Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: AA: The belief that URM's are inherently inferior, and can't compete  (Read 23439 times)

Stole Your Nose!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: AA: The belief that URM's are inherently inferior, and can't compete
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2009, 11:10:14 AM »
The woman thing is a crappy argument that plays fast and loose with the facts.  It suggests that women are the biggest beneficiaries of AA because they now have a much higher representation in corporate america, colleges, law schools, etc. With the exception of a few fields, women no longer receive any AA bump because their qualifications are now equal to or superior to white males. It suggests causation where it isn't necessarily there.   

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: AA: The belief that URM's are inherently inferior, and can't compete
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2009, 01:27:49 AM »
Oh yeah, Stole Your Nose?

Here are some links that should make you redefine your concept of affirmative Action and who it helps. I have a ton of them, but I pulled five random. The first is one of the better ones.

BTW non parata est : There's MUCH data supporting the proposition that AA benefits white women more than ethnic minorities.

You have to read this article
http://aapf.org/focus/episodes/oct30.php

Read Paragraph #5
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html

An Editorial at U-Dayton Law: the writer is perplexed at apathy of White women
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm23.htm

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/pkivel.html

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm


One thing I want you to keep in mind. I realize that there appears to be an inherent contradiction in saying that AA programs should continue to exist, while arguing that they do not benefit my group (or some groups) as much as another/others. I am not an AA proponent, because I do not like the stigmatization that comes with it, particularly a form directed at Blacks and URM's, labeling them comparatively "UNDER-qualified", at best, "UN-qualified" un the worst cases.

You must understand, AA is not supposed to be about quotas or allowing jobs and college admission to UN-qualified persons, or even those who are LESS qualified; it is simply aimed at leveling the playing field for those who are equally qualified but who, absent AA, might be discriminated against.

But, while I believe that some controled measures are still needed, I am against AA in its current form, and I denounce scholarships, training programs or consortiums that exclude disadvantaged whites while aiming to increase access for URM's.   

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: AA: The belief that URM's are inherently inferior, and can't compete
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2009, 01:35:49 AM »
(including white women, its primary beneficiaries)

All right, this has been troubling me for a while now.  What's the source for this?  The only report I've been able to find on this is a DoL statement from 1995.  Is there anything to suggest that this is still true?

There's no source for it because it's inaccurate, at least as referring to college and professional school admissions.  You may be interested in this thread where this claim was discussed and/or thrown around without support.

College admissions AA no longer favors white women because, within THAT sphere, it has worked for them; they no longer need it. But look at the picture holistically...white women still need AA in employment. But the increased number of those who are better off, and who are likely married to white men and raising children with them, will ensure that a good number of their kids have full access to education and jobs.

The fact is, a white woman can more easily mitigate her disadvantages by marrying a white man. So her worries are not the same as those of Black women, who are (for myriad complex reasons) often single mothers whose inequities have a more deleterious effect on their access to jobs and resources, and their kids' education by extension.

Remember, familial networks and intergenerational wealth, or lack thereof, impact the socioeconomic progress each group makes. White women can more easily grow up poor and rise above poverty because of skin color, beauty, familial networks and a bevvy of resources that have been in place for over a century. 

Stole Your Nose!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: AA: The belief that URM's are inherently inferior, and can't compete
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2009, 07:58:14 AM »
The only halfway decent source was the APA one, and I don't think it included much helpful information.  Your "Understanding Prejudice.com" source just posts the myths and says "But no! Here is a random fact that doesn't actually prove anything, but it is a fact. So there!" I can see why that argument style appeals to you. A random opinion editorial at U-Dayton? Geeze. I have been wrong! Now I've seen the light!

Even your "Best" source just states the dubious proposition, again, without explaining or justifying it.  Repetition doesn't make it true. It is playing fast and loose with defining AA, defining "beneficiary," and causation. You need to learn some critical reading skills -- just because it's published on the web somewhere doesn't mean it has value.

AA advocates WANT to be aligned with white women; the tide against AA is shifting, it is coming up for  vote, and now more than ever they need additional support.  AA is primarily for entry barriers; it is rarely used for women any longer.  Nothing I have ever applied to has in any way given me additional consideration because I am a woman. And I'm sorry, but I will be making a hell of a lot more money than my white man. HTH. Your assumptions about white women are pretty offensive. Glad to know I can grow up poor, but sleep my way to the top and rely upon my network of bumpkin cousins to get my jobs! Thank God I didn't have to do anything like take a test well! 

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: AA: The belief that URM's are inherently inferior, and can't compete
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2009, 04:06:07 PM »
The only halfway decent source was the APA one, and I don't think it included much helpful information.  Your "Understanding Prejudice.com" source just posts the myths and says "But no! Here is a random fact that doesn't actually prove anything, but it is a fact. So there!" I can see why that argument style appeals to you. A random opinion editorial at U-Dayton? Geeze. I have been wrong! Now I've seen the light!

Even your "Best" source just states the dubious proposition, again, without explaining or justifying it.  Repetition doesn't make it true. It is playing fast and loose with defining AA, defining "beneficiary," and causation. You need to learn some critical reading skills -- just because it's published on the web somewhere doesn't mean it has value.

AA advocates WANT to be aligned with white women; the tide against AA is shifting, it is coming up for  vote, and now more than ever they need additional support.  AA is primarily for entry barriers; it is rarely used for women any longer.  Nothing I have ever applied to has in any way given me additional consideration because I am a woman. And I'm sorry, but I will be making a hell of a lot more money than my white man. HTH. Your assumptions about white women are pretty offensive. Glad to know I can grow up poor, but sleep my way to the top and rely upon my network of bumpkin cousins to get my jobs! Thank God I didn't have to do anything like take a test well! 

You are somewhat correct. That is why we say it has benefitted white women more. But you want actual data, I'll look for it. Nobody said anything about "sleeping your way to the top", but white women do tend to have familial networks that cannot be ignored. Whether you want to accept it or not, white skin-color, itself, is a distinct advantage in this country, and you do not realize the benefits you receive because you have received them since birth. Believe me, if your status as a white woman has not already impacted a hiring decision in your favor, it will at some point.

This does not go to say that you are unqualified for jobs or admission to school, at all. In fact, what it says is that, on some levels, AA works! Schools and employers are supposed to seek out "qualified minorities", not unqualified or less-qualified minorities.

And, for anyone who wants me to show evidence, it's fair to ask that. I do not insist on circular reasoning. I'll get hard data. I may have to go to the DOL website or something. 

But, you should be held to that same standard. Produce some evidence or data refuting my assertion(s).

You are also missing the point of my "best source". It debunks the myth that ethnic minorities are the primary beneficiaries of AA and calls on Whites to notice the media's manipulation of popular opinion and myth. It also asks, in a very subtle way, why so many people are accepting of the myths, particularly where Blacks are concerned. Is it fear of an ultimate loss of scarce resources? To me, that is the bigger question.

Look, I understand how Whites (and others) can ask, "If Blacks are qualified, why don't they want to compete on merit alone? According to them, they're not the primary beneficiaries of AA, so why do they fight so hard to keep it?"

The answers are complex, but here are two considerations: 1) "Merit" is ambiguously defined in our culture, and with no real definition, there's no fair application; how can there be? 2) History has proven that there are too many unwilling gatekeepers in power to trust that true merit will guide the decision-making processes, even if it can be defined.

On the flip side, opponents either believe either AA works or they don't.  If it doesn't, AA proponents argue, they shouldn't be so quick to end AA, rather than adjust it so that it does work. If it is working, there are clearly groups whose socioeconomic status, or those resources that would improve it, have not been fully impacted by it. So why end it altogether, rather than modify it? 

Some AA opponents reject AA saying that it "has run its course" and does not benefit the most needy groups, anyways. They typically cite evidence that middle-class Blacks have gained from AA more than have poor Blacks. They ask, "Wouldn't it be prudent to find implement more class-based systems that target the poor?"

Blacks argue the following: "If AA doesn't work, what do AA opponents propose in the alternative?"  Class-based systems would be inherently arbitrary, especially in these hard economic times. Who would qualify as "poor" or most "in need"? On what bases would we define this? What legislation would be enacted to ensure that standards aren't changed at-will within employment and education sectors?

Many AA advocates fear that class-based action would be open to manipulation due to ambiguities in the definitions of underpriviledged or poor. Morever, the gate-keeper element still implies that there exists a contingent of folks who would be inclined to direct the action at poor Whites instead of Blacks, if the opportunity were to exist.

Besides, the AA oponent argument is, on its face, as inherently contradictory as that of the advocates. If AA doesn't work why are you in such a hurry to end it? If it only works for middle-class Blacks, isn't that part of the equation, the goal? Do middle-class Blacks NOT deserve to benefit from AA, based on the gatekeeper argument? Are they not vulnerable to racist policies absent any legal protection? And further, what are the overall societal implications of an economic backslide for middle-class Blacks?

And here's one other consideration: Some uninformed opponents argue that White women do not benefit from AA as much as people of color. Isn't it rather ironic that, as the perceived heightened progress of White women has become more recognized, outcries against AA have gotten louder? "Correlation", is not necessarily "Causation", I know, but it's worth considering.   

And, if Stole Your Nose and many other White women will make more than their White men, it only further supports my contention that AA has traditionally enabled White women more than URM's. But do not think, for one second, that employment opportunities are unrelated to education; they are connected intergenerationally. If mom gets better job opportunities via AA and makes more money, daughter and son live in better neighborhoods and go to better schools. AA is about ACCESS!

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: AA: The belief that URM's are inherently inferior, and can't compete
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2009, 06:10:40 PM »
Ow, my head.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.


Stole Your Nose!

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: AA: The belief that URM's are inherently inferior, and can't compete
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2009, 06:53:17 PM »
A lot of paragraphs, but didn't see anything actually buttressing the only point that I really opposed.  And you said women can use their beauty and feminine wiles or whatever to get ahead.  Eyeroll.

I'm conflicted on AA, but crap, misleading arguments don't help the debate on either side.

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: AA: The belief that URM's are inherently inferior, and can't compete
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2009, 05:18:26 PM »
A lot of paragraphs, but didn't see anything actually buttressing the only point that I really opposed.  And you said women can use their beauty and feminine wiles or whatever to get ahead.  Eyeroll.

I'm conflicted on AA, but crap, misleading arguments don't help the debate on either side.

Well, surely you wouldn't be elitist enough to begrudge me an op-ed from ANY school, would you? lol. And you made many points. My eye is on the 8-ball, which goes to say, more towards proving my point than responding to yours. You raise good points, esp. when it comes to providing evidence, which is where we stand. I have had little time to research the stats. And I will confess, I, like everyone on this site, have become so used to citing a particular stat that I have never thought to look up the actual data behind it. Just like the people on this site who keep regurgitating the LSAC statistics that "correlate" LSAT scores with first-year law performance.

Everyone who scores well believes and hides behind it, but has never seen the actual data. They've seen statistical reports, not data. So...forgive me for this transgression, but I believe the evidence is out there for two reasons: 1) it makes sense, based on the socioecomic progress of White women in comparison to that of Blacks, and 2) too many authorities have citied it (unlike the case with the LSAT, which is cited only by those parties whose self-interested motives are in keeping with its institution).   

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: AA: The belief that URM's are inherently inferior, and can't compete
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2009, 05:39:09 PM »
A lot of paragraphs, but didn't see anything actually buttressing the only point that I really opposed.  And you said women can use their beauty and feminine wiles or whatever to get ahead.  Eyeroll.

I'm conflicted on AA, but crap, misleading arguments don't help the debate on either side.

Well, surely you wouldn't be elitist enough to begrudge me an op-ed from ANY school, would you? lol. And you made many points. My eye is on the 8-ball, which goes to say, more towards proving my point than responding to yours. You raise good points, esp. when it comes to providing evidence, which is where we stand. I have had little time to research the stats. And I will confess, I, like everyone on this site, have become so used to citing a particular stat that I have never thought to look up the actual data behind it. Just like the people on this site who keep regurgitating the LSAC statistics that "correlate" LSAT scores with first-year law performance.

Everyone who scores well believes and hides behind it, but has never seen the actual data. They've seen statistical reports, not data. So...forgive me for this transgression, but I believe the evidence is out there for two reasons: 1) it makes sense, based on the socioecomic progress of White women comparison to that of Blacks, and 2) too many authorities have citied it (unlike the case with the LSAT, which is cited only by those parties whose self-interested motives are in keeping with its institution).   

Do you only post when you're high?

Let me get this str8...I have to be high to admit a fault (albeit a trendy one)?