative action? No. Proposition 209 did not end affirmative action. It ended a system of preferential treatment. Modern affirmative action and preferential treatment are intertwined, but affirmative action at heart is not a system of preference.</p>
<p>Ending positive discrimination restored free markets to California. Again, we simply have different definitions as to what makes a market free. I don’t consider a market that is restricted by positive discrimination to be free.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And when you say nobody be discriminated for or against, based on what? Because if you isolate that and say only race, then you aren't using natural equilibrium. You could easily say based on musical ability, community service, or anything else not directly related to university experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It’s not just race. It’s also gender, religion, nationality, creed, and so forth. These factors are irrelevant to participation in university programs. Students should not be given preference based on these factors. It’s a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.</p>
<p>Musical ability and community service can be done by students of all races, genders, religions, nationalities, and creeds. Musical ability may be relevant to participation in university programs, for example, the orchestra. There’s no rule anywhere that says musicians in the orchestra must be of race [X], but there is an understood rule that musicians in the orchestra must be good. And talent knows no color, chromosome, or faith.</p>