ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world

[7S]

relative to most.

to most what? people? I doubt it.

Narrowly-tailored race, gender and class concious affirmative action programs.

Okay.  Do you feel they should be race/gender conscious beyond a tipping point?  If so, why?  Do you believe race and gender inherenetly affect academic performance?  If so, how? If not, how/why should it be relevant in admissions decisions?  (Assuming we're seeking equality of opportunity, and not an opportunity of results.)

I think race and gender inherently affect access to opportunity.

Race and gender will always play a part in our decision-making.

Why?  Isn't that a choice?  Should it? 

Sounds like an awfully negative attitude.  Where did you learn that?
[/quote]

It's not a negative view, it's realistic. Human bias is just natural.

[Lindbergh]

relative to most.

to most what? people? I doubt it.

Well, objective measures would indicate otherwise, but I'm sure your opinion is more important. 

Narrowly-tailored race, gender and class concious affirmative action programs.

Okay.  Do you feel they should be race/gender conscious beyond a tipping point?  If so, why?  Do you believe race and gender inherenetly affect academic performance?  If so, how? If not, how/why should it be relevant in admissions decisions?  (Assuming we're seeking equality of opportunity, and not an opportunity of results.)

I think race and gender inherently affect access to opportunity.

Okay, that's fine, but you really need to explain how they affect access to law schools if you want to get others to support your ideas.  If they somehow affect hiring or promotions down the road, that should presumably be dealt with at that level.  However, it appears from the EEOC report that urms are actually preferred in hiring as well today.

Race and gender will always play a part in our decision-making.

Why?  Isn't that a choice?  Should it? 


Sounds like an awfully negative attitude.  Where did you learn that?
[/quote]

It's not a negative view, it's realistic. Human bias is just natural.

Okay, so you've been brainwashed into believing that people will always be racist and sexist, no matter what.

Couple questions:  Do you think preferences make that bias greater, or smaller? (I hope you'll at least recognize that the degre of bias can be variable.) 

And should government be in the business of actively discriminating unless a clear justification can be shown for such discrimination? 

I'll again note that recent studies show that urms are currently preferred in legal hiring. If this is the case, does that change the rationale for preferencs?

[Lindbergh]

I too think people are not necessarily racist or sexist.

I think racism/sexism is certainly part of the human condition, and is deeply ingrained in many people.  However, I also think it can clearly be exacerbated by unfair, inequitable, or otherwise discriminatory treatment.  For this reason, it is important that any such discrimination/preferences, in either direction, be carefully examined and justified before acceptance.  It's foolish to think that poor whites and asians won't have their outlooks and perceptions affected by overbroad policies that grant preferences to wealthier minorities, and that this won't in turn create more bias and discrimination down the road. 

What would happen if all admissions were done anonymously, for example? Using an assigned number, all candidates would simply keep their names off their applications. Other safeguards in place, eventually, after a few generations of working out the kinks, couldn't we have a "fair" system of admissions to law schools? Color-blind? Is this even a remote possibility?

Well, I don't think most AA supporters feel it is really racism among adcoms that is the problem (although some do hint at this).

The thing that irks me in ALL situations regarding affirmative-action, color-blindness, etc., is that a vested interest on the part of one minority party prevents that party from dealing in across-the-board changes. If the Jews want more Jews in Harlem Law School, then the rule can't be "more racially blind admissions," it has to be, "More Jews admitted." Then if someone tweaks that to change it to, "More whites, less blacks, admitted," suddenly the Jews are angry that "their" slots are taken by Italians. When were they "their" slots in the first place?

I agree that self-interest among certain groups is a problem here, and I will note that asians are generally harmed far more than whites by AA, which is probably one reason more privileged whites often aren't opposed to it.  It's easy to overlook questionable policies when they don't impact you directly. 

I'm mostly a rabid left winger. I liked Howard Dean's big ol' yelp a coupl'a years back. But I can't seem to reconcile affirmative action with the whole "I have a dream" thing about "not by the color of his skin." I keep wanting to say to the politically correct types, "I thought you were all proud of being the supposedly more tolerant side."

While King's words clearly struck a chord with most Americans, others will note that King also felt it was not enough to simply take shackles off blacks in the middle of the race and then expect them to be able to fairly compete.  To me, however, it would appear that accounting for educational opportunity (the legacy of historical discrimination) would largely address this. 

[7S]

I too think people are not necessarily racist or sexist. What would happen if all admissions were done anonymously, for example? Using an assigned number, all candidates would simply keep their names off their applications. Other safeguards in place, eventually, after a few generations of working out the kinks, couldn't we have a "fair" system of admissions to law schools? Color-blind? Is this even a remote possibility?

The thing that irks me in ALL situations regarding affirmative-action, color-blindness, etc., is that a vested interest on the part of one minority party prevents that party from dealing in across-the-board changes. If the Jews want more Jews in Harlem Law School, then the rule can't be "more racially blind admissions," it has to be, "More Jews admitted." Then if someone tweaks that to change it to, "More whites, less blacks, admitted," suddenly the Jews are angry that "their" slots are taken by Italians. When were they "their" slots in the first place?

I'm mostly a rabid left winger. I liked Howard Dean's big ol' yelp a coupl'a years back. But I can't seem to reconcile affirmative action with the whole "I have a dream" thing about "not by the color of his skin." I keep wanting to say to the politically correct types, "I thought you were all proud of being the supposedly more tolerant side."

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

[t...]

Explain "general equality of opportunity" in full. I'm still unclear what that means.

 

[Lindbergh]

I too think people are not necessarily racist or sexist. What would happen if all admissions were done anonymously, for example? Using an assigned number, all candidates would simply keep their names off their applications. Other safeguards in place, eventually, after a few generations of working out the kinks, couldn't we have a "fair" system of admissions to law schools? Color-blind? Is this even a remote possibility?

The thing that irks me in ALL situations regarding affirmative-action, color-blindness, etc., is that a vested interest on the part of one minority party prevents that party from dealing in across-the-board changes. If the Jews want more Jews in Harlem Law School, then the rule can't be "more racially blind admissions," it has to be, "More Jews admitted." Then if someone tweaks that to change it to, "More whites, less blacks, admitted," suddenly the Jews are angry that "their" slots are taken by Italians. When were they "their" slots in the first place?

I'm mostly a rabid left winger. I liked Howard Dean's big ol' yelp a coupl'a years back. But I can't seem to reconcile affirmative action with the whole "I have a dream" thing about "not by the color of his skin." I keep wanting to say to the politically correct types, "I thought you were all proud of being the supposedly more tolerant side."

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

Racism in society may affect the kinds of schools minorities end up attending, the amount of parental resources available to support them, and (potentially) how much time a student can devote to his studies if he also has to work.  That's why I support taking such factors into account in admissions.

My questions:  1)  Why not extend the same consideration to all applicants, who are also impacted by those factors?  2)  Why extend additional preferences after those factors are controlled for?

[7S]

I too think people are not necessarily racist or sexist. What would happen if all admissions were done anonymously, for example? Using an assigned number, all candidates would simply keep their names off their applications. Other safeguards in place, eventually, after a few generations of working out the kinks, couldn't we have a "fair" system of admissions to law schools? Color-blind? Is this even a remote possibility?

The thing that irks me in ALL situations regarding affirmative-action, color-blindness, etc., is that a vested interest on the part of one minority party prevents that party from dealing in across-the-board changes. If the Jews want more Jews in Harlem Law School, then the rule can't be "more racially blind admissions," it has to be, "More Jews admitted." Then if someone tweaks that to change it to, "More whites, less blacks, admitted," suddenly the Jews are angry that "their" slots are taken by Italians. When were they "their" slots in the first place?

I'm mostly a rabid left winger. I liked Howard Dean's big ol' yelp a coupl'a years back. But I can't seem to reconcile affirmative action with the whole "I have a dream" thing about "not by the color of his skin." I keep wanting to say to the politically correct types, "I thought you were all proud of being the supposedly more tolerant side."

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

Racism in society may affect the kinds of schools minorities end up attending, the amount of parental resources available to support them, and (potenially) how much time a student can devote to his studies if he also has to work.  That's why I support taking such factors into account in admissions.

My questions:  1)  Why not extend the same consideration to all applicants, who are also impacted by those factors?  2)  Why extend additional preferences after those factors are controlled for?

Because of the bolded. Those other things are already taken into account for everyone, but "some" in society will never experience racism in its institutionalized form.

[Lindbergh]

Explain "general equality of opportunity" in full. I'm still unclear what that means.

To me, in this context, this basically means that people with the same educational opportunities are treated the same for admissions purposes.  Overall, this would mean that minorities would receive greater consideration than under purely numerical stystem, because minorities generally have less educational opportunity.  However, it would also mean that ultimately, actual individual abilities would be the real subject of examination.

[t...]

Look outside "this context", though. If you're talking "general equality of opportunity," you're talking life in general (and you've discussed that selectively already, anyway).

So, again, what does "general equality of opportunity" mean?

[Lindbergh]

I too think people are not necessarily racist or sexist. What would happen if all admissions were done anonymously, for example? Using an assigned number, all candidates would simply keep their names off their applications. Other safeguards in place, eventually, after a few generations of working out the kinks, couldn't we have a "fair" system of admissions to law schools? Color-blind? Is this even a remote possibility?

The thing that irks me in ALL situations regarding affirmative-action, color-blindness, etc., is that a vested interest on the part of one minority party prevents that party from dealing in across-the-board changes. If the Jews want more Jews in Harlem Law School, then the rule can't be "more racially blind admissions," it has to be, "More Jews admitted." Then if someone tweaks that to change it to, "More whites, less blacks, admitted," suddenly the Jews are angry that "their" slots are taken by Italians. When were they "their" slots in the first place?

I'm mostly a rabid left winger. I liked Howard Dean's big ol' yelp a coupl'a years back. But I can't seem to reconcile affirmative action with the whole "I have a dream" thing about "not by the color of his skin." I keep wanting to say to the politically correct types, "I thought you were all proud of being the supposedly more tolerant side."

Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

Racism in society may affect the kinds of schools minorities end up attending, the amount of parental resources available to support them, and (potenially) how much time a student can devote to his studies if he also has to work.  That's why I support taking such factors into account in admissions.

My questions:  1)  Why not extend the same consideration to all applicants, who are also impacted by those factors?  2)  Why extend additional preferences after those factors are controlled for?

Because of the bolded. Those other things are already taken into account for everyone,

Are you certain?

but "some" in society will never experience racism in its institutionalized form.

What would that institutionalized form be?  And how does that affect academic achievement?  It doesn't affect all urms, does it?