Affirmative action

[Black Cross]

The US supreme court just ruled, In a 6-2 vote yesterday that it would not be unconstitutional for states to end affirmative action.

To me this just seems like a victory for systemic racism in the US if nothing else.

I'm curious to hear some of the opinions of Rev left users.

[karlbrosky]

Obviously this is a reactionary move and should therefore be opposed on that basis. But as far as the workers' movement itself goes, I'm not sure we should advocate for an extension of affirmative action as a solution to the racial jobs gap. I would personally benefit from these policies, but I've seen all too often how it can embitter white workers, throwing up another barrier to class unity.

[Rafiq]

It is as though getting a college education wasn't difficult enough, most especially for those whose circumstances make it nearly impossible. This is not simply a victory for systemic racism, it is a class based offensive.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've seen all too often how it can embitter white workers, throwing up another barrier to class unity.in this case, I don't think it's the reform that embitters white workers, it's their acceptance by some white workers of racist arguments and views that is the barrier to class unity.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Obviously this is a reactionary move and should therefore be opposed on that basis. But as far as the workers' movement itself goes, I'm not sure we should advocate for an extension of affirmative action as a solution to the racial jobs gap. I would personally benefit from these policies, but I've seen all too often how it can embitter white workers, throwing up another barrier to class unity.

Class unity can only be achieved on the basis of a socialist orientation - basically white workers who would be "embittered" by affirmative action aren't going to be good socialists, nor should the class-conscious part of the class seek to pander to their illusions and bigotry.

[PhoenixAsh]

Lets not pretend that affirmative action isn't the liberal bourgeois playing make pretend that they want to create "equality" but are actually exploiting racist tendencies they created in the first place in order to pit worker against worker....in order to pit worker against worker....so they can benefit.

So basically we are saying a system which creates and perpetuates systemic racism and sexism can solve this systemic racism and sexism which it actually continues to perpetuate because it needs to do so in order to maintain an economic system of exploitation by divide and conquer...and we are kidding ourselves that this system actually wants to do something about the divide and conquer.

Sure. It just so happens capitalism grew a heart and has seen the errors of its ways. We can all sleep tight now.

Affirmative action serves the purpose of a faction of the ruling class. If it didn't then we wouldn't have it...and other factions wouldn't oppose it. The fact that it is beneficial in some way to some "minority" groups does not negate this reality.

Lets not get over-exited one way or the other over nice sounding policy patches in order to mask the systemic nature of 1). racism and 2). the root of the problem capitalism...without actually solving it.

I am entirely sure that 40 years of affirmative action has hugely solved all the problems on the job market for non white people and has greatly helped their acceptance and end racism...o....wait...

And it also hugely helped other "minorities" such as women (who in The Netherlands still earn € 300.000 less during a working life than men as per today...)...o...wait....

[Black Cross]

So basically we are saying a system which creates and perpetuates systemic racism and sexism can solve this systemic racism and sexism which it actually continues to perpetuate because it needs to do so in order to maintain an economic system of exploitation by divide and conquer...and we are kidding ourselves that this system actually wants to do something about the divide and conquer.

Sure. It just so happens capitalism grew a heart and has seen the errors of its ways. We can all sleep tight now.

Affirmative action serves the purpose of a faction of the ruling class. If it didn't then we wouldn't have it...and other factions wouldn't oppose it. The fact that it is beneficial in some way to some "minority" groups does not negate this reality.

Lets not get over-exited one way or the other over nice sounding policy patches in order to mask the systemic nature of 1). racism and 2). the root of the problem capitalism...without actually solving it.

I am entirely sure that 40 years of affirmative action has hugely solved all the problems on the job market for non white people and has greatly helped their acceptance and end racism...o....wait...

I don't think anyone here would make any such claims. Clearly affirmative action isn't revolutionary, but this judgment passed down from the Supreme Court is worth analyzing for its undertones.


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think anyone here would make any such claims. Clearly affirmative action isn't revolutionary, but this judgment passed down from the Supreme Court is worth analyzing for its undertones.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

But we aren't analyzing it. Nobody posted a link to the opinion or the ruling. We are simply going off the header that the SC voted to end affirmative action and declaring that a huge blow to equality and stemming from racism.

We are ignoring
1). affirmative action is something which encompasses more than ethnic "minorities"...namely women.
2). It failed utterly in reaching a better quota (see 3).) for ethnic minorities which actually made a difference on a large scale.
3). Quota's are unconstitutional in the US so basically affirmative action is simply something nice to show off to pretend you are actually doing something towards equality and which benefits some minorities over others.
4). everything I said in my first post.


In the mean time the same ruling allows for a different approach to be implemented which is income disparity and increasing enrollment on geographic and economic based factors to increase the number of lowest income students and students.

[Black Cross]

But we aren't analyzing it. Nobody posted a link to the opinion or the ruling. We are simply going off the header that the SC voted to end affirmative action and declaring that a huge blow to equality and stemming from racism.

Who said this?


We are ignoring
1). affirmative action is something which encompasses more than ethnic "minorities"...namely women.
2). It failed utterly in reaching a better quota (see 3).) for ethnic minorities which actually made a difference on a large scale.
3). Quota's are unconstitutional in the US so basically affirmative action is simply something nice to show off to pretend you are actually doing something towards equality and which benefits some minorities over others.
4). everything I said in my first post.

We are? Or are you just the first to bring it up?


In the mean time the same ruling allows for a different approach to be implemented which is income disparity and increasing enrollment on geographic and economic based factors to increase the number of lowest income students and students.

I think you're gonna have to explain that to me.

You bring up great points. But why you're presenting them in a patronizing way is beyond me.


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[PhoenixAsh]

Who said this?

Post #3


We are? Or are you just the first to bring it up?

So far it has been acknowledged as racism. Not as sexism. But good point.



I think you're gonna have to explain that to me.

When ethnic quota's are used they come in the place of other selection criteria. Affirmative action on race and gender ruled out the possibility of focusing on income disparity. In fact...affirmative action so far has mostly enabled non white middle or lower middle class kids to go to university. Low income kids of any ethnicity were left to scholarships. So Affirmative action benefited a specific subselection of minority groups...while leaving those who needed it the most out of the focus.

Discontinuing affirmative action based on ethnicity does allow for more direct regional approaches in lower income area's which in itself will still allow non white ethnicities (Of course...next argument we will here and encounter is that this will eventually be too costly). ir




You bring up great points. But why you're presenting them in a patronizing way is beyond me.

I am grumpy and tired. sorry.

But also because the positions of some in the thread annoy me and remind me of the uncritical debates about affirmative action in days past on this site when arguing against affirmative action could get users restricted. I think it is entirely possible to be seriously bitter about the sheer utter failure affirmative action is both in reaching any substantial goal, solving systemic racism/discrimination, or in falling far short...and of course...at how much polarization it causes.....and still be a very good socialist for example.

Affirmative action is a sham. It allows for more access to higher education, for example, by ethnic minorities...BUT it doesn't address the fact of substandard prior education in non white neighborhoods who thus are more ill prepared for the higher education resulting in higher drop out rates. Which in turn are used to perpetuate other myths about ethnicity.

[Jimmie Higgins]

When ethnic quota's are usedethic/racial/gender quotas are not used in the u.s. I don't know if that was ever a major part of academic affirmative action (it sometimes was in employment - new construction, must have x% eligible minority workers... X Usually connected to population demographics), but at least since the early 90s there have been bans on "quota" affirmative action programs in public institutions.

This case was over a bill eliminating racial or gender as a factor at all in admissions and hiring in public institutions. It is NOT a reflection of a.a. Not working to eliminate inequality... It's a reflection of "color-blind" racism. And this is in the context of minority and poor student enrollment plummeting already due to the combination of recession and austerity which has increased tuition for supposedly public universities. This is in the context of public schools being as segregated now as in the 1960s.



they come in the place of other selection criteria. Affirmative action on race and gender ruled out the possibility of focusing on income disparity.this is just completely untrue in the u.s. Situation. In California, like in Michigan, there was until the mid 90s a point-based system of which affirmative action considerations (race, gender, and poverty level) would add points to a total score... Along with considerations such as if your parents went to that university, if you came from underrepresented counties in the state, etc.

The attack on this system in California and this current attack are based on the conception that a.a. Discriminates against whites. The whole basis of the attack is a distortion of the actual programs and a racism based on the assumption that racism is over and now blacks are too privileged.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And besides, focusing on nominal income disparity completely obscures the socially-necessary labour time that e.g. men save because women preform most reproductive and domestic labour, the disparity when it comes to security, job opportunities etc.

The "middle class" is also not really a thing if you ask us Marxists.

[La Guaneña]

It looked to me as some people here would be against minority quotas. Why the hell would you do that?

[Tim Cornelis]

Why wouldn't it be unconstitutional?

[PhoenixAsh]

And besides, focusing on nominal income disparity completely obscures the socially-necessary labour time that e.g. men save because women preform most reproductive and domestic labour, the disparity when it comes to security, job opportunities etc.

The "middle class" is also not really a thing if you ask us Marxists.

Affirmative action however is not a Marxist principle. In capitalism middle class is an income group....not a class. Affirmative action affects higher income groups of ethnic minorities.

Also...lower income groups as a result of systemic racism and sexism hold percentually higher repesentation of women and ethnic minorities.

[Black Cross]

Why wouldn't it be unconstitutional?

Dunno, but the opposing two judges have to write an opinion, no? Couldn't find it on their website. Probably too early. I'll keep looking day to day though.

[DOOM]

I'm sorry if I come off as a bigot, but my knowledge on this topic is really limited.
Can someone tell me, if this affirmative action stuff is really such a big deal? Why is it special and how fucked would one be if the states end it?

[PhoenixAsh]

ethic/racial/gender quotas are not used in the u.s. I don't know if that was ever a major part of academic affirmative action (it sometimes was in employment - new construction, must have x% eligible minority workers... X Usually connected to population demographics), but at least since the early 90s there have been bans on "quota" affirmative action programs in public institutions.

Yes. Ruled to be so in 1978....and reaffirmed in 2003 when it actually had any effect. Strict specified quota's were ruled unconstitutional under a point system when entirely based on race. Other programs which included specific and targeted recruitment of ethnic minority members based on skill or other measurable/objective classification criteria was deemed very much constitutional. Again yet another form of affirmative action: admitting top % automatically from specific geographically assigned high schools was also permitted (and in fact actually increased percentage of ethnic minorities enrolled beyond the contested set quota system).

The reaffirming case in 2003 was actually a case which accused the affirmative action rules in Michigan of favoring specific minority groups over others. Another 2003 case overruled the point system of Michigan where an automatic entry was ensured at 100 points and race was awarded 20 points towards the total of 150 (a perfect SAT score was awarded 12 points fyi) with protected seats for a specified amount of students from ethnic minorities and other categories (such as sports etc) and this was considered a quotum which made race a decisive factor because of the percentage of total point awarded and negated individual scrutiny of every applicant.

All three cases however reestablished that universities could employ every other method they saw fit to create and uphold diverse communities....just as long as race itself was not the deciding factor on admission but a deciding factor and as long as there was no specific amount of protected seats.

So quota's can't exist.

The conclusion of this is two ways:

--> Quota's are still used but not defined because how else would admission be determined? And if not then affirmative action essentially is a shill because there is no goal and the policy simply just does something in general. Which is really vague.

--> If the above is true...then affirmative action as a policy path in effect is not the best method for creating participation of ethnic minorities...


This case was over a bill eliminating racial or gender as a factor at all in admissions and hiring in public institutions. It is NOT a reflection of a.a. Not working to eliminate inequality... It's a reflection of "color-blind" racism. And this is in the context of minority and poor student enrollment plummeting already due to the combination of recession and austerity which has increased tuition for supposedly public universities. This is in the context of public schools being as segregated now as in the 1960s.

Actually the Michigan reality is that enrollment dropped in the last years (when this policy that has now be considered confirmed was already in place) has reduced the number of black students by 1.5% and increased the number of Hispanics with 0.7%. According to the statistics provided by the University. It is still a nett loss but as you rightly argue also because of increase in tuition.


this is just completely untrue in the u.s. Situation. In California, like in Michigan, there was until the mid 90s a point-based system of which affirmative action considerations (race, gender, and poverty level) would add points to a total score... Along with considerations such as if your parents went to that university, if you came from underrepresented counties in the state, etc.

Yes...and the mechanical reality of that was that poverty level weighed less than ethnicity and undervalued gender. Which is why it was abandoned.

As far as I have read the enrollment right now in Cali is at about the same % of ethnic minorities as it was pre-proposition 209...an initial 2 year drop at the end of the 90's was reversed in the next two years. Currently the % of minorities more or less fall along the lines of population % of the state.

But off course I am basing myself on a quick google of articles and I am sure somebody here has more accurate stats.





The attack on this system in California and this current attack are based on the conception that a.a. Discriminates against whites. The whole basis of the attack is a distortion of the actual programs and a racism based on the assumption that racism is over and now blacks are too privileged.


I think affirmative action is a sham which actually doesn't counter systemic racism and their effects and is just some bourgeois's factional expression of a psychological bandaid which actually serves a divide and conquer policy.

That is the basis of my argument.

Not whether or not the current attacks are racist in origin...


FYI...the ruling of the SC was not on the constitutionality of affirmative action nor whether it discriminated against whites (that was already established and ruled to be the case by the SC back in 1978 if certain criteria weren't met)...but on the constitutionality of overturning state legislation.

[TheNotoriousPOG]

this is just completely untrue in the u.s. Situation. In California, like in Michigan, there was until the mid 90s a point-based system of which affirmative action considerations (race, gender, and poverty level) would add points to a total score... Along with considerations such as if your parents went to that university, if you came from underrepresented counties in the state, etc.

The attack on this system in California and this current attack are based on the conception that a.a. Discriminates against whites. The whole basis of the attack is a distortion of the actual programs and a racism based on the assumption that racism is over and now blacks are too privileged.

The point system is fucking stupid, and you don't have to be a racist to see that. I work in emergency medical services and the fire service and my state is a state that uses the point system, and as someone who's generally pro-affirmative action, it's a mess.

Since we all love shouting at each other I'm going to use a minority group revleft doesn't care about to demonstrate my point: veterans. Say Joe Snuffy is a broke kid from the trailer park who joins the army during the height of the vietnam war. Goes to vietnam, sees heavy combat, comes home and gets spit on, called a baby-killer, ptsd, discriminated against looking for a job. The whole nine. Johnny College on the other hand comes from a middle class family, goes to college and gets a fire science degree, emt training, and volunteers with a local department. When it comes time to take the civil service test, Johnny College and his fancy college degree have a big advantage over Joe Snuffy's GED. Due to his educational background, College smokes the test and gets a 90. Snuffy on the other hand gets a mediocre 75, but since he gets 10 points for being a vet and 10 points for residency preference, he gets the job.

Fuck that. Affirmative action should not be putting less qualified candidates over more qualified candidates early in the hiring process. Just cause you've had a tough life doesn't mean you're owed a spot in the brotherhood over someone who scores better than you on a test. The fire service is not a self-help organization, we're here to save lives. Shittier firefighters = more dead people. Maybe you're okay with some mouth breather who got the job because he did a couple years in the navy and showed up for a civil service test rolling up on scene when your house is on fire, but I definitely don't want to be going in there with anyone less than the best.

My take is scrap the civil service testing for firefighting and ems altogether. Instead subsidize fire service education and aggressively recruit women/minorities/vets and provide a lot of scholarships/grants ect. The only time race/gender/vet status should be taken into consideration during the hiring process is during the chiefs interview, the last stage, to choose between two otherwise equally qualified applicants.

Also to suggest anyone who's bitter about affirmative action is automatically a racist is unfair, at least in my business. In my state if you're not a minority, woman, vet, or child of a firefighter, you literally have a zero percent chance of getting a job taking a civil service test. To break into the job you have to put yourself through paramedic school, volunteer, know the right people, and get a bunch of certifications just to get your foot in the door so it's understandable to be bitter towards people who get the dream job you work your ass off for years to get just by showing up to a civil service test and being the right color/gender/veteran status, when you scored higher or the same on the test in the first place.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think affirmative action is a sham which actually doesn't counter systemic racism and their effects and is just some bourgeois's factional expression of a psychological bandaid which actually serves a divide and conquer policy.

That is the basis of my argument.

Not whether or not the current attacks are racist in origin...


And the basis of my argument is that in context, these and many similar acts in the U.S. are racist in nature. I don't have many technical disagreements with your argument, but I think that when talking about this ruling and a whole trajectory of legal rulings in recent years (among other things) it is far too abstract to argue about a.a. as an isolated program.

An argument like that probably is important outside the u.s., but within the u.s. it would be sort of burying the lead which I think is an increased legal and political repression of certain segements of the oppressed (but specifically black people in the u.s.) in the context of neoliberal austerity and a ruling class reorganization of education (to better match an increasingly unequal society where only a few need skills and most can work in service... like Newt Gingrich saying that black students should get trained in janitorial work while at school).

First, a.a. developed out of specific situations and weaknesses both in the civil rights and labor movements in post-war U.S. There probably are cases of institutions and governments passing a.a. more or less voluntarily as a way to create an illusion of vague diversity, but in most of the early cases I've read about, it was out of civil rights movement attempts to win equal hiring practices after a bunch of court rulings that had no enforcement clause that both the unions and the bosses just ignored. So it is a reform that comes out of weaknesses - the white protectionism and racism of the unions made labor actions difficult (there are other more radical attempts at challenging this which would be more like a radical's tactic of choice) and the liberal - legalistic - orientation of the civil rights/anti-racist labor forces. But this is just to point out why this a.a. legacy exists as it does and to argue that in essence it was not initiated as an attempt to create some vague diversity, but was an attempt to cut into the issue of inequality due to systemic racism. That it has become just a way for universities to look open to everyone, well that's what happens to any reform left over from a movement when the movement dies or is crushed.

But again, these court actions really have nothing to do with eliminating reforms like this because they are ineffectual at actually ameliorating some of the impact of racism; just like recent rulings against unions have nothing to do with lack of democracy or effectiveness of business-unions; u.s. public schools are something no one should ideally have to be subjected to, but govenement education reform isn't about how uninspiring and ridged (and underfunded) public schools are, it's about creating a tiered privite education system.


As far as I have read the enrollment right now in Cali is at about the same % of ethnic minorities as it was pre-proposition 209...an initial 2 year drop at the end of the 90's was reversed in the next two years. Currently the % of minorities more or less fall along the lines of population % of the state. From what I understand: overall yes, for black students, no. Asian enrollment remained at more or less a growing rate, Latino enrollment dropped buy a huge percent but then recovered in the last several years and I think now is slightly higher than before. Of course Latino and Asian population rates have grown in the state generally, so I don't know if that plays into it or not. But the other notable aspects of this are that both the UC system and the "affordable" 2nd tier CSU schools have both seen drops and the two eliete UCs, UC Berkeley and UCLA never had the black and latino population rebound that happened in the system generally. At UCLA in the first two years the Latino population dropped by 60%... it's recovered overall in the system and it's recovered a bit at UCLA, but it's still lower there.

I also honestly don't know how AA would be considered a divide and conquor strategy. If you mean white resentment - well that really only became a factor much later in the history of the program and it was mostly build in false-propaganda with racist undertones. For A.A. to be seen as "black entitlement", first people have to accept the idea that there is no systemic inequality and racism. When I went to school, every right-wing white student had a friend who's cousin got perfect grades and perfect admission test score but was no accepted BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE BOO HOO!:rolleyes:

The UC system has created their own programs and there are corporate-university scholarship things that have all tried to fill the gap left from A.A. Of course this fits better for modern politics because the universities can still claim some level of diversity and some level of "help to the disadvantaged" but it fits into neoliberal and post-racial ideology better.... and it's charity, not some attempt to deal with systemic inequalities - even a malformed attempt.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

AA as a simple quota system is problematic (it's not like there aren't kids who are at once members of a marginalized community who also benefit from our social system - Herman Cain's kids probably have as much advantage as anyone else), but considering race among other factors is critical in understanding the conditions of students from varying backgrounds and accounting for it. Clearly, a black kid growing up poor in Detroit should have their conditions considered in admittance because a history of race and class based discrimination will have held them back.

Anyways, I don't think such a policy should be a surprise to anyone. The US government was not designed with the interests of marginalized working class ethnic/racial minorities in mind. It's like being shocked and surprised at al Qaeda for killing nonbelievers. It's just more evidence that we need a new political and economic order.

Also, I think it's telling that there is a lot of pushback against quotas but not legacy admittance. Admitting a kid because he's black is seen as terrible while admitting a kid because his daddy went to the same university is not seen as problematic.