Maybe I'm Missing Something: Who is affirmitive action supposed to help?

[Tingkai]

In the case of the US newspaper industry, there is very specific data about the racial composition of journalists.

You haven’t provided any evidence for the excuses you have listed. So what you’re saying is let’s ignore the data and instead use some flimsy excuses that lack factual support to justify canceling AA that largely exists in name only. In other words, you want to ignore the problem.

The major point that you have missed is that in the newspaper industry, AA exists only in name, not in reality. That may well be the case for other industries. So while people moan and whine about AA, they ignore the possibility that AA may be more myth than reality.

Meanwhile, there is clear evidence that minorities are under-represented in the newspaper industry, depsite the large number of minorities graduating from American journalism schools.

For those of you who are against AA, how about providing some basic data: 1) what percentage of American companies actually use AA? How many jobs in the US are reserved for AA programs? How many people have been hired through AA during the past 25 years? What are the typical rules applied for AA recruitment?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai
In the case of the US newspaper industry, there is very specific data about the racial composition of journalists.

As there is for many industries in the U.S. That is not however all that useful in trying to get beyond the simple question of how is the population distributed by race into more complex issues like why, or why is this AA program working and not this one.

Originally posted by Tingkai
You haven’t provided any evidence for the excuses you have listed. So what you’re saying is let’s ignore the data and instead use some flimsy excuses that lack factual support to justify canceling AA that largely exists in name only. In other words, you want to ignore the problem.

Wow I said all that? Too bad you don't have a quote, because even a generous analysis of my statements doesn't seem to back up your claims on my behalf.

Which data am I supposed to be ignoring here? I don't want to ignore the problem (though I wouldn't mind hearing you define it so that I'm sure that we are talking about the same thing) assuming the problem is assuring equal access to education and employment. I want to eliminate the ham-handed solution of discriminating by race in order to undo discrimination based upon race and whatever other sociological factors besides racism that may be in place which create hurdles for people.

Originally posted by Tingkai
The major point that you have missed is that in the newspaper industry, AA exists only in name, not in reality. That may well be the case for other industries. So while people moan and whine about AA, they ignore the possibility that AA may be more myth than reality.

More myth than reality is another part of the problem. The backlash and the stigma remain while the goals of the program remain unfulfilled and in fact are made more difficult by the stigma and racial backlash. What's wrong with this picture? All the pain and only a part of the gain is not a recipe for success.

Why are you including me in the group that is whining "Them damn _____ got my job!"? My objections to AA have always been philisophical rather than based upon some perceived advantage to "my people" in seeing it discontinued. IMO we all benefit from a meritocracy and we all lose when someone is given a position based upon their race / family connections / etc. I don't want a doctor, truck driver, policeman etc. near me who didn't get the job because they were the best available. I also see no benefit in the continuing racialization of society. It's bad enough without providing incentives for people to do battle along the color line.

Originally posted by Tingkai
For those of you who are against AA, how about providing some basic data: 1) what percentage of American companies actually use AA? How many jobs in the US are reserved for AA programs? How many people have been hired through AA during the past 25 years? What are the typical rules applied for AA recruitment?

You're a journalist, and I defy you to come up with that data. I'm willing to lay a few hundred dollars on the line that that data does not exist in the form you put forward here, and that it would cost you far more than a few hundred dollars to collect it. I didn't just make up the fact that AA data is difficult to come by. It's one of the reasons why AA has largely failed even though it's beginnings were so bright. You have to be able to monitor a program's success / failure in order to be assured that it is working and to note what sorts of effects the program is having outside of the narrow success / failure criteria you have set up. This was done unevenly when it was done at all.

The main problem was that AA is a politically driven set of programs. Some institutions were really excited about AA, and went into it with gusto. Most saw it as a liability and put together something that would pay lip service to AA, but were more concerned with the costs in dollars vs the costs of perceived success or failure. Hence the really uneven data sets. Both sides whether they were really in favor of AA or not wanted to be able to say it was working, but that's only a simple proposition if you merely take a head count of your staff / student body etc. and compare it to the past. If you are failing that simple test it is a much more difficult thing to find the reasons.

The reasons may well be completely outside your control. For instance the various MOSs (jobs) in the Army often show a distinct racial bias regarding who ends up in those jobs. This has nothing to do with the Army itself, and everything to do with the larger society from which the Army draws its recruits. Thus at language school there were many more Asians than Blacks, while in the Army at large the opposite was true. There was no racist admissions officer keeping anyone in "his place", but a whole web of complex issues which had the effect of segregating the distribution of personnel by race into jobs. AA would either fail to make a dent here, or fail to deliver qualified personnel to the school for training. In this instance (and many others) the problem (poor education largely) is not one which AA is suited to tackle, because it is not trying to undo racism at the point of entry to the workplace, but a whole chain of events and situations which have as much to do with poverty and culture as racism.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
I don't want a doctor, truck driver, policeman etc. near me who didn't get the job because they were the best available.

Do you have any data to back up this assertion. It may well be true that AA allowed qualified minorities to get jobs that might otherwise have been denied to them.

Originally posted by Sikander
I didn't just make up the fact that AA data is difficult to come by. It's one of the reasons why AA has largely failed even though it's beginnings were so bright.

So you're claiming that AA failed even though you say that AA data is difficult to come by.

How do you know it failed, and I'm not saying it hasn't, when you don't have the data.

Originally posted by Sikander
The main problem was that AA is a politically driven set of programs. Some institutions were really excited about AA, and went into it with gusto. Most saw it as a liability and put together something that would pay lip service to AA

What data do you have to back this statement?

I suspect that this is more about how you think the system work rather than how the system actually worked.

Originally posted by Sikander
In this instance (and many others) the problem (poor education largely) is not one which AA is suited to tackle, because it is not trying to undo racism at the point of entry to the workplace, but a whole chain of events and situations which have as much to do with poverty and culture as racism.

Again, what proof can you provide to back up your statements. It sounds to me like you're making assumptions. How do you know that racism was not a factor?