scl@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Steve Losen) (10/14/89)
Most opponents of affirmative action don't seem to realize that AA is a temporary measure. A kluge, a hack, a patch. In an ideal society jobs, college admissions, etc., would be granted purely on the basis of merit. There would be enough qualified women, men, minorities, etc., that all groups would be proportionately represented with no statistical differences in pay or GPA. Clearly no one believes that we are living in such an ideal society now. And why not? If we assume that merit alone should determine who gets a particular job or admission to a particular school, and if we assume that no sex, race, nationality, or religious group is inherently superior to any other, then the ideal society should be a natural product of our anti-discrimination laws. So where is the snag? Let me cite a small example. Back in the days of discrimination, all government road building contracts in the state of Virginia went to white construction firms, making it impossible for black contractors to get any road projects. When discrimination became illegal, the state of Virginia had to hand out road contracts purely on the basis of merit. Is anyone surprised that absolutely nothing changed? That all the road contracts continued to go to white contractors? This was perfectly legal under the new law bacause the white contractors were indeed more qualified. After all, they had built all the other roads in the state. Clearly it is not sufficient to simply declare discrimination to be illegal and continue afterward with business as usual. I personally do not like discrimination in any form and I freely admit that AA is reverse discrimination. But I also realize that some sort of temporary, corrective action must be taken to undo the damage of past discrimination. Perhaps AA is not the best solution. After all, "two wrongs don't make a right" and "the end does not justify the means", etc. Perhaps there should be more emphasis on education. But might this not require preferential college admission to traditionally under-represented social groups? Should we simply give up, realizing that no solution is truly fair, thus writing off as hopeless the current imbalance and praying that everything works out on its own after two or three generations? I say we must fix the problem now, for not doing anything is also unfair. -- Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu University of Virginia Academic Computing Center
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (10/17/89)
In article <1058@uvaarpa.virginia.edu>, scl@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Steve Losen) writes: > Most opponents of affirmative action don't seem to realize that > AA is a temporary measure. A kluge, a hack, a patch. In an ideal > society jobs, college admissions, etc., would be granted purely on > the basis of merit. There would be enough qualified women, men, > minorities, etc., that all groups would be proportionately represented > with no statistical differences in pay or GPA. The hope that affirmative action is a temporary remedy that will disappear once it is no longer needed is naive in the extreme. The major though by no means only error in the above reasoning is the mistaken assumption that it is only racial discrimination that prevents the proportional representation of the races in various measures. It is simply false that a "meritocracy" -- where jobs, entry into school, opportunity to form businesses, etc, are all granted on the basis of perfectively objective qualifications [1] -- would result in proportional representation. The reason is that cultural groups, such as the Amish, the Vietnamese boat people, and Haitian immigrants, are characterized not just by race, but also by different values, customs, and desires [2]. Such differences would prevent all the various groups that comprise our society from being proportionately represented in schools, jobs, and income, even in a perfect meritocracy. And because some of these groups are racially correlated, proportional representation would also be absent at the racial level. In short, the need for affirmative action will continue forever -- or at least until our society becomes perfectly homogenized. Don't hold your breath. Russell [1] The idea of a perfect meritocracy where objective criteria determine who is selected for various jobs, entry to school, and so forth, is chimerical. For example, popular entertainers have a leg up in their career if they display "sex appeal". How, pray tell, would this be objectively measured? Lest one think that this pertains only to a few jobs, consider all the other jobs whose objectively measured success depends on the very subjective reaction of other people to those who hold the job, from waitstaff in restaurants to salesmen. [2] It is possible to recognize the obvious truth that a person is not determined by the groups in which one falls and at the same time realize that a person's values, habits, and social knowledge are largely influenced by these groups. The statistical nature of this tie is sufficient for the argument made above, but far from sufficient to knock down the 'voluntarist paradigm' so naively attacked in recent postings here.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (10/17/89)
I'm not convinced that it IS temporary.
For one thing, what if it doesn't work? I've already suggested that trying
to bias against the bias usually doesn't work. If the discrepancies
continue, people will say "not long enough yet!" and the programs will never
go away. Noreover, eventually there develops a constituency which wants to
keep the programs in place precisely BECAUSE they feel they can gain an
advantage from them. These programs have a history of becoming exceedingly
well-entrenched.
Steve Losen hints at the right solution, but gives up before he follows it
through. The system, as it exists now, places very heavy weight on
"qualifications". People who "fall behind" early on tend to fall further
behind as things progress-- "them that have, gets". AA programs, in this
context, tend to aid the not-as-disadvantaged minority over the more
disadvantaged majority member. This is a problem for two reasons. One, its
fairness is questionable, and indeed, it looks unfair when divested of the
mumbo-jumbo of sociology. Second, and more important, is that it creates a
new class of the disadvantaged, who are not only so, but are held to be
deserving of this. Such a class tends toward anti-social behavior for the
most logical of reasons. It is hardly any surprise that the young male
high-school graduate is inclined towards a hatred of "liberal/progressive"
values, since the powerful in society tread upon them the most.
It's pretty obvious that AA programs have the effect of increasing social
tensions. And while I don't think that this is necessarily a view which we
must honor completely, "tough" is not a reply which is good for society. AA
programs have the effect of forcing division. AA programs elicit the
question, "is she any good, or is she here just because of AA?"
C. Wingate + "Our God, to whom we turn when weary with illusion,
+ whose stars serenely burn above this earth's confusion,
mangoe@cs.umd.edu + thine is the mightly plan, the steadfast order sure
mimsy!mangoe + in which the world began, endures, and shall endure."geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (10/18/89)
In article <7052@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >representation. The reason is that cultural groups, such as the >Amish, the Vietnamese boat people, and Haitian immigrants, are >characterized not just by race, but also by different values, >customs, and desires [2]. Such differences would prevent all the >various groups that comprise our society from being >proportionately represented in schools, jobs, and income, even in >a perfect meritocracy. And because some of these groups are >racially correlated, proportional representation would also be >absent at the racial level. In short, the need for affirmative >action will continue forever -- or at least until our society >becomes perfectly homogenized. Don't hold your breath. > In a way, affirmative action is a type of cultural imperialism, and a means by which the dominant white, liberal, eastern establishment culture can impose its values on minority subcultures. A good example of this can be found in the influence of government affirmative action policies in professional education on the hispanic and native American populations of the southwest US. These cultures have had strong traditions in art and literature, but have prized science less strongly. Affimative action programs have materially rewarded those minority students who wish to pursue careers in fields such as medicine and engineering where the underrepresentation was assumed to be because of discrimination. Those who are successful in these programs are then held up to the young people of those cultures as role models. In this way, the values of the culture can be altered by the policies of the government toward those of the mainstream culture, and the traditional values of the culture, which are not rewarded in the same way are slowly suppressed. The conflict sometimes comes into the open. One of my acquaintences, who is the first Navajo indian to get a Ph.D. in science was giving a demonstration of lasers to Navajo school children. Afterwards, he was told by some of the conservative tribal elders that they didn't think lasers were good for the Navajo people.
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/18/89)
In article <1058@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> scl@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU (Stephen C. Losen) writes: >Most opponents of affirmative action don't seem to realize that >AA is a temporary measure. A kluge, a hack, a patch. In an ideal Would you mind to tell us *when* this temporary measure will be ended? (A *date* please.) If you can't give a date would you mind to explain why are you so sure that it is a temporary measures? >Clearly no one believes that we are living in such an ideal society now. Even if the situation is bad, there is no justification to make it worse... >Let me cite a small example. Back in the days of discrimination, all >government road building contracts in the state of Virginia went to white >construction firms, making it impossible for black contractors to get any >road projects. When discrimination became illegal, the state of Virginia >had to hand out road contracts purely on the basis of merit. Is anyone >surprised that absolutely nothing changed? That all the road contracts >continued to go to white contractors? This was perfectly legal under the >new law bacause the white contractors were indeed more qualified. After >all, they had built all the other roads in the state. You just forgot to mention that the case went to the court and the decision was that only black contractor who were discriminated should get AA advantages. I ask you one question: Should a woman who was not discriminated (aside from "the neighbors did not hired me to cut the grass when I was a teenager") get AA advantages? >Clearly it is not sufficient to simply declare discrimination to be illegal >and continue afterward with business as usual. Why would not you start with this and see if it will work? I would like to see large fines for managers who don't hire the best candidate, even if his company gave a large pork-barrel to the feminists (quota). >I personally do not like >discrimination in any form and I freely admit that AA is reverse >discrimination. What you *do* is what you are. If you discriminate against the kids of the Vietnamese boat people because "we already have too many asians in our school/company etc." then you're racist. Period. >But I also realize that some sort of temporary, corrective >action must be taken to undo the damage of past discrimination. \begin{sarcasm} The name of minorities' companies was hurt by WedTech. Should not we increase their AA quotas to help them get over that bad name? \end{sarcasm} >Perhaps AA is not the best solution. That's the best solution that the feminist movement can find. They've just fell in love with their pork-barrel... >Perhaps there should be more emphasis on education. Most teachers are women. Do you expect the *feminist* movement to push them to do a better job? >But might this not require preferential >college admission to traditionally under-represented social groups? 50 years ago there were very few asians in the top universities. Do you consider the asians "traditionally under-represented"? If not, why not? >Should we simply give up, realizing that no solution is truly fair, thus >writing off as hopeless the current imbalance and praying that everything >works out on its own after two or three generations? I say we must fix the >problem now, for not doing anything is also unfair. Do you know how to solve the problem? Why don't you start you experiment in one state and if it works (fat chance...) move on? Why is it so important to you that if your sociological theory is wrong you would screw up *everybody*? >Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu When I do it to you it's sexism When you do it to me it's feminism
mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Damballah Wedo) (10/19/89)
> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (in <8910170205.AA13650@mimsy.UMD.EDU>): > It's pretty obvious that AA programs have the effect of increasing social > tensions. It's not obvious to me. Can you elaborate on why AA programs increase social tensions? > AA programs have the effect of forcing division. AA programs elicit the > question, "is she any good, or is she here just because of AA?" As opposed to the question that would otherwise be asked, which is "why is she here, and not out making coffee or having babies or something?" People who ask that question are simply expressing prejudices that are present regardless of AA. I've been exposed to that reasoning many times: she should not be here in the first place, because this is a man's job; therefore, her being here at all must have been because of preferential treatment forced on by AA programs. As a black man, I've seen this mentality in action many times; I've also seen it applied to black people (including myself.) The funniest part of it is that AFTER you've proven to these people that you know what you're doing, they use YOU as example of "the way it ought to be; take the most qualified." -- Marcel-Franck Simon mingus@attunix.ATT.COM, attunix!mingus " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale' Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Damballah Wedo) (10/19/89)
> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) (in <15796@duke.cs.duke.edu>): > >Most opponents of affirmative action don't seem to realize that > >AA is a temporary measure. A kluge, a hack, a patch. In an ideal > > Would you mind to tell us *when* this temporary measure will be ended? > (A *date* please.) If you can't give a date would you mind to explain > why are you so sure that it is a temporary measures? The Asian/Pacific Islander affected group (commonly called Orientals) has achieved a high degree of penetration in the workforce. As a result, some companies are redirecting their efforts to identify minority candidates and ensure their representation in the hiring process. In short, we seem to be reaching a steady state with respect to Asians coming into the workforce. Which makes less necessary the efforts to make sure they are represented. This, I think, is a Good Thing. -- Marcel-Franck Simon mingus@attunix.ATT.COM, attunix!mingus " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale' Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
mangoe@cs.UMD.EDU (Charley Wingate) (10/26/89)
A reply to Marcel-Franck Simon: >> It's pretty obvious that AA programs have the effect of increasing social >> tensions. >It's not obvious to me. Can you elaborate on why AA programs increase >social tensions? Let me rephrase that: I find it obvious, because I can see such tensions. I have heard a man accept with a straight face, "You can't understand my problems because you aren't a woman." It is highly interesting, though, that people are generally willing to assume they understand the fellings and motives of the suposedly sexist men-- or to totally disregard them. Considering the importance of these people to the problem, this seems to be misdirected. I try to override my own prejudices as far as possible. At the same time, I hear plenty of people complaining about the behavior of minorities. Every workplace in the DC area seems to have some people who rely on their race or sex for immunity from being fired. A discrimination suit seems to be a non-empty threat. These sentiments are there. >> AA programs have the effect of forcing division. AA programs elicit the >> question, "is she any good, or is she here just because of AA?" >As opposed to the question that would otherwise be asked, which is >"why is she here, and not out making coffee or having babies or something?" It's not opposed to it at all; indeed, the first question may well lead right to the second, as a rationalization. -- C. Wingate + "Taste and touch and vision to discern thee fail; + faith, that comes by hearing, pierces through the veil. mangoe@cs.umd.edu + I believe whate'er the Son of God hath told; mimsy!mangoe + what the Truth hath spoken, that for truth I Hold."