Dean,

I asked this in an earlier thread, and I’ll ask it again here. 1) Why exactly do you think that AA harms the black community more than any other AA beneficiary community, like Native Americans or Hispanics? 2) Why are the other beneficiary groups rarely mentioned in these discussions, especially since one of the groups outnumbers blacks? 3) If other groups are allowed to reap the “benefits” of AA, without the stigmatization, isn’t this a massive free rider problem and aren’t you, personally, by you focus on blacks to the exclusion of every other AA beneficiary group, helping perpetuate that?

Now on to your question. I’ve never understood this fascination with Powell’s/Oprah’s/Michael Jordan’s/Cosby’s/Bob Johnson’s kids, but obviously, to the extent there is an AA, rich and middle-class kids shouldn’t benefit. Immigrants, including black immigrants, also shouldn’t benefit, but I know we’re supposed to focus on blacks only and I apologize for bringing up that aspect. Of course, the Powell line of argument is a bit unserious since we both know that principled opponents of AA oppose it because they believe that race simply shouldn’t be considered under any circumstances, not because it’s “unfair” that certain beneficiaries may be the offspring of those comfortably situated.

Well that's handy, Todd. Without answering my question, you ask me another question. But I'll answer your question first:

Every defender of Affirmative Action I have encountered in my entire life has raised the specter of Jim Crow, segregation, and the discrimination suffered by black children. Furthermore, I have yet to see one hispanic spokesman or politician on the news, or Native American spokesman or politician on the news, talking about why he and his people need preferential treatment under Affirmative Action.

I have seen a very tiny handful of op-eds from Hispanics, none from Native Americans. That's about it.

It also happens that I've never met a hispanic or Native American beneficiary of these programs.

So how I can be accused of "giving them a free ride" is beyond me. But, since you asked, I would assume hispanics and Native Americans would also suffer from the same problems caused by these racial discrimination programs.

As for your claim that my question (which you did not answer) is "unserious" (nice way to avoid answering it, by the way):

It is crux of the argument, the most powerful argument, the most important argument. Because it illustrates something that we both know: the program is not intended to benefit disadvantaged children. It's intended to benefit children on the basis of three specific racial groups, at the expense of all others, period.

Which is, by any measure, racist.

If you helped all disadvantaged kids equally, Todd, then there would be no need to focus on kids of three blessed races, at the expense of all the others, and we would be having no debate at all here--except over what the most effective way to help those kids would be.

So Todd, will you answer my question directly, without handwaving? Or will you just say it's unserious so you don't have to?

As Moe says so very well:

When asked "Do you support Affirmative Action?" most Americans say yes, but when asked questions like "Do you believe less qualified black students should be accepted into Universities over more qualified white students?" most Americans say no. Americans want more "underrepresented" minorities in their colleges, but they don't like the things that must be done to get them there.

I suspect that this is the real reason why the defenders uniformly fail to take the question on directly.

My favorite definition of AA is that it is about making an effort to seek out qualified candidates of different backgrounds. It's not about hiring unqualified people, or letting people into colleges that they don't deserve to be in, it's about making the extra effort to find and consider qualified candidates.

Of course, that's not how it always happens.

Also, it's true that AA, as defined above, is difficult to systematically implement. It's even more difficult to implement fairly. How do you determine what you mean by different backgrounds? Race does seem like a 'racist' category in this case.

I think systems like the U of M point system are no good, but I do like the idea of taking the extra effort to strive for/achieve diversity (racial/economic/ideological), whether it be in a university, a company, or a group of friends.

Dean,

Having read some of your earlier posts (probably should have done that before my last comment!), I want to say that I agree with you that diversity shouldn't be a "constitutional principle".

I do, however, believe that diversity is very valuable, and that a commitment to diversity should be legal. If you're running a university, having a diverse student quality can increase the quality of academic debate on campus. If you're running a company, having a diverse and qualified workforce can help you better understand the needs of your customers. You should not, however, be constitutionally required to have a diverse workforce.

John

Dean, as a average white kid on the bubble (well, I was an average white 34 year old veteran) I applied to seven law schools (as an ego driven jar-head I only applied to first tier schools - top 50). I got accepted to one, wait listed on two and rejections varying from curt to polite from four. The two I was wait listed at (UT, UMd) expressly told me that my only shot was if another out-of-state white guy with my scores dropped out, then could I get in. Talking with a UT undergrad at the school I went to, Notre Dame (go Irish), he explained the point system used at UT, very similar in 1993 to what the UM undergrad admissions used. We were amused that year when the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the UT admissions system violated the Constitution.

The answer to your question is no, Colin Powell's kids do not deserve benefits that I did not get. And this points to the disctinction between the two cases: the UM Law School made particularized analyses into each applicant and at least provided the appearance of narrowly tailoring admissions to achieve what has now become a legitimate governmental purpose - "diversity"; the UM undergrad admissions plan was a rote formula that created a quota, and a bald violation of equal protection required under the Constitution (just as the 5th Circuit said).

Now, as a conservative veteran I do not buy "diversity" as now practiced (I miss the old idea of diveristy of contributing to the melting pot); "Diversity" is used to justify picking by race and in order to maintain liberal dominance of academia. That said, coming back to academia from the real world, well, the military, one has lived a stark reality: The DOD is 40% minority, but the officer ranks are 91% white. The fact is we have done a great job at the entry level, but fail to recruit/fail to accept minorities in leadership positions at the same rate. And we do race relations better than anyone in the US.

The radical whack jobs have run or had free reign in academia (both public schools K-12, and higher education) and social services for thirty years (broad observation, admittedly not science). Serious reform (welfare reform is just the first step) is needed before the underclass minorities are represented equally in higher education without assistance (well meaning "assistance" has really created this underclass, IMHO). As one of the bubble kids, I see Affirmative Action as a necessary stop-gap until we've figured out how to at least ameliorate the worst disparities that 40 years of the Great Society made worse.

While admissions based in part by race is justifable only by using polite fictions when faced with the Constitutional standards, there is a real compelling state interest in providing better access to higher education to underrepresented minorities. Diversity is not it (that's junk science, based only on a fig leaf developed by Justice Powell in Bakke), but providing more education opportunities is always better. The harsh econimics are that this white guy was going to law school, eventually, where perhaps a minority would not otherwise without a nudge.

The question is how offensive an admissions plan can we accept - UM practiced two plans at the liberal extreme, the UM Law School got a pass based on their reputation (how embarrassed would the nation's bar be if one of their premier institutions was found to have violated the fundamental law); but the more blatant undergrad system got what it deserved.

After taking the LSAT and comparing my scores and undergrad grades with those the law schools reported for 1992 admissions, in 1993 I was on the bubble at each of the schools I applied to. Two schools expressly admitted to me of using a race weighted formula, but my life experience was enough to put me on a wait list. I got past the bubble at ND because they like veterans. Despite being a fourth generation Californian, with a UC undergrad degree and good faculty recommendations, and having paid state taxes for 16 years (my adult life till then) I went 0 for 3 at UC law schools. My impression was then, and is now, that the UC system used mechanical quotas that precluded any consideration of life experience except to favor a minority, not to favor a white guy on the bubble. My experience created the resentment that is talked about by anti affirmative action pundits (and interestingly, the UC system was forced to drop race by an irritated electorate).

Here's my dillemna, Affirmative Action is being defended as a pure good ("Diversity") by liberals, but is really only a necessary evil required by the good public policy of inclusion in the mainstream of those who need help to join. Programs that seek "diversity" need to be strictly scrutinized to ensure that they achieve inclusion of underclass, not a boost to existing elites. Getting to the point on not needing the evil will really mean wresting control of social services from the left, or:

What will really solve this problem the growing intermarriage in the US. A couple more generations and a substantial plurality in the US will be multi-ethnic/racial, and much of this argument will be defused and returned to the less polarizing question of what to do with the poor. Halle Berry is the future!

I think systems like the U of M point system are no good, but I do like the idea of taking the extra effort to strive for/achieve diversity (racial/economic/ideological), whether it be in a university, a company, or a group of friends.

Actually, John, I'm 100% in favor of this.

The problem being that universities found in the 1980s that they could not do this and get enough minorities in the door to avoid jeapordizing government funding. Which is why they started using secret quota systems to get enough in the door. Especially because the government never asked them how many of these kids graduated--just how many were enrolled. The fact that they dropped out in record numbers--and still do--was completely ignored. Still is ignored by most AA advocates.

Dean,

First of all, thanks for responding. You run a great blog.

1) I thought that I’d answered your question when I wrote, “rich and middle-class kids shouldn’t benefit” from AA. To be more precise, neither Colin Powell’s kids, nor your son’s best friend (nor your son, for that matter) deserve any special consideration, positive or negative, on account of their race. Race simply must never be a factor.

2) I think that the Powell references don’t help the colorblindness argument because it leads some (not you, Dean) to think that the problem with AA is that it’s a race based middle-to-upper-class entitlement. I think the problem with AA is that it’s race based and race based programs are wrong, period, for any reason. If AA were a race based program for poor kids, it may be more effective, but it would be just as wrong.

3) The fact that other AA beneficiary groups don’t spend political capital defending AA doesn’t mean that those groups aren’t AA beneficiaries. They are. Every AA program, by definition, includes Hispanics and Native Americans. If these groups aren’t spending political capital defending AA, and they certainly aren’t spending political capital to abolish AA, then what exactly are they doing? Well, they’re simply reaping the benefits without paying the costs. Looks like a classic free rider problem to me.

4) I wasn’t trying to imply that you were intentionally giving other beneficiary groups a “free ride”. I was just wondering if there weren’t a bit of a “free rider problem” in the AA debate, where one group may bear, say, 95% of the costs and receive maybe 33% of the benefits. An analogy outside of the AA debate might be U.S. military spending and global security, where U.S. taxpayers may bear over 90% of the costs of making the world a safer place, while receiving much less that 90% of the benefits. Other countries, like France and Canada, reap a share of the rewards without the sacrifice.

Why do Colin Powell's kids deserve special consideration that mine do not?

They don’t, but GHW Bush’s son didn’t either or William Clay Fords son. So what?

I believe hat AA causes more harm to the black community than any other community, but it harms all of America in deeply divisive and hurtful ways that aren't visible to those contemptuously flicking their wrists at white kids denied opportunities.

And three-fifths, Jim Crow, and segregation cause scars that may never go away in our lifetime or the next or the next. To contemptuously flick your wrists at the legacy of these policies after a single generation might suggest that there is still a lot of work to do. If you could channel the passion you have for eliminating AA into solutions that will server to address what you see as the problem, AA will not need to be dismantled, it will become irrelevant.

I will never be able to change your belief that AA doesn’t cause the harm you claim. Even if it could be proven one way or the other it is irrelevant. If the underlying issues are solved, AA doesn’t matter. My point is that too much effort goes into fighting AA and too little into proposals that address the real issues. But the first step is to shred AA of the power it has as a divisive issue. Unfortunately too many people feel that by horribleizing the issue, it can be dismantled and once that happens some will put as much passion into addressing the root causes with policies that make sense. The real racists will sit back and fight those proposals because they never wanted to fix the problem in the first place.

So instead of fighting AA, my suggestion is to make it irrelivent.

They don’t, but GHW Bush’s son didn’t either or William Clay Fords son. So what?'

Um, I don't think Dean is talking about inheriting your parent's money, fame, or popularity. I don't see any point at which the government gave GWB "special treatment", except for Secret Service protection.

Dean's making the point that while segregation and Jim Crowe left scars, AA keeps them open.

Um, I don't think Dean is talking about inheriting your parent's money, fame, or popularity. I don't see any point at which the government gave GWB "special treatment", except for Secret Service protection.

I don't think Rick's talking about the government. The government probably didn't give GWB "special treatment", but maybe Yale and Harvard did.

>> When asked "Do you support Affirmative Action?" most Americans say yes, but when asked questions like "Do you believe less qualified black students should be accepted into Universities over more qualified white students?" most Americans say no. Americans want more "underrepresented" minorities in their colleges, but they don't like the things that must be done to get them there.

Dean,

You and Moe might be missing the same thing here. Perhaps the public is so undereducated regarding affirmative action they simply do not understand what actual policies compose it. This might account for the different responses you cite.

Dean,

I agree that AA is at its very basis racist. There is no other way to look at it, no other way to approach the subject. I also happen to think the court's decision was, ultimately, a cop-out that will solve absolutely nothing. What it did do was give universities a sort of self-help manual on drafting your own quotas in ways that will stand when tested in court.

It did acknowledge a very important truth, though: America isn't color-blind. Color matters, although perhaps it would be better to say that socioeconomic conditions matter. Student from inner-city schools are being failed; even the brightest are receiving sub-standard educations that do nothing to prepare them for better schools or careers.

This is not something that is race-based, but it is true that these schools are predominantly African-American and hispanic. The schools that we fund have failed these kids and have failed in their mission. If we accept that we have an obligation, societally, to fulfill that mission, then how do we fix the situation for these kids and work so that future generations aren't hobbled by these schools?

The answer for most people seems to be affirmative action--make it easier for kids to get into schools so that they might have a brighter future. Of course, this is an affront to all Anglos, Jews, and Asians--disadvantaging some to help others. It also ignores the simple fact that by asking kids who are unprepared to attend and excel in these schools, the real result is frustration and higher drop-out rates.

The school that I taught for a few weeks back (Regis in Denver) runs a summer program called the Lonnie Porter Leadership Academy. This program selects "at risk" kids from Denver Public Schools to attend the Leadership Academy from fifth grade until high school graduation. The academy teaches life skills, more advanced subjects, social skills, and, essentially, a different culture of expectations. The kids give up about a month of their summer vacations to take part in the academy and are rewarded with scholarships to Regis (an exceptional school) upon completion.

The benefits of this approach are many--it not only works with the kids academically, but socially. The culture in many of Denver's neighborhoods is academic apathy--the parents don't care, the schools are underfunded (and, yes, I do actually believe this--I've seen them), and the teachers are overworked. Even the brightest kids would have a hard time excelling in this environment. The academy helps the kids overcome that and works to prepare them for success at the college level, not just rushing them into a situation where they are bound to fail.

Even better, the program is color-blind. It's true that it is made up mostly of minority students, but there are at-risk Anglo students in the mix. The kids are selected by their teachers on the basis of their academic potential, their leadership potential, and how unlikely it would be that they would be able to (or encouraged to) attend college.

Unfortunately, the funds for a program like this are limited and theirs a huge waiting list of kids who could fill those spots. Any program devoted to the concept of diversity would do well to follow the example, though.

Another thing that could help stave off future generations of poorly educated students, though, is to embrace school vouchers. If the schools are failing these students (and they are), then parents need to have the option to move them to better schools. Schools where they'll be held to and taught to a higher standard.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you. The ruling wasn't what it should have been. If the goal of diversity is worthwhile, though, then it is worth discussing options to attain that goal while still working towards that color-blind society that we all believe in so strongly. Affirmative action isn't the solution, but we need to be putting forth some strong ideas that make AA unnecessary by comparison.

-D

Dean:
The reason you are not getting a straight answer, is you are not asking a straight question. At the level of undergradute admissions AA doesn't help rich, smart, black kids, any more than it really hurts rich, smart, white kids. Any kid with a decent level of both can go to any school they want. Where AA helps the benifiting groups is it extends the bubble down for them a bit, and raises it a bit for everyone else.

I'm not defending AA, at least not here, and I don't think it has anyplace in the world pass undergraduate admissions; however, if you want to discuss getting rid of AA don't attack it from the top because that's a straw man. Attack a specific program as affecting too much. (for instance 'does UofM's AA affect athletic scholarships? need based? I certainly would hope not.) Or attack AA in general on hurting the other groups unfairly. Or you could attack AA as hurting the groups it's supposed to help by making it appear they can't get along without it. I don't know if I buy that last one, but I can see the argument.

THere are plenty of arguments to be made against AA, building straw men won't help you.

It's not about hiring unqualified people, or letting people into colleges that they don't deserve to be in...

Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case. Although "quotas" are officially verboten, most large employers pay careful attention to the percentages of minority residents in the population of whatever area they are hiring people in. Hiring less than an equal percentage of any race except white people opens you up to a lawsuit. The real world effect of this is to sometimes cause LESS (not un) qualified minorities to be hired in preference to fully (i.e. better) qualified white people. The result is that minority hires tend to be viewed with suspicion by their white co-workers.

The assumption is that the minority hires were hired BECAUSE of their minority status, rather than their qualifications. The consequence is that the whites resent the minorities, who are presumed not to be capable of pulling their weight. The minorities sense this resentment, and resent right back (rightly so).

Affirmative Action MAY gain minorities jobs that they would not otherwise get, but WHETHER THEY ARE QUALIFIED OR NOT, Affirmative Action hiring practices lead minorities to be stigmatized and treated poorly. I say that this is exactly the wrong result.

As for colleges that they don't "deserve" to be in, I think you picked the wrong word there. If you had said colleges they don't have the qualifications to be in, I'd agree. The consequence of going to a college that is above your level of achievement is a high failure rate. As student who might do very well in a medium level state university college can get chewed up and spit out at a top level university that they have gained entry to based on their race.

Take a look at admission statistics versus graduation statistics for minority candidates at major universities. Compare those statistics with the same statistics for whites and you will see that whites (who have to be a lot better to get a slot) have a lot better success rate.

It is not because they are white, it is because they are better qualified.

Now I don't much care about the poor poor white folk that get screwed out of a job, or a college admission, because a black guy got it. What I care about is that the result of this nonsense will be the prolongation of racism and discrimination.

Defend THAT, will ya?

So many good points here I doubt I can adequately address them all. First, one thing not addressed by anybody here on this posting is the absolute fact is the way that racial preferences divide Americans from each other by classifying all Americans by groups, i.e., race. As if America were not already obsessed by race, we now have good, legal precedent to be even more obsessed by it for the indefinite future. I see this as the biggest losing point in the recent SCOTUS decision. I fear America is headed into one long, divisive national debate resulting from this decision. You can already see it here in this series of posting already.

Dean hit on my favorite point regarding this UM affirmative action debate. Blacks and Hispanics from inner cities “requiring” race-based admissions to top universities graduate at a 36% rate compared to qualified white students who graduate at a 70% rate. That means that two minority students drop out for every non-matriculated, qualified student who would graduate from top schools. How does this credit a top university such as the University of Michigan?

Such minority students are no more stupid than their white counterparts in suburban and exurban America are. They are simply trapped in underperforming public schools. This is easy to prove. Time and again the worst public schools appear in big cities where minorities are the majority: Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles, Atlanta, NYC. The worst schools in the America are in Washington, D. C. It goes on ad nauseum. Until America finds some creative way to solve the problem of under performing inner city schools, then racial preferences in university admissions will always exist. This divisive issue may well evolve into a national tinderbox.

I see this affirmative action debate surrounding top universities as simply the salient issue for America’s race industry. I doubt America will solve this issue in 25 years as Sandra Day O’Conner said. She will be off the Supreme Court by then. There is simply too much at stake for the likes of Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton to exploit. Does anybody really expect Jesse Jackson, Jr. to ever stop supporting race-based preferences even if these preferences support wealthy black businessmen who need affirmative action the least? He has a constituency to represent after all. He will surely play the race card since he can now cite SCOTUS precedent.

Race-based preferences extend far beyond university admissions. It also extends to granting government contracts at the national, state, and local levels. Which firm gets to pave the local highway you drive every day? Can an out-of-town minority firm force your county commissioners to grant them this contract citing court rulings? I believe every firm should get an equal shot. But when it comes to messing with another’s money, this will get very nasty indeed. The University of Michigan admissions policy is important since it is the most salient. This recent SCOTUS decision possibly sets a dangerous, divisive precedent if race is allowed to matter more than merit at top universities.

There might well be a flip side to this debate not yet discussed. Will University of Michigan's race based admissions policy turn away qualified in state students to other state supported law schools? It undoubtedly will. They will probably attend Wayne State or University of Detroit's law school. Will this enrich these two law schools'reputations at the expense of the University of Michigan's? Only time will tell.

First, a few answers to the original 'unanswered question'...

"Why do Colin Powell's kids deserve special consideration that mine do not? Furthermore, why does my son's best friend, who lives 10 doors down and goes to the same school, deserve special consideration that my son does not, just because my son's not black and his best friend is?"

Because no one ever called your son a stupid nigger. Because no one ever told you son that because of the color of his skin, he should stick to basketball. Because no one ever joked that your sons grandfather made a good christmas tree ornament. etc.

Now whether you consider these and similar replies sufficient is another thing altogether, and not being black or having any particular insight into the black psyche, I wouldn't venture to guess how much impact they have on blacks ability to compete academically. But there is certainly a sizeable body of research that suggests that these attitudes and experiences are, in fact, enough to significantly undermine black scholastic achievement.

Is AA answer? I don't know...I personally think that it is too blunt an instrument for the task. But at least your burning question has been answered.

the solution is to stop the utterly racist and atrocious Affirmative Action programs (the Supreme Court at least did that much at U of M, but gave them a window to try again), and to start focusing on fixing the real problem: dysfunctional economies in our inner cities, fixing the problems that all poor and uneducated kids have regardless of race

Er, could we have that the other way around?

That is, could we fix the real problems -- about which I am with you 100% -- and then end affirmative action?
I figure with the carrot of ending AA in front of them, people who normally would protest the resource expenditures required to fix the problems would be less likely to stop before the job was done.

Good Questions

Cortney,

I didn't say GWB and WCF jr. got government assistance, I was trying to point out that "special treatment" tends to manifest itself in ways other then thought government programs. Given my druthers if I had a choice between 20 extra points to get into U of M or being a member of the Ford or Bush family I would take the latter because my advantage in life would make any thing government could offer trivial by comparison.

Or do you deny that the progeny of the wealthy and powerful don’t get special treatment? If your arguing for meritocracy you have to be just as concerned about kids who’s parents gave 50,000 to the university as the kids who are given 20 points by the government.

>>the solution is to stop the utterly racist and atrocious Affirmative Action programs (the Supreme Court at least did that much at U of M, but gave them a window to try again), and to start focusing on fixing the real problem: dysfunctional economies in our inner cities, fixing the problems that all poor and uneducated kids have regardless of race.

***********************************************

I firmly believe the one component not yet tried in solving this affirmative action issue lies in the private sector. So far, all solutions have been government based. Let me be more specific. So far, the ONLY solutions tried have been TOTALLY government based.

Too many people look for the government i.e., the national government in Washington, D.C., to solve all societies' problems. Government cannot solve all problems. I believe our national government has gone as far as it can in solving this issue of racial fairness. It has turned America into a race-obsessed country resulting in consequences that we will feel for decades, if not centuries, to come.

The academic side of the affirmative action debate utilizes only government rulings governing government schools. A workable solution must lie with something such as privatization of some government school services such as foreign language study. Perhaps we can contract with private sector teachers or teaching services such as Berlitz or Kumon Learning Centers to teach in schools. This will require changes in state laws, of course. Private schools have no problem educating kids using teachers sans teaching certificates. But this is only one possible answer. Vouchers may be another answer (outside Michigan).

This by itself may begin another precedent whereby Americans to turn to the private sector to resolve problems instead of scurrying to a cumbersome, bureaucratic, litigious, national government to impose a one size fits all solution for all of America. I only wish.

Douglas Kmiec, the greatest constitutional scholar I've met (ok, he was my teacher) makes a couple interesting obaervations:

Of course, it will be open to debate at any given time how many universities or law schools see themselves as elite or selective, and therefore, as qualifying for this rare constitutional dispensation. Being in the educational environment, I know that each school has unique features that make it attractive, but the reality is that applicants with high grades and test scores rationally seek out places, on average, that have large endowments and the traditions and faculties which give rise to them. All sides in the affirmative- action debate also concede that for reasons that remain perplexing and intractable (and that cry out to be addressed in noncosmetic ways), far too few minority students fall within the upper ranges of the entrance exam. Of the 4,461 applicants to law school who had scores in roughly the 93rd percentile in 2002, 29 were black. About 25-30 law schools consistently and exclusively take their nonminority students from this range, and that arguably, defines the contextual universe Justice O'Connor was writing about.

The use of race, in this way, remains extraordinary: to the giving of remedy for unlawful discrimination or the achievement of diversity in highly selective places.

***

via NRO, read the whole thing. Dean Kmiec explains that O'Connor's opinion (well in line with stare decises) limits the use of the justification of "diversity" for race norming to "elite" institutions. The two questions are, will any court actually limit diversity uses to the "elite", or can any two judges agree what constitutes elite.

Rick: I frankly find the notion that slavery and Jim Crow leave "scars" that special privs for black kids will remedy to be a racist notion. As Courtney says: these special remedies only keep the wounds open and worsen the situation.

Indeed, I state it openly: programs like this have kept black people back much more than they've helped it. They also aggravate wounds that were beginning to heal 40 years ago.

I think you're just holding up the thoroughly racist notion that just being black makes you a cripple by nature of your blackness. There is no justification for that sort of thinking which is not, in the end, racist. I suggest that you root out these hidden prejudices within your soul.

Also, perhaps if folks like you spent less time and energy defending these racist systems and ideas, and more on doing what it takes to help poor kids, this issue would get better. 10+ years of political capital has been spent by the left on defending these indefensibly racist systems, instead of actually trying to help the needy.

I don't give a flying fuck if a "disproportionate" number of black or Hispanic kids are underpriviledged, I care about ALL poor and underpriviledged kids--and I believe that the only way to help ALL of them is to stop treating them in such racist ways.

Michael: Your statement here:

At the level of undergradute admissions AA doesn't help rich, smart, black kids, any more than it really hurts rich, smart, white kids.

...is flat-out false-to-fact. The undergrad program that the Supreme Court struck down was doing that very thing, and AA programs continue to do that very thing around the nation.

You need to educate yourself on this issue, because you do not know what you are talking about.

PG: That is, could we fix the real problems -- about which I am with you 100% -- and then end affirmative action?

Frankly, I doubt this very much. Because these programs are only aggravating the problem.

They perpetrate racist stereotypes, they treat black people as permanently crippled by their blackness, and they tell poor underpriviledged kids of other races that they just don't matter as much. But they teach black kids that they're deserving of special treatment just by who they are.

Affirmative Action programs, at least the racist point-based systems we're talking about here, only exacerbate the problem.

Patrick:

Because no one ever called your son a stupid nigger. Because no one ever told you son that because of the color of his skin, he should stick to basketball. Because no one ever joked that your sons grandfather made a good christmas tree ornament. etc.

Wow. Aren't you the very soul of a condescending racist?

I mean, really. Insulting someone means that he's crippled for life? Apparently so, if you're black anyway. "Someone called me a name and said bad things about me! That means I can't study and achieve!"

Has anyone ever pointed out to you just what a horribly bigoted attitude that is?

Picture American society as a yard with a fence aroung it to protect its basic values. This fence has a gate to it, but you must agree to adopt the values of American society in order to enter. Immigrants over the years have agreed to this condition, and been fully integrated into American society.

There is one simple reason Affirmative Action made sense(emphasis on past tense). Historically, American society actively excluded black people from the freedoms and opportunities afforded by American culture.

Affirmative Action made sense as an active remedy to that historical crime. An active remedy was needed to force the integration of Black people into the mainstream of American society. This force was needed on two levels: 1) forcing white Americans to open the gate of access, and 2) leading Black Americans to that gate and encouraging them to walk through it.

Affirmative Action was only justifiable under the terms of redressing an historical crime. To apply Affirmative Action plans to any group other than Black Americans is completely unjustifiable. Native Americans were a defeated enemy. Hispanic Americans only represent the latest large immigrant group that is destined for full assimilation.

The problem that remains with Affirmative Action as it exists today is not step 1 - whites acknowledging the past and opening the gate of opportunity. It is in inducing Black Americans to walk through the gate and enjoy the benefits that are now available to them.

Black leaders spent so much energy getting the gate opened that they do not know when to declare victory. The problem is they want the whole fence to come down. Even though the gate is open, they are not satisfied.

But that fence is never going to come down. And at some point, the active encouragement of Black Americans to walk through the open gate will no longer make sense. Generations that were never an active part of keeping the gate closed to Black Americans will no longer tolerate special treatment of them. That is when Affirmative Action will die. It is already on its last legs, and my children, who have an African American cousin, and a Mexican grandmother, will wonder why it was ever even necessary.

Slow down, there Dean. First, if you care to read my comments a little more closely, I never said that I personally feel that discrimination of this type meant a black person was 'crippled for life' or 'couldn't learn'. I simply stated that there is plenty of research on psychology and education that seems to show that being subjected to derogatory attitudes can have a negative impact on learning. Not having spent any time seriously reviewing such studies, I can't comment on their validity...but they do exist, and many people smarter than I feel they are significant.

As far as being "the very soul of a condescending racist," I presume that you are implying that because I said blacks can't overcome a little name-calling they are therefor inferior, and I am therefore rascist. Even if this was what I said, and it's not, your conclusion is still wrong. It's wrong because I never said, or even implied for that matter, that other races and groups wouldn't be equally impacted if subjected to the same treatment. In fact, I would have to note that studies of negative attitudes toward children and negative expectations about their performance have also been shown to create equally adverse impacts on many other groups, including Native Americans, whites, girls and boys, kids with blue eyes, and left handers. It seems all kids can be made to suffer by harassing them sufficiently.

And I reiterate: I'm not supporting AA, as I feel it is overbroad. I was just giving an answer to the original question.

Dean, allow me to take a stab at answering your question.

Accepting as a given the cultural makeup of a specific institution is reflective of a dominant group (whereas 'race' is less skin color than a political entity), it is ethical to give advantage to a Michael Powell versus a similarly qualified 'white' candidate. Women, regardless of ethnicity, also qualify for such a privilege as well as Asians, Latinos, Indigenous Peoples and other 'non-white' American ethnics. So would a 'white' male applying to Morehouse. There are two reasons; one systemic, the other holistic.

American institutions function as repositories of Anglo culture and perspective. Universities are no exception; much of their curricula is based on largely Western European concepts. Considering that higher education's raison d'etre is to prepare a somewhat elite core of society for administering tomorrow's world, it makes perfect sense to aggressively diversify the limited pool of perspectives as widely as possible to ensure the most competitive product (meaning a highly-prepared individual). Presuming a flagship institution such as Michigan to already be 80+% 'white', Colin's kid potentially adds more value to the academic environment than the 'white' applicant. Unfortunately, as we're dealing with distribution of a severely limited resource, some nominally qualified individuals are ultimately going to be left out. OTOH,
'whites' continue to maintain most of the institutional advantages, simply due to history and their superior numbers. With all the carping about AA costing some 'white' person an opportunity, that applicant still has the law of averages on their side for being acceptance. Overwhelmingly so.

The holistic reasoning goes that colleges, as well as other institutions, need to accurately reflect a society's demographics in order to function properly. It's true such thinking is more about real politik, is technically racist and implies quotas, but it's a pragmatic solution to socioeconomic discrepancies in a society in which institutionalized racism exists. While I would hate for society to infer, for example, once 13% of all doctors are 'black' that parity has been attained, an informal equity (as opposed to equality) is something that should be measured and encouraged.