QUESTION FOR AMERICANS ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

[EdinTally]

PR,

Your link does not provide adequate information in order to draw the conclusion whether or not Blacks or Women have benefited more from AA.  There does not appear to be any information on the percentage increase of Blacks (or I was unable to find it).  It's not that I doubt your premise, I just don't see how you get there with the information you cited.

[Miss P]

For one, Blacks aren't the main beneficiaries of affirmative action...White women are.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion.  Do you have any evidence of any statement by any admissions department at any coeducational university expressing a preference for women in admissions decisions?  If so, what evidence do you have that such preferences are widespread?  If white women were beneficiaries of affirmative action, you would expect to see women getting into educational institutions with lower grades and test scores than white male applicants.  Do you have any evidence that this is occurring?

"Contrary to popular belief, African Americans are not the sole, or even the primary, beneficiaries of affirmative action. Rather, a wide range of groups have benefited from these policies which promote equality by directing resources, outreach and other opportunities to targeted underrepresented communities.

"These groups include women, Native Americans, Arab Americans, Latino/as, Asian Americans, and African Americans. Of these groups, the United States Department of Labor found that white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action."

http://aapf.org/focus/episodes/oct30.php

I can totally get down with this, but it's important to recognize that this report says that the other groups "have benefited," not that they are currently direct beneficiaries.  Moreover, it is about employment in addition to education.  White women are not the primary direct beneficiaries of affirmative action in school admissions today (though they may be in some science and technical fields); white men are.

[naturallybeyoutiful]

tag

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

There are no affirmative action policies in place that benefit white women (at least in the college admissions game, which is what is generally considered on this board). White women are treated exactly the same as white men by admissions departments. Don't be a dummy.

I haven't commented on these boards in I don't know how long but this statement is flat out incorrect.  It has been long established that white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA policies in this country.

[Miss P]

There are no affirmative action policies in place that benefit white women (at least in the college admissions game, which is what is generally considered on this board). White women are treated exactly the same as white men by admissions departments. Don't be a dummy.

I haven't commented on these boards in I don't know how long but this statement is flat out incorrect.  It has been long established that white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA policies in this country.

This is true in many ways, and especially in terms of the residual effects of affirmative action programs.  Nonetheless, it's not true, currently, that white women, or women in general, are the direct beneficiaries of affirmative action in contemporary college and professional school admissions outside of some scientific and technical fields.  The current beneficiaries, especially in college admissions, are men, and largely white men.  They just call it "gender parity" instead of "affirmative action."

[Jamie Stringer]

There are no affirmative action policies in place that benefit white women (at least in the college admissions game, which is what is generally considered on this board). White women are treated exactly the same as white men by admissions departments. Don't be a dummy.

I haven't commented on these boards in I don't know how long but this statement is flat out incorrect.  It has been long established that white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA policies in this country.

This is true in many ways, and especially in terms of the residual effects of affirmative action programs.  Nonetheless, it's not true, currently, that white women, or women in general, are the direct beneficiaries of affirmative action in contemporary college and professional school admissions outside of some scientific and technical fields.  The current beneficiaries, especially in college admissions, are men, and largely white men.  They just call it "gender parity" instead of "affirmative action."

Absolutely right.  I wonder if all the white males who complain about AA will now give up their spots at T-14 law schools because it's just not fair.  Or maybe I should tell my white male classmates they're only at my law school because of AA?  Talk about The Matrix and bending the spoon...

[Papa Bear]

Putting aside the controversy about what group AA actually benefits, I think the OP still has a valid, interesting question, which is why people in the U.S. tend to frame AA (and really almost every other EP/Antidiscrimination issue) in terms of race.  More specifically, we think about them in terms of Black and White.  My short answer is that people don't think women are as disadvantaged by discrimination as Black people are, so people are more likely to point to Blacks as the primary beneficiary, whether or not that's correct.  Additionally, some people have a problem with government programs that are not based on merit, and for a number of reasons think that Blacks generally lack as much merit, whether or not that's correct.  These two views converge to racialize almost every entitlement program in the U.S.  For instance, when a U.S. person imagines the quintessential "welfare mother," they probably (and unfortunately) imagine her as being Black.

[drfaiso1]

I am a man and fine with more women in cooolllllleeegggggee and Law schoooll!!!!

I'm sorry, but I don't know where you get the idea that white women are currently the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action in college and university admissions.  At least in undergraduate admissions, women outnumber men by about 60-40, and their numerical qualifications (except for math SATs) tend to be higher, so schools employ some form of affirmative action to get closer to gender parity.  Men, of course, are the beneficiaries of such affirmative action.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23britz.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/21/local/me-boys21
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-02-our-view_x.htm

[LawDog3]

At the risk of sounding redundant, those who contend that white women are the primary beneficiaries of AA are 100% correct, based on just about every formal study, survey and poll done on the issue.

Some whites (but not all) need a scapegoat, and Blacks are it. Even worse, other so-called ethnic minorities are more biased against Blacks than are whites. Moreover, it gets tiresome always hearing people talk as if numerical data equates with "merit". If that were the case, many white athletes would never make a dime in the NFL or NBA, because Blacks either match or out-perform them on the "standardized exams" the leagues give.

And the battery of physical exams are a good parallel to the LSAT: If one's vertical jump, bench press, 40 time, and college scoring average were the only metrics used in the NBA, would we have ever seen Larry Bird? Maybe, maybe not. After all, his lack of vertical leaping ability and foot speed were indicators of failure, while his scoring average, passing, assists and project management (i.e., "game performance") indicated potential stardom.

It works that way with some law applicants. Some don't have stats that indicate law school success, but they have soft factors that are stronger indicators of their potential.

A lot of people, regardless of "stats", can just perform...period. Stats don't explain it; they can just perform when it comes time to do so. This phenominon permeates just about any profession. For example, how many great musicians can't read or write music? How many great (music/movie) producers cannot operate complex computers, instraments or machines (like P. Diddy and Steven Spielberg). Imagine Diddy having to pass a standardized exam on music theory or studio engineering...he might pass, or he might not. But we know one thing, his skills are indescribable, and he gets things done; he knows what sounds good, he can spot talent and he makes stars.

This is not to say that data, stats and the like are useless, because they are not. It's just that part of the problems with discussing abstract topics, like "merit", "freedom" or "equality", is that they cannot easily be defined. Yet our definitions and our applications of such terms are often too self-interested to be anything but devisive. 

[Miss P]

At the risk of sounding redundant, those who contend that white women are the primary beneficiaries of AA are 100% correct, based on just about every formal study, survey and poll done on the issue.

This is historically true in the employment market, but it is not currently true in school admissions.

FWIW, I agree with you (entirely) about the rest of your post, and I am a strong supporter of affirmative action.