Columbia Class of 2006 Blog

I agree that affirmative action will, in any scenario, only affect borderline cases. But what you -- and the Supremes -- seem to be saying (and again, please correct me on this if I'm wrong) is that if race is used to calculate some kind of "admissions index" that is used as the final decision-maker for admitting students, it can't be a linear additive factor, but it can be non-linear. E.g.: Acme University declares that it will admit the 500 students with the highest admissions index scores. The index is the sum of a number of factors, including a race-based factor. If African-Americans' race factor is 20 points across the board, that is illegal. But if their race factor is 20 times an "economic background" factor (equal to 0 if the applicant's parents earn more than $100,000 a year, 1 otherwise), that is legal. Or does the policy become illegal any time it can be statistically identified and quantified? Every decision made by an admissions office is -- or at least can be -- modeled a mathematical formula. The formula may be too complex to derive before admissions decisions are made, but a statistician with access to the right data can sure as hell tell you what it was after the fact by modeling the admissions results and the applicant pool data. Kinsley's point seemed to me to be that we can lie to ourselves all we want about admissions officers using mathematical formulae to make race-based admissions decisions, but if you were to run a study with a control group of officers making the same decision without access to race data, the number of students of racial group X admitted by the experimental group minus the number admitted by the control group is exactly the number who were admitted because of their race.

For the record, I'm pro-affirmative action. I think that overrepresented racial groups putting up with a few generations of racial preferences is a small price to pay for the establishment of, say, a self-sustaining black middle-class intelligentsia. What drives me crazy is the SCOTUS's decision to outlaw explicit preferences but overlook fuzzy, ill-defined preferences. That kind of precedent does nothing but further obscure schools' admissions policies to a public with a vested interest in those policies.

Well, I've always been an affirmative action opponent, but Grutter's biggest disappointment for me was that it seems to make a mincemeat of statistics.

First of all, while it's certain that minority enrollment doesn't affect non-minorities as a group particularly harshly, the idea that it's not a significant burden to any members of that minority is not true. The kind of statistical hash mentioned by Ginsberg is enough to get you laughed at in first-year statistics in a basic econ course. (To put it short: non-minorities aren't strongly aversely affect because if there's 100 non-minorities and 10 minorities competing for 10 places, the worst any given non-minority can be 'burdened' is 10%.) This depends on considering admission to be a factor that, other than race, is randomly distributed. Otherwise, the policy affects no one at the top or bottom of the bracket (who would get in or not in any event) and affects people in a very narrow bracket enormously. (This is Kinsley's point, and it's a strong one.)

Secondly, Grutter seems to say that a 'critical mass' is OK as a criteria so long as you never attempt to quantify it. An admissions office just closes its eyes and says, "We don't know precisely how much critical mass is, but we know we have to achieve it." Because, of course, if you've quantified it, it's a quota. (You can't say, 'We need to have three blacks, four hispanics, and a Native American.)

But a critical mass is a number that, by definition, precludes something from happening if that number's not met. What I don't look forward to with Grutter is the fact that the numbers are all there, and a very nasty paper is waiting to be written by someone with Microsoft Excel, a keen sense of statistics, and a mean sense of humour, determining what the 'critical mass' of each given minority group is. After all, you have several elite law schools who will all be using such a system over the next few years, and while the admissions officers claim not to know what a critical mass is, to a sociologist or indeed a physicist, this should be short work. It will be grim because the critical mass for each different minority is likely to be far different from one another. (And since U of M claimed that historically black colleges were 'usually fairly diverse' you can figure out what the 'critical mass' of caucasians can be considered as well.) Then the question becomes who's been less polite: the authors who point out this statistical nonsense, or the folks who promulgated it in the first place?

Certainly, there is a small number of people affected strongly by affirmative action, but it is a very small group. If you change the phrase critical mass to one that does not indicate a certain number of people but the ability of Blacks to participate in higher education as individuals would it change your mind? As far as I can tell, just because U of Michigan selected an inapt term does not mean that it should be our only way of looking at things.

Well, my opposition would still be there, and I'd still oppose affirmative action, but it would sit better.

The problem isn't just the term, though, it's the fact that the ruling is mathematically inept. So long as you say, "There have to be a certain number of members of a minority for X to happen," you have a quota. The key thing in Grutter is that U of M is willing to put its hand on a bible and swear they have no idea where that number exists, but there has to be SOME cutoff point. I'd rather the Supremes just say, 'Nope, a quota is constitutional' than come up with this garbage. It's the kind of reasoning that should be thrown out of first-year statistics.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

1 In the 14th Amendment to the Constitution it states that: no citizen can be denied the equal protection of the law because of race. While the writers and orators of such crucial documents and speeches that define our country, and many people in America would like you to believe in this sugar-coated perfect world of equality, it does not exist. Colleges admit students based on a point system; minorities are in some cases give the same number of points as a student with high scores on the SATs. And in corporate America, practices like Affirmative Action, although having good intentions, will do nothing but feed the parasite of prejudice which hides in the shadow of our great country.
2 For hundreds of years Africans and African-American people were enslaved. We have all learned of the awful stories of what took place. We have also studied The Civil Rights Movement that changed the course of history in the 60s and 70s. Perhaps what we all have not done is consider the underlying effects of the actions of the past. When Africans were taken from their land, they were robbed of their identity and culture. They were not even allowed to speak their own language or practice their own religion. Many Americans can trace their lineage back hundreds of years, but for Blacks, it inevitably comes down to somewhere in Africa. It is all too clear today how the brainwashing ideas of subservience, inferiority, stupidity, and ignorance remained years and years after the Emancipation Proclamation set slaves free and supposedly made them equal. And it is because of the all of this that society feels that it needs to repay a debt to the African American race. The past is the past. And until we perfect the use of a time machine without disrupting the time space continuum, we are stuck with the past that was handed down to us. The creators and supporters of Affirmative Action say that these practices will level the playing field. The only method of truly leveling the playing field would be to go back in time and eliminate slavery all together; there is no way to make up for the hundreds of years of cruelty and abuse that a people lived through, and by trying to compensate their descendants the exact opposite of what is desired will occur.
3 Affirmative Action is a synonym to discrimination. The hiring of someone based on the color of their skin is unfair to the non-minority. Blacks or any other race for that matter, in America are not crippled, mentally handicapped, or physically incapable of performing any task. Therefore, minorities do not need charity to get a job or get into college. Yes, there is discrimination in the world. Yes, there is racial profiling, but the world is not the same as it was twenty years ago. If an educated, qualified, presentable minority applied for a job no one is going to ask them to exit out of the back door of the building and ride on the back of the bus home because of the color of their skin. The simple principle of hard work and perseverance should be applied when job hunting. I am sick of hearing “It’s because I’m Black. The ‘man’ can’t stand to see a Black man do well.” Maybe if you would go apply for a job in a suit, speak like you have an education, not wear fifteen chains and piercing and not have gold and silver all over your teeth someone would take you seriously and give you a chance. The same idea applies to colleges as well. No one should be admitted or treated special because of what they look like or where they come from. By slanting the playing field for minorities, in turn Affirmative Action makes it harder for people of the majority. That is unjustified punishment. It is the same principle as a teacher being biased to a younger sibling of a former pupil. The current generations had nothing to do with what happened all those years ago. If people who do not have the grades and don’t meet the standards are allowed into colleges, the standards of this county will be lowered. And when that unprepared person who was admitted to college on unfair terms applies for a job they are not qualified for and receives it, society thinks it is repaying a debt. As more and more unqualified individuals are given important tasks, more and more preventable errors will be made and society will feel the effects. The only way Affirmative Action could serve a meaningful purpose would be if it punished those who discriminated against minorities and gave truly disadvantaged minorities an equal chance. No matter how hard the government tries Affirmative Action can not be used as an equal sign; it is either a greater than sign, or a less than sign; and either way Affirmative Action is unfair. The average minority has suffered nothing and deserves no reward for the color of their skin.
4 When I took the PSAT, in section four, there was an optional set of questions regarding your racial background. I along with other students were upset by these questions. The color of my skin or where I was born has absolutely nothing to do with my verbal and math comprehension. By giving minorities extra help, you are essentially crippling them. Its ok if you don’t do as well as the other kids on the SAT, you can always rely on the fact that colleges need more Black kids to balance out the ratio of races. Hooray! Let’s all be the token Negro’s for universities and businesses. Who cares if we can really do our jobs or not? As you can see there is obviously something wrong with this picture, and with Affirmative Action.
5 Affirmative Action does have its place; but in today’s society it is abused. There is no doubt in my mind that some form of Affirmative Action is why I, along with other minority students attend The Kinkaid School. Affirmative Action does provide a sort of balance to ensure equality. But I firmly believe that I would not have been accepted to this school if I did not have the grades, or at least the potential to succeed. It is when the stereotypical minority goes around looking for a handout because they feel society has done them some cruel injustice because they were born into a certain race that I have a problem with this practice.
6 There are viable arguments on both ends of this tug of war. In the end Affirmative Action does more harm than good. We do not live in a perfect world so everyone is not equal, but the government should treat everyone equally and give the same opportunities. The world cannot be changed tomorrow. Sadly, Affirmative Action will have a place in our society until complete equality is achieved and prejudice is eradicated. If you want to begin to eliminate racial injustice, on standardized tests, shade the “choose not to disclose” bubble.

Yes, i'm a Black person who is against Affirmative Action. It really isn't that crazy, once you read the facts.

Perceptions do not limit reality.

Why does everyone seem to focus on race when it comes to affirmative action? Women comprise greater than 50% of the population and they also receive AA. Doesn't this alter the equation?

I have found the best online store to

order Generic Viagra
Buy Generic Cialis
Buy Generic Lipitor

Yours is a great site.

I have the best store to buy Cialis

Cialis information site.

Info on Levaquin online.

Seasonale online site.

E pluribus Unum