[Toshi]

[crossposted from my blog: http://toshiclark.xanga.com/726696886/affirmative-action-and-asians/ ]

Two recent items brought the topic of affirmative action and test score differences between Asians, Blacks, and Whites to mind. The first is the Lawrence Summers'-type tarring-and-feathering of the Harvard Law 3L who had the temerity to suggest the below:

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial: ) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.

This email was forwarded by a classmate with a bone to pick to sundry Black Law Student Associations, and then it went viral: witness this hyperbolic blog post that states that the "Racist Email Goes National". Her point is that it's ridiculous that it's considered racist to even be open to the concept that intelligence has a genetic component, and that, clearly, genetics dictates many other factors. (I agree with her. More on this below.)

The second news item that caught my eye was this NY Times article, The Post-Hispanic Hispanic Politician, on San Antonio's mayor, Julián Castro, who is being prepped as a potential presidential candidate in the next decade or two. He makes the following statement:

“Joaquín and I got into Stanford because of affirmative action,” Julián says. “I scored 1,210 on my SATs, which was lower than the median matriculating student. But I did fine in college and in law school. So did Joaquín. I’m a strong supporter of affirmative action because I’ve seen it work in my own life.”

Presumably he also benefited from affirmative action in gaining entry to Harvard Law School. This brings up several questions in my mind: How much of his political career can be attributed to the connections he made thanks to affirmative action? Why was the affirmative action needed in the first place, given that he came from a politically well-connected family and was a standout student in high school in his own right for non-SAT reasons? Which otherwise-qualified candidate didn't get in to Stanford or HLS because of the affirmative action?

More generally, why did the combination of these two recent articles rankle me? They don't mention Asians at all, that's why, and Asians are often on the losing end of affirmative action.

Let me explain: It is well established in the sociology literature that black children in aggregate score lower than white children on standardized tests. It is also well established that Asian children do better* (better in math, marginally worse in verbal typically). It is the party line that socioeconomic factors and poor school quality are to blame for the apparent underperformance of the black children, such as in this article by Fryer et al.:

Abstract—In previous research, a substantial gap in test scores between white and black students persists, even after controlling for a wide range of observable characteristics. … Over the first two years of school, however, blacks lose substantial ground relative to other races. There is suggestive evidence that differences in school quality may be an important part of the explanation. None of the other hypotheses we test to explain why blacks are losing ground receive any empirical backing.

Looking more closely into their claim shows that it is, frankly, bull****. From page 458:

There are important weaknesses in the argument that differential school quality explains the divergent trajectories of whites and blacks. First, the observable measures of school inputs included in table 7 explain only a small fraction of the variation in student outcomes. For instance, adding the school input measures to our basic student-level test score regressions only increases the R2 of the regression by 0.05. Second, even after the school input measures are added to the test score regressions, the gap between blacks and whites continues to widen. Third, both Hispanics and Asians also experience worse schools than whites, but neither of those groups is losing ground.

Summary thus far: there is a very weak correlation between school quality and the Black-White achievement gap, the Asian-White reverse achievement gap exists despite Asians also experiencing "worse" schools by this study's measure, yet somehow the overall conclusion is that the schools must account for the Black-White difference. Astounding.

I then looked briefly to see whether the sociology literature directly addresses the Asian-White "reverse achievement gap," and how this difference is explained away. Two presumably Asian authors, Goyette and Xie, examined this issue in an article published in Sociology of Education. They don't look at achievement directly but instead try to explain away differences in expectations of educational achievement. They state:

In our study, we explored three factors that may explain Asian Americans' higher educational expectations: (1) socioeconomic and other background characteristics, (2) tested academic ability, and (3) parents' educational expectations for children

Ok, fair enough: expectations about how far one will progress in school are likely to be influenced by these things. (Their discussion of the other factors is interesting, too, in that they break down "Asians" into the many different ethniticies under that term, e.g. Southeast Asians and Chinese who face unfavorable socioeconomic conditions and unfavorable school conditions, again running counter to the argument that Black-White achievement can be explained away on those factors alone.) For the purposes of this discussion let's look closer at their explanation of point 2, tested academic ability:

On the basis of a comprehensive review, Hsia (1988) reported that as a whole, Asian Americans appear to exhibit greater aptitude for mathematics and only slightly lower verbal aptitude than whites. …

Popular attention to the observed differences in test scores between Asian Americans and whites has led to much speculation and debate about their sources. Although a few observers have contended that the differences are innate [references omitted, see link to the article if you want to read them], most researchers have attributed the discrepancies in measured ability to variations in parents' socioeconomic status, children's access to educational resources at home and in schools and communities, and culture. It is plausible that the high educational expectations of Asian Americans positively affect their test scores. …

For children who live in poverty, tested ability may be one of the few avenues to higher education. Children who cannot afford tuition may rely on scholarships for higher education, which are often tied to high scores on such standardized tests as the SAT. …

Wait a second, let me get it straight: Asians do better than Whites on tests because of the same socioeconomic factors that are used to explain away discrepant, lower scores for Blacks, despite the large subgroups of Asians (Chinese, SE Asians) who have lower socioeconomic status? Furthermore, the mere EXPECTATION that one will do well on a test or the necessity to do well on a test in order to obtain a scholarship will magically lead to better test scores? (What mechanism do they propose for this besides handwaving?!)

This seems like doublespeak through and through, and this brings me back to my original point: I think that the current system of affirmative action is terrible, and I feel the political climate that leads any questioning of the underlying premises of affirmative action to immediately be characterized as racist is toxic.

Either affirmative action is outright racist and assumes that a higher prevalence of underrepresented minorities (Latinos, e.g. Julián Castro, and Blacks in particular) with respect to overrepresented minorities (Asians, e.g. me, or at least half of me) is a worthwhile goal in and of itself, or it falsely assumes race is a good proxy for other factors that inhibit the idealized normalized Bell curve of achievement. The truth is that race is not a good proxy for socioeconomic status or school conditions, and that these factors furthermore are not a good proxy for underperformance as seen by the examples of Chinese and Southeast Asians.

We keep on pushing for policy solutions that try to normalize outcomes (college, law school, med school admissions) without looking further at the factors that underlie the non-normal distribution, in particular without examining seriously why Asians do better than would be expected. If it's not because of the typically assumed background factors then why is it right that Asians are effectively discriminated against by affirmative action policies? What wrong is being righted?

 

[sanjuro]

Thanks for posting this.

I have one quick story: I worked with an Indian whose last name was Lopez. He explained how the Spanish had visited a certain part of India...

Anyway, I suggested that he fill out all his children's academic applications as Latino. Despite the family's academic success, no one would question a brown person with the name of Lopez was actually Latino.

 

[Westy]

I think you might be right.

Asians with higher than average scores should be restricted from entering schools to level the playing field.

 

[sanjuro]

I think you might be right.

Asians with higher than average scores should be restricted from entering schools to level the playing field.

You're not the first person to think this...

Since the 1960s, the enrollment of foreign and American born Asian students at the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) increased at a consistently higher rate than that of other minority groups. Consequently, a sharp decline of Asian American freshman enrollment at UCB in 1984 led to a five-year admissions dispute between UCB and the Asian American community in California. This book reconstructs the case, identifies the causes and changes resulted from the dispute, and discusses the related social issues. It demonstrates the conflict between the overabundance of UCB-eligible Asian American applicants and the goals of UCB's admissions policy: to enroll students representing the cultural, racial, geographic, and socio-economic diversity of the California population.

The Admission Dispute: Asian American Versus University of California at Berkeley (Paperback)

 

[Toshi]

I think you might be right.

Asians with higher than average scores should be restricted from entering schools to level the playing field.

This is the case already. This study is regarding admissions to UMich med school, which is where my sister went after being rejected from our in-state UW school of medicine presumably due to affirmative action bias.

Odds Ratios. Odds ratios favoring black over white candidates in admission--controlling for test scores, grades, Michigan residency, sex, and alumni connections--were very large. In 1999, the odds favoring blacks over whites with the same background and credentials were 38 to 1; they remained high (21 to 1) in 2005.

Odds favoring Hispanics over whites, all other things being equal, were large but significantly less so than the odds favoring blacks. In 1999, odds favoring Hispanics over whites were 3 to 1, increasing to more than 5 to 1 in 2005.

Odds of admission slightly favored whites over Asians with the same credentials and background for every year except 2004 (during which there was no difference).

Probabilties of Admission. Likewise, probabilities of admission favor blacks and to a lesser extent Hispanics over whites and Asians for every year. For instance, an in-state male candidate, with no parent connection to UMMS and with an MCAT score and science GPA equal to the medians for black admittees, in 1999 would have had the following probabilities of admission:

• a 72 percent chance if black;
• a 17 percent chance if Hispanic;
• a 2 percent chance if Asian; and
• a 6 percent chance if white.

 

[Silver]

Yes, musings by the law student were racist.

Notice how she never entertains the possibility that blacks could be smarter than whites?

 

[ohio]

This is a really simple problem to solve. I have yet to see a academic performance comparison of Africans vs. African Americans.

 

[$tinkle]

do asians have anything like a sickle-cell disease? i ask b/c whenever there's a predisposition to disease or reactions to certain meds for a race, that gets appropriate attention. and it's done (i believe) to assist & warn this group.

in the case of intellect, it doesn't seem that anything can be done which would affect the intellectually disadvantaged group to make it on par w/ others upstream. i'm not talking adderall, but something which would be dna-specific (and dna is race relevant if you recall that dna can be used to create a profile of an individual, to include race; this is significantly applied to evidence collected @ crime scenes)

if the main purpose of AA is to even the learning field - where they then learn to play - then AA college admissions is clearly too-little-too-late. just shows how this issue is being dismissed in the hopes of making it go away


btw, this is f'ed up:

• a 72 percent chance if black;
• a 17 percent chance if Hispanic;
• a 2 percent chance if Asian; and
• a 6 percent chance if white.

what's wrong w/ 25/25/25/25 (assuming equal number of qualified applicants)

 

[Westy]

• a 72 percent chance if black;
• a 17 percent chance if Hispanic;
• a 2 percent chance if Asian; and
• a 6 percent chance if white.

Those are some pretty ****ed up statistics but they may paint an incomplete picture. My only issue with those numbers is the fact that test scores are not the only things admission boards consider. Just looking back at the kids I knew in High School, the top 5 in my class were all Asian. One similarity they had with each other besides being Asian was that they didn't do anything outside of studying. Without question they were the most accomplished students but the rest of us in the top 20 had jobs, hobbies and rather diverse lives outside of school. Schools do look for well rounded students outside of grades. I'm not saying this is the case but a potential explanation.

 

[sanjuro]

This is a really simple problem to solve. I have yet to see a academic performance comparison of Africans vs. African Americans.

I'm smarter than your black ass.

Any other questions?

 

[$tinkle]

i think part of college admissions should be the ability to spin a mechanical pencil on your thumb/back of hand.

but there may be many more school shootings.

 

[4xBoy]

How are Asians so smart when they all have their eyes closed?

 

[MMike]

Can't we put the asians in camps or something so they stop making us look bad?

 

[$tinkle]

How are Asians so smart when they all have their eyes closed?

at least they aren't prone to gorilla face

 

[jimmydean]

Just looking back at the kids I knew in High School, the top 5 in my class were all Asian. One similarity they had with each other besides being Asian was that they didn't do anything outside of studying.

The ones in my school didn't even smoke pot. How is that fair to the rest of us?

 

[sanjuro]

Ultimately the issue is affirmative action based on race.

Asians are above the curve, blacks and latinos are below it.

But should race be a handicap for some and a positive for others?

 

[$tinkle]

But should race be a handicap for some and a positive for others?

in DDR, yes
in life, much less

 

[Toshi]

Those are some pretty ****ed up statistics but they may paint an incomplete picture. My only issue with those numbers is the fact that test scores are not the only things admission boards consider. Just looking back at the kids I knew in High School, the top 5 in my class were all Asian. One similarity they had with each other besides being Asian was that they didn't do anything outside of studying. Without question they were the most accomplished students but the rest of us in the top 20 had jobs, hobbies and rather diverse lives outside of school. Schools do look for well rounded students outside of grades. I'm not saying this is the case but a potential explanation.

It's a potential explanation (as test scores ultimately are good indicators of how one will do on that particular test, only weakly correlated to future performance) but not of skewed admissions of that magnitude...

 

[rockofullr]

As a white guy, I've been on the bad end of AA before. A few students from my high school applied to Stanford. I was one of them and so was one of my good friends. His parents were FOB from Nigeria and he was born in the US. His family was successful and relatively well off. We went to the same private high school and middle school.

My test scores and grades were higher than his. I played sports and had other "extracurriculars", he did not.

I was not accepted to Stanford and he was. At the time I was bummed but in the long run I'm glad I attended UCLA instead.

In theory AA is a good idea, help underprivileged minority students get into good schools. But after my own experience I started to wonder how many of these minority students are "under privileged" and how many are kids from the suburbs who had the same opportunities as their peers and get a leg up just because of race?

For me the jury is still out.

 

[Westy]

It's a potential explanation (as test scores ultimately are good indicators of how one will do on that particular test, only weakly correlated to future performance) but not of skewed admissions of that magnitude...

Do they consider driving records?

 

[$tinkle]

has skillz:
Nobuhiro Tajima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Suzuki_XL7_Hill_Climb_Special.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Suzuki XL7 Hill Climb Special.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Suzuki_XL7_Hill_Climb_Special.jpg/320px-Suzuki_XL7_Hill_Climb_Special.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/1b/Suzuki_XL7_Hill_Climb_Special.jpg/320px-Suzuki_XL7_Hill_Climb_Special.jpg

 

[Toshi]

I've taken a lot of heat from my sister and some commenters elsewhere for my affirmative action post. In particular, my sister is adamant in insisting that I'm a racist. Here's why I feel that I'm not on shaky ground even though my sister has labeled me as a racist. Let's start off with the controversial stuff first, the stuff that gets people all wrung up: there are demonstrable differences in IQ between races:

James Watson’s most inconvenient truth: Race realism and the moralistic fallacy. Medical Hypotheses, Volume 71, Issue 5, Pages 629-640. J. Rushton, A. Jensen.

The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that … East Asians average a higher IQ and larger brain than Europeans who average a higher IQ and larger brain than Africans. Further, these group differences are 50–80% heritable. These are facts, not opinions and science must be governed by data. There is no place for the “moralistic fallacy” that reality must conform to our social, political, or ethical desires.

Is it racist to mention this? The problem with mentioning it seems to be that it violates the utopian preconception that everyone is equal. Pointing out things that are true does not make me a racist: It's no more racist than pointing out that Japanese people tend to be shorter than Danes or have a lower incidence of naturally blond hair. I'm not using this to justify eugenics or repression or anything like that. I'm not claiming that having a higher IQ makes someone a better person, or even more adept at doing anything in particular besides taking IQ tests. I don't claim that it has any relevance to the performance of any individual (e.g. President Obama is clearly very intelligent while Cleetus from the Simpsons isn't). I'm using it instead to make an argument similar to that advanced by Larry Summers while he was president of Harvard, as that argument has direct bearing on whether affirmative action is justified, in my mind.

I'll get to the actual argument in a second, but first I'd like to review what I understand to be the rationale behind affirmative action: that socioeconomic status (SES) including being stuck in poor quality schools keeps children from realizing their potential as measured by outcomes like college, med, law school admissions or the number of professorships in XYZ field of study.

I think that if the assumptions behind the above rationale are true then affirmative action is justified. I don't think it's true, however. Much of the first post was spent explaining why the example of Asians/"overrepresented minorities", subgroups of which have the same SES and poor quality school impediments as "underrepresented minorities", debunks the explanation that these factors are solely responsible for observed outcome disparities.

What then might be the reasons for these outcome disparities, and would affirmative action be justified in "correcting" for these factors?

One explanation is that culture plays a role: cue up stereotypes of Asian children being forced to stay inside and study instead of play, overbearing Asian mothers, etc. I personally think culture plays a large role. I also think affirmative action is absolutely unjustified if this is the factor at play as government and society should not dictate or otherwise "disrespect" groups' cultural values. That's a violation of a core liberal principal, remember…

Another explanation is what I'll call the Larry Summers thought experiment, as it's analogous to the argument that he made and for which he was pilloried while president of Harvard. Assume that the distribution of, say, mathematical ability, roughly follows a Gaussian distribution for the whole population. Further assume that group X has a "fat tail" or Levy distribution (graph stolen from Google Images):

Summers' argument was that math professors might be assumed to be selected from the subset of all individuals who happen to fall more than, say, 3 standard deviations above the mean in the measure of their mathematical ability. If one group of people (he posited males for his thought experiment) had a "fatter tail" distribution then one would expect to find the subset of +3 s.d. individuals to have males overrepresented. Randomly sampling from this subset would then lead to an overrepresentation of males in the outcome, the group of actual math professors hired.

Generalize his argument and one can hopefully see how it might be applicable to many other realms including admission to college/professional schools. (One might then argue, as my sister did, that things that one can quantify don't capture truly how good of an applicant one is. This is true but it's not the center of my argument, and I feel that the radical disparities observed in actual admissions data are not explained adequately by the appeal to other, non-quantifiable factors. How radical are we talking about? See the UMich med school admissions rates that I just quoted a few posts ago, for instance.)

Where am I going with this? If the assumptions behind Summers' thought experiment hold true then I think that affirmative action is not justified. I do not think that the role of government or society is to equalize outcomes independent of measured ability.

The real question, then, would be whether Summers' or my assumptions are valid. The problem is that even positing that these assumptions might be valid gets one effectively tarred and feathered. In my case this means that my sister accuses me of being a racist. In James Watson's case it means that the press jumps on his back and he resigns from his 40 year post at Cold Spring Harbor National Labs. I think that this toxicity is a sad reflection on our scientific culture.

 

[ohio]

Toshi, I'm with you. I don't have answers, but I do think all of your questions are valid and only make you a racist for people who lack the capacity to understand what you're actually asking, or allow an emotionally/ideologically based worldview to prevent them from taking an impartial/scientific view. No offense intended to your sister.

As the son of an academic psychologist who falls on the biological side of arguments and has been labelled at times sexist and racist for simply being willing to discuss inconvenient data, I think I probably started from the point you now find yourself. The crazy thing to me, is that to find potentially more satisfying answers to these questions (let alone morally positive solutions to these real problems regardless of the source), they MUST be discussed, but even the act of acknowledging they exist is considered racist or bigoted regardless of the intent of the discussion.

 

[sanjuro]

Toshi,

In many people's eyes, discussing in any manner makes you a racist.

I grew up in a racial charged environment, the Bronx in the 70's and 80's. My class was about 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Irish, 1/4 black, and 1/4 Puerto Rican. First of all, because it was the Bronx, none of us were taught any niceties about discussing race. However, you learned that making a racial crack was going to get you beat up.

I was the smartest kid in the class, although it had nothing to do with my parents. I remember being about 6 or 7 when we got a bunch of hand-me-down books, the first set of books I ever got. I remember thinking how poor we must have been, even though my father had a very decent job. He had just gotten sick of graduate school, so reading was not a priority.

The problem I see with discussing race is the conclusions people inevitably draw.

For example, your discussions about affirmative action, I could draw the conclusion that blacks are inferior to whites in academics.

Sounds horrible just reading that, right?

I often wonder about my own logic in this matter. I would actually never draw that conclusion, no matter how much empirical proof is presented to me. I have always looked to other reasons, such as economic and social factors. I have to think this is a liberal bias.

 

[Toshi]

I can't simplify the Larry Summers argument any further but I assure you that your paraphrase, which does sound bad, is not what I or he said.

 

[sanjuro]

I can't simplify the Larry Summers argument any further but I assure you that your paraphrase, which does sound bad, is not what I or he said.

That's not the point.

The question is can people discuss the positives and negatives about race openly?

I find that not to be the case.

I like to discuss race with different people but I have to be careful. I have heard some horribly racist comments which started from an open and frank conversation. I felt like I opened Pandora's Box.

Conversely, I have found some liberals to be living in a glass house. They might talk a very good game about race, but if you look at their social group and surroundings, they live as diverse lifestyle as your average Kluxxer.

Take a look Summers' opening statement:

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances.

The first two lines are couching his more inflammatory argument, which is:

The fact is, some things are genetic.... This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic... I don?t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level.

Basically, "The Bell Curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:TheBellCurve.gif" class="image"><img alt="TheBellCurve.gif" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d4/TheBellCurve.gif/210px-TheBellCurve.gif"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/d/d4/TheBellCurve.gif/210px-TheBellCurve.gif".

I'm not a scientist, so I would never use this conclusion because I don't have enough data to make it.

My real world view is that poor blacks and Latinos have a lot of instability in their lives, which makes it very tough for their kids to get ahead.

I still believe in Affirmative Action, up into a point. You can always find an example where it is misused, but I think the final place it should be used is college admissions. After that, you are an adult and you make of your life what you will.

 

[sanjuro]

btw, just to clarify, I don't think Toshi or anyone else is racist. I'm just pointing out how someone could just to that conclusion.

 

[Toshi]

The statement you're attributing to Summers is actually by a Harvard Law School 3L student, just for the record.

As for whether there are genetic differences population-wide in intelligence that's not really in doubt. See my reference in the start of post #22, and again see the many caveats that I threw in there limiting the conclusions I draw from that.

Please note that for any given individual where he/she falls upon the curve is where he/she lies, independent of the overall distribution of a population. The distribution doesn't matter one whit for a given individual. What it defines is the probability that one will find individuals at a certain point when looking at the population as a whole.

 

[ohio]

Having re-read your post Toshi, I DO disagree with the following:

If the assumptions behind Summers' thought experiment hold true then I think that affirmative action is not justified

Neither a Levy distribution nor a negatively offset Normal distribution are mutually exclusive with cultural/socio-economic opportunity bias. If the latter exists, affirmative action still has a sound moral foundation in "fairness" doctrine.

I personally do not subcribe to moral arguments but I do subscribe to human welfare and economic arguments, i.e. social investment. Regardless of the causes of an opportunity or performance gap, if affirmative action generates cultural change with a net benefit to society as a whole (including the "losers" in AA) then I support it. If it does not, then I oppose it. It's nice to be able to remove moralizing from the discussion...

 

[sanjuro]

The statement you're attributing to Summers is actually by a Harvard Law School 3L student, just for the record.

As for whether there are genetic differences population-wide in intelligence that's not really in doubt. See my reference in the start of post #22, and again see the many caveats that I threw in there limiting the conclusions I draw from that.

Please note that for any given individual where he/she falls upon the curve is where he/she lies, independent of the overall distribution of a population. The distribution doesn't matter one whit for a given individual. What it defines is the probability that one will find individuals at a certain point when looking at the population as a whole.

Thanks for the clarification.

I do think your sister's belief that your comments are racist is interesting.

I don't, since you are mostly stating facts and reprinting the law student's conclusion.

Mostly, I think an open discussion about race means OPEN. Not, 'You're wrong - You're racist", when something disagreeable or uncomfortable is stated.

 

[Silver]

Mostly, I think an open discussion about race means OPEN. Not, 'You're wrong - You're racist", when something disagreeable or uncomfortable is stated.

Then why does the law student not entertain the idea that blacks might actually be smarter than whites?

 

[Toshi]

Then why does the law student not entertain the idea that blacks might actually be smarter than whites?

That's probably because she draws on her own experience at Harvard Law, where I am told that one can easily see the playing field is tilted.

 

[Toshi]

Having re-read your post Toshi, I DO disagree with the following:

Neither a Levy distribution nor a negatively offset Normal distribution are mutually exclusive with cultural/socio-economic opportunity bias. If the latter exists, affirmative action still has a sound moral foundation in "fairness" doctrine.

I personally do not subcribe to moral arguments but I do subscribe to human welfare and economic arguments, i.e. social investment. Regardless of the causes of an opportunity or performance gap, if affirmative action generates cultural change with a net benefit to society as a whole (including the "losers" in AA) then I support it. If it does not, then I oppose it. It's nice to be able to remove moralizing from the discussion...

Thanks for the serious discussion. This point actually came up last night at dinner, that AA could be justified by the social good it provides indirectly: if more underrepresented minorities become physicians/lawyers/professors and then go on to "wield the reigns of power" in politics, thereby changing conditions in their original communities decades down the road, then maybe it would be a just policy.

The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that it's not the way the legal arguments are couched as to avoid being shot down in the courts a la Michigan, and instead is just the "man behind the curtain," the perhaps real reason we do these things. If the true motives behind a policy are not open and explicit then there's no hope of ever defining an endpoint to the policy or reassessing whether it's actually achieving its aims.

 

[$tinkle]

toshi: does your sister have any beliefs that break down by race that can demonstrate a hierarchy?

it seems to me that people who strongly oppose your posts above would at the same time be warm to self-deprecation

 

[Silver]

That's probably because she draws on her own experience at Harvard Law, where I am told that one can easily see the playing field is tilted.

Yeah, so she's a racist. She's willing to take the few "stupid" black people that she knows and extrapolate that across a population.

 

[ohio]

That's probably because she draws on her own experience at Harvard Law, where I am told that one can easily see the playing field is tilted.

Depends on who does the telling. My experience at a good school was that minority students, on average, scored lower on tests and struggled more in classes. They also, on average, contributed much more to extracurriculars (campus events, dialogues, publications, art), were harder working, and less entitled than non-minority students. When I think about who contributed more to my education (in the holistic sense of everything I learned in college), black and latino students made a disproportionate contribution.

As Westy stated, there is more to the quality of a student than analytical aptitude.

An analogous example is that business schools have lower quant standards for women than men. However, there is massive demand from (US-based) industry for female execs, and campuses function better with a 50/50 gender ratio. Is that unfair to men?

 

[Toshi]

Yeah, so she's a racist. She's willing to take the few "stupid" black people that she knows and extrapolate that across a population.

Again, I know nothing of this first-hand but I'm told that black HLS students are routinely offered jobs after their 1L year after being recruited through "minority programs"… before their grades are announced. (Needless to say this isn't the case for white or especially Asian students.)

Yeah, the firms hire them just to have a black face. Is this a racist practice? You betcha. Is it racist to point this practice out?

 

[Toshi]

Depends on who does the telling. My experience at a good school was that minority students, on average, scored lower on tests and struggled more in classes. They also, on average, contributed much more to extracurriculars (campus events, dialogues, publications, art), were harder working, and less entitled than non-minority students. When I think about who contributed more to my education (in the holistic sense of everything I learned in college), black and latino students made a disproportionate contribution.

As Westy stated, there is more to the quality of a student than analytical aptitude.

An analogous example is that business schools have lower quant standards for women than men. However, there is massive demand from (US-based) industry for female execs, and campuses function better with a 50/50 gender ratio. Is that unfair to men?

I hung out with a bunch of math and music nerds at Harvard. Basically all the people who did that stuff were Asians, (ethnic and religious) Jews, or white people. Am I racist because of this? No, that's just where my interests were and those were the people who gravitated to that stuff. I can't say in all honesty that affirmative action richened my college experience.

 

[stevew]

if they think you are racist....fvck it......post this up on your blog and ask the people who were critical of you if any of them have any back issues...

 

[Silver]

Yeah, the firms hire them just to have a black face. Is this a racist practice? You betcha. Is it racist to point this practice out?

1-Yeah, the firms hire them just to have a black face. Is this a racist practice?

Yes.

2-Is it racist to point this practice out?

No.

Concluding that blacks are less intelligent than whites due to points 1 and 2? Racist.