Why Dean is right on Affirmative Action

[worldgonekrazy]

And that is "right" as in "correct."

From "Howard Dean's Class Action" by Kareem Fahim, The Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0347/fahim2.php

But the Dean plan needs to be understood in another context. Higher education today is a partisan war zone, and the battles are over affirmative action, equal access, rising tuition rates, and calls to reform financial aid, among others. And while the release of the education plan might be seen as trawling for minority votes, Democratic strategist Phil Noble believes it may have more to do with the early support Dean received from the 335,000-strong California Teachers Association. Dean is also the favorite of college professors, raising $864,000 from their ranks.

<snip>

My plans are not necessarily aimed at African Americans or Latinos," Dean said on a conference call with supporters minutes after announcing his higher-education plan late last week, "but they may help them especially."

Polls suggest that the doors of higher education are still not open to minorities, especially for Latinos. A study released last month finds that while minority enrollments are up over the last two decades, the rates remain virtually unchanged over the last five years. Today, 46 percent of whites enroll in college, compared to 39 percent of blacks, and only 34 percent of Latinos.

"We've found that on average, a low-income student is $8,000 short of being able to go to college,"says Brian Fitzgerald, staff director of ACSFA.





From "Economic Class Based Affirmative Action" by Mark Satin, The Radicle Middle Newsletter:
http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_affirmative_action.htm

UPI columnist John Bloom took aim at Justice O’Connor’s majority opinion. At no point, he correctly observed, does she claim that affirmative action is meant to help deserving students move up in the world! Instead it’s all about helping to promote “cross-racial understanding,” helping to break down stereotypes, etc. Nice, nice. But how did affirmative action get hijacked for those purposes?

Yeah, we’ve got plenty of minorities here now, recent University of Michigan Law School grad Concepcion Escobar told the New York Times. But “so many come from the same rich white suburbs as the white people come from.” What kind of diversity is that?

<snip>

My point? Race-conscious affirmative action is the name, economic class discrimination is the game.

And if affirmative action is going to help all of us and not just the elites, then we’re going to have to muster the confidence to defy the elites -- and tell them that affirmative action in the American context means boosting talented but financially strapped individuals NO MATTER WHICH racial group they approximate best.

<snip>

The problem with race-based affirmative action, as Kahlenberg sees it, is that it’s an unreliable indicator of disadvantage.

“While it is true that blacks and Latinos are disproportionately poor,” he says, “racial affirmative action . . . does little to help poor and working class students of color,” let alone poor and working class students generally.

<snip>

By looking intensely at data from our top-tier colleges (namely, our 146 most selective colleges as defined by Barron’s Guide), Carnevale shows that the representation of poor, working-class, and lower-middle-class students is actually lower in them than it would be if grades and test scores were the sole basis for admissions!

In other words: today’s opaque, race-based admissions programs are making it harder -- not easier -- for poor kids to catch a break.




Another great link:
"Class Based Affirmative Action" by Ronald Roach, Black Issues in Higher Education
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0DXK/9_20/104521292/p1/article.jhtml






---------------------------------------------------------------




This is an issue people have to think about for a moment before they can see where Dean is coming from. I personally have spent a lot of time thinking about/debating this issue in both friendly and academic settings and have come up with the same conclusions as Dr. Dean.

When you make affirmative action about race you are continuing the tradition of race as a defining characteristic. If you TRULY want to move towards a race neutral society you cannot do that by continuing to focus on race alone. You must instead ask yourself WHY it is that race is still an issue (ie economic inequalities) and then address THAT problem, rather than the supposed "problem" of race as a whole.

When you make affirmative action about economics you are STILL helping out minorities in an effective manner, since blacks and hispanics (and other racial minorities) are more economically disadvantaged, on average, than whites. The great thing about making affirmative action about economics, however, is that you are removing race from the face of the issue, which allows us as a country to move towards a day when race truly will not matter (in any negative bearing anyways). PLUS you are helping out underprivileged whites, who may not need it as much as a whole but on an individual level they are just as worthy of aid as their minority counterparts.

Furthermore, I would point out that affirmative action based on race is just plain INEFFECTIVE! For example, let us say that a black student coming from a poor background gets into a good college in part because of affirmative action. Then that black person gets a degree, gets a good job (again, perhaps in part due to affirmative action) and has essentially succeeded in dragging his or herself out of the lower class. Great. But what about when that person's KIDS are applying for college? They do not have the disadvantage of coming from a lower class, since their parents managed to get out of that. But they STILL get the advantages of affirmative action EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T NEED IT! It isn't fair and it doesn't make for good policy.

If you based it on economics, however, it would get rid of that possibility entirely.

Please, please, please think about this issue before you make a knee jerk response. Disagree on the idea if you want, but don't automatically assume that Dean is assailing the spirit of affirmative action. His problem is with the implementation, not the ideal.

Comments? Criticisms? Let us discuss this issue and hopefully arrive at a better understanding of Affirmative Action.

[_Jumper_]

1. Racism

A class-based replacement for affirmative action would do nothing to reduce racial discrimination--something Dean thinks that everyone does.

[worldgonekrazy]

5. Most discrimination today is institutional discrimination

Basically meaning that it is discrimination as an unintended result of policies or realities.

This pretty much all stems from economics, in my view. Because minorities were oppressed for so long they have been left at a disadvantaged position economically.

To change this you must focus on the economics, not the race, as that is the true issue.

[_Jumper_]

7. Tell that to Asians

Race matters. Dean himself has said that he thinks everyone tries to hire people "like themselves", and he considers race the demarcator of "us" and "them". So why doesn't he want to deal this problem?

[worldgonekrazy]

9. How does racial affirmative action solve this problem?

It doesn't. In fact, I believe it exacerbates it by creating even more ill will towards minorities.

[_Jumper_]

11. I agree

But we need to replace affirmative action with a program that tackles the issue of racism.

Class-based affirmative action will lead to a class backlash against the poor. In the long run that may lead to an end to financial aid for poor college students and an increase in class consciousness among the affluent--which will lead to discrimination against the poor.

I believe we need to offer equal opportunity but we don't need to give a person a head start just because they were born into a poor family. Give them an equal chance to have a good education and then let them rise and fall on their merits.

[worldgonekrazy]

13. How will you provide equal opportunity?

The only practical way that I see it happening is through economic affirmative action. The reality is that if you are born into a poor household you are going to go to worse schools, you are going to have much less at your disposal in the way of resources, and you won't be able to afford the education you need to get out of the lower class. It would be great if this wasn't the case, or if it could be changed in one fell swoop, but unfortunately that just isn't realistic.

Instead, you give people a chance to get out of the lower class and then they can raise a family that will have the resources and access that you and I have. It is a long term process, but that is the only way it can be done, IMO.

[_Jumper_]

20. Response

You do it by funded all schools in America equally. Of course, funding should be adjusted based on local cost of living.

"The reality is that if you are born into a poor household you are going to go to worse schools, you are going to have much less at your disposal in the way of resources"

Where do we draw the line? How can we pick a number and deterime that that is the definition of "poor"?

We can increase financial aid for the poor so they can attend college. If we equalize educational opportunity there will be no need for class-based affirmative action.However, we should not discriminate in favor of people simply because they were born into a family deemed poor. We should provide equal opportunity for all, not give an advantage to some. Why should a kid whose family makes $20,000 a year and has lower test scores than a kid whose family makes $150,000 a year be given the spot because of their class?

[quaker bill]

28. I think class based AA covers all the bases

The actual victims of discrimination are impacted economically. By all measures these economic impacts are clearly concentrated in minority communities. Any fair class based AA system will by nature be heavily weighted toward the minority communities.

When looked at in the light of social justice, it is no better for a white child to grow up in abject poverty than it is for a black child to do the same. Why would we prefer one over the other? The program should simply be expanded to address both needs.

Further, on the positive side, it would remove the racial bias stigma, improperly applied by the right, but none the less applied with force, from this program. Perhaps, then they would not oppose funding it quite so aggressively.

No doubt, they would still oppose it, but without the wedge issue, perhaps less successfully.

[BurtWorm]

17. "Class-based affirmative action will lead to a class backlash against

the poor," you say, and that's bad. But, then, race-based affirmative action doesn't lead to a backlash against the people it benefits? Or it's okay that it leads to discrimination against them? Your position isn't clear.

[_Jumper_]

22. I oppose race-based affirmative action

n/t

[sangh0]

2. Why you and Dean are wrong on AA

When you make affirmative action about race you are continuing the tradition of race as a defining characteristic.

AA is not "about race". AA is about "discrimination" which comes in many forms, one of which is "racial discrimination"

So explain to me how a program that mostly benefits white women is "about race"?

Then you can explain how we can combat racial discrimination without taking any consideration of race?

[spooky3]

18. Please provide a link to empirical data that demonstrate that

AA "mostly benefits white women"? I am not aware of any.

With respect to college admissions, white women generally have the same or better test scores, grades, and other qualifications to enter universities as white men. They do not benefit from AA in such settings; they benefit only from pure "equal opportunity." In fact, two white women were plaintiffs in the 2 Michigan suits. I am not aware of a single university that provides additional "points" to white women strictly because of their membership in that group.

With respect to employment data, again, please cite studies that distinguish affirmative action effects from equal employment opportunity effects.

I am a proponent of most affirmative action programs. I believe racial discrimination and national origin discrimination exist. Until these end, affirmative action is necessary. I also believe sexism exists, but I believe that equal opportunity enforcement is generally all that is necessary to end it, though I do not believe that will happen in my lifetime.

I am disputing only your claim about who are the major beneficiaries of affirmative action given the data I know about.

[TheDonkey]

3. Not at all.

Class and Race are totally different subjects.

Affirmative Action was created to correct the problems of racism and discrimination. Equating discrimination and racism to income is not right.

I do agree that a class should be looked into but not as part of Affirmative Action.

If a minority is middle class are you and Dean saying that he or she could not possibly be discriminated against.

[Demeter]

4. Speaking as an Economic Minority

If you have the dough, you aren't discriminated against, unless you are slumming. It's like women walking past construction sites.

[TheDonkey]

How do you define, having dough?

Middle Class? Upper Middle Class? Upper Class?

I know being in the middle class discrimination is everywhere from job oppurtunities to college admissions. The same can go for upper class folks (even though they have money to search elsewhere).

[worldgonekrazy]

8. So you focus on enforcing anti-discrimination laws

Using affirmative action as a feeble attempt to counter discrimination is not the answer. Rather, economic affirmative action coupled with increased enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is the recipe for success, IMO.

[TheDonkey]

16. somewhat

I agree that we should look at class and economic divisions. But we can't lump class and race into one package. Affirmative Action has it's purpose and it has made a difference. I can look at my campus right now and see the difference that would not be there w/o the pressure of AA.

But I along with many Democrats support safety nets, welfare and perhaps a new plan of Affirmative Economic Action but let's not get it confused with race, and gender discrimination.

[worldgonekrazy]

21. Those minorities would still be on your campus

Under economic affirmative action, since (most) minority groups are economically disadvantaged.

Edited for clarity

[_Jumper_]

14. It is a political non-starter for that reason

We can't define who is or isn't poor. The people in the next economic tier would complain and would eventually get included. Then the next tier would do the same with the same result. Class-based affirmative action would perpetually expand as politicians use it to win votes.

[worldgonekrazy]

6. Exactly. It is all economics today

That is why I think that focusing on race is wrong. If you focus on economics it has the result of easing racial inequality as a result of economic inequality, but it does not FOCUS on race and thus is not nearly as open to attack from the right. As an added benefit, people that AREN'T minorities but ARE economically disadvantaged are helped out as well.

[_Jumper_]

10. Race is an issue

Not dealing with that is questionable at best. Affirmative action needs to be replaced but not with a program that fails to deal with the problem of racism.

Asians are approximately on par with whites economically. Does that mean they don't face any discrimination?

[worldgonekrazy]

12. Right, but racial affirmative action is not the answer

sians are approximately on par with whites economically. Does that mean they don't face any discrimination?

First of all, Asian-Americans actually earn slightly more than their White counterparts on average. But that is misleading in itself because the category of "Asian-American" encompasses a broad set of groups with big differences. For example, Japanese Americans do quite well in the United States, but Hmongs (who I believe are Laotian) are THE MOST economically disadvantaged group in the nation.

But the real point is that yes, Asian-Americans do face discrimination. This is mostly in a cultural form ("yellow fever" or the feminization of Asian-American men, for example). So how, pray tell, does an affirmative action policy for college admissions or employment help solve this? It does not. This is an entirely seperate issue.

The same can be said for other minorities. A lot of discrimination (such as White people being afraid of Blacks, for example, even if only subconsciously) simply cannot be addressed through affirmative action programs. What CAN be addressed through affirmative action programs is economic inequality.

But if you are going to address economic inequality, why do it from a racial standpoint? This only contributes, IMO, to discrimination in other areas and is not a very practical policy for reasons outlined in my original post on this thread. So clearly, I think, the answer is economic affirmative action coupled with increased enforcement of anti-discrimination lawsuits (when it comes to employment for example).

As for the social element of racial discrimination, I do not know what to do about that. It is something that only time can heal, in my opinion. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I do know that racial affirmative action does absolutely nothing to address these areas of discrimination.

[_Jumper_]

15. We need to severly punish employers that do discriminate

That will deter them from discriminating as much as they presently do.

You are correct but most Asian-American groups are doing well. Some of them are doing much better than European-Americans.

Read my either response. I talk about why I don't think class-based affirmative action is feasible in it.

[TheDonkey]

19. You are blurring some terms

racism, discrimination, stereotypes, and prejudice are not the same thing.

I agree Affirmative Action does NOTHING for prejudice and stereotypes. It was created to subvert those pychological issues completely (and thankfully). We do need to work on these issues through education and what not but that will take time.

In the mean time we need to focus on discrimination. If a woman and man both very qualified go into a job interview and the board of 5 men and 1 woman vote on the man because they feel more "comfortable" with him that is discrimination. If based off the fact that the comfort is that he's a man.

If someone uses those stereotypes and prejudices to effect their hiring or accepting practices that is discrimination and what AA hopes to solve.

[worldgonekrazy]

23. You can't solve it that way

The best you can hope to do with that program is offset it a bit. The only way to truly solve it is to get to the root of the problem, which Affirmative Action does not even try to do.

[corporatewhore]

24. why we need race based aa

"Unfortunately, in 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, a ballot initiative which said that race could not be considered as a factor for hiring or admissions in any state institution. After the University of California system enacted the ban against affirmative action, schools like UC Berkeley found that the admittance rates of underrepresented minority students dropped by a staggering 14 percent in 1997. The freshman class at UCLA this year has only 281 Blacks out of 10,507 incoming students.The decreasing number of minority students detracts from the learning process for all students because it limits the range of perspectives present in class discussions.

When White, Black, Asian, Latino, Arab, and other students are brought together in a classroom, they can better understand their differences and destroy racist stereotypes that have been so ingrained in our nation's mentality. I met a professor at UCLA who told me affirmative action programs have actually decreased racial hostilities between different groups because of this classroom learning process. When students learn in a more tolerant and diverse environment, everyone benefits from the experience.

I can't imagine being in a class where the discussion is on a particular ethnic group or culture, and there is no one with in-depth knowledge on the subject present. How can a group of all-White students have a serious discussion about slavery, bilingual education, immigration, racism, or even affirmative action without recognizing that they are missing some key perspectives in the argument?

Without diversified student bodies, many minority students (including those at the University of Michigan) are forced to be the "official speakers" for their race. As a Black student at a mostly White high school, I've helped my classmates understand more about the Black experience, but I do get tired of being the "official representative" of my race. My classmates always ask me those "race" questions, like: "Candace, what do you think about the comments in the movie Barbershop?" or "Were you offended by Trent Lott's racist comments?" I don't care if you like Malcolm X, and I'm not interested in hearing your reactions after watching Alex Haley's Roots. Diversity is not only important to the learning process of each student, it also alleviates the pressure on students like me who often have to speak as representatives for our entire race just because we are the only Black, Asian or Latino people in the room. "

http://www.wiretapmag.org/story.html?StoryID=16085

[_Jumper_]

26. Spin

"Underrepresented minority" is the trick. The numbers for Asians skyrocketed and almost offset the decrease in Latino and black enrollment.

Diversity is great but self-segregation in America is rampant and the effects of diversity on campus are in reality not as great as they are in theory.

Asians prove that race-based affirmative action is not needed in college admissions. What is needed is equal opportunity in schools. We have two separate but unequal school systems in America. We need to remedy this. Then blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans will be able to compete equally with Asians and whites in college admissions.

[corporatewhore]

25. I could see a need for class based but in addition to race based

[cprise]

27. Dean is on to something big

Not the least of which is that there is now a large demographic of racially-indistinct Americans who aren't comfortable pigeon-holing themselves to qualify for AA... yet they are economically disadvantaged and feel they need AA for decent opportunities.

Other types of AA groups have not expereinced this change, which is why we must re-evaluate AA particularly with 'race.'

I think the existing AA was apropriate for a generation or two. But it has become an easier target for the Right when it comes to 'race.'

Sure, this could get a huge chunk of the NASCAR Dads on Dean's side, but I think for the right reasons. This could melt away the thinking and excuses for perpetuating the US/THEM mentality we see in places like radio talkshows. It could force the Limbaughs in this country to either shift from racist subtext to overt language, or abandon their entrenchment. I think if there is ANY way to draw large numbers of these people into consciousness-raising dialog to the point where they may truly begin to identify with non-whites, then this could be it!

[_Jumper_]

29. It will also be very costly

First, we need to remember that there are vast differences in cost of living in America. $70,000 a year in NJ is in middle-class; in Mississippi that is high income. A class-based system would discriminate against "blue states" in favor of "red states". It would also alienate everyone who was not deemed poor. This would create a new "us" versus "them" mentality based on class. There would be a major backlash against this and I believe it would be very damaging to the Democratic Party.