Is affirmative action REALLY fair?

In the interests of moving this discussion along, let me offer a hypothetical that might clarify Rosborne's stance on affirmative action as he understands it.

Suppose a university has an admissions policy, whereby it evaluates applicants based, initially, upon a combination of high school GPA and standardized test scores (objective measures), as well as extracurricular activities, personal essay, and recommendations (subjective measures). The university has one spot open in the incoming freshman class. There are two applicants for the spot. One is a white applicant with a 3.2 GPA, an SAT score of 1350, and subjective measures that are deemed above average. The other is a minority applicant with a 2.8 GPA, an SAT score of 1130, and subjective measures that are deemed to be average. The school does not have any minimum standards for admission, but it rarely accepts anyone with less than a 2.5 GPA, an SAT score below 1100, and any subjective measures that are deemed below average. On the other hand, it frequently accepts students who are above those marks. In the past, it has both accepted and rejected applicants with the kind of scores and subjective measures that both of these applicants present. Consequently, although the two applicants have markedly different objective and subjective measures, they are both minimally qualified to be admitted to the university.

The university decides to admit the minority applicant, based upon its commitment to diversity in the student body. In other words, the university relies upon an affirmative action policy to select the minority applicant.

Now, the questions:
1. Is this fair?
2. If it is not fair, why is it not fair?

Quote, "... we are better off WITH legislation that compels people to not just hire those they are "comfortable" with..." Show me how this never happens in the minority businesses.

Gungasnake, your generalizations about teaching are unfounded. I've studied four colleges and universities and taught for a quarter century in three institutions (one a community college, another a five year liberal arts college, and the other--for 23 years--a major university, and the most obvious characteristic of every one of these schools is that every teacher had his/her own, and sometimes ideosyncratic, style of teaching. There are many ways to rank schools, but teaching techniques and styles are not among them.

In the interests of moving this discussion along, let me offer a hypothetical that might clarify Rosborne's stance on affirmative action as he understands it.

Suppose a university has an admissions policy, whereby it evaluates applicants based, initially, upon a combination of high school GPA and standardized test scores (objective measures), as well as extracurricular activities, personal essay, and recommendations (subjective measures). The university has one spot open in the incoming freshman class. There are two applicants for the spot. One is a white applicant with a 3.2 GPA, an SAT score of 1350, and subjective measures that are deemed above average. The other is a minority applicant with a 2.8 GPA, an SAT score of 1130, and subjective measures that are deemed to be average. The school does not have any minimum standards for admission, but it rarely accepts anyone with less than a 2.5 GPA, an SAT score below 1100, and any subjective measures that are deemed below average. On the other hand, it frequently accepts students who are above those marks. In the past, it has both accepted and rejected applicants with the kind of scores and subjective measures that both of these applicants present. Consequently, although the two applicants have markedly different objective and subjective measures, they are both minimally qualified to be admitted to the university.

The university decides to admit the minority applicant, based upon its commitment to diversity in the student body. In other words, the university relies upon an affirmative action policy to select the minority applicant.

Now, the questions:
1. Is this fair?
2. If it is not fair, why is it not fair?

Hey snood, no need to get your shorts all twisted. As Norm said, "if you sit long enough, they tend to correct itself!" No nits on my part; and I don't have the energy to tilt windmills. Hear about the latest suit against WalMart? They're enforcing equal opportunity there, and those ladies are collecting millions. They're enforcing the laws - already on the books. Ain't that sum'tn.

No it is not fair. First, because you are rewarding somebody for something they have no control over. Second, you are taking away from somebody for reasons they have no control over.

Third, you are accepting mediocrity which lowers the standards of the rest of the university. This makes it unfair for all of the other students already attending there.

Fourth, you are showing the people that you are trying to help, that they don't really need to work as hard as everyone else because the color of their skin will make up for it.

Now some questions for you.
1.) If a person gets into a college simply by being average but having the right color skin, what makes you think they will try any harder once they are in college? Is this really helping him or merely giving him a free pass?

2.) Would you have a problem with the same hypothetical you have stated the tie-breaker went to the white applicant instead of the black applicant? If so, why is it all right to be one way and not the other?

The problem with your hypothetical, Joe, is that AA isn't only for the last spot in the freshman class. Affirmative action is not used as a tie breaker. Once again, your hypothetical is irrelevent.

We routinely reward and punish people for things over which they have no control. In the context of college admissions, we can see this in both legacy admissions and the preference given by state schools to in-state students. Since students have no control over the alumni status of their parents and practically no control over where they live, such preferences should be just as objectionable as race-based criteria.

In a broader sense, students are also punished or rewarded based upon their families' economic status, another factor over which they have little control. Students who can attend the best schools, afford tutors and other academic help, and avail themselves of diverse cultural opportunities are more likely to get better grades and score higher on college entrance exams than students with meager economic resources. Yet students have very little control over their economic status either.

How is accepting the minority student in my hypothetical "accepting mediocrity?" Are you suggesting that the minority applicant will inevitably be a worse student than the white applicant?

I'm sure minority students would answer that they work twice as hard just to overcome the discrimination that they face every day.

In any event, remember that, in my hypothetical, both of the students are qualified. So even the minority applicant has worked at least as hard as some other students who have already been admitted to the college.

Unlike you, I cannot predict how well or poorly a student might do once they have been admitted to a college. Furthermore, I don't think anyone honestly can predict that. And that goes for both minority and white students. At most, a college can rely upon past performance to estimate the likelihood of a student succeeding or failing.

In addition, the affirmative action policy for a college's admissions does nothing to aid the student after s/he has been accepted. Once the student has gotten a foot in the door, that particular affirmative action "bonus" has expired.

If, for instance, a historically black college wanted to attract white students, I wouldn't have a problem with it crafting an affirmative action policy to attract whites, just as historically all-women's colleges have used a version of affirmative action to attract men. If diversity is a worthwhile goal, then a college is permitted to fashion an admissions policy that aims to achieve that goal.