Middle Class Blacks Do Not Need AA

[1LCorvo]

However, any student of David Hume ...

I was only at the University of Edinburgh for a semester, but I still get a warm and fuzzy feeling every time I hear this guy's name mentioned. :-D

BTW, David Hume is a fantastic philosopher...

[jillibean]

However, any student of David Hume ...

I was only at the University of Edinburgh for a semester, but I still get a warm and fuzzy feeling every time I hear this guy's name mentioned. :-D

Midgets are also underrepresented, ought we to create legislation to ensure that they are represented. How about basketball players? Your reasoning is apparently flawed.
How you perform academically is ultimately tied to your available resources. If you have to money to afford a tutor, you purchase one. When does race become a factor? Are schools denying blacks the opportunity to learn? Perhaps in 1947, but not in 2007 (maybe in isolated events). However, middle class blacks do not suffer from the same economic obstacles that poor whites, asians, latinos, and blacks suffer from.

Moreover, I never argued that there should not be AA. That's a presumption on your part (also a straw-man fallacy). If AA is to exist, it must not be tied to race. All blacks do not need AA. Some blacks might need it, but not all. And, if they do need it, it is not because they are black. But, for other reasons like poverty.

I was going to reply to that one as well. As I said, Michael Jordan's kid doesn't need AA. He's rich no matter what. If he's an idiot and can't pass a class, he's going to be well-off. His dad went to college. He will go to college most likely. He can get tutors, go to an SAT class and a Prep School.

If you want to increase the number of black families in middle-class suburban and upper-class neighborhoods, you need to bring kids out of the lower-class inner-cities.

In fact, allowing AA to benefit rich or middle-class kids really only takes that opportunity away from a poor kid in the Bronx who needs it more.

Well guess what- a kid from the bronx and a middle-class black are most likely the same thing. The middle class is not the upper class- lets not get that confused. And no matter how much you talk about it there will never be a way to give just economically poor blacks AA and not to those who are well off- try to manage that one and I'm pretty sure that the whole system would go away pretty fast. Look up the actual purpose of AA and maybe that will make more sense- you can't just shut off one part of a group. There are programs out there for the disadvantaged, AA is not one of them and it was never supposed to be- it's based on race and sex.

[naturallybeyoutiful]

I've never been too fond of African Americans in the upper (middle) class. There is something rather duplicitous about them, yet I cannot put my finger on it. 

I wonder what kind of world we'd have if people in real positions of power--teachers, professors, policemen, judges, managers, supervisors, storekeepers, insurance agents, salesmen, medical professionals, lawyers, politicians, etc.--felt the the same way.  What kind of a mess would we really be in if people had the  unmitigated discretion and authority to make decisions consistent with their disdain (or, as you put it, lack of "fondness") for a particular group?  Imagine the way such attitudes from cradle to grave would likely affect the life chances of people from the impacted group.  Imagine why there would be a need for some measure to ensure that your highly subjective (and perhaps baseless) lack of "fondness" doesn't get a free pass to rear its ugly head unrestrained and unchecked whenever it fancies you to do so.

This is extraneous to the main discussion.

Not exactly.  I think there is strong correlation between attitudes and beliefs presently held and the actions they inspire.

However, even if I am not fond of a group's actions, it does not follow that I will deny them an opportunity of any sort.

In issues of the sort we are talking about, both history and experience prove otherwise. (btw - Your initial comment talked about not being fond of the people in and of themselves; you did not limit yourself to simply evaluating their actions.)

Moreover, it does not follow that legislation is needed to ensure that they'll receive these opportunities.  For instance, I might despise Dennis Rodman's antics off the court, but when he gets on the court, it is an entirely different ball game.

If you are comparing antics on a basketball court to a political, economic, academic, and cultural system that was built on a system of racial preferences for Europeans (at the expense of all others) that was in effect the day the first black Africans stepped off the boat in 1619 in Jamestown, VA -- I can see that this conversation is going nowhere fast. 

Race based AA presumes that how whites treated blacks in the past will continue in the future.  However, any student of David Hume will note there is a fallacy in that type of reasoning. One cannot project past regularities onto the future (neither deductive nor inductive reasoning ensures such a position). And, I reckon that many african americans (primarily those that benefit, apropos middle class blacks) will continue to use such logic (albeit fallacious logic).

Is this fallacy similar to the way that you presume that middle-class African Americans who have been "duplicitous" in the past will continue to be that way (thus, consistently evoking and justifying your lack of fondness) in the future?


To be clear -- I have no real desire to debate AA at this point.  Just yesterday I attended a conference where UCLA professor Richard Sander was presenting his same old arguments against AA, and it was clear that even he was unable to answer my questions sufficiently.  I did, however, find it necessary to get some clarification on some of the points you raised. 

Also, please note that it should not be inferred from any of my statements or the color of my skin that I am for or against AA.  I simply am interested in receiving an answer to the question I initially posed.

[1LCorvo]

I want to note a few things:

(1) A strong correlation does not imply necessary causation. Most of us are familiar with the dreaded LSAT, so this should be standard knowledge. Thus, even if one's presently held belief strongly correlate to actions inspired, it does not follow that they direct certain actions. Moreover, it is debatable that this claim applies to everyone. It might be the case that some people act in accordance to their presently held beliefs. But, again, it does not follow that all people will act. More importantly, it does not follow that they will always act in conjunction with their presently held beliefs. I'm not arguing that beliefs do not affect actions. Yet, I'm arguing that it does not necessarily follow...

(2) Even if I committ a similar fallacy (which is debatable), it does absolve you of the fact that you still committed the fallacy.
I trust that this isn't your argument is not as follows:

P1: You commited fallacy X, therefore your reasoning is flawed
P2: Well you committed fallacy X at time t, therefore your reasoning is also flawed
P1: However, you still committed the fallacy, so how will you fix your logic
P2: Well, you still committed the same fallacy, so how will you fix your logic too!
...ad infinitum

Invoking that I committed the same fallacy isn't a defense; it is a fallacy (see tu quoque fallacy). Pointing out fallacies can be annoying and fastidious. However, it is something that must be done to ensure reasonable and responsible discussion.

(3) I concede that we will probably gain little from this discussion. I'm sure I've done little to convert any of you to my position. And,suffice it to say that much has not changed on my side of the park as well. However, in due time, one must admit that AA will become obsolete for some. I think this applies to middle class blacks, just like it applies to middle class white females. But, only time will tell. In the end, however, I appreciate the discussion; and perhaps, I'll see you (meaning all) down the road.

[naturallybeyoutiful]

Hi 1L.  Thanks for your response.

1) A strong correlation does not imply necessary causation.

On this point, I am clear.  That is why I used the word correlation. 

(2) Even if I committ a similar fallacy (which is debatable), it does absolve you of the fact that you still committed the fallacy.

I'm assuming you mean that if you did commit a fallacy, it does NOT absolve me from having done the same.

I trust that this isn't your argument is not as follows:

P1: You commited fallacy X, therefore your reasoning is flawed
P2: Well you committed fallacy X at time t, therefore your reasoning is also flawed
P1: However, you still committed the fallacy, so how will you fix your logic
P2: Well, you still committed the same fallacy, so how will you fix your logic too!
...ad infinitum

If you were to trust that, you'd be correct.

Invoking that I committed the same fallacy isn't a defense; it is a fallacy (see tu quoque fallacy). Pointing out fallacies can be annoying and fastidious. However, it is something that must be done to ensure reasonable and responsible discussion.

On these points, we can agree.  My need for clarification on your part was meant to be neither a defense of my position (which I have not yet articulated) or an attack against your own.  My statement in no way should have led you to conclude that I discredited your arguments against AA because you committed a logical fallacy in stating your position about another matter.  Your third sentence above leads me to believe that we are both clear as to why logical fallacies must be pointed out.  While principles of logic alone are not sufficient to lead us to truth, they do go a long way in helping us to detect error. 

(3) I concede that we will probably gain little from this discussion. I'm sure I've done little to convert any of you to my position. And,suffice it to say that much has not changed on my side of the park as well. However, in due time, one must admit that AA will become obsolete for some.I think this applies to middle class blacks, just like it applies to middle class white females. But, only time will tell. In the end, however, I appreciate the discussion; and perhaps, I'll see you (meaning all) down the road.

I, too, appreciate the discussion.  Good luck to you in law school and beyond!

[Captain]

Well guess what- a kid from the bronx and a middle-class black are most likely the same thing. The middle class is not the upper class- lets not get that confused. And no matter how much you talk about it there will never be a way to give just economically poor blacks AA and not to those who are well off- try to manage that one and I'm pretty sure that the whole system would go away pretty fast. Look up the actual purpose of AA and maybe that will make more sense- you can't just shut off one part of a group. There are programs out there for the disadvantaged, AA is not one of them and it was never supposed to be- it's based on race and sex.

Um. Middle-class =/= lower-class. Sure, it isn't the same as upper-class either...

BUT, if we exclude the extremely wealthy from the equation: Middle Class families live in the same areas and towns as lower-upper class families. They often go to the same schools, hire the same tutors and SAT/Admissions consultants. Sure, the Middle Class kid might need financial aid to go to college whereas the upper-class kid has parents with enough money to pay for tuition in entirety.

I guess I don't much care about what the "basis" of AA was. I think the point of this thread is to talk about what it should be.

Having a purely race-based AA program is akin to saying that black people are incapable of doing well in school or on standardized tests. I don't believe this is true. Sure, the population of minority groups in Universities is not equivalent to the  population in general, BUT, this is not because middle-class kids of any race are being wrongfully denied admission to college.

There is a much larger percentage of minorities living in inner-cities, where the school districts/crime/etc. all work against them. If we are going to have AA, it should benefit these individuals.

And there damn well is a way to limit AA to the economically disadvantaged. When you apply to universities, they know where you went to school... if you went to a disadvantaged HS in Newark, they have a pretty good idea what sort of economic background you come from.

[donwario]

However, any student of David Hume ...

Well guess what- a kid from the bronx and a middle-class black are most likely the same thing. The middle class is not the upper class- lets not get that confused. And no matter how much you talk about it there will never be a way to give just economically poor blacks AA and not to those who are well off- try to manage that one and I'm pretty sure that the whole system would go away pretty fast. Look up the actual purpose of AA and maybe that will make more sense- you can't just shut off one part of a group. There are programs out there for the disadvantaged, AA is not one of them and it was never supposed to be- it's based on race and sex.

What is the actual purpose of AA?

[Captain]

However, any student of David Hume ...

Well guess what- a kid from the bronx and a middle-class black are most likely the same thing. The middle class is not the upper class- lets not get that confused. And no matter how much you talk about it there will never be a way to give just economically poor blacks AA and not to those who are well off- try to manage that one and I'm pretty sure that the whole system would go away pretty fast. Look up the actual purpose of AA and maybe that will make more sense- you can't just shut off one part of a group. There are programs out there for the disadvantaged, AA is not one of them and it was never supposed to be- it's based on race and sex.

What is the actual purpose of AA?

The purpose is to make the percentage of minority groups in higher education be equal to the percentage in the general population.

Apparently this works by taking kids who were going to go to college anyway, and sending them to Yale instead of Rutgers.

[donwario]

However, any student of David Hume ...

Well guess what- a kid from the bronx and a middle-class black are most likely the same thing. The middle class is not the upper class- lets not get that confused. And no matter how much you talk about it there will never be a way to give just economically poor blacks AA and not to those who are well off- try to manage that one and I'm pretty sure that the whole system would go away pretty fast. Look up the actual purpose of AA and maybe that will make more sense- you can't just shut off one part of a group. There are programs out there for the disadvantaged, AA is not one of them and it was never supposed to be- it's based on race and sex.

What is the actual purpose of AA?

The purpose is to make the percentage of minority groups in higher education be equal to the percentage in the general population.
Apparently this works by taking kids who were going to go to college anyway, and sending them to Yale instead of Rutgers.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court allows AA as an instument to make the percentage of minority groups in higher education equal to the percentage in the general population? Which case does that come from? I thought the Supreme Court ruled that AA could be used by schools to promote diversity for the benefit of the school if the school desired to do so.

[donwario]

Wow...no wonder we have so many problems.

?