One of my favorite economists, Gary Becker, who in 1992 won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his pioneering work in topics such as discrimination, and the author of the groundbreaking book “The Economics of Discrimination“, writes with regard to affirmative action:
My belief is that affirmative action is bad for any country that aspires to be a meritocracy, as the United States does, despite past slavery and discrimination that are terrible violations of this aspiration. The case for a meritocracy is that achievements based on merit produces the most dynamic, innovative, and flexible economy and social structure. Encouraging promotion or admission of less qualified applicants because of their race, gender, or other characteristics, clearly violates this principle, and produces a less progressive economy, and a distorted social structure….
more subtle way that affirmative action harms many members of the very groups they are trying to promote is illustrated by admissions to college. If lower admission standards are used to admit African Americans or other groups, then good colleges would accept average minority students, good minority students would be accepted by very good colleges, and quite good students would be accepted by the most outstanding universities, like Harvard or Stanford. This means that at all these types of schools, the qualifications of minority students would on average be below those of other students. As a result, they tend to rank at the lower end of their classes, even when they are good students, because affirmative action makes them compete against even better students. Studies have shown that this simple implication of affirmative action applies to students at good law schools, where the average African American student ranks toward the lower end of their law school cohort. My observation of many colleges and universities is that this conclusion has general applicability well beyond law schools.
It hardly helps self-esteem if one is a member of a group that typically ranks toward the bottom in performance at a university or on a job. When discrimination dominated affirmative action, an African American or female medical doctor would be better than average since they had to overcome artificial hurdles to get where they were. That was not a desirable situation because discrimination made it harder for these groups to get ahead, so fewer of them than was warranted by their abilities and skills managed to make it to medical school. However, now, minority doctors and other professionals are greeted suspiciously by many patients and customers who fear they got where they are only because they were subject to lower standards. That can hardly make someone feel good, and helps explain some of the segregation and defensiveness of minorities receiving affirmative action help at schools or on jobs.
But that is not all he says, he follows up with:
While opposing affirmative action, I do not advocate just letting the status quo operate without attempting to help groups that have suffered greatly in the past from discrimination. Employers, universities, and other organizations should make special efforts to find qualified members of minority groups, persons who might have been overlooked because of their poor family backgrounds or the bad schools they attended. By using this approach, one can spot some diamonds in the rough that would get overlooked. I know that the economics department at Chicago in recent years has been able to discover and help train some excellent economists from disadvantaged backgrounds by searching harder for them.
Another attractive policy is to help disadvantaged children at early ages rather than using affirmative action when they apply for jobs or colleges. There is still controversy over how much and how durable is the gain from head start programs, although I believe that extra effort spent on these children at very young ages tends to yield a decent return in terms of later achievements. But it has been conclusively shown that efforts to educate and help in other ways when children are in their teens generally fail since by that time the children have fallen too far behind others of their age to be able to catch up. Put more technically, current human capital investments builds on past investments, so if past investments are inadequate, the current investments have low returns.
Read the whole thing here, his response to comments can be found here.
Not this debate again? You know my thoughts on the subject.
Regarding Becker, the thing a lot of people don’t realize is that the affirmative action is only an issue at the most selective institutions. These are usually top doctoral (tier 1 or doctoral extensive) and bachelor’s institutions (often small liberal arts colleges). These are a small category when considering higher education as a whole both in number of institutions as well as number of students. However, it’s easy to understand why a lot of people would be interested about who has access to the colleges and universities that serve as gateways to the most prestigious positions.
The students admitted to these institutions often are “qualified.” In the case of the University of California, some people have issues with the fact that there are students who score lower on the SAT being admitted to Berkeley over students with higher SAT scores. This is rather recent and the students’ race was not an issue, however the UC is open to all students who meet the minimum eligibility criteria set by the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools and each campus should be able to pick students who meet the eligibility requirement. Their SAT scores may be lower than the average admitted student, but a state university should admit students from the full range of eligibility it sets.
Oh yeah, I doubt a significant part of the “segregation and defensiveness of minorities receiving affirmative action help at schools” comes from being admitted by criteria which considered race. You know, it might just come from the fact that students and others at the campus treat you like you don’t belong.
I scanned some of the comments in the Becker-Posner blog following this post. Really, how would one go about finding these “diamonds in the rough”? It might not be a big deal for a department which has 6 or 7 new PhD students per year, but what about a large state college which admits 9 to 10,000 students and hopes for a yield of about 4,000? What kind of time and effort would have to go into finding these “diamonds”?
Hey Cindylu,
Do you know how hard it is to respond to your post when I keep looking up at that pretty face of yours? Serio, very distracting, you should change the pic.
You write,
The students admitted to these institutions often are “qualified.”
This is one of the problems I have with the arguments in defense of affirmative action. Proponents of affirmative action paint this picture of students accepted on affirmative action as really being just as qualified as those who weren’t, only that the university used more broader, more ‘open’ standards of ‘qualification’, but they are qualified nonetheless.
But this view doesn’t stand up to facts. Gary Becker writes,
In fact, this is the same argument that Rick Sander, a professor at your university, makes, he writes:
He writes elsewhere:
This is also very similar to what Thomas Sowell argued in his groundbreaking book, “Affirmative Action Around The World: An Empirical Study“.
These are real consequences to minorities, so as much as universities try to paint the picture that these minorities are ‘just as qualified’ as others, the clear results show differently.
So if you add this negative to the already mounting negatives against affirmative action, for example, the fact that it only applies to a small percentage of minorities (and helps a large percentage of those who weren’t designed to benefit from it) anyway, or the fact that it helps hide the problem instead of bringing it into national attention, and the fact that it chips away at some of the personal respect one gets from graduating from these top universities, all in all, I think makes the costs of affirmative action much greater than the (supposed) benefits. I think O’Connors 25 years are up, and have been up a while ago, let’s put the final nail on the affirmative action coffin.
Note To Other Readers: For those of you who would like to read more on this topic, who would like to see how the beautiful Cindylu and myself went round and round on this topic in the past, read this.
Formula for an HP post:
“Look at what X economist says about this.”
“X economist is a brilliant genius because of Y qualifications.”
“Long quote from X economist”
“Single sentence from HP which says, ‘I agree with everything X economist says because I too am a brilliant genius.’”
Then in the comments section, unsuspecting liberal makes a good arguemnt. HP responds with:
“Even A, B, and C liberals agree with me because everything I say is right. Now look at the groundbreaking (HP’s heroes are constantly breaking ground) works of these qualified conservative geniuses.”
Somewhere in the formula there is also a healthy dose of flirting, though I have not yet figured out how to quantify it.
Ahhh, than the above doesn’t match, since I quoted from Rick Sander, who happens to be a lawyer, not an economist.
I would quote from liberal sources, only problem is, what Thomas Sowell alluded to before, it is primarily conservatives who actually test the results of these utopian views. Liberals tend to just assume these programs work, the actual testing and hardwork verification is done primarily by conservatives (You know what they say when you assume).
But aside from that, I’d agree with your general outline, especially the me being a brilliant genius part and the occassional flirting.
Btw, you look very sexy in your picture…LOL.
Que Paso ‘Fonso,
Sorry I haven’t been around but I finally finished up the summer and “thought” i would take a semester off and relax. Now I am one of the “asst” coaches for my kids soccer team. Free time . . . que dice?
Oso, I wouldn’t say your pic was sexy, pero that pic looks WAY better than the kervorkian one HP had up the other day.
Many proponents of AA claim that these programs are needed to “make up” for past social injustices perpetrated on particular groups (curiously, “Americans” of Japanese and Chinese heritage are not covered by the AA blanket of redress of past grievances) by the government. I will forgo, for now, delving into the obvious fact that those who are the intended recipients of AA programs have no claims pending of state sponsored social injustices(de jure “racism”). But what of the newly arrived immigrants from “Latin” American countries; why do proponents of AA think that they (immigrants) are entitled to AA consideration? The ancestors of immigrants were not wronged by the state; they were never the targets of institutional racism many Mexicans have immigrated to the US after the dismantling of Jim Crow laws; they have no claim to any damages suffered as a result of past racism so why are they entitled to AA programs? Many choose to ignore this question and (I guess) hope that it is never raised again.
W.NM.,
Cool stuff, can I assume that you now have time to start your own blog? You know we could use more latino conservative voices. Let me know if you decide to and need any help, I’d be glad to help with what I can.
O,
I fixed the italicized error above.
Oso,
Your formula is brilliant!
HP,
I won’t be changing the picture anytime soon, but I would suggest that you change yours.
Now, you say that conservatives are the only ones who test anything about affirmative action. Not true. I can rattle off lists of names of researchers who have tested how racial/ethnic diversity at selective and non-selective institutions improves learning outcomes for students and those who have also researched campus climate for underrepresented minorities at places like Boalt Hall (UC Berkeley Law school) and the U of Michigan. The reason Justice O’Connor sided with the U of Michigan in the Gratz and i>Grutter cases was because there is still a compelling interest in protecting diversity.
Also, neither you nor your favorite (well, I know he’s one of many) economist, Becker, really talked about how colleges and universities should go about finding these “diamonds in the rough.”
cindylu,
I know there is research out there that supposedly (I’ve seen it called ‘weak’ research) proves diversity is good for a campus, that it’s a good learning experience etc (diversity is a suspect argument to make in favor of affirmative action, IMO, especially when one considers all the things universities do now that discourage ‘diversity’, like having seperate graduations based on race/ethnicity, and that there are ‘traditionally black’ Universities and nobody finds a problem with them).
My point here is that no liberal, atleast none that I have seen, has done research on whether or not affirmative action hurts the minorities that ‘benefited’ from affirmative action.
To put it more bluntly, I can see how having some Blacks and some Mexicans sitting next to ‘whitey’ can benefit ‘whitey’, liberals have alot of research showing that, but how does affirmative action affect the ‘Blacks’ and the ‘Mexicans’? How does accepting minorities at a university where on meritorious standards they are below their peers, affect them? Why do they drop out at higher rates? What would happen to them if affirmative action was removed? Would it be better or worse for minorities? Not to sound racist or anything, but they, minorities, are the ones I am primarily concerned with, I care a lot less about how this will affect ‘whitey’ than how it will affect Mexicans and Blacks.
Oh and, if you look closely, you will see a common theme behind all of ‘my favorite economists’. Thomas Sowell deals primarily with elites and how their outdated and unrealistic utopian views harm minorities. Milton Friedman is the pioneer behind vouchers, the one educational tool that actually shows promise of doing something for minorities, and in the most important area, education. Gary Becker was the first person to see how discrimination works in a capitalist country, and what can be done about it. In fact, that is why he won the Nobel Prize, for taking economics to areas that no one has taken before. Roland Fryer, the up and coming economist, is removing all forms of ‘politically correct’ atmosphere, and willing to discuss any ideas on how to get minorities out of the slums and into the middle class and upper class.
So it’s not because they are conservative that I hold them in high regard, it is that it is primarily conservatives who are working on the ideas that primarily affect minorities, the realistic and workable solutions that have the greatest promise of helping those who I am devoted to…
HP,
This is a quick response, I have a hot date to get to. The example of an HBCU (historically black college or university) is a bad example as those institutions came out of an era of segregation in which black students were not allowed to attend other higher education institutions. Also, education at HBCU’s has proven to be very beneficial for black students… there is research on this. I find it quite rigorous and not at all “weak.” The researchers you cite use similar methods. Fryer uses regression in some of his studies, the same thing I use.
And you know it is not the universities who chose to hold ethnic-specific graduation ceremonies. Student groups do this on their own and often with money they raised or by using their self-assessed students fees for university programming.
Neither the graduations nor the HBCU’s discriminate against students on race or ethnicity.
cindylu,
Let’s get the important stuff out of the way first; who the hell are you going on a date with @ 11:30pm at night?!?!?!
Now, onto a lighter point, you write,
there is research on this. I find it quite rigorous and not at all “weak.” The researchers you cite use similar methods. Fryer uses regression in some of his studies, the same thing I use.
Just because two studies use regression in no way implies that they have the same strength in their foundation. Regression is not all there is to the equation, you than have to separate causes, effects, mere correlations, how strongly they correlated and all sorts of things that can greatly change the ‘basis’ from one study to the next, making one ‘weak’, and making another ’strong’. Just take Freakonomics, the recent book by a widely respected economist, many people currently question his studies findings, yet he used regression in every study.
Ok, now onto our discussion, for the record, I do believe that diversity is good (given a safe, professional environment). As someone who works in the engineering field, a field known for its high level of diversity, I strongly believe that the engineering field benefits greatly because of diversity.
So I am not trying to argue against the benefits of diversity in a university, my point is that the justification for affirmative action based on diversity is suspect.
As I showed above, universities seem to be selective in their support of ‘diversity’. Is diversity good on college campuses? Yes. Is it critical to educational learning? Clearly the answer is no when referring to HBCU’s. Clearly the answer is no when referring to graduations. Clearly the answer is no if you refer to certain depts (how many Blacks does a Chicano Studies class have to have?). In other words, clearly the answer is no unless it deals with affirmative action.
As I said in our previous discussion on affirmative action, if I had to name the arguments in support of affirmative action that sway me in favor of it, the diversity argument is the only one. But I still don’t think it is strong enough to justify affirmative action, especially when you take into account the strong evidence that affirmative actions hurts those it is trying to help…
Now, back to my main point, who was this ‘hot date’, again?!?!
“The example of an HBCU (historically black college or university) is a bad example as those institutions came out of an era of segregation in which black students were not allowed to attend other higher education institutions.”
-cindylu
Calling into question the fact that there are colleges that are the complete antithesis of ethnic “diversity” is “bad” because “those institutions came out of an era of segregation in which black students were not allowed to attend other higher education institutions?” That is a poor reason (actually not a reason at all) to dismiss the counter claim to the diversity argument that a college education is not necessarily more enriching simply because the college has a more “diverse” (“racially” speaking) student body. Are there still institutions of higher learning that negatively discriminate against Blacks simply because of “race?” Times have changed, and changed greatly; gone are the days of de jure racial segregation and so too, one would logically think, the “need” of racially segregated colleges.
The only reason that I can think of that the supporters of affirmative action aren’t calling for the dismantling of Black colleges, or rather why they are not calling for “Black colleges” to increase their commitment to “diversity” is that they would politically alienate a significant portion of their constituency (Blacks) and also, they realize that the call for “diversity” is in reality an “end-round” play to get extra benefits for certain “minorities” as means to dispense reparations for supposed past social injustices.
If those who support AA on the grounds that a “diverse” campus truly think that diversity is a necessary component to a proper and meaningful college education than why do they not fight or argue for Black colleges to adjust their recruitment procedures to reflect one that would meet the goal of providing a “diverse” student body? Maybe it is because they think a policy of diversity, in regards to the racial make-up of the student body, is only necessary for proper and meaningful education in universities with a large “white” student body; but why? Why do certain colleges need to have a diverse student body and why don’t other colleges have that same need? Why do proponents of diversity remain idle (refrain from calling for diversity) while there are Black students at Black Colleges, at this very moment, being educated in substandard non-diverse educational atmosphere? If one truly believes in the virtues of “diversity” one would think that he or she would be protesting 24/7 until those inept administrators at those “all” Black colleges shed their archaic and antiquated notions of a proper educational environment to reflect a educational scene that is more modern; that is, alter it to racially diverse model.
It is clear that the success of Black colleges in graduating many qualified Black scholars is a strong argument against the “need” for a racially diverse college campus; that the proponents of affirmative don’t like it does not weaken the potency of this argument.
HP I wonder, why do you think that proponents of AA will argue so passionately for the merits and benefits of “diversity” in one educational setting, but the silence in another is deafening?
if someone could send to me some info about both the positives and negatives of affirmative for a school report i’m doing it would be much appreciated. you can email it to me @ yankeefan4life@carolina.rr.com. Any help you guys could give would help a lot.