SCOTUS to review affirmative action

[Charles Kozierok]

There are apparently a couple of related cases being reviewed.

I have never heard a compelling argument in favor of the constitutionality of "affirmative action", which I consider a politically correct euphemism for what is really institutionalized racism. IMO, if a law that gives preferential treatment for whites would be considered unconstitutional and unfair -- and it would -- then the same should apply to laws that give preferential treatment for other races.

 

[jackstar7]

Do you think that once the law was rectified in favor of justice that no measure of atonement should be made for the crimes that preceded?

I'm not saying that one injustice should have spawned another, but if Affirmative Action was the best idea that anyone had at the time, is its lesser harm really more offensive than simply doing nothing to account for where we are as a nation due in parts to both slavery, as well as limiting the voting rights of otherwise viable citizens?

Should 1964 just have been the end of that chapter of our history with no epilogue because once we say "Hey guys, no more racism, okay?" then that's that?

 

[fskimospy]

The compelling argument is the one that has won I don't even know how many court cases, that the government has a compelling interest in a diverse educational environment. That's why it has been explicitly found constitutional repeatedly. My gut says that the current court will think otherwise, of course.

It really comes down to whether or not you think such diversity is a compelling interest. I myself am fine with it, although I would alter the policies somewhat. I would also improve such action for disadvantaged economic classes.

 

[Lithium381]

Good, it's about time we stop giving preferential treatment to one group over another and calling it out of "fairness". The laws need to reflect our desired equality. Gays, Blacks, Women, etc . . . . should all be on the same playing field like they've been asking for this whole time.

jackstar - I think maybe at one time it had its place .. . but it's an old idea by now and harmful to the America we are trying to be

 

[Lithium381]

The compelling argument is the one that has won I don't even know how many court cases, that the government has a compelling interest in a diverse educational environment. That's why it has been explicitly found constitutional repeatedly. My gut says that the current court will think otherwise, of course.

It really comes down to whether or not you think such diversity is a compelling interest. I myself am fine with it, although I would alter the policies somewhat. I would also improve such action for disadvantaged economic classes.

disadvantaged economic classes?
disadvantated only by themselves at this point....

 

[fskimospy]

I also find it unfortunate that people who are against AA so frequently leave out legacy admissions and similar programs, which are for the most part just white person affirmative action.

 

[fskimospy]

disadvantaged economic classes?
disadvantated only by themselves at this point....

Yeah, science disagrees.

 

[jackstar7]

jackstar - I think maybe at one time it had its place .. . but it's an old idea by now and harmful to the America we are trying to be

So about 350 years of slavery is all paid for in about 50? Or if the idea is bad, what can be used to replace it?


Honestly, I'd like the laws changed to be about economic status, since there are plenty of people across all of the artificial "races" that are stuck because of forces they honestly have little chance to overcome.

 

[Craig234]

Good, it's about time we stop giving preferential treatment to one group over another and calling it out of "fairness". The laws need to reflect our desired equality. Gays, Blacks, Women, etc . . . . should all be on the same playing field like they've been asking for this whole time.

jackstar - I think maybe at one time it had its place .. . but it's an old idea by now and harmful to the America we are trying to be

So many people so badly do not understand affirmative action.

The first point to understand is that there has been huge discrimination which has lingering effects of unfairness going on now, and it's good to correct that, at least a little.

The thing is, so many people's attitude is 'screw the minorities, if they're way behind I don't care as long as it's not from discrimination in the law now', but won't admit that.

Here is what affirmative action is not, but the right says it is, to use it for political points: "Hey, let's discriminate against whites as a sort of revenge for the past".

More of what affirmative action is not: something that creates disproportionate minority positions to benefit them over whites.

What affirmative action is in the definition I use:

1. A recognition that the issue is not easily solved and sometimes a blunt instrument is needed. Solutions aren't always pretty and flawless.

2. Only appropriate in cases where there is evidence of current underrepresentation of minorities, caused by some history of discrimination, supported by evidence

3. Measures to move ONLY QUALIFIED minorities into positions in a number to MOVE CLOSER TO PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

So there's a workforce of 25% blacks, 50% whites; and a company who has lost some lawsuits proving racist policies has 95% white management and 75% white employees.

That's a case for taking action so that the numbers get closer to proportional, NOT to exceed proportional, AFTER proving there's a role of past discrimination.

Now note, the term affirmative action also is simply companies voluntarily noticing that same situation noted above and reaching out to try to hire more of underrepresented groups. Not enough blacks? Advertise more where there are more blacks. Not enough women? Advertise more where there are more women. Go to black or women job fairs.

The only really issue here is the difference between 'I oppose the harm of discrimination' and 'I don't give a crap about the harm of discrimination, or the benefits of equality'.

But since that doesn't sound so good, affirmative action opponents try to use sexier attacks that are not honest about what affirmative action is.

It is NOT "reverse racism". That does not understand what racism is.

Racism narrowly is a belief in racial superiority - which affirmative action does not.

That view justifies discrimination to get OVERREPREENTED numbers for the favored group - which affirmative action does not.

There's a big difference between racism - which has had things like 'no blacks allowed in the college' and 'no blacks allowed in professional sports' - justifying a total absence or an underrepresented number of a discriminated group - and affirmative action which is only about getting closer to proportional, when discrimination has cause inequality.

Affirmative action is very fair and no one has found any other way to right a lot of the harms of discrimination - that won't take decades, centuries, and maybe never.

 

[Craig234]

So about 350 years of slavery is all paid for in about 50? Or if the idea is bad, what can be used to replace it?


Honestly, I'd like the laws changed to be about economic status, since there are plenty of people across all of the artificial "races" that are stuck because of forces they honestly have little chance to overcome.

I'd like to see a lot done based on economics also, but it is different than affirmative action.

 

[Craig234]

I also find it unfortunate that people who are against AA so frequently leave out legacy admissions and similar programs, which are for the most part just white person affirmative action.

Legacy admissions are NOT white affirmative action. Affirmative action is to address unfair UNDERREPRESENTATION; legacy admissions are not fair nor for the underrepresented.

 

[Craig234]

One more thing: this eventually does get into gray areas. If a black person skips schools and then has a problem, isn't that only their fault and not justifying affirmative action?

Here's the gray part: the effects of hundreds of years of slavery followed by a century of legal racism are huge on that community. But it's hard to be precise about that.

And it's not an entire excuse or even close for that situation. But a balance is not unreasonable.

We don't need precise info on that to try to do some good things. How about noting a large discrepency in school funding between white and black schools, based on wealth inequality in their neghborhoods and which causes that inequality to remain, and the correlation of that to worse education for the black students, and treating that as a problem? It doesn't take a huge political leap, it takes common sense and caring about justice.

There's nothing wrong with saying 'good, we have discrimination out of the law; let's see about inequality that remains from discrimination and if there are good solutions'.

Finally, affirmative action should be a one-time temporary policy - as numbers get more proportionate, it ends.

 

[DrPizza]

<snip>

So there's a workforce of 25% blacks, 50% whites; and a company who has lost some lawsuits proving racist policies has 95% white management and 75% white employees.

<snip>
<and more snip>

I agree that there is a huge underlying problem in education, and funding is a big part of it. But, it's not quite that simple. There's also a culture in inner cities, one that is shared by blacks and whites alike in inner cities, that under-values education. I can point to a number of rural areas where poverty is high, and show that the students from those areas are more likely to go to college than students from more urban environments. Nonetheless, I'm digressing from the point/question I wanted to make.

Thus, I think we'd all agree that education is a problem. Why then, should a company be forced to correct for this by not hiring the best candidate for a job (logic dictates that this would in many cases be highly related to education), and instead, following a hiring policy whose goal is simply to get a percent representation in the company that is in line with the demographics of the general population.

Isn't this a case of, perhaps simplifying it too much, but simply kicking the can down the road & not treating the underlying problem - culture & quality of education? I don't mean to be putting down that inner city culture where "snitches get stitches" etc. Well, yes, I do. This applies to three races: black, white, latino in inner cities. But, on the other hand, let's look at Indian (country, not Native Americans) and Chinese parents. Plenty of them are dirt poor too. BUT, they have a high value of education & typically, within their culture, push their children to work harder to succeed. Sure, there are black lawyers and black doctors who have poor parents, and white lawyers and white doctors who have poor parents from inner cities. But, those, (I don't have stats to back it up; it's just impression) are more of background noise compared to the numbers of Chinese and Indian doctors who come from poor parents.

 

[waggy]

I agree that there is a huge underlying problem in education, and funding is a big part of it. But, it's not quite that simple. There's also a culture in inner cities, one that is shared by blacks and whites alike in inner cities, that under-values education. I can point to a number of rural areas where poverty is high, and show that the students from those areas are more likely to go to college than students from more urban environments. Nonetheless, I'm digressing from the point/question I wanted to make.

Thus, I think we'd all agree that education is a problem. Why then, should a company be forced to correct for this by not hiring the best candidate for a job (logic dictates that this would in many cases be highly related to education), and instead, following a hiring policy whose goal is simply to get a percent representation in the company that is in line with the demographics of the general population.

Isn't this a case of, perhaps simplifying it too much, but simply kicking the can down the road & not treating the underlying problem - culture & quality of education? I don't mean to be putting down that inner city culture where "snitches get stitches" etc. Well, yes, I do. This applies to three races: black, white, latino in inner cities. But, on the other hand, let's look at Indian (country, not Native Americans) and Chinese parents. Plenty of them are dirt poor too. BUT, they have a high value of education & typically, within their culture, push their children to work harder to succeed. Sure, there are black lawyers and black doctors who have poor parents, and white lawyers and white doctors who have poor parents from inner cities. But, those, (I don't have stats to back it up; it's just impression) are more of background noise compared to the numbers of Chinese and Indian doctors who come from poor parents.

i think this is the big issue.

how society and culture in these societies are. Changing that would do more then AA or welfare.

but you can't talk about this issue without being called a racist.

 

[Craig234]

I agree that there is a huge underlying problem in education, and funding is a big part of it. But, it's not quite that simple.

Oh, I agree. I didn't mean to say that's the only issue.

There's also a culture in inner cities, one that is shared by blacks and whites alike in inner cities, that under-values education.

That's part of the 'gray area' I mentioned - but do we want to try to assign blame between the history and other things, or try to fix the issue?

I can point to a number of rural areas where poverty is high, and show that the students from those areas are more likely to go to college than students from more urban environments. Nonetheless, I'm digressing from the point/question I wanted to make.


I agree poverty is overused and overly simple to try to explain things - but clearly there's that role I mentioned hard to be precise about about the history.


You can't show me any rural areas of whites who have that cultural history of hundreds of years of discrimination.

Thus, I think we'd all agree that education is a problem. Why then, should a company be forced to correct for this by not hiring the best candidate for a job (logic dictates that this would in many cases be highly related to education), and instead, following a hiring policy whose goal is simply to get a percent representation in the company that is in line with the demographics of the general population.

It's a combination. If anyone who scores over 75 on a test is considered 'qualified' for a job, and a discriminated group can add 5 points to their score to try to help correct the injustice of underrepresention from past discrimination, what's the harm really? On the one side is helping our society move toward equality; on the other is hiring 'qualified but not quite the best' instead of 'the best' in a small percent of cases.


Like I said, the real is do you give a crap about the issue of unjust underrepresentation based on past discrimination.

If you do, it's a small and justified price to pay to get closer to equality. If you don't, it's a horrible injustice against whites and the discriminated group, too bad for them.

Isn't this a case of, perhaps simplifying it too much, but simply kicking the can down the road & not treating the underlying problem - culture & quality of education?

It's kind of the opposite. It's fixing the problem instead of kickingthe can down the road.

You don't seem to have quite appreciated the point I was making about how to address the 'culture' thing.

Now, affirmative action has a benefit - as, say, blacks are moved into higher positions they are qualified for, that has a benefit on the 'culture' issue.

If you have a better way to help with the 'culture' issue - forget blame - feel free to suggest it.

I don't mean to be putting down that inner city culture where "snitches get stitches" etc. Well, yes, I do. This applies to three races: black, white, latino in inner cities. But, on the other hand, let's look at Indian (country, not Native Americans) and Chinese parents. Plenty of them are dirt poor too. BUT, they have a high value of education & typically, within their culture, push their children to work harder to succeed. Sure, there are black lawyers and black doctors who have poor parents, and white lawyers and white doctors who have poor parents from inner cities. But, those, (I don't have stats to back it up; it's just impression) are more of background noise compared to the numbers of Chinese and Indian doctors who come from poor parents.

You're correct - which both supports my point that those groups haven't had a background of hundreds of years here comporable to blacks, and borders on pointless blame guessing.

I agree with you - 'snitches get stitches' is a a problem culture (as is 'greed is good' on Wall Street, and more pervasive there than the first one is in the inner city).

But you can just say that and wash your hands and leave it getting worse, or you can look at what's fair and improves the situation.

A lot of people are more than happy to leave things very broken and just blame.

 

[Craig234]

i think this is the big issue.

how society and culture in these societies are. Changing that would do more then AA or welfare.

but you can't talk about this issue without being called a racist.

He just did. How about you wait for someone to call him one before you go making up attacks playing the victim of those oh so oppressive people who point out your racism?

 

[Lithium381]

i think this is the big issue.

how society and culture in these societies are. Changing that would do more then AA or welfare.

but you can't talk about this issue without being called a racist.

it's sad, the country is NOT ready for a discussion about the realities. As i said, there are many minorities that are only disadvantaged by themselves. No father figure, 12 brothers and sisters and see no way out other than gangs/drugs. etc . . . . but hey as long as the "get theirs"

 

[werepossum]

I agree that there is a huge underlying problem in education, and funding is a big part of it. But, it's not quite that simple. There's also a culture in inner cities, one that is shared by blacks and whites alike in inner cities, that under-values education. I can point to a number of rural areas where poverty is high, and show that the students from those areas are more likely to go to college than students from more urban environments. Nonetheless, I'm digressing from the point/question I wanted to make.

Thus, I think we'd all agree that education is a problem. Why then, should a company be forced to correct for this by not hiring the best candidate for a job (logic dictates that this would in many cases be highly related to education), and instead, following a hiring policy whose goal is simply to get a percent representation in the company that is in line with the demographics of the general population.

Isn't this a case of, perhaps simplifying it too much, but simply kicking the can down the road & not treating the underlying problem - culture & quality of education? I don't mean to be putting down that inner city culture where "snitches get stitches" etc. Well, yes, I do. This applies to three races: black, white, latino in inner cities. But, on the other hand, let's look at Indian (country, not Native Americans) and Chinese parents. Plenty of them are dirt poor too. BUT, they have a high value of education & typically, within their culture, push their children to work harder to succeed. Sure, there are black lawyers and black doctors who have poor parents, and white lawyers and white doctors who have poor parents from inner cities. But, those, (I don't have stats to back it up; it's just impression) are more of background noise compared to the numbers of Chinese and Indian doctors who come from poor parents.

Well said, and I agree completely. However, it's also true that it is not to any nation's benefit to have a racially segregated permanent underclass. Since the main problem is the anti-education culture and it's extremely difficult to change culture from the outside, about all we can do is to go out of our way to make sure that minority within a minority who value education and hard work get a good chance. We can't be bothered to make our school environments competitive, and even if we mustered the will I recall one teacher who made the very salient point "These kids come into high school unable to read and you're going to grade me on how well I teach them chemistry?" so the culture would likely still defeat us. Thus, affirmative action. I don't give a flying rat fart about diversity and as far as I'm concerned once they're on the job market they are on their own, but it would be a damned shame if the world's lone superpower (albeit probably not long in that position) did not go out of its way to make sure that those willing to put in the effort get a good chance to succeed, no matter how poor, stupid and/or lazy their parents. (Or more usually, parent.)

 

[Craig234]

it's sad, the country is NOT ready for a discussion about the realities. As i said, there are many minorities that are only disadvantaged by themselves. No father figure, 12 brothers and sisters and see no way out other than gangs/drugs. etc . . . . but hey as long as the "get theirs"

Can you please explain the effects on a group of centuries of discrimination - denial of wealth and education and being 2nd class - on a group? (Hint: No, you can't)

You're just pointing a finger and saying 'who cares'.

Where is one actually constructive thing in your comments that will help? There isn't one.

There are people who improve things and people who demand they not be improved.

I'm not saying there aren't big probles in difference groups (and noted that includes Wall Street, shocking no one on the right had anything to say about that).

The question includes a couple things - one is what is effective to address problems, and another is pointing out that just pointing your finger to blame and not have any understanding of the continuing effects of past discrimination rather than looking at trying to improve things isn't helpful. So far, those points are lost on the responders.

It's about education, really, to overcome the myths of race issues.

JFK knew he had to educate the American people about why segregation was a moral issue and not just a legal issue - and he helped the nation change.

We need some similar education about things like affirmative action - and that includes more demands on minorities to make changes.

Gangs are a huge problem - but some people think 'those are just bad people' and have no idea really what the vaccum is that causes them to exist. Those people are happy to do nothing about gangs except watch as they do terrible things and demand always longer prison sentences and more aggressive law enforcement, with no idea how to actually improve things.

I don't hear many people criticize Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice as undeserving (Condoleezza Rice Rice might be attacked as the worst Secretary of State in history, but the issue is who appointed her and the same criticisms would apply to white colleagues such as Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld) - but they don't acknowledge that affirmative action played an important role in those 'deserving people' overcoming obstacles.

A black child and a white child today are born equal and the law is no longer the instrument of discrimination. That's progress.

But the injustice soon begins and includes the effects of past discrimination. It's a circular argument to waste time on 'it's their fault' versus 'the effects of past racism'.

But it's asking too much of people to say stop pointing fingers and consider what will help things. They'll just give these 'it's 100% their fault and that's the only solution' comments.

It's really ugly for the group who has far more to point their fingers at the poor and accuse them of greed. It's selfish and immoral.

There should be more of a spirit of agreeing we want to see a society with more equality of opportunity.

That includes both demanding more but also a bit of effort to improve things, and that includes affirmative action to address continuing effects of discrimination.

You can't just remove discrimination from the law and say 'all the centuries of discrimination are fixed now'.

This isn't demanding excessive things - it's relatively modest adjustments, such as more equality for schools and where there's a great underrepresentation, have modest adjustments to address that for groups of underrepresented but qualified people. It's a little like building women's sports by things including extra recruiting efforts, given that there's a strong history of male-dominated funding and neglect for those programs.

The costs are modest and have nice benefits - the 'affirmative action' policies for women's sports have done a lot of good for women.

If the government needs middle eastern speakers for groups like the military and CIA and puts extra efforts into training and recruitng them, that's not bad is it? Similarly, if the country has large inequalities in specific areas for no good reason other than past discrimination, and takes modest steps to get things more proportional, that's not a huge problem is it? At the end of the process you have more of that 'colorblind society' we all say we want, but not everyone really gives a crap about.

Doing nothing is the easy answer. It worked for hundreds of years for slavery, it worked for a century of legal discrimination. What's the problem? It took a very long time to come to view those things really as shameful policies we can be glad we changed; but now it's the same thing, doing nothing is easier. What's the problem?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Legacy admissions are NOT white affirmative action. Affirmative action is to address unfair UNDERREPRESENTATION; legacy admissions are not fair nor for the underrepresented.

He's agreeing with you -- he's saying that people who oppose AA do not equally oppose legacy admissions, which favor non-minorities because more non-minorities were accepted in the past.

I oppose both. Admissions should be based strictly on credentials, and they should be as objective as possible.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The first point to understand is that there has been huge discrimination which has lingering effects of unfairness going on now, and it's good to correct that, at least a little.

Not in my opinion. You don't combat racism with more racism, and especially not with institutionalized racism.

Aside from the "two wrongs don't make a right" aspect, my main problem with these policies is that they punish the wrong people. Why should teenagers be forced to pay for the sins of their grandparents? Why should poor white people have less of a chance of getting into a school than rich black people, solely based on skin color?

Furthermore, AA doesn't give advantages to all minorities. Why are Asians systematically discriminated against solely because a larger population of people from their ethnic background value education and hard work? Am I supposed to believe that the children of first-generation Vietnamese immigrants have had easy lives?

Wrong is wrong, and this is wrong.

The thing is, so many people's attitude is 'screw the minorities, if they're way behind I don't care as long as it's not from discrimination in the law now', but won't admit that.

Could not your attitude be summarized as "screw the non-minorities, if they're being cheated out of good college placements I don't care because we need to give preferential treatment to people based on hardships faced by their ancestors"?

Here is what affirmative action is not, but the right says it is, to use it for political points: "Hey, let's discriminate against whites as a sort of revenge for the past".

"Revenge" implies motives, and that's not the problem here. It doesn't matter to someone unfairly excluded from a good college that the people who denied him or her the spot "meant well".

More of what affirmative action is not: something that creates disproportionate minority positions to benefit them over whites.

Um, yes, that's exactly what affirmative action is.

2. Only appropriate in cases where there is evidence of current underrepresentation of minorities, caused by some history of discrimination, supported by evidence

There is no way to prove that "underrepresentation" was caused by a history of discrimination. And no such assessment is made, either.

3. Measures to move ONLY QUALIFIED minorities into positions in a number to MOVE CLOSER TO PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

This is also a red herring. There is no such thing as a simple yes/no assessment of who is "qualified". Affirmative action allows preferred minorities to be considered "qualified" with lower objective qualifications than whites and non-preferred minorities.

The bottom line is simple: if you are taking into account the person's skin color in deciding how qualified they are, then you are not hiring the best person for the job or selecting the right person for a college based on qualifications.

That's a case for taking action so that the numbers get closer to proportional, NOT to exceed proportional, AFTER proving there's a role of past discrimination.

Again, AA doesn't involve proving past discrimination. They just look at the numbers, decide the proportions are off and that it must have been a result of discrimination, and then institute their own form of discrimination.

The only really issue here is the difference between 'I oppose the harm of discrimination' and 'I don't give a crap about the harm of discrimination, or the benefits of equality'.

I oppose the harm of discrimination in all of its forms. You only oppose it when it's applied to certain groups.

I give a crap about the harm of discrimination in all of its forms. You encourage it in some cases, just not in others.

I think all people should be assessed and treated equally. You want preferential treatment for some people based on skin color.

It is NOT "reverse racism". That does not understand what racism is.

Racism narrowly is a belief in racial superiority - which affirmative action does not.

Again, it doesn't matter what the motivation is. What matters are the results. A 19-year-old white kid from a poor rural area who has never spoken a bad word about blacks or Hispanics but is denied entrance to a college in favor of a black kid who had worse test scores -- he doesn't really care that his road to hell is paved with your good intentions.

 

[waggy]

Well said, and I agree completely. However, it's also true that it is not to any nation's benefit to have a racially segregated permanent underclass. Since the main problem is the anti-education culture and it's extremely difficult to change culture from the outside, about all we can do is to go out of our way to make sure that minority within a minority who value education and hard work get a good chance. We can't be bothered to make our school environments competitive, and even if we mustered the will I recall one teacher who made the very salient point "These kids come into high school unable to read and you're going to grade me on how well I teach them chemistry?" so the culture would likely still defeat us. Thus, affirmative action. I don't give a flying rat fart about diversity and as far as I'm concerned once they're on the job market they are on their own, but it would be a damned shame if the world's lone superpower (albeit probably not long in that position) did not go out of its way to make sure that those willing to put in the effort get a good chance to succeed, no matter how poor, stupid and/or lazy their parents. (Or more usually, parent.)

I disagree in a part that its a racially segregated underclass. I have seen the same mentality in areas of the south.

I have family in KY (beautiful area. if not for the lack of jobs i would move. the poeple are kind..but yeah many are stupid) and MS. There its not uncommon ot see many young girls who WANT to get pregnant. why? for welfare. they drop out of high school because t hey think its a waste and get knocked up.

I suspect its a poor culture thing. They know a high school diploma won't help much beyond the military. Now way in hell can they afford college let alone CC.

to many want to be handed stuff and not work for it. The governemt is to willing to give them money.

I don't see any amount of AA helping the situation.

Personally i would rather see need based program purely on economic and education. IF you have a kid from a poor family getting good grades? great he should get a bonus (or she!).

someone mentioned legacy admissions. I understand why they are there. I do think they should be ended though.

 

[DrPizza]

<quote> <snip> </quote>

We're pushing close to 50 years of AA. It has helped some individuals, but is it fixing the problem? Do people in inner cities value education more now, or less now than they did 50 years ago?

Condoleeza Rice was used above as an example. Her parents were a high school science/music/oratory teacher, and a guidance counselor/minister. Is she an example that affirmative action worked? Or is she an example of someone from a better background who got additional help getting even further forward than she perhaps deserved?

Above, it was stated as "qualified for" a position is good enough, rather than "the best qualified person." I'm sure it doesn't apply to all jobs. If you get someone with a physics PhD working the fryer at McDonalds, versus someone with a high school diploma, the outcome is going to be pretty much the same. How much the person exceeds the minimum qualifications has no impact on the quality of the final product that's produced by the company. But, not all jobs are like being a fry cook at McD's. Let's look at teaching. I'd guess that every teacher you've ever run across has met the "minimum qualifications" to be a teacher. Heck, even the people whose resumes I look at, but don't even select for an interview meet the minimum qualifications. I'm not sure why I'm bothering with a paragraph here, since it's pretty obvious the difference in outcomes between "meets the minimum qualifications" and "best candidate for the job" has in teaching. I doubt that teaching has the distinction of being the only field where who you hire (of those who are qualified) can make a huge impact on your outcomes.


My thought: change the welfare system. Make the welfare system encourage a good education. Sort of like this: let's say the standard payment for a family of 4 is $1000 a month. Let's make it 950. Your kids are allowed 5 absences from school. If they hit 6-10 absences, you lose $10 per month. 11-15, you lose $20 per month, etc. For each subject that they score at mastery level on, you get an extra $5 per month for the next year. (Test would have to be a standardized test, otherwise teachers would simply be pressured into giving everyone A's.) Your kids haven't been caught with illegal drugs in the past 3 years? Extra $25 per month. Your kids aren't teen mothers or fathers? Extra $25 per month. Your kid has a baby before your kid is 18 and out of your household? Good-bye extra $25 per month. Your kid gets caught with illegal drugs? Good-bye extra $25 per month. Etc.

Tweak those numbers, (using actuaries & people who can actually figure these things out, rather than politicians who can't do math), and while it might be more expensive short term to reward families with some extra cash, long term, it might just help some of those kids escape a life of poverty from which they cannot escape because they lack the education and/or skills.

 

[jackstar7]

Again, it doesn't matter what the motivation is. What matters are the results. A 19-year-old white kid from a poor rural area who has never spoken a bad word about blacks or Hispanics but is denied entrance to a college in favor of a black kid who had worse test scores -- he doesn't really care that his road to hell is paved with your good intentions.

In this instance, is the black kid better off in a socio-economic sense? Because you left off that comparison between your examples. Your white kid is trying to escape from poverty, what is the black kid doing?

 

[jackstar7]

My thought: change the welfare system. Make the welfare system encourage a good education. Sort of like this: let's say the standard payment for a family of 4 is $1000 a month. Let's make it 950. Your kids are allowed 5 absences from school. If they hit 6-10 absences, you lose $10 per month. 11-15, you lose $20 per month, etc. For each subject that they score at mastery level on, you get an extra $5 per month for the next year. (Test would have to be a standardized test, otherwise teachers would simply be pressured into giving everyone A's.) Your kids haven't been caught with illegal drugs in the past 3 years? Extra $25 per month. Your kids aren't teen mothers or fathers? Extra $25 per month. Your kid has a baby before your kid is 18 and out of your household? Good-bye extra $25 per month. Your kid gets caught with illegal drugs? Good-bye extra $25 per month. Etc.

Tweak those numbers, (using actuaries & people who can actually figure these things out, rather than politicians who can't do math), and while it might be more expensive short term to reward families with some extra cash, long term, it might just help some of those kids escape a life of poverty from which they cannot escape because they lack the education and/or skills.

For me your penalties for absences can hurt the wrong people without conditions that excuse medical issues, and once you create a clause that permits a behavior you have opened the door to all the fraud possible and incentivised it because there is a dollar amount tied to it.

Just something to consider...