Today's SCOTUS ruling - Affirmative Action

[snoopy369]

The argument that AA discriminates against poor white kids is highly disingenuous. It's understandable, but disingenuous. Both white and black races have a spectrum of abilities and opportunities; Jesse Jackson Jr was spoiled rotten while any number of white kids are stuck with no future. Nobody argues that. However, the point of AA is that due to historical (and perhaps current) inequities perpetuated by those in power (who are still mostly white, far in excess of their population), any given black or hispanic person has less of an opportunity than an equivalent person in the white spectrum. In particular, AA looks at ratios of students, and say for example you have a state where 35% of the residents are black, 10% are hispanic, and 55% are white. You see a college that is 90% white, 8% black, 2% hispanic, and you have to think there is something inherently unequal here. It may be current discrimination, and it may be lack of opportunity based on historic inequities, but either way something is obviously wrong.

In order to, over time, ensure that a black family has the same opportunity as a white family, it _is_ necessary to give them a slight edge in things like college admission. Among two similarly qualified applicants, you select the black applicant (or hispanic or whatnot). Yes, some white applicant is rejected ultimately as a result of that, and that's too bad; but it's too bad we can't educate ALL of our residents at this school, after all. Whomever is rejected as the first student out is unfortunate; choosing to reject one white student over one black student (or two or three or eighteen) may in some cases be necessary to ultimately balance out society.

We, as white people, need to own what our forebears did - and accept that, because white people DID massively abuse our majority power over centuries, black and hispanic citizens are disadvantaged today. Admitting to ourselves that this was in fact our doing - not necessarily personally our doing, but certainly our doing as a body - is the first step towards fixing it.

We also need to admit that even if we are not actively racist, some of the policies we defend - such as the property tax/school funding link, gerrymandered political districts, even the advertising and television we watch - are still racist in their effect, if not their intent. It's also very easy to point to cultural differences and say that's why I don't like X; '"gangsta culture" or "rap/hip hop" or whatever is a bad influence, I only want my kids around people with wholesome values... ' is another way of saying "I want my white kids hanging out mostly with other white kids", even if that's not what you mean.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, the point of AA is that due to historical (and perhaps current) inequities perpetuated by those in power (who are still mostly white, far in excess of their population)

If we look at congress there are exactly 45 members who are black. There are only 13 members who are Asian, and 34 who are Hispanic.

Asians are about half as common as black folks. This means that we would expect to see 23 members of congress who are Asian. Hispanic folks are twice as common as black folks here.

So tell me then, why does AA treat one minority as 'extra special', while shafting the others?

You see a college that is 90% white, 8% black, 2% hispanic, and you have to think there is something inherently unequal here.

Alright. Let's take a look at some actual - real world - statistics.

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/reporting/sat/2012/satreport2012.pdf

North Carolina.

For the seventh consecutive year since 2006, Asians (1086) scored higher than other racial/ethnic groups, followed by White (1061), Hispanic (945), American Indian (910), and Black students (847).

Now, you're a stats nerd. The mean is 1061 vs 847. If we take the top 10th percentile, all else being equal, what are the likely proportion of races.

Looking a bit further here:

The mean total SAT score (997) for North Carolina’s college-bound seniors in 2012 was 96 points
lower than the score (1093) for freshmen entering the University of North Carolina system in 2011.

So, given the entry mean and the mean for each group, what would we anticipate the race mix at the university, all else being equal?

It may be current discrimination, and it may be lack of opportunity based on historic inequities, but either way something is obviously wrong.

There are real performance SAT differences between different races. That they have different entry rates in college is not an indication of racism. All else being considered equal - you would expect colleges like Harvard (with a median of around 1450) to have a very different ratio of folks.

Now here's my question. If Harvard has a mean SAT of 1450 - then what would you expect Harvard to look like given the average mean of the students and all else being equal and a normal distribution.

In order to, over time, ensure that a black family has the same opportunity as a white family, it _is_ necessary to give them a slight edge in things like college admission.

They have the same opportunity when they start at school. Telling an equally qualified white person that they cannot go to school because they just happen to be white. But that's not what is happening here. What is happening is that better qualified white people are actually being turned down to go to college because of AA policies.

Among two similarly qualified applicants, you select the black applicant (or hispanic or whatnot). Yes, some white applicant is rejected ultimately as a result of that, and that's too bad; but it's too bad we can't educate ALL of our residents at this school, after all. Whomever is rejected as the first student out is unfortunate; choosing to reject one white student over one black student (or two or three or eighteen) may in some cases be necessary to ultimately balance out society.

Look at those SAT differences. In order to achieve 'equal balances', what would the incoming SAT differences have to be between black and asian folks in their SATs?

We, as white people, need to own what our forebears did - and accept that, because white people DID massively abuse our majority power over centuries, black and hispanic citizens are disadvantaged today. Admitting to ourselves that this was in fact our doing - not necessarily personally our doing, but certainly our doing as a body - is the first step towards fixing it.

Is it white people who are responsible for the massive SAT gap? No, no, we aren't. Until people take responsibility for their own failings and stop blaming whitey for their troubles, they are never going to overcome them.

We also need to admit that even if we are not actively racist, some of the policies we defend - such as the property tax/school funding link, gerrymandered political districts, even the advertising and television we watch - are still racist in their effect, if not their intent. It's also very easy to point to cultural differences and say that's why I don't like X; '"gangsta culture" or "rap/hip hop" or whatever is a bad influence, I only want my kids around people with wholesome values... ' is another way of saying "I want my white kids hanging out mostly with other white kids", even if that's not what you mean.

I want school choice. I want children to have the opportunity to go to a good elementary and secondary school rather than being trapped in Ghetto district PS number 45, where he can be exposed to drugs and violence at a young age.

That's how I got out because I had that opportunity myself. I'd be remiss if I felt that other children didn't have the choice to go to a good school and not be trapped in a poor one.

[DaShi]

Go away, Ben.

[snoopy369]

School choice is unfortunately a terrible solution. Become a parent, especially in a 2-working-parent household. Explain to me how I'm going to send my kid to a school ten or twenty miles away, when I'm already getting up early in the morning.

I can tell you that I do know what it's like; my kids go to a daycare about 30 minutes away from home, because while my suburb has excellent K-12 it has a poor daycare selection (due to having lots of nanny families I presume). I'm not making enough for a nanny, so we drive 30 minutes (dropping my wife off halfway there) to and from daycare. My day starts at 5:30 (or earlier), involves getting ready and maybe a bowl of cereal, get the kids up and ready, leave at 6:45-7, then drop the kids off at 7:15-7:30, get on the train 7:55, 8:30 at work downtown; leave work 4:50 to pick up the kids at 5:15 and back home by 6. Cook dinner, eat at 7, maybe spend half an hour to an hour with the kids at most, then 8 to 8:30 get them ready for bed...

That's pretty much the optimal situation for the 30 minute daycare commute, by the way. Means the parents spend ~1 hour with the kids between dinner and after dinner playtime, which is quite awful in my opinion; how are you supposed to be a good role model for your kids if you can't spend any time with them? Also leaves very little time for homework, especially for older kids.

In addition, lots of parents couldn't do this because they have to work more than 8 hours. I'm lucky that I'm allowed to work the hours I do (largely because I put in extra hours from time to time at night from home, and take a short lunch most days); a lot of poorer people with jobs in manufacturing, retail, etc., have 9 hour shifts that don't necessarily overlap with school hours neatly and are inflexible. School choice would mean for them that they have even less opportunities to improve because only a few jobs are available that meet the needs for drop off/pick up hours. Sure, you could bus kids all over the place, but that seems horribly inefficient; and the same people advocating school choice are also advocating reducing public transit funding, which in Chicago might be sufficient but in most cities is not.

Finally, school choice doesn't generally suggest you can go to any school in the state. Suburbs pay for their own schools, after all; I live in a suburb with good schools because our property taxes are sky-high (half my mortgage payment goes to them). Is a chicago inner city kid going to go to Norridge for school? That's like an hour and a half commute each way. There just aren't very many good schools in Chicago; the ones that are generally do have "school choice" as you mean it. Whitney Young, etc., do admit students from the entire city (by merit); but the majority are in lousy schools, and even if you did allow 'school choice' you're still disadvantaging the inner city kids, because they add an hour each way of commute time even if you bus them. That's a significant disadvantage to the kids who live near the school, 5 minutes away, and can afford to do before/after-school activities like band or whatever and have plenty of time for homework.

[Sava]

The fact that there are rich people who are black proves that there's no such thing as racism.

[Ben Kenobi]

School choice is unfortunately a terrible solution. Become a parent, especially in a 2-working-parent household. Explain to me how I'm going to send my kid to a school ten or twenty miles away, when I'm already getting up early in the morning.

Welcome to my life. I grew up in a small town in rural Canada. I know folks who had 1-2 hour busrides into the city just so they could go to school. I was one of the lucky ones. My commute was half an hour.

What I did - and what I ended up having to do to go to the best school in the city was take a ride in with my father to work and then come out with him. Every day Monday to Friday, I was in school from 7:30 to about 6pm.

So, all my father had to do was take me in with him and then pick me up on the way home. School was from 9-3. So I spent an hour in the morning on homework and then 2-3 hours in the afternoon on homework. Rarely did I have homework on weekends. It can be done.

I can tell you that I do know what it's like; my kids go to a daycare about 30 minutes away from home, because while my suburb has excellent K-12 it has a poor daycare selection (due to having lots of nanny families I presume). I'm not making enough for a nanny, so we drive 30 minutes (dropping my wife off halfway there) to and from daycare. My day starts at 5:30 (or earlier), involves getting ready and maybe a bowl of cereal, get the kids up and ready, leave at 6:45-7, then drop the kids off at 7:15-7:30, get on the train 7:55, 8:30 at work downtown; leave work 4:50 to pick up the kids at 5:15 and back home by 6. Cook dinner, eat at 7, maybe spend half an hour to an hour with the kids at most, then 8 to 8:30 get them ready for bed...

That's pretty much the optimal situation for the 30 minute daycare commute, by the way. Means the parents spend ~1 hour with the kids between dinner and after dinner playtime, which is quite awful in my opinion; how are you supposed to be a good role model for your kids if you can't spend any time with them? Also leaves very little time for homework, especially for older kids.

When I was younger, I used to stay with a friend who lived not far from the elementary school (since we were about a half hour from it, and my mother and father had to work). Worked well for me. We would hang out every day and his mom would look after me and her kids (who were all around my age).

In addition, lots of parents couldn't do this because they have to work more than 8 hours. I'm lucky that I'm allowed to work the hours I do (largely because I put in extra hours from time to time at night from home, and take a short lunch most days); a lot of poorer people with jobs in manufacturing, retail, etc., have 9 hour shifts that don't necessarily overlap with school hours neatly and are inflexible. School choice would mean for them that they have even less opportunities to improve because only a few jobs are available that meet the needs for drop off/pick up hours. Sure, you could bus kids all over the place, but that seems horribly inefficient; and the same people advocating school choice are also advocating reducing public transit funding, which in Chicago might be sufficient but in most cities is not.

If your alternative is PS 45 with the crack den down the road, would you drive your kids to a good school, even if it meant difficulties on your end? That's what many parents are faced because there simply are not any better options.

I didn't have any options for where I could go to school. I had a significant commute (and I was one of the lucky ones). There were closer schools, but the school district at the time did what was best for them and not for the students, bussing us cross town because that's where we were most needed. After dealing with that nonsense, my dad, mom and I decided to shift to the routine that I talked to you before - where I got to school in the early morning with my father and then leaving with him at work. If I was already paying the price for the commute, there was no point in enrolling me in the local school. So I had to bust my butt off to go to the better one. (Once I and they figured out what was going on).

I actually liked that routine much more, and wished we had done it sooner. Going to a great school, having wonderful teachers, not having to rush around to catch the bus, etc. Having a morning routine really helped me out.

Maybe it doesn't work for everyone, but it worked well for me.

Finally, school choice doesn't generally suggest you can go to any school in the state. Suburbs pay for their own schools, after all; I live in a suburb with good schools because our property taxes are sky-high (half my mortgage payment goes to them).

So how fair is it to you that your property taxes would go to subsidize areas that don't pay as much? School choice at least would weed out the folks who weren't committed to getting an education, because of the costs associated with transport.

Is a chicago inner city kid going to go to Norridge for school? That's like an hour and a half commute each way. There just aren't very many good schools in Chicago; the ones that are generally do have "school choice" as you mean it. Whitney Young, etc., do admit students from the entire city (by merit); but the majority are in lousy schools, and even if you did allow 'school choice' you're still disadvantaging the inner city kids, because they add an hour each way of commute time even if you bus them. That's a significant disadvantage to the kids who live near the school, 5 minutes away, and can afford to do before/after-school activities like band or whatever and have plenty of time for homework.

I hear you. That was my life growing up. It is a disadvantage, and the kids further out than me would have been better off homeschooled than taking 1 hour, 2 hour commutes.

But, here's the point. Not getting a good education is a greater disadvantage than not attending the school at all and not having that opportunity for quality instruction.

[snoopy369]

Sorry Ben, but the "they need to work harder" argument doesn't float water here. Many of these problems were created by racial discrimination, and need to be addressed as such, rather than blaming people for not working harder.

And who's to say anything should be fair? Life isn't fair. And even so, my property taxes improving the education of a lot of other people advantages me in that we end up with a better educated society and are more able to compete for tech superiority with countries that currently have huge advantages over us. That's okay with me.

[Ben Kenobi]

And who's to say anything should be fair? Life isn't fair. And even so, my property taxes improving the education of a lot of other people advantages me in that we end up with a better educated society and are more able to compete for tech superiority with countries that currently have huge advantages over us. That's okay with me.

If I could prove to you that these particular districts receive plenty of per-student funding, and that money is not the answer, would you be willing to reconsider your position?

The problem isn't that there isn't enough property taxes to support these schools. The problem is that the schools are poorly run and the money is not well spent. Shifting property taxes from productive areas to less productive ones isn't going to fix the management problems.

Look at it like a business. If you're running a company, do you take money from the profitable enterprise and put it into the less well performing areas? Or do you replace the people in teh less well managed areas until it starts to turn a profit?

[PLATO]

Hmmm...if I were running a business, I would want to make sure ALL of my work force received the proper training to do their jobs.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmmm...if I were running a business, I would want to make sure ALL of my work force received the proper training to do their jobs.

Almost everyone in your workforce has a 4 year degree plus additional training plus 5-10 years of experience. Their districts still underperform.

[Sava]

If I were a business owner, I would want the government helping out poor people as much as possible so they had more disposable income to spend on me!

... aside from making sure people have such "entitlements" like food, shelter, and medical care being the Christian thing to do.

It's a shame devil worshipping fundamentalist deaf kid rapers don't believe in Christian values for reals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wish I could give snoopy 100 thanks for this thread alone.

[PLATO]

I wish I could give snoopy 100 thanks for this thread alone.

QFT...QFT

[Ben Kenobi]

aside from making sure people have such "entitlements" like food, shelter, and medical care being the Christian thing to do.

Apparently poor white people like Sandra Flake can't afford condoms to go along with their Georgetown education.

[kentonio]

I wish I could give Sava 100 thanks for this thread alone.