Is affirmative action racist?

[PNGFan]

My husband and a good friend of ours are from California. Our friend is thinking about moving back, because  he hates the "good ole boy" system that Texas has. He said that the racism that occurs in the workplace is horrible in Texas. He was stunned. :o

Moving with them? It's your kinda state!!

[Big girl]

She did not have more experience, didn't I say she didn't know anything related to the job. She had to ask a more experienced nurse (who should've been the supervisor) for help. :blink:

[thetragichippy]

Lol......I'm not even going to waste my time.

[PN-G bamatex]

I assume we're talking about affirmative action in university admissions given the example in the original post.

 

The Supreme Court has been very clear about this, and I tend to agree with their decisions. There's a landmark case which basically outlines the constitutionality of affirmative action in admissions policies for public universities called Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). To make a long story short, it says that affirmative action is fine as long as there aren't quotas, and becomes the basis for a more general assertion that affirmative action is acceptable as long as it doesn't pose too much of a burden on more qualified applicants in later cases.

 

The subject of Bakke was the affirmative action policy in admissions to the medical school at UC Davis, which mandated a minimum of 16 out of 100 accepted applicants be members of an underrepresented minority (for purposes of brevity, this is often referred to as a "URM candidate"). In effect, what that meant was that white applicants were competing for 84 seats, while URM candidates were competing for the full one hundred.

 

The questions the justices asked during oral arguments broadened to cover affirmative action in general, as discussions over controversial issues often do. And, when it came time for the case to be decided. The decision was as close as you can come to a draw in the United States Supreme Court. The decision was a 5-4 vote in favor of Mr. Bakke, but with no clear majority opinion. In fact, for all intents and purposes, the court was split on the real issue, and there were basically as many opinions as there were justices. The best generalization that can be given is that four justices thought affirmative action was good, four thought it was bad, and one thought it was fine depending on the circumstances surrounding the institution implementing it and the process by which it was implemented.

 

That opinion, written by Justice Lewis Powell, was the most influential opinion to come out of the case. In it, Justice Powell decried the use of quotas or anything resembling a quota, but upheld the basic purpose and function of an affirmative action policy. He first asserted that the constitution guarantees individual rights to people, not collective rights to segments of society. This includes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is at the very heart of the affirmative action issue and, indeed, most racial issues. Recognizing that fact, Justice Powell concluded that in order for the UC Davis medical school's affirmative action program to be upheld, it had to pass what's generally referred to as the "strict scrutiny" or "heightened scrutiny" test, which is the standard that any violation of a person's constitutional rights must meet in order to be deemed constitutional. It is a two-pronged test; the law or policy in question must first serve a compelling governmental interest, and then must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

 

Justice Powell reasoned that the affirmative action policy passed the first prong of the test, although not necessarily for the reason you might think. The normal "compelling governmental interest" used to justify an affirmative action policy is that it attempts to rectify social disparities that result from past discrimination. If I recall correctly (it's been a while, so don't quote me on this), Justice Powell didn't even address that reason; normally, that's perfectly fine for an affirmative action policy at an institution in a southern state, but this was California. What he did find to be a compelling governmental interest, though, was to achieve diversity in an educational environment to ensure as effective an education as possible for students. As I recall, he spent several paragraphs expounding on that point. Key to his analysis was that diversity was not simply racial in nature, or even ethnic, economic or religious - diversity was an all encompassing term that included different skills, talents, experiences and other intangible qualities.

 

The policy did not, however, pass the second prong of the test about being narrowly tailored. The reasoning was simple: other universities had managed to achieve diversity by Justice Powell's definition without employing such a restrictive policy. Justice Powell determined that a racial quota was simply too much of an infraction against the constitutional rights of white students who applied to the program to be considered "narrowly tailored." Instead of the UC Davis system, Justice Powell offered the metric at Harvard's law school as an example of a constitutionally sound affirmative action policy. Harvard chose to consider racial, religious, ethnic and economic diversity as a "plus" on an application, which would be weighted as an approximate equal to a unique talent or experience - all tying back to Powell's general definition of diversity.

 

A couple more landmark cases on this subject followed. The two most notable are Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). Both cases dealt with admissions at the University of Michigan, one for undergrad and one for the law school. To make another long story short, undergrad admissions used a points system to determine an applicants' probability of admission. 100 points normally meant guaranteed admission, and URM candidates were given a full twenty extra points. Economically disadvantaged students were also given a full twenty points, meaning that a candidate who was both poor and non-white received forty extra points. The law school, on the other hand, was pretty close to the Harvard example; I'm actually not sure how that one made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

*Note: This is the amateur analysis of a prelaw student who only knows so much about this issue because he wrote a paper about it for a constitutional law class three and a half months ago.

[77]

My husband and a good friend of ours are from California. Our friend is thinking about moving back, because  he hates the "good ole boy" system that Texas has. He said that the racism that occurs in the workplace is horrible in Texas. He was stunned. :o

Bye bye!

[smitty]

No, it gives qualified blacks a shot that they would not have gotten otherwise. Racism still exisits. (Gasp).

So, BigGirl, you are against discrimination.  Right?  But you are OK with "reverse" discrimination?

[TxHoops]

Should a white person get in to Prairie View or other historically black colleges with lower scores than a black person to even it out?

Actually that's exactly how it works. I have known more than one white person that got a full ride to a historically black college on a "minority basis." One of the goals in institutions of higher learning is diversity and that cuts both ways.

[TxHoops]

I assume we're talking about affirmative action in university admissions given the example in the original post.

The Supreme Court has been very clear about this, and I tend to agree with their decisions. There's a landmark case which basically outlines the constitutionality of affirmative action in admissions policies for public universities called Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). To make a long story short, it says that affirmative action is fine as long as there aren't quotas, and becomes the basis for a more general assertion that affirmative action is acceptable as long as it doesn't pose too much of a burden on more qualified applicants in later cases.

The subject of Bakke was the affirmative action policy in admissions to the medical school at UC Davis, which mandated a minimum of 16 out of 100 accepted applicants be members of an underrepresented minority (for purposes of brevity, this is often referred to as a "URM candidate"). In effect, what that meant was that white applicants were competing for 84 seats, while URM candidates were competing for the full one hundred.

The questions the justices asked during oral arguments broadened to cover affirmative action in general, as discussions over controversial issues often do. And, when it came time for the case to be decided. The decision was as close as you can come to a draw in the United States Supreme Court. The decision was a 5-4 vote in favor of Mr. Bakke, but with no clear majority opinion. In fact, for all intents and purposes, the court was split on the real issue, and there were basically as many opinions as there were justices. The best generalization that can be given is that four justices thought affirmative action was good, four thought it was bad, and one thought it was fine depending on the circumstances surrounding the institution implementing it and the process by which it was implemented.

That opinion, written by Justice Lewis Powell, was the most influential opinion to come out of the case. In it, Justice Powell decried the use of quotas or anything resembling a quota, but upheld the basic purpose and function of an affirmative action policy. He first asserted that the constitution guarantees individual rights to people, not collective rights to segments of society. This includes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is at the very heart of the affirmative action issue and, indeed, most racial issues. Recognizing that fact, Justice Powell concluded that in order for the UC Davis medical school's affirmative action program to be upheld, it had to pass what's generally referred to as the "strict scrutiny" or "heightened scrutiny" test, which is the standard that any violation of a person's constitutional rights must meet in order to be deemed constitutional. It is a two-pronged test; the law or policy in question must first serve a compelling governmental interest, and then must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

Justice Powell reasoned that the affirmative action policy passed the first prong of the test, although not necessarily for the reason you might think. The normal "compelling governmental interest" used to justify an affirmative action policy is that it attempts to rectify social disparities that result from past discrimination. If I recall correctly (it's been a while, so don't quote me on this), Justice Powell didn't even address that reason; normally, that's perfectly fine for an affirmative action policy at an institution in a southern state, but this was California. What he did find to be a compelling governmental interest, though, was to achieve diversity in an educational environment to ensure as effective an education as possible for students. As I recall, he spent several paragraphs expounding on that point. Key to his analysis was that diversity was not simply racial in nature, or even ethnic, economic or religious - diversity was an all encompassing term that included different skills, talents, experiences and other intangible qualities.

The policy did not, however, pass the second prong of the test about being narrowly tailored. The reasoning was simple: other universities had managed to achieve diversity by Justice Powell's definition without employing such a restrictive policy. Justice Powell determined that a racial quota was simply too much of an infraction against the constitutional rights of white students who applied to the program to be considered "narrowly tailored." Instead of the UC Davis system, Justice Powell offered the metric at Harvard's law school as an example of a constitutionally sound affirmative action policy. Harvard chose to consider racial, religious, ethnic and economic diversity as a "plus" on an application, which would be weighted as an approximate equal to a unique talent or experience - all tying back to Powell's general definition of diversity.

A couple more landmark cases on this subject followed. The two most notable are Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). Both cases dealt with admissions at the University of Michigan, one for undergrad and one for the law school. To make another long story short, undergrad admissions used a points system to determine an applicants' probability of admission. 100 points normally meant guaranteed admission, and URM candidates were given a full twenty extra points. Economically disadvantaged students were also given a full twenty points, meaning that a candidate who was both poor and non-white received forty extra points. The law school, on the other hand, was pretty close to the Harvard example; I'm actually not sure how that one made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

*Note: This is the amateur analysis of a prelaw student who only knows so much about this issue because he wrote a paper about it for a constitutional law class three and a half months ago.

Very good analysis there. Interesting side note: I am guessing you also looked at the 5th circuit Hopwood decision? That was a case that involved my class at UT Law. A few students who weren't admitted to my class, sued UT in what was essentially a "reverse discrimination" case. A few more rejected students later joined. I learned more than I ever wanted to know because my Civ Pro professor was one of the lead attorneys defending the University, Sam Issacharoff (now at NYU). He talked about the case incessantly for the entire year.

Without getting to deep into the case, here is what happened there:

The legendary Judge Sam Sparks ruled in The University's favor after a bench trial, and the case went to the 5th Circuit Coury of Appeals. Essentially, the 5th Circuit found Bakke to be unconstitutional and struck down UT's policy. The Supreme Court denied cert (refused to hear the case) and the ruling stood basically for 7 years (until the Gratz and Grutter decisions you discussed came down out of the Univ of Michigan).

[PN-G bamatex]

Very good analysis there. Interesting side note: I am guessing you also looked at the 5th circuit Hopwood decision? That was a case that involved my class at UT Law. A few students who weren't admitted to my class, sued UT in what was essentially a "reverse discrimination" case. A few more rejected students later joined. I learned more than I ever wanted to know because my Civ Pro professor was one of the lead attorneys defending the University, Sam Issacharoff (now at NYU). He talked about the case incessantly for the entire year.

Without getting to deep into the case, here is what happened there:

The legendary Judge Sam Sparks ruled in The University's favor after a bench trial, and the case went to the 5th Circuit Coury of Appeals. Essentially, the 5th Circuit found Bakke to be unconstitutional and struck down UT's policy. The Supreme Court denied cert (refused to hear the case) and the ruling stood basically for 7 years (until the Gratz and Grutter decisions you discussed came down out of the Univ of Michigan).

 

Unfortunately, I didn't get to look at any appellate court decisions. The class focused entirely on Supreme Court cases. We weren't limited to the cases we discussed in class, but we were limited to cases from the highest court. Because of that, I actually didn't even know Hopwood existed. I guess that explains why Grutter made it all the way up the line.

[TROJANSWIN]

Actually that's exactly how it works. I have known more than one white person that got a full ride to a historically black college on a "minority basis." One of the goals in institutions of higher learning is diversity and that cuts both ways.

I have an aunt that went to prairie view as a minority (white person) and got a full scholarship. I don't have a problem with a school recruiting any type of qualified minority student and offering scholarships to entice them to go there and increase diversity. But, the admission standards shouldn't be lowered or a more qualified applicant shouldn't be passed up just on the basis of any type of minority status. Everyone should be treated equally based on their abilities and proven efforts.

[Big girl]

Yep, but it wasnt happening. That is why we have affirmative action. If only we lived in a perfect world...by the way tx hoops you are the man.

[smitty]

Yep, but it wasnt happening. That is why we have affirmative action. If only we lived in a perfect world...by the way tx hoops you are the man.

Yep you are OK with reverse discrimination?  Let's make it clear what you are Yepping!  Or, are you Yepping another post here? 

[Eagle11]

I think affirmative action was needed in a given time period. These days I compare it (Affirmative action) to unions......unions were very much needed in my grandfathers day working.........not so much anymore. Instead of making sure everyone had good working conditions and getting a good salary like they used to, they now keep people employed that should have been fired many months and years before. They are both being used very differently than intended. Just my $00.02 worth

[stevenash]

Agree wholeheartedly with your $.02

[bullets13]

I'm sure that there is still the occasional case of discrimination that it remedies, but I believe it perpetrates many more cases of reverse discrimination, which goes against the purpose it is supposed to serve.

[Big girl]

I'm sure that there is still the occasional case of discrimination that it remedies, but I believe it perpetrates many more cases of reverse discrimination, which goes against the purpose it is supposed to serve.

I know you mean well, but you don't know the struggles of black people. Our life experiences are different. Think about this. I worked for a company that hired 10 black people to reach their so called quota. There were other qualified blacks out there. Why didn't they hire more? Why did they hire just enough to reach the quota? Why didn't they hire 30 qualified blacks even if it exceeded the "quota"?

[77]

Maybe there were more qualified people of other races!

[thetragichippy]

I know you mean well, but you don't know the struggles of black people. Our life experiences are different. Think about this. I worked for a company that hired 10 black people to reach their so called quota. There were other qualified blacks out there. Why didn't they hire more? Why did they hire just enough to reach the quota? Why didn't they hire 30 qualified blacks even if it exceeded the "quota"?

 

How many better qualified applicants did they not hire to reach their "so called quota"?

 

Since you were not involved in the hiring process, you really don't know if their were better qualified blacks than other races do you? It's easy to sit back and scream racism when you don't know the entire situation........

[Big girl]

Your comments show why affirmative action is needed.

[Big girl]

How many better qualified applicants did they not hire to reach their "so called quota"?
 
Since you were not involved in the hiring process, you really don't know if their were better qualified blacks than other races do you? It's easy to sit back and scream racism when you don't know the entire situation........

so you don't think that there were more then 10 qualified blacks in Houston . Smh

[thetragichippy]

so you don't think that there were more then 10 qualified blacks in Houston . Smh

 

there are probably 1000's

 

How many applied?  Do you know?  How do you know there were not better qualified other races?  You don't know......THAT is your problem.....you are ASSuming.....

 

You are exactly why racism will always be an issue.  No one on this board has ever said racism does not exist....you are a prime example that is does......All we have said is it is not to the degree that YOU think it is.....most of it is in your head

[Big girl]

There were other races that were probably qualified, so why did we have 90 white people, 10 blacks,3 Asians and 2 Hispanics working there. That doesn't seem very diverse to me.

[thetragichippy]

There were other races that were probably qualified, so why did we have 90 white people, 10 blacks,3 Asians and 2 Hispanics working there. That doesn't seem very diverse to me.

 

Maybe they were trying to hire the MOST qualified and that is how it ended up.

 

The fact is, we BOTH don't know how many of each race applied.....

 

So, without that information we can only guess.

[Big girl]

Oh,OK, Whatever.

[thetragichippy]

Or you can continue to think that the company did not like black people and only wanted to hire whites.