SCOTUS on Affirmative Action

[izne1home]

Ok, let's hear it. 

I think the court is saying that if admissions systems consider race, for the sake of race alone, then that student is being pre-judged for no other reason than the color of their skin, and we all know how abhorrent that is.

Short of hard quotas, the admission process is very subjective.  If a school wants to have a diverse student population for the sake of diversity, they can probably get there. 

Remember, it's a zero sum game.  There are far more applicants than seats, so if a student is given preference for the color of his skin, there is another student who is being punished for the same reason. 

[BallGuy]

Tough one man. I've had this conversation with my pops (who is about as conservative as it comes) and it's just tough topic.

I feel like most of the people against Affirmative Action are the ones that benefit most from it being abolished. I'm not numb to the fact that having two parents still married, who are present in my life is a huge bonus to my current livelihood. Much like people that don't have that, have more to overcome. We can go round and round and round on this topic, but other than "well that person is going to need to overcome adversity" I'm not sure what actual solutions are for it.

Speaking of my experience in education and technology recruiting--when companies and schools do no have policies in place to force them into hiring (or accepting) diverse candidates, they have proven time and time again that they simply won't.

[izne1home]

Much like people that don't have that, have more to overcome.

From what I understand, pointing out that you have had to overcome adversity due to your race, family situation, etc., is perfectly acceptable.  Being an overcomer is something most college admissions would see as a plus.

The problem is getting the same overcomer-status for just saying you are Black, which is no more true than assuming every white applicant has two supportive college-educated wealthy parents at home who hired private tutors.  That is the definition of zero-sum prejudice.  The black student is pre-judged as an overcomer and the white student (who just got rejected) was pre-judged as growing up with white privilege. 

I understand the challenges and don't have any quick fixes.  Ideally, each student should be evaluated on their own merit. 

I knew a lot of kids in high school who were born on third base and walk around acting like they hit a triple.  Most of them went on to big schools as legacy kids.  They were functional idiots in high school, and managed to graduate from schools like USC with honors.  I think that money grab is just as bad as taking a kid off the streets due to some affirmative action program who will get eaten alive by the competition.

[BallGuy]

From what I understand, pointing out that you have had to overcome adversity due to your race, family situation, etc., is perfectly acceptable.  Being an overcomer is something most college admissions would see as a plus.

The problem is getting the same overcomer-status for just saying you are Black, which is no more true than assuming every white applicant has two supportive college-educated wealthy parents at home who hired private tutors.  That is the definition of zero-sum prejudice.  The black student is pre-judged as an overcomer and the white student (who just got rejected) was pre-judged as growing up with white privilege. 

I understand the challenges and don't have any quick fixes.  Ideally, each student should be evaluated on their own merit. 

I knew a lot of kids in high school who were born on third base and walk around acting like they hit a triple.  Most of them went on to big schools as legacy kids.  They were functional idiots in high school, and managed to graduate from schools like USC with honors.  I think that money grab is just as bad as taking a kid off the streets due to some affirmative action program who will get eaten alive by the competition.

Well said-I went to a crappy public school and then a pretty nice private college and saw a lot of the same things you said. It's just a tough thing to solve. Take away race, how do you equate a point system or however you want to qualify it? 4.0 kid with two parents, versus 2.5 kid who supports his siblings because either/both or neither parent is present in their life. It's just a tough deal to get our hands around.

[izne1home]

Well said-I went to a crappy public school and then a pretty nice private college and saw a lot of the same things you said. It's just a tough thing to solve. Take away race, how do you equate a point system or however you want to qualify it? 4.0 kid with two parents, versus 2.5 kid who supports his siblings because either/both or neither parent is present in their life. It's just a tough deal to get our hands around.

I think what they're saying is that by checking the Black box, the schools shouldn't automatically assume that you got a 2.5 because you were supporting your siblings while your parents were no-shows.

Again, prejudice (pre-judging) can work in both directions.  Both should be removed from the process, if possible.  If you are a poor child stuck raising your siblings in poverty with little or no help from your parents, that is a story the admissions team would like to hear.  That's much different than saying "I'm black so I shouldn't have to explain my grades..."

[BallGuy]

I think what they're saying is that by checking the Black box, the schools shouldn't automatically assume that you got a 2.5 because you were supporting your siblings while your parents were no-shows.

Again, prejudice (pre-judging) can work in both directions.  Both should be removed from the process, if possible.  If you are a poor child stuck raising your siblings in poverty with little or no help from your parents, that is a story the admissions team would like to hear.  That's much different than saying "I'm black so I shouldn't have to explain my grades..."

Totally-but again, when left to their own devices, schools (and the private sector specifically in tech) have shown time and again, that they will not have a diverse population at that school/company/industry. Maybe things have changed since the inception of AA, and maybe we don't need it anymore. This can easily turn into a moral dilemma where if one kid who checked the black box gets into a school because of AA, while also allowing 2 kids that were black and overcame a ton of adversity into the university, I'd argue AA is needed. I can also see people saying that's not right. I'm interested in the conversation, for sure.

In terms of the bolded, I'd hope that those admissions officers are reading the story, and not grading the grammar/context, etc, because that's where more bias comes in.

[izne1home]

Totally-but again, when left to their own devices, schools (and the private sector specifically in tech) have shown time and again, that they will not have a diverse population at that school/company/industry. Maybe things have changed since the inception of AA, and maybe we don't need it anymore. This can easily turn into a moral dilemma where if one kid who checked the black box gets into a school because of AA, while also allowing 2 kids that were black and overcame a ton of adversity into the university, I'd argue AA is needed. I can also see people saying that's not right. I'm interested in the conversation, for sure.

In terms of the bolded, I'd hope that those admissions officers are reading the story, and not grading the grammar/context, etc, because that's where more bias comes in.

Do you think the lack of impact is based in racism, employers not liking to be told who they can and cannot hire, or just a lazy unwillingness to change? 

I think part of the problem is the laziness of the admissions process.  Sort of like zero tolerance.  Rather than sitting down and trying to make a case-by-case determination and find a suitable solution for each kid, it is easier to find a box to check that automates the process.  In a perfect world, a kid who has overcome a lot of adversity should be able to express that in an application, with a live person on the other end evaluating it.  If part of that adversity is due to the color of the kid's skin, they he/she should be able to express how race played a factor.  If we assume Black = adversity, we perpetuate what we are trying to abolish and create animosity where none should exist.   

I think we basically agree.  If for whatever reason (poverty, family issues, physical limitations, race barriers...) you faced adversity during your high school career, that is an absolutely relevant consideration in the admission process, but there should be no presumption of adversity, or privilege, by checking a box.

[BallGuy]

Do you think the lack of impact is based in racism, employers not liking to be told who they can and cannot hire, or just a lazy unwillingness to change? 

I think part of the problem is the laziness of the admissions process.  Sort of like zero tolerance.  Rather than sitting down and trying to make a case-by-case determination and find a suitable solution for each kid, it is easier to find a box to check that automates the process.  In a perfect world, a kid who has overcome a lot of adversity should be able to express that in an application, with a live person on the other end evaluating it.  If part of that adversity is due to the color of the kid's skin, they he/she should be able to express how race played a factor.  If we assume Black = adversity, we perpetuate what we are trying to abolish and create animosity where none should exist.   

I think we basically agree.  If for whatever reason (poverty, family issues, physical limitations, race barriers...) you faced adversity during your high school career, that is an absolutely relevant consideration in the admission process, but there should be no presumption of adversity, or privilege, by checking a box.

I don't like the word "racism" to be described in a lot of these situation, because it sort of implies some malicious intent. I do think there's bias that gets formed, and people hire/admit people they identify with. Yeah, I think we're close on this issue. My point of it is, the system has proven itself over and over again that it cannot remove bias on their own, so systems such as AA, I'd argue, are needed.

I forget the guy that said it, but his point is there's never been a worse time to be a straight white male. He's right, and I believe that's progress, because that means there's more opportunities for populations outside of this. This last part, I'm okay agreeing to disagree, but it's hard to look at what is happening with SCOTUS and see this as anything but progress.

[izne1home]

I'm okay agreeing to disagree, but it's hard to look at what is happening with SCOTUS and see this as anything but progress.

Progress is relative to the direction you are traveling.  I am trying to move towards sanity and common sense.  Others want to abandon objective reality and move towards change for change's sake.

But, I'll be the first to admit that the SCOTUS could cost the GOP the next presidential election if it keeps passing out these decisions. 

[BallGuy]

But, I'll be the first to admit that the SCOTUS could cost the GOP the next presidential election if it keeps passing out these decisions.
[/quote]

That's a different topic for a different day. Again, when I lived in the bay I was considered conservative, here I am considered liberal. I feel like I'm just trying to get closer to sanity. I honestly hate the ruling to abolish AA, but it'll be interesting to see the stats 5-10 years from now in terms of college admissions. Plus with the chatgpt and AI rising. People with access to it/training with it can create essays that warrant acceptance to any college. "create an admission essay about overcoming adversity as a middle class white male"....

[Coastfan]

SCOTUS is doing exactly what it was intended to do when formed within the vision of the Constitutional Convention. Clearly, AA violated the 14th Amendment. People can voice opposition all they want and write articles that SCOTUS has sold its soul to the Christian Right (i.e. Rolling Stone), but this is an easy one to judge/rule. Public universities and the professors/administrators that desire a diversified campus can easily still apply AA without calling it AA in order to meet a quota (IF this is really what they want). CSUs do not apply this, but UCs and private colleges/universities have applicants submit essays based upon prompts. A simple prompt that these types of colleges/universities can utilize is "describe yourself and a challenge you had to overcome and what you have learned from it." The college/university is not putting any emphasis on race/gender/sexual orientation etc. yet still presents the opportunity for the applicant to lean in on it.

The outcry from the "losers" of this SCOTUS ruling are in the same trap after the Dobbs decision last year: crying that this conservative SCOTUS is destroying democracy and establishing a theocracy...these types of rulings do the exact opposite. These types of rulings put democracy into action causing people at the state and local levels to make decisions, create policies, and vote (more inept) legislators into office to create a more perfect union.

[izne1home]

Agree completely.

[Timmy Winn]

AA is really tough for me. I don't believe race should be factor in anything. But I also know that, historically, people of color have had more difficulty getting into colleges/universities and high paying jobs. I don't know how you eliminate that disparity. I don't think AA was an ideal solution, but one that was used because that was the ONLY way some people would have gotten a chance to improve their lives. It's sad that we even needed to go there to give the illusion of equality.

[eylchamps]

Now with Online Universities, screw those schools. You can get a degree online and no need to deal with the morons. Those schools just hurt themselves. They just went back 50 years. White and colored faucets are next. 

[TeddyKGB]

when companies and schools do no have policies in place to force them into hiring (or accepting) diverse candidates, they have proven time and time again that they simply won't.

humans by nature tend to want to be with people like them so it stands to reason that you hire people like you. I personally don't feel that gender, sexual orientation or race should disqualify someone from employment...well unless the position applied for is gender specific like say a dancer at Cheetah's (izne and I differ on this he doesn't care what the plumbing is I have a strict policy that my dancers need to have been born female). Same thing when a company touts that it is black owned or female owned, I don't care who owns it so long as the service they provide is worth the price.

[izne1home]

8:00 PM:  I have a strict policy that my dancers need to have been born female.
Midnight: I don't care who owns it so long as the service they provide is worth the price.

Fixed it.

[izne1home]

I'm wrestling with this too.  Critics point out that AA perpetuates racism and creates a stigma of incompetence with damaging stereotypes.  Nothing good comes from a "you're only here because you're black" attitude, or "I'm only here because I'm black" self-talk. 

The rigorous educational gap needs to be addressed at the lower levels.   Almost half of AA college students fail to graduate, with lack of academic preparation being cited as the leading cause. 

I think these issues can be addressed with a more holistic (and time-consuming) admission process.  Admissions officers will have to work harder, but we will never solve anything by checking a box on a form.  Setting up a system that rewards one student for the color of her skin, while simultaneously punishing another for the color of hers, is not sustainable unless your job relies on perpetuating racism...

The good news is that over half of the AA students DO graduate, and for those people, the trajectory of their lives and their children's lives have changed forever.  All they needed was a shot.  That's a big deal, but there must be a better way to get there.

[Coastfan]

Those schools just hurt themselves. They just went back 50 years. White and colored faucets are next.

Don't worry, similar segregation had already begun at many liberal arts colleges and universities throughout the US prior to this ruling...and no, it was not a result of shutting down AA. Segregating dorms (based upon race) and graduation ceremonies have become more common in the past 10 years than in the 1950s/60s. I do not know if you were implying that this SCOTUS decision was going to bring about segregating schools, but it has already been taking place as a result of far-left ideology.

[Coastfan]