Yascha Mounk and Peter Arcidiacono discuss what the practice of affirmative action actually looked like, and how the recent Supreme Court ruling is likely to shape what comes next.
Afirmative Action is illiberal, morally deficient and destructivly divisive with respect to race. It should have been rejected from day one for these reasons.
I think there is a cohort of elites that either don't understand, or else they understand perfectly well, that human life, because of the real science of human nature, in any system design, is a competition for resources and status.
Affirmative Action is an attempt at a race-based shortcut in that competition. It does not work as it would not work to advance a competitive swimmer because of race. Sure, maybe hanging out with more elite swimmers would rub off a bit, but nothing replaces hard work and talent to win races... unless we also hobble those that work harder and have talent.
If we want to see improvements outcomes for black swimners it has to start on the day they are born... to tool the system so their special needs are better met to enable learning.
But institutional practices of favoring adults because of race is institutional racism... it needs to stop. Now.
As I remember it, affirmative action was introduced as a way of opening pathways for black students whose lack of high-quality primary and secondary education would have impeded or entirely blocked their ability to attend college. In its focus on the importance of education in social advancement, it can be related to school bussing. Contemporary initiatives included deliberate targeting of black hires in police, fire, and other professions, and minority set asides in the fulfilling of government contracts on all levels, from the federal to the local. All these initiatives formed part of the Johnson administration’s Great Society programs. The framing was positive, the emphasis on social change. For this reason, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the use of the word “reparations” to characterize the purpose of affirmative action as designed. Even if the word “reparations” was used in certain circles at the time, it was not standard. Nor was the retributive, moralistic attempt to extract action through guilt a part of the discourse. All too often, commentators who now speak of “reparations” as a necessary form of justice insinuate the word into a conversation to which it does not, or need not, belong. In the process they, using their power as shapers of the national discourse, attempt to normalize what is controversial, as if trying to make “reparations” appear inevitable, the only just solution. It’s not, nor should it be treated as if it were.
Another problematic word: “effectively,” an adverb which gives Arcidiacono a nice way of making, without any hard evidence, an outrageous claim about universities allowing humanities faculty to “bribe” students with grades in order to preserve their programs. Grade inflation has been discussed for years; commonly cited causes include the consumerization of education, the concomitant treatment of students as customers, and the related role of helicopter parents. Not to be forgotten is the high percentage of adjunct professors whose jobs are precarious and highly dependent on scoring well on student evaluations. It’s tough to be a tough grader when your job is on the line. It's also tough to hold a line in a subject in which judgments of value are inherently subjective at a time when the expertise of teachers receives little respect. Neither Arcidiacono nor Mounk seem to consider the possibility of students choosing a liberal arts or humanistic subject because they’re interested. Since what used to be the humanities and arts have become, all too often, vehicles for the kind of theorizing and argumentation that (here we come full circle) would support payment of “reparations,” it would be understandable for black and other students of color to find the humanities congenial. At a minimum, there are some well-paying jobs as diversity officers out there, and what can be equally appealing, cultural power.
The reason for disproportionate fewer numbers of blacks in positions correlating to higher levels of intelligence and socioeconomic status needs no further explanation than the double bell curve. Other factors may be at play but in themselves may reflect the fundamental logic of Richard Hernstein’s famous syllogism from his Atlantic article of 1973:
· If differences in mental ability are inherited, and
· If success requires those abilities, and
· If earnings and prestige depend upon success,
· Then social standing (which reflects earnings and prestige) will be based to some extent on inherited differences among people
IQ or ‘g’ is an elusive concept, but that it correlates strongly to socioeconomic outcomes in a Eurocentric world is incontrovertible. Given the importance of mental ability, as measured by IQ (a measure dismissed out of hand by progressive orthodoxy, but well established among psychometricians and the great majority of biogenetic researchers), and its high correlation with socioeconomic success, the story of race in America may be graphically represented by two overlapping bell curves (as shown below). The normal distribution of a given variable, taken from a sufficiently large sample, as illustrated in a bell curve graph, will be numerically greatest at its numerical mean (average). The same number of values will lie to the right and to the left of the mean in smoothly diminishing numbers. 68.3% of the sample will lie within one standard deviation (SD) to the right and one standard deviation to the left of the mean. 95% of the sample will lie within two standard deviations from the mean, and three standard deviations will capture 97.5% of the sample. The analytical strength of this statistical ratio is that it is constant through all normal distributions. The mean IQ score for white Americans is approximately 100, that of black Americans 85, or approximately one standard deviation below that mark. This statistical difference has several consequential effects. If one were to superimpose the graph of black IQ distribution onto a graph of white IQ distribution, the large area of overlap reemphasizes the necessity of seeing individuals specifically, rather than as members of a group defined by generalizations that may statistically apply to that group, but are of limited applicability to its individual members. The converse, however, precludes the assumption of group equality in terms of the chosen metric. At the point at which the graph lines intersect, those points to the left will be disproportionately, relative to population, represented by blacks, those to the right disproportionally by whites. Because of the rightward shift of the white population norm and the numerical minority (13.6% of the American population) of blacks, the availability of blacks to fill upper echelon jobs, or elite university admissions, corresponding to IQ requirements of, say one standard deviation above the general population norm and beyond, becomes diminishingly small. (Harvard, other considerations aside, is considering applicants from three standard deviations from the norm, or around the 97.5 percentile.) In the other direction the disproportionate concentration of blacks at one standard deviation below the norm of the white population may be expected to correlate with disproportionate representation in lower socioeconomic positions as well as to increasingly disproportionate representation by measurements of poverty and associated sociological maladies. Employers or institutions seeking to meet aggressive diversity goals in filling higher echelons may have trouble finding qualified black applicants. They certainly exist but will, in terms of the general population, be underrepresented. There are one eighth as many blacks as whites, but the degree that they are disproportionately underrepresented in the higher ranges of the IQ distribution makes the difference much greater in terms of individuals available to fill positions correlating to the right half of the scale. [1]
Underproportioned representation of backs in higher socioeconomic positions is consistently pointed to as de facto evidence of systematic or institutional racism. Racism cannot be dismissed as a partial or even significant part of the explanation, but it is not a complete or necessarily the most important factor in the creation of the data underlying the statistic. Nor can the outcome be taken as evidence of systemic or institutional racism. We know that American has a long history of racism, beginning with attitudes that permitted the ideology of slavery, and that elements of those attitudes have persisted to the present, but anecdotal and statistical evidence exits to argue that those attitudes have not remained constant, but rather have diminished over time, to the point that one may question the degree to which racism remains systematic or institutional, or how, or to what extent, that phenomenon might be quantified. However, the importance of racism’s historical inertia cannot be discounted when considering the black person’s inertial reality.
The recognition of population differences raises questions relating to policy. Is justice, or fairness, best served by the denial that meaningful differences exist between individuals, or better by policies supportive of individuals finding meaningful roles tailored to their potentials, especially as related to policy in the area of public education and occupational preparation. Presuming the absence of material want, i.e., a reasonable degree of economic security, meaning is perhaps a higher human goal, in terms of personal realization, than material gain or even comparative status. Above all, people seek a place within society in which they enjoy dignity and are respected for their roles as individual humans, as ends to themselves. Personal fulfillment entails doing meaningful work well. Accomplishment of that goal implies an alignment of the task to one’s talents. Relative status having been defined, one sets about feathering one’s nest. We all come to our own pons asinorum, that point at which our intellectual capacity does not measure up to the complexity of the problem at hand, beyond which we cannot progress. One may become imbittered by that fact, or look around to see what other work needs doing.
A string may be pushed from here to yonder without it getting any longer.
The person at Georgetown was a lady by the name of Sandra Sellers. She was ‘guilty’ of telling the truth. She was actually embarrassed by the truth. The video is by no means ‘cringe worthy’. You can watch the actual video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DASkjIiUNB4. Of course, she was simply telling the truth. See “A SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS” (https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Ec%20137/Richard%20Sander%20on%20Affirmative%20Action%20in%20Law%20Schools.pdf) and “Sander: Law-School 'Mismatch' Is Worse Than We Thought” (https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2023/03/sander-law-school-mismatch-is-worse-than-we-thought.html).
Afirmative Action is illiberal, morally deficient and destructivly divisive with respect to race. It should have been rejected from day one for these reasons.
I think there is a cohort of elites that either don't understand, or else they understand perfectly well, that human life, because of the real science of human nature, in any system design, is a competition for resources and status.
Affirmative Action is an attempt at a race-based shortcut in that competition. It does not work as it would not work to advance a competitive swimmer because of race. Sure, maybe hanging out with more elite swimmers would rub off a bit, but nothing replaces hard work and talent to win races... unless we also hobble those that work harder and have talent.
If we want to see improvements outcomes for black swimners it has to start on the day they are born... to tool the system so their special needs are better met to enable learning.
But institutional practices of favoring adults because of race is institutional racism... it needs to stop. Now.
As I remember it, affirmative action was introduced as a way of opening pathways for black students whose lack of high-quality primary and secondary education would have impeded or entirely blocked their ability to attend college. In its focus on the importance of education in social advancement, it can be related to school bussing. Contemporary initiatives included deliberate targeting of black hires in police, fire, and other professions, and minority set asides in the fulfilling of government contracts on all levels, from the federal to the local. All these initiatives formed part of the Johnson administration’s Great Society programs. The framing was positive, the emphasis on social change. For this reason, I am profoundly uncomfortable with the use of the word “reparations” to characterize the purpose of affirmative action as designed. Even if the word “reparations” was used in certain circles at the time, it was not standard. Nor was the retributive, moralistic attempt to extract action through guilt a part of the discourse. All too often, commentators who now speak of “reparations” as a necessary form of justice insinuate the word into a conversation to which it does not, or need not, belong. In the process they, using their power as shapers of the national discourse, attempt to normalize what is controversial, as if trying to make “reparations” appear inevitable, the only just solution. It’s not, nor should it be treated as if it were.
Another problematic word: “effectively,” an adverb which gives Arcidiacono a nice way of making, without any hard evidence, an outrageous claim about universities allowing humanities faculty to “bribe” students with grades in order to preserve their programs. Grade inflation has been discussed for years; commonly cited causes include the consumerization of education, the concomitant treatment of students as customers, and the related role of helicopter parents. Not to be forgotten is the high percentage of adjunct professors whose jobs are precarious and highly dependent on scoring well on student evaluations. It’s tough to be a tough grader when your job is on the line. It's also tough to hold a line in a subject in which judgments of value are inherently subjective at a time when the expertise of teachers receives little respect. Neither Arcidiacono nor Mounk seem to consider the possibility of students choosing a liberal arts or humanistic subject because they’re interested. Since what used to be the humanities and arts have become, all too often, vehicles for the kind of theorizing and argumentation that (here we come full circle) would support payment of “reparations,” it would be understandable for black and other students of color to find the humanities congenial. At a minimum, there are some well-paying jobs as diversity officers out there, and what can be equally appealing, cultural power.
The reason for disproportionate fewer numbers of blacks in positions correlating to higher levels of intelligence and socioeconomic status needs no further explanation than the double bell curve. Other factors may be at play but in themselves may reflect the fundamental logic of Richard Hernstein’s famous syllogism from his Atlantic article of 1973:
· If differences in mental ability are inherited, and
· If success requires those abilities, and
· If earnings and prestige depend upon success,
· Then social standing (which reflects earnings and prestige) will be based to some extent on inherited differences among people
IQ or ‘g’ is an elusive concept, but that it correlates strongly to socioeconomic outcomes in a Eurocentric world is incontrovertible. Given the importance of mental ability, as measured by IQ (a measure dismissed out of hand by progressive orthodoxy, but well established among psychometricians and the great majority of biogenetic researchers), and its high correlation with socioeconomic success, the story of race in America may be graphically represented by two overlapping bell curves (as shown below). The normal distribution of a given variable, taken from a sufficiently large sample, as illustrated in a bell curve graph, will be numerically greatest at its numerical mean (average). The same number of values will lie to the right and to the left of the mean in smoothly diminishing numbers. 68.3% of the sample will lie within one standard deviation (SD) to the right and one standard deviation to the left of the mean. 95% of the sample will lie within two standard deviations from the mean, and three standard deviations will capture 97.5% of the sample. The analytical strength of this statistical ratio is that it is constant through all normal distributions. The mean IQ score for white Americans is approximately 100, that of black Americans 85, or approximately one standard deviation below that mark. This statistical difference has several consequential effects. If one were to superimpose the graph of black IQ distribution onto a graph of white IQ distribution, the large area of overlap reemphasizes the necessity of seeing individuals specifically, rather than as members of a group defined by generalizations that may statistically apply to that group, but are of limited applicability to its individual members. The converse, however, precludes the assumption of group equality in terms of the chosen metric. At the point at which the graph lines intersect, those points to the left will be disproportionately, relative to population, represented by blacks, those to the right disproportionally by whites. Because of the rightward shift of the white population norm and the numerical minority (13.6% of the American population) of blacks, the availability of blacks to fill upper echelon jobs, or elite university admissions, corresponding to IQ requirements of, say one standard deviation above the general population norm and beyond, becomes diminishingly small. (Harvard, other considerations aside, is considering applicants from three standard deviations from the norm, or around the 97.5 percentile.) In the other direction the disproportionate concentration of blacks at one standard deviation below the norm of the white population may be expected to correlate with disproportionate representation in lower socioeconomic positions as well as to increasingly disproportionate representation by measurements of poverty and associated sociological maladies. Employers or institutions seeking to meet aggressive diversity goals in filling higher echelons may have trouble finding qualified black applicants. They certainly exist but will, in terms of the general population, be underrepresented. There are one eighth as many blacks as whites, but the degree that they are disproportionately underrepresented in the higher ranges of the IQ distribution makes the difference much greater in terms of individuals available to fill positions correlating to the right half of the scale. [1]
Underproportioned representation of backs in higher socioeconomic positions is consistently pointed to as de facto evidence of systematic or institutional racism. Racism cannot be dismissed as a partial or even significant part of the explanation, but it is not a complete or necessarily the most important factor in the creation of the data underlying the statistic. Nor can the outcome be taken as evidence of systemic or institutional racism. We know that American has a long history of racism, beginning with attitudes that permitted the ideology of slavery, and that elements of those attitudes have persisted to the present, but anecdotal and statistical evidence exits to argue that those attitudes have not remained constant, but rather have diminished over time, to the point that one may question the degree to which racism remains systematic or institutional, or how, or to what extent, that phenomenon might be quantified. However, the importance of racism’s historical inertia cannot be discounted when considering the black person’s inertial reality.
The recognition of population differences raises questions relating to policy. Is justice, or fairness, best served by the denial that meaningful differences exist between individuals, or better by policies supportive of individuals finding meaningful roles tailored to their potentials, especially as related to policy in the area of public education and occupational preparation. Presuming the absence of material want, i.e., a reasonable degree of economic security, meaning is perhaps a higher human goal, in terms of personal realization, than material gain or even comparative status. Above all, people seek a place within society in which they enjoy dignity and are respected for their roles as individual humans, as ends to themselves. Personal fulfillment entails doing meaningful work well. Accomplishment of that goal implies an alignment of the task to one’s talents. Relative status having been defined, one sets about feathering one’s nest. We all come to our own pons asinorum, that point at which our intellectual capacity does not measure up to the complexity of the problem at hand, beyond which we cannot progress. One may become imbittered by that fact, or look around to see what other work needs doing.
A string may be pushed from here to yonder without it getting any longer.