Affirmative Action Explained

[Soul_Patch]

hWS_MDJSiEE

[boutons_deux]

What's wrong with affirmative action? It got dubya into Yale and Harvard.

[Soul_Patch]

What's wrong with affirmative action? It got dubya into Yale and Harvard.

lol...I think the name "Bush" did more for that cause.

[LnGrrrR]

It seems to be working in the NFL.

[phxspurfan]

Well that wasn't biased at all.

[FromWayDowntown]

Where was the argument about the understandable skepticism of black surgeons?

[Yonivore]

I just want to know where it says in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that government cannot discriminate on the basis of race unless you're White or Asian.

[Yonivore]

Where was the argument about the understandable skepticism of black surgeons?
I remember that but, also, remember the argument that Justice Thomas and Condoleeza Rice only achieved their success because of Affirmative Action? Implying, of course, that they were stupid and were only chosen for their position because of their race.

The soft bigotry of low expectations was institutionalized by Affirmative Action.

[FromWayDowntown]

The soft bigotry of low expectations was institutionalized by Affirmative Action.

Or the choice of any particular individual to buy into "soft bigotry."

[boutons_deux]

the hard bigotry is that blacks are genetically/mentally inferior and can't do the work at school or job.

See how hard bigotry worked with pro quarterbacks and complex play books these past few years.

[Yonivore]

Or the choice of any particular individual to buy into "soft bigotry."
It is soft bigotry. Hell, it's out and out racism.

Saying a person needs an unfair advantage because of an accident of birth says they aren't capable of achieving on their own.

[FromWayDowntown]

It is soft bigotry. Hell, it's out and out racism.

Saying a person needs an unfair advantage because of an accident of birth says they aren't capable of achieving on their own.

I live in an affirmative action world, but I don't choose to believe that blacks' achievements are founded exclusively (or even in significant part) upon a benevolent social program.

At bottom, Affirmative Action is about affording opportunities; it does not mandate the achievement that is required to become a professional in any discipline. Getting in is one thing; getting through is something else altogether. That's true in education; it's true in business; it's true in anything. And the root problem that anti-discrimination programs were meant to solve was the lack of opportunity.

The choice to, for example, believe that black surgeons are somehow inferior to their white counterparts -- despite the fact that upon being given an opportunity to attend medical school, each must have met the required achievement thresholds necessary to become surgeons -- is the bigotry, to me at least.

[Yonivore]

I live in an affirmative action world, but I don't choose to believe that blacks' achievements are founded exclusively (or even in significant part) upon a benevolent social program.
Good for you. I don't think your view is the dominant one.


At bottom, Affirmative Action is about affording opportunities;...
No, at bottom it is about affording opportunities to one while, at the same time, denying that opportunity to another.


...it does not mandate the achievement that is required to become a professional in any discipline.
It does mandate you give one person and unfair advantage simply due to an accident of birth.


...Getting in is one thing; getting through is something else altogether.
Not getting in because an Affirmative Action candidate was advanced over you doesn't allow you to get through at all.


That's true in education; it's true in business; it's true in anything. And the root problem that anti-discrimination programs were meant to solve was the lack of opportunity.
And, in doing so, they reduced the opportunities for someone else who had no part in the original offense the anti-discrimination program was intended to rectify.


The choice to, for example, believe that black surgeons are somehow inferior to their white counterparts -- despite the fact that upon being given an opportunity to attend medical school, each must have met the required achievement thresholds necessary to become surgeons -- is the bigotry, to me at least.
Those that hold those views would argue, there are "threshholds" and there is excellence. If a medical doctor relied on Affirmative Action to gain entrance to medical school it follows that it was because his achievements, to that point, weren't good enough to gain them admittance on achievement alone. Thus follows the thinking they were at the bottom of the class to begin with.

I don't know about you but, I want the #1 graduate poking around in my brain not the #325th...and, I don't care what race is the #1.

[ElNono]

I don't know about you but, I want the #1 graduate poking around in my brain not the #325th...and, I don't care what race is the #1.

If the #1 got in through Affirmative Action, would that make any difference to you?

[Yonivore]

I live in an affirmative action world, but I don't choose to believe that blacks' achievements are founded exclusively (or even in significant part) upon a benevolent social program.
I meant to make one other point on this.

If, as you believe, "black's achievements are [not] founded exclusively (or even in significant part) upon a benevolent social program," then, it's too insignificant for society to allow it to continue because racial discrimination, even against whites, is wrong and not insignificant.

[Yonivore]

If the #1 got in through Affirmative Action, would that make any difference to you?
#1 doesn't need Affirmative Action.

[ElNono]

#1 doesn't need Affirmative Action.

#1 when they go in doesn't necessarily translate into #1 when they get out.

You didn't answer the question either... if the #1 going out got in through Affirmative Action, would you have a problem then?

[Yonivore]

#1 when they go in doesn't necessarily translate into #1 when they get out.

You didn't answer the question either... if the #1 going out got in through Affirmative Action, would you have a problem then?
Nope, wouldn't have a problem.

[ElNono]

:tu

This is where you apparently differ from Wile E Coyote...

[LnGrrrR]

It is soft bigotry. Hell, it's out and out racism.

Saying a person needs an unfair advantage because of an accident of birth says they aren't capable of achieving on their own.

Let's look at a real-world example, the NFL's Rooney Rule.

The rule, by most accounts, did what it set out to do, which was to increase diversity in NFL coaches.

Do you think that there were suddenly a great deal more qualified minority candidates for head coaching after the rule got passed? Or did that rule help elevate worthy minorities to the position?

[Yonivore]

Let's look at a real-world example, the NFL's Rooney Rule.

The rule, by most accounts, did what it set out to do, which was to increase diversity in NFL coaches.
Why do NFL Teams, privately owned businesses, have to be diverse. And, the objective of a football team isn't diversity, it's winning.


Do you think that there were suddenly a great deal more qualified minority candidates for head coaching after the rule got passed? Or did that rule help elevate worthy minorities to the position?
I'm not sure why it matters. The NFL is a private enterprise.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do NFL Teams, privately owned businesses, have to be diverse. And, the objective of a football team isn't diversity, it's winning.

I'm not sure why it matters. The NFL is a private enterprise.

The NFL chose to implement that rule themselves, not the government.

And you failed to answer the question. Did the Rooney Rule succeed in increasing diversity in head coaches? If so, why do you think that is? Do you think a number of qualified minority coaches suddenly became available after that rule was passed?

[Yonivore]

The NFL chose to implement that rule themselves, not the government.
Because of all the liberal bitching and moaning.

Now you hear the jokes about how the owner did the "obligatory" minority interviews before hiring who he really wanted.


And you failed to answer the question. Did the Rooney Rule succeed in increasing diversity in head coaches?
Sure, did it improve the coaching of the teams? Who knows?


If so, why do you think that is?
Because of the Rooney Rule.


Do you think a number of qualified minority coaches suddenly became available after that rule was passed?
It's a pretty exclusive group as it is. I would imagine the Rooney Rule encouraged some to apply who, before, wouldn't because they have the confidence their talent alone would carry them.

Tony Dungy would have been a Super Bowl coach with or without the Rooney Rule.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure, did it improve the coaching of the teams? Who knows?

The win/loss record of minorities is pretty decent. And two of them won a Super Bowl. (Dungy/Tomlin.) And another got there. (Caldwell.)


It's a pretty exclusive group as it is. I would imagine the Rooney Rule encouraged some to apply who, before, wouldn't because they have the confidence their talent alone would carry them.

Tony Dungy would have been a Super Bowl coach with or without the Rooney Rule.

So you think that the only thing that was holding back diversity in NFL head coaches was that they didn't have the confidence to apply for the job. Seems a bit naive, don't you think?

Especially when that thought process is extrapolated out to the population at large.

[jack sommerset]

NFL is big time racist towards white people. If a team doesn't want to interview a white guy for the coaching gig they don't have to but a black guy is mandatory. The league has about 65-70 percent black people in it, maybe more.

[Yonivore]

The win/loss record of minorities is pretty decent. And two of them won a Super Bowl. (Dungy/Tomlin.) And another got there. (Caldwell.)
Of course, the talent on the field had nothing to do with that.


So you think that the only thing that was holding back diversity in NFL head coaches was that they didn't have the confidence to apply for the job. Seems a bit naive, don't you think?

Especially when that thought process is extrapolated out to the population at large.
I never said it was the only thing.

Do I think there was a bias? Sure. But, again, it's their business, they can be biased if they want to. Their loss. They can also self-impose a Rooney Rule which, seems silly to me. If they wanted to diversify, why not just diversify? Why have a rule?

But, it's their business...

Affirmative Action in Government hiring or provision of services is another matter.

[LnGrrrR]

Of course, the talent on the field had nothing to do with that.

Of course, but that doesn't explain why the NFL went from 6% of HCs being minorities to 22% or so. If these coaches are successful, then it wasn't talent holding them back, I'm assuming. Why was it that they weren't hired before the Rooney Rule?


Do I think there was a bias? Sure. But, again, it's their business, they can be biased if they want to. Their loss. They can also self-impose a Rooney Rule which, seems silly to me. If they wanted to diversify, why not just diversify? Why have a rule?

So, you're more bothered by a rule that encourages diversification, then the fact that there might have been a bias. (Not saying it was even overt, might have been subconscious.) I think you answered your own question.

Without the rule, owners were hiring whoever they felt like, possibly causing them to be biased against minorities. With the rule, they were forced to at least interview them, giving these minority coaches an opportunity.


Affirmative Action in Government hiring or provision of services is another matter.

I'm just arguing about the effectiveness of the Rooney Rule in the NFL. It certainly seems to be successful in giving minority coaches opportunities, and those minority coaches have been as successful as non-minority coaches.

Do you think the league is being unfair to white coaches by forcing GMs to interview minority candidates?

[Yonivore]

You know, LnGrrrR, bringing up the NFL, at all, was off point.

Truth be told, they can and should be able to do whatever they want with their teams.

Did the Rooney Rule improve the game? It doesn't matter. Because they can, as far as I'm concerned discriminate against whomever they like for whatever reason they want. Some white coach who loses out because of self-imposed affirmative action is just out of luck.

Somehow, I think NFL Owners get the people they want. Were Dungy, Tomlin, or Caldwell seeking professional coaching jobs before the Rooney Rule? Were there black or minority coaches that were not hired because they were minority?

And, frankly, I can't imagine wanting to work for a business that was forced (self-imposed or not) to hire me because of my race. If there was need for the Rooney Rule that means every owner in the NFL was a racist. And, if that's not true, then black coaches just weren't applying with the right teams.

Government discrimination, on the other hand, is wrong. It says so right there in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Government is supposed to be color blind.

[DMX7]

lol...I think the name "Bush" did more for that cause.

Yeah, that's much better.

[DMX7]

You know, LnGrrrR, bringing up the NFL, at all, was off point.

Truth be told, they can and should be able to do whatever they want with their teams.

Did the Rooney Rule improve the game? It doesn't matter. Because they can, as far as I'm concerned discriminate against whomever they like for whatever reason they want. Some white coach who loses out because of self-imposed affirmative action is just out of luck.


You miss the point entirely. Those white coaches "who lose out because of self-imposed affirmative action" are losing out because they never were the better candidate to begin with. The Rooney Rule doesn't force teams to hire a minority candidate. It just forces teams to actually consider a minority that they may have overlooked in the past. There are plenty of good minority candidates but because the norm is to hire white coaches minorities often aren't even given a chance to interview.

[Yonivore]

You miss the point entirely. Those white coaches "who lose out because of self-imposed affirmative action" are losing out because they never were the better candidate to begin with. The Rooney Rule doesn't force teams to hire a minority candidate. It just forces teams to actually consider a minority who that they may have overlooked completely in the past. There are plenty of good minority candidates but because the norm is to hire white coaches minorities often aren't even given a chance to interview.
I understand the argument, I just think it's ridiculous to believe a team owner wouldn't hire the best coach for the job period. Winning a Super Bowl is his only goal, every year. To believe otherwise is to say he would compromise his chances of winning for racism.

I don't buy it. I think I'm back leaning toward my earlier hypothesis that the Rooney Rule emboldened blacks to apply. And, if that's what it accomplished. Good.

I still don't think that's analogous to government affirmative action.

[DMX7]

I understand the argument, I just think it's ridiculous to believe a team owner wouldn't hire the best coach for the job period. Winning a Super Bowl is his only goal, every year. To believe otherwise is to say he would compromise his chances of winning for racism.

I don't buy it.

No, you still don't get it. The team owner or general manager does try to hire the best coach for the job. They aren't hiring mostly white head coaches because they're racists but because they aren't always properly considering minority coaches. It could be a variety of reasons like the minority coach doesn't have head coaching experience that the white head coach does. Well... how the hell is the minority coach going to get head coaching experience if he can't ever even get an interview for a head coaching job? That's just one example but the Rooney Rule is really about breaking up the culture of hiring almost exclusively white head coaches and getting GM's to think outside the box and be more open-minded.

[Yonivore]

No, you still don't get it. The team owner or general manager does try to hire the best coach for the job. They aren't hiring mostly white head coaches because they're racists but because they aren't always properly considering minority coaches. It could be a variety of reasons like the minority coach doesn't have head coaching experience that the white head coach does. Well... how the hell is the minority coach going to get head coaching experience if he can't ever even get an interview for a head coaching job? That's just one example but the Rooney Rule is really about breaking up the culture of hiring almost exclusively white head coaches and getting GM's to think outside the box and be more open-minded.
I see your point but, that sets it even further apart from Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is intended to give preference to minorities when all other factors are equal.

[LnGrrrR]

If there was need for the Rooney Rule that means every owner in the NFL was a racist. And, if that's not true, then black coaches just weren't applying with the right teams.

I don't think it's so black and white, but yes, essentially that's the argument. Which do you think is more convincing?


Government discrimination, on the other hand, is wrong. It says so right there in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Government is supposed to be color blind.

I could see an argument for that. But that doesn't necessarily speak to the effectiveness of affirmative action; it's a different argument. (Which I wouldn't mind having after this one.)

[LnGrrrR]

I understand the argument, I just think it's ridiculous to believe a team owner wouldn't hire the best coach for the job period. Winning a Super Bowl is his only goal, every year. To believe otherwise is to say he would compromise his chances of winning for racism.

Not all racism is overt. In fact, most people are prejudiced in one way or another.


I don't buy it. I think I'm back leaning toward my earlier hypothesis that the Rooney Rule emboldened blacks to apply. And, if that's what it accomplished. Good.

That sounds far-fethced to me. I don't think blacks were less motivated to apply beforehand, but if they weren't getting chances to interview, there's not alot they can do about it.

[LnGrrrR]

I see your point but, that sets it even further apart from Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is intended to give preference to minorities when all other factors are equal.

Would you approve of an Affirmative Action policy that relied not on quotas for filling jobs (ie. a certain % of people in a job have to be black), but quotas for interviewing candidates?

[Yonivore]

Would you approve of an Affirmative Action policy that relied not on quotas for filling jobs (ie. a certain % of people in a job have to be black), but quotas for interviewing candidates?
So long as no one was denied an opportunity to interview? Sure. In other words, you interview whatever number of candidates is required to meet your quota without changing the qualifications.

Sure...I'd accept that.

College admissions are another matter, they're based on objective merit and there are a finite number of spots.

[LnGrrrR]

So long as no one was denied an opportunity to interview? Sure. In other words, you interview whatever number of candidates is required to meet your quota without changing the qualifications.

Sure...I'd accept that.

Cool. :tu


College admissions are another matter, they're based on objective merit and there are a finite number of spots.

I can understand that argument. I would say that whites have other built-in factors (wealth, connections, etc etc) that have been denied to blacks simply due to historical influence. (To use the NFL as an example... look at how many coaching positions are filled by sons/brothers/etc. Are these all due to merit?)

But I think that the interview aspect, instead of the quota method, has a lot less moral issues.

[Yonivore]

Cool. :tu

I can understand that argument. I would say that whites have other built-in factors (wealth, connections, etc etc) that have been denied to blacks simply due to historical influence.
There are poor whites, probably as many as there are poor blacks, that don't have those built-in factors. In fact, I would argue it is precisely these whites that are harmed by Affirmative Action.

A rich, connected person, white or black, is going to get into college without Affirmative Action.


(To use the NFL as an example... look at how many coaching positions are filled by sons/brothers/etc. Are these all due to merit?) I really don't thing the NFL analogy is operative. You're talking about a minute subset of the population and, a fairly elite one at that.


But I think that the interview aspect, instead of the quota method, has a lot less moral issues.
Okay.

[LnGrrrR]

There are poor whites, probably as many as there are poor blacks, that don't have those built-in factors. In fact, I would argue it is precisely these whites that are harmed by Affirmative Action.

Fair enough. Tell me Yoni, what do you think the percentage of poor whites is, as opposed to poor blacks/minorities?


A rich, connected person, white or black, is going to get into college without Affirmative Action.

Agreed. In fact, they might get in IN SPITE of their talent, given that they have connections. Agree?

Who do you think, on average, is more rich/connected? White people, or minorities?


I really don't thing the NFL analogy is operative. You're talking about a minute subset of the population and, a fairly elite one at that.

I'd say it's relevant as a working example of affirmative action. And due to its small size, its much easier to see relevant outcomes than it is on a larger scale.

But it can also be used as an example of how "Who You Know" can be more important than "What You Know". As I said, lots of family in the NFL coaching. Look at the Ryans. Look at the Harbaughs. Etc etc. Are these families jsut predisposed to coaching? Or did they happen to get their first "in" because they knew someone?

Applying that to affirmative action, minorities are the ones that don't know anybody.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's really come a long way. 200 years ago poor blacks worked their asses off to make middle class and wealthy white peoples lives better. Now, middle class and wealthy white people work their asses off to pay taxes to make poor blacks lives better. :lol

[CuckingFunt]

:tu

This is where you apparently differ from Wile E Coyote...

I think this might be my favorite post ever.

[Yonivore]

Fair enough. Tell me Yoni, what do you think the percentage of poor whites is, as opposed to poor blacks/minorities?
I have no idea but, it would only have to be 12.9% of the population for there to be as many poor whites as there are a total number of blacks in America.

We're not talking percentages, we're talking number of people affected by the discriminatory practices of Affirmative Action. And, in that respect, it's a 1-to-1 ratio with the white person getting the raw en of the deal. My bet is that none of them are privileged, wealthy, or connected white people either.


Agreed. In fact, they might get in IN SPITE of their talent, given that they have connections. Agree?
Yep. Legacy enrollment at public institutions should be outlawed. With that said, however, if Red McCombs (or Oprah Winfrey) wants to give you tens of millions of dollars to build a Business School and Softball facility, I have no problem with you holding a slot for their progeny.


Who do you think, on average, is more rich/connected? White people, or minorities?
Again, I have no idea - the subset of the population that falls in this category is so small as to not make a difference. The fight is over the thousands that suffer due to Affirmative Action and those aren't the wealthy.


I'd say it's relevant as a working example of affirmative action. And due to its small size, its much easier to see relevant outcomes than it is on a larger scale.

But it can also be used as an example of how "Who You Know" can be more important than "What You Know". As I said, lots of family in the NFL coaching. Look at the Ryans. Look at the Harbaughs. Etc etc. Are these families jsut predisposed to coaching? Or did they happen to get their first "in" because they knew someone?
We simply disagree on this point. I don't think the NFL's application of the Rooney Rule has a correlation to Affirmative Action because of the small numbers and the exclusivity of those involved.


Applying that to affirmative action, minorities are the ones that don't know anybody.
Again, there are as many, if not more, whites that "don't know anybody" and, I would argue, these are the ones getting shafted by Affirmative Action.

Whites aren't allowed to field a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton to extort concessions on their behalf. Or a United Negro College Fund.