Arkady
President
Just to take a step away from the election, for a minute, and address a specific issue, I'm wondering what people here think about race-based affirmative action (in personnel and admissions decisions, private or public.)
I'm ambivalent about it. The strongest case I've heard for race-based affirmative action was made by writer Michael Kinsley, years ago. The argument goes more or less like this. If you accept that, on average, racial minorities have faced more unfair discrimination and other disadvantages than whites, then you should admit that, on average, race-based affirmative action will reduce an unfairness more often than it will exacerbate one. Statistically, it's impossible to deny that most racial minority groups are, on average, economically disadvantaged relative to whites (e.g., you have a much greater likelihood of having been born into a poor family and having attended a bad primary school if you're black than if you're white). So, the expected net impact of race-based affirmative action will tend to be positive, in terms of leveling the playing field. Add to that the side advantage of the practice "seeding" minority communities with role models, mentors, and other connections needed for success, and it's hard to argue we're better off without it.
That said, seeing how it works in practice can really stick in my craw. In my professional life, I know several people who have definitely been the beneficiaries of race-based affirmative action -- being hired or promoted when they otherwise would not have, because the company is emphasizing "diversity" and they come from under-represented minority groups. In some cases, this may be remedying an historical inequity -- at least one of the people I'm thinking of came from a poor background and lacked the kinds of personal connections that are so important in a traditional "good old boy's network," and those disadvantages probably could be traced indirectly to her race and the deep history of racism in this country. So, for her, affirmative action worked as intended. But in a clear majority of the cases, the people benefiting from the affirmative action were the children of rich doctors and lawyers, who had more advantages than half of the white people here, meaning affirmative action simply heightened an inequity.
I'll give the profile of one particular recipient He is Hispanic -- a fact he makes sure to mention early and often in conversations, because otherwise you'd never know. He has an Italian-sounding name, a generic upper-class American accent, and a complexion and features that are ethnically indeterminate. So, if he has ever faced any racial discrimination, it would shock me, since the only people who'd even have known his race are those he chose to tell. Nor does he come from any kind of disadvantaged background. His father is an extremely wealthy surgeon, and he attended elite private boarding schools. We're not talking Bush/Romney level advantages, but he was set up better than the vast majority of people in this country. His family also serves on boards of companies and charities, so he has all the connections he needs to get high-level jobs, and he runs in the same social circles as senior executives who can open doors and mentor him along the way. Even before he was making good money in his own career, he bought a house in one of the richest neighborhoods in America, with the help of lots of family money for a down payment. Despite all that, he's had the benefit of preferential academic admissions, hiring, and promotions, based solely on his Hispanic ancestry.
Meanwhile, a non-Hispanic white person can come from a background of outright poverty, with no family money or connections to help him, and still be treated as advantaged. And it's even possible for a non-Hispanic white to face the kind of discrimination we think of in the racial context (if, say, he has a poor regional dialect that marks him as "low class" in the eyes of some, or if he has an Eastern European accent that marks him as a "foreigner.") Despite those disadvantages and likely triggers for discrimination, the non-Hispanic white would receive no compensatory advantages in any decision-making.
Although I find Kinsley's argument convincing, in deciding between having race-based affirmative action and having no affirmative action, I don't think those are the only options. I'd like to see affirmative action that is keyed to class, instead of race, or that at least included class as a larger factor than race. Those who come from working class or impoverished backgrounds would get extra consideration. Perhaps, as between two people from poor families in economically depressed communities (e.g., an Appalachian white and a Detroit black), the racial minority might get extra consideration, in an attempt to counter some remnant racism in the society. But as between a racial minority from a background of privilege and a white from a disadvantaged background, I'd favor the latter, in order to level the playing field.
I'm ambivalent about it. The strongest case I've heard for race-based affirmative action was made by writer Michael Kinsley, years ago. The argument goes more or less like this. If you accept that, on average, racial minorities have faced more unfair discrimination and other disadvantages than whites, then you should admit that, on average, race-based affirmative action will reduce an unfairness more often than it will exacerbate one. Statistically, it's impossible to deny that most racial minority groups are, on average, economically disadvantaged relative to whites (e.g., you have a much greater likelihood of having been born into a poor family and having attended a bad primary school if you're black than if you're white). So, the expected net impact of race-based affirmative action will tend to be positive, in terms of leveling the playing field. Add to that the side advantage of the practice "seeding" minority communities with role models, mentors, and other connections needed for success, and it's hard to argue we're better off without it.
That said, seeing how it works in practice can really stick in my craw. In my professional life, I know several people who have definitely been the beneficiaries of race-based affirmative action -- being hired or promoted when they otherwise would not have, because the company is emphasizing "diversity" and they come from under-represented minority groups. In some cases, this may be remedying an historical inequity -- at least one of the people I'm thinking of came from a poor background and lacked the kinds of personal connections that are so important in a traditional "good old boy's network," and those disadvantages probably could be traced indirectly to her race and the deep history of racism in this country. So, for her, affirmative action worked as intended. But in a clear majority of the cases, the people benefiting from the affirmative action were the children of rich doctors and lawyers, who had more advantages than half of the white people here, meaning affirmative action simply heightened an inequity.
I'll give the profile of one particular recipient He is Hispanic -- a fact he makes sure to mention early and often in conversations, because otherwise you'd never know. He has an Italian-sounding name, a generic upper-class American accent, and a complexion and features that are ethnically indeterminate. So, if he has ever faced any racial discrimination, it would shock me, since the only people who'd even have known his race are those he chose to tell. Nor does he come from any kind of disadvantaged background. His father is an extremely wealthy surgeon, and he attended elite private boarding schools. We're not talking Bush/Romney level advantages, but he was set up better than the vast majority of people in this country. His family also serves on boards of companies and charities, so he has all the connections he needs to get high-level jobs, and he runs in the same social circles as senior executives who can open doors and mentor him along the way. Even before he was making good money in his own career, he bought a house in one of the richest neighborhoods in America, with the help of lots of family money for a down payment. Despite all that, he's had the benefit of preferential academic admissions, hiring, and promotions, based solely on his Hispanic ancestry.
Meanwhile, a non-Hispanic white person can come from a background of outright poverty, with no family money or connections to help him, and still be treated as advantaged. And it's even possible for a non-Hispanic white to face the kind of discrimination we think of in the racial context (if, say, he has a poor regional dialect that marks him as "low class" in the eyes of some, or if he has an Eastern European accent that marks him as a "foreigner.") Despite those disadvantages and likely triggers for discrimination, the non-Hispanic white would receive no compensatory advantages in any decision-making.
Although I find Kinsley's argument convincing, in deciding between having race-based affirmative action and having no affirmative action, I don't think those are the only options. I'd like to see affirmative action that is keyed to class, instead of race, or that at least included class as a larger factor than race. Those who come from working class or impoverished backgrounds would get extra consideration. Perhaps, as between two people from poor families in economically depressed communities (e.g., an Appalachian white and a Detroit black), the racial minority might get extra consideration, in an attempt to counter some remnant racism in the society. But as between a racial minority from a background of privilege and a white from a disadvantaged background, I'd favor the latter, in order to level the playing field.
