It is exceedingly odd to me that anyone would think a policy that says "if you are of a race X you get preferential treatment in admissions to the university" is not racial discrimination, on its face. If race X is "white," no one disagrees. If race X is "black," some people say it is not discrimination. Please stop being silly. Really.
That's not to say I think the University of Michigan should be forced to change their policy; they are a private institution and should be allowed to have racially discriminatory admissions policies, if they so choose. But to say the policy is not racially discriminationatory is baffling to me. It is, by definition, discriminating based on race. That it is not a race you think it is bad to discriminate against doesn't change that fact.
That's my main point. I also want to add that I don't understand the purpose of it anyway. They say it is for the sake of intellectual and cultural diversity, but it seems to me both insulting and wrong to say that your culture or ideas are either determined or strongly indicated by the color of your skin. I have a lot more in common with most of the black people I know than I do with white people from South Central L.A., Oklahoma farms, or the West Virginia mountains. If you really want diversity, it should be based not on race, but on economic status, geographical location, and other factors that actually do mean something.
I had a funny thought tonight. We are told that discriminating against people based on race is wrong. We are also told that it is reasonable to discriminate against people based on their ideas (such as, for example, Nazis [oops, I did it now!]). But if your race is a determinant or strong indicator of your ideology, and if I don't like an ideology that is strongly identified with your race, then, at that point, isn't racial discrimination (in some cases) merely a practical and reasonable application of ideological discrimination?
Hm, maybe that is just overthinking things, but I was driving for many hours tonight, and I got bored. Still, the notion that you are different from me in any interesting way based on the color of your skin is just insulting and wrong. It could very well be that you are a boring surburbanite who drives a Honda, doesn't care about politics, watches The Bachelorette, and eats Twinkies, just like half the white people around here. OK, if it is true, maybe noting those facts would be insulting too, but at least it wouldn't be wrong.
Re:UofM is public
pudge on 2003-01-17T12:47:23
Someone yesterday told me it was private; I should have done my research. Well, in that case, were I on the bench, I would find for whitey.
Re:Race and Ideology
james on 2003-01-17T12:38:03
But if your race is a determinant or strong indicator of your ideology This is where you went really very wrong, believing that there is any link between race and ideology.
You're quoting out of context there. Pudge said earlier in the post:
but it seems to me both insulting and wrong to say that your culture or ideas are either determined or strongly indicated by the color of your skin.
Pudge makes the point that he considers it wrong to consider race an useful factor in determining ideology. He makes this point again later on. I think the statement that you are objecting to was made from a position of considering how certain groups of society think.
I'm not going to quote verbatim on this, as the original entry is there for all to see. but if you read more carefully the point he seems to be making is 'if you think y is true, then doesn't it follow that x would be true as well'. This is a reasonable line of logic given the preconditions he lays down.
I agree with both pudge and yourself in saying that race is not an acceptable means of determining ideology and I think if you read the entry again more closely you may find that you've been mistaken in your criticism.
Regards,
James.Re:Race and Ideology
pudge on 2003-01-17T12:46:13
Yeah, what james said.
I hate to post and run (I have to drive to a funeral and won't be back until Sunday), but what the heck.
First, I don't come down solidly on one side of this issue or the other. It's far too complicated. Sufficiently complicated that I haven't really sorted out all my thoughts on it either, so forgive any jumbled ideas below.
Unlike pudge I think the goal of diversity in a student body is a laudable one. It's the reason we don't just use standardized tests and grades to admit students. (Not even mentioning the problems with standardized testing.) It seems to be an accepted fact that someone who gives back to the community (by participating in sports, leading student groups, etc.) has an edge on someone who simply goes to classes. College is not just one class after another, and diversity in experience is one way that universities try to make the 4+ years a broadening experience.
Diversity comes not only from what you've done but from what you've experienced. And while I agree with Pudge that race is not the sole determinant of different types of experience, it's still a powerful one. Diversity also comes from accepting students from different class backgrounds as well: admissions boards will generally look more favorably on a student from a West Virginia coal mining town who got a 3.6/1250 and had to work to help support his family than a cheerleader from suburban Washington, DC with a 3.9/1380. On a raw numbers level that's unfair as well, but I don't think too many people will complain about it. (Well, the cheerleader and her parents might.) But we pretend that every person in the minority has the same opportunities that every person in the majority has, and I don't think that's true. I've never been passed over for a half hour at a restaurant while people who came after me, white people, have been seated. I've never been turned down for a cab ride, or shadowed by security guards throughout a store, or have people unconsciously check their wallets when I get in an elevator with them. These are powerful experiences, and IMO a university experience is diminished without hearing about them and the way they affect how a person views an issue or fact.
Finally, IIRC I read an article about six years ago in Wired that proposed one of the unstated purposes of racial quotas was to help build up networks for people who were unable (legally and socially) for hundreds of years to do so. Our president went to Yale because his father went to Yale, his family was rich and even though he had fair grades they came from a well-respected school where lots of other rich kids have gone to Yale over the years. His family has been building up a network over many generations that allowed that to happen. The people benefitting from racial preferences in universies, jobs, etc. haven't had this chance.
Re:Diversity and networks
pudge on 2003-01-17T14:45:13
I never said the goal of diversity is not a good one; I said that the goal of racial diversity is an empty one, because racial diversity is far from a guarantee of the divertsity that really matters, which is diversity of thought, of culture, of creed. If all the black people there are rich suburbanites, how is that diverse, in any significant way? The point is that, for the sake of diversity, this school is saying "we would rather accept a black student that is just like everyone else than a white student who might bring real diversity." And that's nonsense.
While the admissions board might look more favorably on the West Virgina kid than the suburban DC cheerleader, they won't -- in the case of Michigan -- if the suburban DC cheerleader is black.
I don't pretend that every person in the minority has the same opportunities as every person in the majority. I do contend, and boldly state, that many kids in the minority have not gone through as much struggle, and yes, even discrimination, as many kids in the majority.
Maybe you've never been passed over at a restaurant, turned down for a cab ride, shadowed by guards, had people check their wallets. But neither has this been the case for many black kids. And this has been the case for many white kids, for many different reasons. For example, I had a friend in college, a white guy who grew up in and lived in South Central L.A. He had been in a mostly black gang. He acted like a gang member. And you know what? People treated him like a gang member (even when he left the gang, he still carried himself that way, as many people do). They passed him over for cabs and tables, they checked their wallets. I had another friend who was black, and from an affluent California suburb. He listened to Rush (the band) and played electric guitar; he wore his baseball cap with the brim in front, wore clean, non-baggy clothes, and tucked in his shirt. I can guarantee you that my white friend faced more discrimination than my black friend did.
Assuming that a black kid has necessarily had more discrimination or oppression or hardship than a white kid is nonsense, and it is what they are doing.
As to building up networks of people: I don't have one. I don't benefit from one. Why should I possibly care about creating one for someone just because of the color of his skin?
Re: Diversity and understanding
jjohn on 2003-01-18T22:00:19
Unlike chemical compounds, throwing different groups of people together in college doesn't mean they'll have any better understanding of each other. Integration (not just racial) is a hard thing. It appears that xenophobia and territorialism are deeply bred into us. However, all hope is not lost for diversity. Simply group students together aboard a renegade prison ship, like Farscape's Moya and watch the culture misunderstandings melt away as those nasty, jack-booted thug Peacekeepers dog their every step. Add liberal helpings of leather clothing and slutty aliens as needed. Bake for four to five years.
Re: Diversity and understanding
pudge on 2003-01-19T04:18:43
And then wait for The Man to shut it down!
I don't know about the University of Michigan thing, so I won't comment on that, but there are cases in which positive discrimination is imho a good idea. I can think of two such examples over the past decade in France.
One is requiring political parties to present at least 45% of women to elections (exculing uninominal ones like the presendentials of course), under penalty of losing part of their public financing. At first it might seem detrimental to democracy to force them to pick what may be less good candidates just to fit with the statistics (and in fact it probably is in some cases), but over the long run it will produce more women with experience in politics and help balance the genders in French politics (which are really off). Hopefully that law can be abolished when habit takes over.
The other one was a bill that reserved seats in one of the most prestigious political science schools to people coming from poorer economic backgrounds. The "elite" complained a lot about that claiming that the school had always been open to everyone (as in all public french schools, there are no fees if you or your family earns less than a given amount) but statistics quite clearly showed that only children of the elite ever made it in, for a variety of reasons that relate more to social capital than to financial capital. The net effect has thus far been quite positive, with most of those students achieving very well.
My point here is that there is nothing wrong with discriminating. Discrimination is fundamental to judgement, without which in turn there is no thought. It all depends on what you discriminate on and why. Positive discrimination on race could be a good idea after a prolonged period of racism, in order to get people into the habit of not being racist, but doing it based on some dodgy notion that race == culture is, I find, quite shocking.
Re:Depends on the discrimination
pudge on 2003-01-21T16:59:34
I don't like the law about 45% for women, but I am gratified you see it only as a temporary measure that can later be abolished.
And I do think that if onen is to reserve seats for people who are disadvantaged, it should be primarily based on factors that do mean something. So helping people with poorer economic backgrounds is OK with me, because that focuses the help where it is clearly needed.
I agree with you, discrimination is not wrong. Discriminating unfairly is wrong (though that should be a truism, no?). And discriminating based solely on race has no logical merit, that I can tell. Come on, "get people into the habit of not being racist?" It's a fine goal, one that such discrimination might do well to work toward, but at universities? Racism certainly does not run rampant at universities.
This brings up a case a few years ago where the courts approved government-mandated affirmative action for a particular business. They had been proven guilty of various racist hiring and promotion policies, so the government mandated "affirmative action" for that company. The courts said that while this sort of thing is largely frowned on, when it is directed at a specific instance of wrongdoing, then it is appropriate.
I guess the difference is that some people think that this is still needed to combat widespread racism in the country, but I just don't buy it. Racism exists, of course, but we are now mostly beyond the point where we need such temporary measures. What we need is to help people who need help, and "black people" don't need help anymore. We could do a lot more by focusing our efforts on the economically disadvantaged, which will help all of the significantly disadvantaged black people, as well as others.
OK, I am doing multiple things right now and am just rambling, so I'll stop.:-) Re:Depends on the discrimination
darobin on 2003-01-21T17:19:33
I don't like the law about 45% for women
There had been serious abuse by some parties for years of discriminating against women as candidates. In politics, the reasons for picking a candidate are complex and they thus could not be sued for unfair gender-discrimination. Doing that would have brought forth accusations of it being a political rather than legal attack and so forth. Even the promoters of the law didn't like it much, but it was generally agreed that it was a necessary evil.
but at universities? Racism certainly does not run rampant at universities
I was thinking in general, not about Michigan uni. A few decades ago positive discrimination in universities was imho necessary in a number of countries.
