The always sharp Richard Kahlenberg nudges Obama toward class-based Affirmative Action. Count me in as a supporter. I just wonder how much it will be on the agenda.
Always thought this was a great idea, since it's the chief racial complaint from Republicans (and is always picked up from College republicans)
Some will fine another find to demonize it, but it will also easy tensions with poor whites and moderate republicans, giving any smart, yet poor, hardworking persons a right to a bright future.
Kahlenberg makes a good argument, and his specific ideas about using both income and wealth as measures are intriguing. If it is true that using only economic measures can achieve diversity in terms of race and class, and defuse this awful ongoing battle over affirmative action. Then beautiful. But I always thought that if economics only was in play, the larger numbers of poor whites would mean fewer spaces for non-white students.
It is very worth seeking means other than race preferences to achieve what affirmative action is meant to achieve, but we can't give ground on the fact that race and class are distinct, if overlapping, issues. Has racism retreated to the point that class-only affirmative action would not disadvantage non-whites? Obama's election is reason to hope, but I have yet to see a reason to be certain.
How is a government agency going to determine class?
6 month income average? Where you grew up? Education level? Do we really want people having to provide their parents financials when applying to a job? What about the parents privacy rights? If you judged my by my personal income over the last 10 years, I'd look poor as shit. It's only when you look at my family that you'd understand why I wasn't getting food stamps.
What happens when someone is 50 dollars over whatever arbitrary income number that is the cutoff for aid?
What is the benefit you would get? Do you get hired for jobs you aren't qualified for since you dropped out of high school or are semi-literate? Get an extra 2/hour cause your dad was a janitor?
It sounds nice in theory. But it really falls apart when you think about it. Race AA was based on the idea that you should give otherwise reasonably qualified people a bump to combat the effects of prejudice. The problem with class is that it makes you unqualified. And if a lower class person is qualified, he's probably not going to have a problem getting a good job, since he's not lower class anymore.
I truly believe that conservatives support "class-based affirmative action" only as an argument against affirmative action as we know it, and not as an actual end in itself. If we ever actually decided to implement such a thing, they'd quickly decide that it's indistinguishable from Marxism.
Amen. This is an initiative that will have strong, deep support, and will help cement Obama's role as a not-the-same-old-politics president. And from a purely political standpoint, Obama would be pitch-perfect in defusing the Right's oppostition to it, by making it a distinctly Christian imperative. Jesus didn't say anything about abortion or homosexuality, but preached over and over about our collective responsibility to the poor.
Can we stop accepting the dominant frame that pits class-based affirmative action against race-based? We can have both. Since one is not a proxy for the other.
So, a, I buy into the "this won't work in practice" critique. B, this is unfair to middle-class and wealthy blacks, who do worse on standardized testing than middle-class and wealthy whites. A lot worse. In fact, it's a little known fact that black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line.* Assuming that that's because of some kind of structural racism effect, or even because of McWhorterian cultural differences, endemic anti-intellectualism and all that, I don't see how it's fair to shift to wholly class-based affirmative action and shaft middle-class and wealthy blacks.
You're comparing apples and oranges. I highly doubt that whites living below the poverty-line outscore the "wealthiest blacks." Wealth--as in black children from the wealthiest families--is not the same as income which is used to measure poverty--as in white children from below the poverty line.
The chart you link compares income--and then deceptively switches and draws conclusions about black wealth. In fact it offers no such data. If you're interested in the differences in comparing blacks and whites when controlling for income, versus controlling for wealth you should check out sociologist Dalton Conley's stuff. Income, for many reasons, is a bad indicator of social equality. This is important because, based on my interviews with Kahlenberg, it's unlikely that a class-based AA system would function on income.
That said, you may still object, even if it's based on wealth. Which is fair enough. It's all about what you believe government should be doing. I just want to highlight the difference between judging people by how much they make vs. their judging them by their wealth.
toxic wrote "It sounds nice in theory. But it really falls apart when you think about it."
Yep. If I could choose between a world with class based or race based affirmative action, I would choose race based affirmative action because it has fewer consequences. If you were to install systematic class based affirmative action (say require at least 5% of an incoming class to be from each income decile)you would probably see a displacement effect of between 25% and 50%. With race based affirmative action you have a displacement effect of about 10% for most schools. Also, most schools already judge their applicants, based on what opportunities are available to them. Class based affirmative action is based on the premise that the child of a plumber is as smart as the child of a doctor or a professor. Peyton and Eli Manning make better quarterbacks than I ever would, because their father was an NFL quarterback. We shouldn't coerce our private institutions into what admissions policies they should adopt.
Class conscious admissions can make a positive difference on one part of college access: the part at selective colleges.
There are some other issues. For schools that admit most of their applicants, I'd name two:
1. Tuition and fees growing faster than inflation and faster than financial aid. An impossible bill can lock disadvantaged students out of school just as thoroughly as a rejection letter.
2. Schools letting students in but without committing to help them get back out with a diploma. There's been a big public policy push on enrollment, but it's time to look honestly at completion.
The federal government doesn't have to bring money to push this issue. Just publishing the numbers in a memorable format would shake things up. A well placed speech would get attention. The President or First Lady spending two hours at a Governor's conference might well get action. A Secretary of Education who's willing to mix it up can matter.
Frankly, I think this is like the President-elect's standard for the Supreme Court: give us someone who can think clearly and care deeply, and some big things can change.
I'm one who leans away from race-based affirmative action to begin with, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that I'm against class-based affirmative action. Toxic said it before me:
Race AA was based on the idea that you should give otherwise reasonably qualified people a bump to combat the effects of prejudice. The problem with class is that it makes you unqualified.
The reality is that poor people are denied opportunity due to the lack of quality lower education/supportive family structure/etc. and not because of endemic classist attitudes against them. As a matter of fact, a form of class-based AA is already in effect, with schools normalizing students against the classmates in addition to the nation at large..
On the general affrimative action front, one of the better things Bob Gates did at Texas A&M before getting tapped for SecDef was massively increase minority enrollment without AA by getting rid of legacy preference in admission and shifting financial aid out of other areas and towards need based students. Without establishing a racial preference at all, he correctly understood that selecting for wealthier students who come from college educated backgrounds was essentially AA for a certain portion of white people
Its obvious the hurdles for African Americans are far steeper than just income. It has structural components to it that should be addressed. I think its a bit elitist to suggest otherwise. There is ideality then there is reality. I made it but my brother on the other side never did....
So, TNC, I get that there are differences between income and wealth - folks who inherit a ton of money and never work a day in their lives don't have much income, do have a ton of wealth - but isn't there a pretty strong correlation between the two? People who make a lot, at least, do tend to be wealthy. And most people who don't make much aren't.
Yes there is a correlation, but the differences are bigger than they appear.
Family A makes 100k a year, but their parents are able to give them a down payment on a house. They have some investments they've taken out for them. They've put away some money to send the kids to college. Should shit hit the fan, and a parent lose a job, Family A has a savings to fall back on. And then there other correlative factors. For instance, coming from a wealthier probably gives you more exposure to the world, it probably increases the likelihood that your parents were married. You're less likely to have been exposed to behaviors that tend to disrupt families.
Family B may make 100k, but they have none of those factors going for them. They have to use their income to save for a down payment on a house. If shit hits the fan they are less likely to have a savings, and they're less likely to have any other family to lean on. Moreover, they may have less fortunate family--brothers, sisters, parents even--that they have to chip in and help out with. Their situation is much less stable, even though their income is the same as Family B.
There's also this notion of social capital. Family A is almost certainly likely to have more of it than Family B. There's some good research out there on this stuff. Anyway, all those things I listed are directly related to parenting, and your ability to stay on your kids and make sure they have the best opportunities.
Again, there is an argument against Affirmative Action of any sort. But wealth and income aren't the same. It's the reason why you can't just raise the incomes of black people--or any people for that matter--and expect them to perform, in general, at the same level.
class-based affirmative action is an invitation to class warfare. if the justification for affirmative action was to level a playing field that culture and history had made unfair, ok. but class-based a.a. is intractable unless incomes reach equilibrium. it's worlds worse than what we have now.
i would fight it tooth and nail (and i grew up in a poor white family).
One last point. There are tons of families with middle-class income but little wealth. My generation is part of the boom in the black middle class. Our incomes are comparable to our white peers. But our wealth is not.
So then, do you think that if we had a wealth chart, instead of a purely income one, we wouldn't still find some disparity between how blacks and whites with the same amount of wealth perform on standardized testing? I would be surprised if there wasn't.
Fundamentally, the issues are inclusion versus exclusion of students dependent on their respective sectors in society. Thus, the legacy and related options that provided access to institutions had the perverse impact of denying access to others who were academically superior. Combined with issues of testing, income, class, race and so-called preferential treatment of protected classes the history of educational access on the college level is tortured. The term class based affirmative action is poison, and will ignite yesterday's battles. The narrative need be centered on access to education consistent with demonstrated abilities; this view avoids the rhetorical traps of the past. In sum it is a matter of socialization and exposure, as quite as it is kept brain power in equally distributed; i.e.,in most respects Obama is not unique, he had the very good fortune of exposure and socialization to ends and means denied to many others. Kahlenberg's argument is not new!
1.
Race-based affirmative action is only necessary because there was State-sponsored racism. If there are specific identifiable measures that we can point to that unconstitionally kept whites in poverty. Let's set up a separate class-based program for poor whites.
2.
I disagree with the premise that AA is unpopular so we should abandon it for something that right-wing Republicans like or can't exploit. I'm not interested in a public relations-based solution to african-american economic development and we know that right-wing Republicans don't negotiate on good faith anyway. They will complain no matter what.
3.
We want a change to please Ward Connerly. You're joking right?
4.
Intergenerational transfers of wealth matter, especially in a capitalist society.
There are always ways to get into the school you want, if you are willing to work for it. The easiest is to find out what local community colleges that school associates with. Get a 2 year degree there and transfer across.
If you truly want to help low income people with college or advanced technical schools then what you should be promoting is a larger grant program.
We had class and income based AA before Reagan gutted it -- it was what used to be called the Perkins Loan (now Pell Grant) program, and the whole college loan program before Reagan got his hands on it. If it hadn't been for that program, I'd have been f**ked and far from home, as some folks say. My dad made good money, but my parents never saved for school and they divorced the year before I matriculated. The only way I got through was because back in the day you only had to show a year of not having been claimed as a dependent in order to qualify for aid on your own income and in your own right. I'm a product of state schools and a lawyer now, and I paid back every cent I ever got in direct federal aid in the first two years of my employment after getting my JD. Fourteen years of serious wage-earning (and tax paying) later, I'd say I was a good investment of tax dollars.
I should clarify -- my federal taxes in my first two years of post-education employment covered more than what I'd received in aid through the Perkins/Pell grant program. My student loans were paid separately, but well within the ten year repayment period provided under the terms of those loans.
Look at the 2004 census . 32% or 4.5 million black households are in the lowest fifth of income distribution. 18% or 16.9 million white households are in the lowest. There are only 14.4 millions black households in total. Making affirmative action class based will favor whites. There are more poor white households.
My idea of equality holding all things equal is that the distribution by race among the quintiles should be relatively even. Once that is the case, let's go to class-based. But, right now 32% black vs. 18% white in poverty does not imply that its time to artificially say the the scales are rebalanced.
I agree. Class matters more. Obama's girls won't need much help, especially with Harvard- they are legacies and the daughters of a soon-to-be-inaugurated prez. So many universities are gonna fall over themselves trying to recruit the Obama girls when they're the right age.
I dunno... everything seems to be different here in Canada - if you have the grades and the interest, you get in (no crazy essays, references, etc, unless it's a special program). And money really isn't as much a problem here (tuition is $5-6000, depending on program at UofT).
Again, I'd suggest you check out Dalton Conley's work on the wealth gap. He runs the sociology program at NYU. I can't speak to SAT test scores, but here are his conclusions in terms of outcomes:
"This racial wealth gap accounts for many of the racial differences in socioeconomic achievement that have persisted in the post-civil rights era. When we compare black and white families who have the same income and net worth, we find that African-American kids are more likely to graduate from high school than whites and are just as likely to complete college. And when we compare individuals who grew up in families with the same economic resources--income and wealth--we find that the wage gap between blacks and whites disappears and that African-Americans are just as likely as Anglos to be working full time. But among the poor, a lack of assets makes blacks more likely to rely on welfare."
It's been a while since I read his book on this, but it was quite good:
Incidentally, this is why the past is so important. What's indisputable, is that there was a concerted effort by local, state and federal government in this country repeatedly robbed black communities of wealth, or tried to prevent them from acquiring wealth.. It was probably the most damaging thing to happen to black people post-slavery because it's effects can't be dealt with simply by ending discrimination, or even through Affirmative Action. It's much much worse than "Whites Only" water fountains.
Economic based preferences should not preclude ethnic preferences at public universities. Most public universities already use economic based preferences and many use them along side of ethnic and geographic preferences. If the Univ. of Minnesota or Oregon wants to attract minority students from majority-minority environments in order to expose its students to different people-- Why shouldn’t it be able to? More government mandates further disrupt the autonomy of our universities in selecting their student body and opens up a highly divisive issue. We have arguably the best universities in the world and it might be time to let them do their job. My hope is that Obama defends the autonomous rights of our universities. We have very real problems that need to be addressed this is not one of them.
Back in the 1980s, I was accepted to an very well-known and well-respected woman's college in the Philadelphia suburbs. I was not given any financial aid, as I was informed by the admissions counselor that my parents (my father was 62 at the time) were expected to take out a second mortgage and other loans to enable my high-SAT score, valedictorian ass to go there. I explained to the admissions counselor that I didn't study said ass off so that my parents would have to hock their retirement plans in order for me to have a bunch of Welsh consonants on my diploma. (Well, okay, I said it more nicely than that).
Now, I'm white, and I'm all for a mix of ethnic and economic preferences. But I stayed on campus that weekend, and something struck me about the young women I came across. All the women of color represented a rainbow of economic backgrounds: you might have an African-American student from Compton or Cabrini Green, and an African student whose father was the Nigerian ambassador to the UN and who graduated from a Swiss boarding school. You might have a young Latina whose parents were migrant workers and one whose father was an orthopedic surgeon.
But all the white students came from very wealthy or upper-middle-class backgrounds. It's not just that there wasn't a student from some Appalachian hollow -- there was no white student whose dad was a mailman, for chrissakes. In terms of interracial understanding and the increase thereof, all I could think of was those women from Cabrini Green and Compton. If you grew up poor and black, and you thought all white folks were rich as hell and spoiled to death, arriving on that campus would not disabuse you of the notion.
I don't think that would happen today, for which I'm grateful. I think colleges are much more aware of the value of having both an ethnic and economic mix on campus, not just the former.
As always, thanks for letting me put in my two cents, T-N.
I am a financial aid administrator for a major public university and I just don't think we need AA for anyone. There are no barriers to anyone for admission here. We admit students from all backgrounds and with all kinds of GPAs and SAT/ACT scores. You have to have failed spectacularly (without failing completely) to be turned down for admission here.
The biggest barrier is simply cost and the lack of any sort of aid other than loans. How can I counsel a lower middle class or low income student whose passion is for social work or journalism or education to come here and pay the $25,000 or so a year when I know almost all of that money will be in the form of loans? These kids and/or their parents will be at least borrowing on average $40-$60,000 over four years. Yes, there are the federal Pell and SEOG grants and my state has a good state grant program, but they don't come close to covering the bill. And, yes, the university has limited institutional aid that we can provide to early admits to help. But the students from those income levels are rarely in the early admit pool due to the general lack of experience their families have with the college admission and financial aid process. Plus our endowments for those programs is not nearly enough.
I don't experience any problem with getting these kids admitted. The problem is getting them funded.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Always thought this was a great idea, since it's the chief racial complaint from Republicans (and is always picked up from College republicans)
Some will fine another find to demonize it, but it will also easy tensions with poor whites and moderate republicans, giving any smart, yet poor, hardworking persons a right to a bright future.
it should be towards the top.
Kahlenberg makes a good argument, and his specific ideas about using both income and wealth as measures are intriguing. If it is true that using only economic measures can achieve diversity in terms of race and class, and defuse this awful ongoing battle over affirmative action. Then beautiful. But I always thought that if economics only was in play, the larger numbers of poor whites would mean fewer spaces for non-white students.
It is very worth seeking means other than race preferences to achieve what affirmative action is meant to achieve, but we can't give ground on the fact that race and class are distinct, if overlapping, issues. Has racism retreated to the point that class-only affirmative action would not disadvantage non-whites? Obama's election is reason to hope, but I have yet to see a reason to be certain.
How is a government agency going to determine class?
6 month income average? Where you grew up? Education level? Do we really want people having to provide their parents financials when applying to a job? What about the parents privacy rights? If you judged my by my personal income over the last 10 years, I'd look poor as shit. It's only when you look at my family that you'd understand why I wasn't getting food stamps.
What happens when someone is 50 dollars over whatever arbitrary income number that is the cutoff for aid?
What is the benefit you would get? Do you get hired for jobs you aren't qualified for since you dropped out of high school or are semi-literate? Get an extra 2/hour cause your dad was a janitor?
It sounds nice in theory. But it really falls apart when you think about it. Race AA was based on the idea that you should give otherwise reasonably qualified people a bump to combat the effects of prejudice. The problem with class is that it makes you unqualified. And if a lower class person is qualified, he's probably not going to have a problem getting a good job, since he's not lower class anymore.
I truly believe that conservatives support "class-based affirmative action" only as an argument against affirmative action as we know it, and not as an actual end in itself. If we ever actually decided to implement such a thing, they'd quickly decide that it's indistinguishable from Marxism.
Ryen wrote:
> It should be towards the top.
Amen. This is an initiative that will have strong, deep support, and will help cement Obama's role as a not-the-same-old-politics president. And from a purely political standpoint, Obama would be pitch-perfect in defusing the Right's oppostition to it, by making it a distinctly Christian imperative. Jesus didn't say anything about abortion or homosexuality, but preached over and over about our collective responsibility to the poor.
Andy,
In education there's an easy way to determine "class." Your FAFSA application.
Can we stop accepting the dominant frame that pits class-based affirmative action against race-based? We can have both. Since one is not a proxy for the other.
So, a, I buy into the "this won't work in practice" critique. B, this is unfair to middle-class and wealthy blacks, who do worse on standardized testing than middle-class and wealthy whites. A lot worse. In fact, it's a little known fact that black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line.* Assuming that that's because of some kind of structural racism effect, or even because of McWhorterian cultural differences, endemic anti-intellectualism and all that, I don't see how it's fair to shift to wholly class-based affirmative action and shaft middle-class and wealthy blacks.
* See this chart and the one below it:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm#FIGURE%203
This is a second term issue. No way does Obama touch any kind of affirmative action until he's got health care and middle class tax cuts.
You're comparing apples and oranges. I highly doubt that whites living below the poverty-line outscore the "wealthiest blacks." Wealth--as in black children from the wealthiest families--is not the same as income which is used to measure poverty--as in white children from below the poverty line.
The chart you link compares income--and then deceptively switches and draws conclusions about black wealth. In fact it offers no such data. If you're interested in the differences in comparing blacks and whites when controlling for income, versus controlling for wealth you should check out sociologist Dalton Conley's stuff. Income, for many reasons, is a bad indicator of social equality. This is important because, based on my interviews with Kahlenberg, it's unlikely that a class-based AA system would function on income.
That said, you may still object, even if it's based on wealth. Which is fair enough. It's all about what you believe government should be doing. I just want to highlight the difference between judging people by how much they make vs. their judging them by their wealth.
toxic wrote "It sounds nice in theory. But it really falls apart when you think about it."
Yep. If I could choose between a world with class based or race based affirmative action, I would choose race based affirmative action because it has fewer consequences. If you were to install systematic class based affirmative action (say require at least 5% of an incoming class to be from each income decile)you would probably see a displacement effect of between 25% and 50%. With race based affirmative action you have a displacement effect of about 10% for most schools. Also, most schools already judge their applicants, based on what opportunities are available to them. Class based affirmative action is based on the premise that the child of a plumber is as smart as the child of a doctor or a professor. Peyton and Eli Manning make better quarterbacks than I ever would, because their father was an NFL quarterback. We shouldn't coerce our private institutions into what admissions policies they should adopt.
Class conscious admissions can make a positive difference on one part of college access: the part at selective colleges.
There are some other issues. For schools that admit most of their applicants, I'd name two:
1. Tuition and fees growing faster than inflation and faster than financial aid. An impossible bill can lock disadvantaged students out of school just as thoroughly as a rejection letter.
2. Schools letting students in but without committing to help them get back out with a diploma. There's been a big public policy push on enrollment, but it's time to look honestly at completion.
The federal government doesn't have to bring money to push this issue. Just publishing the numbers in a memorable format would shake things up. A well placed speech would get attention. The President or First Lady spending two hours at a Governor's conference might well get action. A Secretary of Education who's willing to mix it up can matter.
Frankly, I think this is like the President-elect's standard for the Supreme Court: give us someone who can think clearly and care deeply, and some big things can change.
I'm one who leans away from race-based affirmative action to begin with, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that I'm against class-based affirmative action. Toxic said it before me:
The reality is that poor people are denied opportunity due to the lack of quality lower education/supportive family structure/etc. and not because of endemic classist attitudes against them. As a matter of fact, a form of class-based AA is already in effect, with schools normalizing students against the classmates in addition to the nation at large..
On the general affrimative action front, one of the better things Bob Gates did at Texas A&M before getting tapped for SecDef was massively increase minority enrollment without AA by getting rid of legacy preference in admission and shifting financial aid out of other areas and towards need based students. Without establishing a racial preference at all, he correctly understood that selecting for wealthier students who come from college educated backgrounds was essentially AA for a certain portion of white people
Its obvious the hurdles for African Americans are far steeper than just income. It has structural components to it that should be addressed. I think its a bit elitist to suggest otherwise. There is ideality then there is reality. I made it but my brother on the other side never did....
So, TNC, I get that there are differences between income and wealth - folks who inherit a ton of money and never work a day in their lives don't have much income, do have a ton of wealth - but isn't there a pretty strong correlation between the two? People who make a lot, at least, do tend to be wealthy. And most people who don't make much aren't.
Yes there is a correlation, but the differences are bigger than they appear.
Family A makes 100k a year, but their parents are able to give them a down payment on a house. They have some investments they've taken out for them. They've put away some money to send the kids to college. Should shit hit the fan, and a parent lose a job, Family A has a savings to fall back on. And then there other correlative factors. For instance, coming from a wealthier probably gives you more exposure to the world, it probably increases the likelihood that your parents were married. You're less likely to have been exposed to behaviors that tend to disrupt families.
Family B may make 100k, but they have none of those factors going for them. They have to use their income to save for a down payment on a house. If shit hits the fan they are less likely to have a savings, and they're less likely to have any other family to lean on. Moreover, they may have less fortunate family--brothers, sisters, parents even--that they have to chip in and help out with. Their situation is much less stable, even though their income is the same as Family B.
There's also this notion of social capital. Family A is almost certainly likely to have more of it than Family B. There's some good research out there on this stuff. Anyway, all those things I listed are directly related to parenting, and your ability to stay on your kids and make sure they have the best opportunities.
Again, there is an argument against Affirmative Action of any sort. But wealth and income aren't the same. It's the reason why you can't just raise the incomes of black people--or any people for that matter--and expect them to perform, in general, at the same level.
class-based affirmative action is an invitation to class warfare. if the justification for affirmative action was to level a playing field that culture and history had made unfair, ok. but class-based a.a. is intractable unless incomes reach equilibrium. it's worlds worse than what we have now.
i would fight it tooth and nail (and i grew up in a poor white family).
One last point. There are tons of families with middle-class income but little wealth. My generation is part of the boom in the black middle class. Our incomes are comparable to our white peers. But our wealth is not.
So then, do you think that if we had a wealth chart, instead of a purely income one, we wouldn't still find some disparity between how blacks and whites with the same amount of wealth perform on standardized testing? I would be surprised if there wasn't.
Fundamentally, the issues are inclusion versus exclusion of students dependent on their respective sectors in society. Thus, the legacy and related options that provided access to institutions had the perverse impact of denying access to others who were academically superior. Combined with issues of testing, income, class, race and so-called preferential treatment of protected classes the history of educational access on the college level is tortured. The term class based affirmative action is poison, and will ignite yesterday's battles. The narrative need be centered on access to education consistent with demonstrated abilities; this view avoids the rhetorical traps of the past. In sum it is a matter of socialization and exposure, as quite as it is kept brain power in equally distributed; i.e.,in most respects Obama is not unique, he had the very good fortune of exposure and socialization to ends and means denied to many others. Kahlenberg's argument is not new!
I'm against it.
1.
Race-based affirmative action is only necessary because there was State-sponsored racism. If there are specific identifiable measures that we can point to that unconstitionally kept whites in poverty. Let's set up a separate class-based program for poor whites.
2.
I disagree with the premise that AA is unpopular so we should abandon it for something that right-wing Republicans like or can't exploit. I'm not interested in a public relations-based solution to african-american economic development and we know that right-wing Republicans don't negotiate on good faith anyway. They will complain no matter what.
3.
We want a change to please Ward Connerly. You're joking right?
4.
Intergenerational transfers of wealth matter, especially in a capitalist society.
Asher,
I'll trade graph sets with you. At http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/Product+Catalog/recent+presentations, download the first presentation. It's beautifully presented, important stuff.
The bottom line: what teachers do matters. Schools that know their students can succeed and offer those kids a fighting chance to do so--get it done.
The trouble is, we accept some schools not getting it done, and we accept a pretty ugly distribution of who gets to go to those schools.
I also disagree, especially under that label.
There are always ways to get into the school you want, if you are willing to work for it. The easiest is to find out what local community colleges that school associates with. Get a 2 year degree there and transfer across.
If you truly want to help low income people with college or advanced technical schools then what you should be promoting is a larger grant program.
We had class and income based AA before Reagan gutted it -- it was what used to be called the Perkins Loan (now Pell Grant) program, and the whole college loan program before Reagan got his hands on it. If it hadn't been for that program, I'd have been f**ked and far from home, as some folks say. My dad made good money, but my parents never saved for school and they divorced the year before I matriculated. The only way I got through was because back in the day you only had to show a year of not having been claimed as a dependent in order to qualify for aid on your own income and in your own right. I'm a product of state schools and a lawyer now, and I paid back every cent I ever got in direct federal aid in the first two years of my employment after getting my JD. Fourteen years of serious wage-earning (and tax paying) later, I'd say I was a good investment of tax dollars.
I should clarify -- my federal taxes in my first two years of post-education employment covered more than what I'd received in aid through the Perkins/Pell grant program. My student loans were paid separately, but well within the ten year repayment period provided under the terms of those loans.
Look at the 2004 census . 32% or 4.5 million black households are in the lowest fifth of income distribution. 18% or 16.9 million white households are in the lowest. There are only 14.4 millions black households in total. Making affirmative action class based will favor whites. There are more poor white households.
My idea of equality holding all things equal is that the distribution by race among the quintiles should be relatively even. Once that is the case, let's go to class-based. But, right now 32% black vs. 18% white in poverty does not imply that its time to artificially say the the scales are rebalanced.
I agree. Class matters more. Obama's girls won't need much help, especially with Harvard- they are legacies and the daughters of a soon-to-be-inaugurated prez. So many universities are gonna fall over themselves trying to recruit the Obama girls when they're the right age.
I dunno... everything seems to be different here in Canada - if you have the grades and the interest, you get in (no crazy essays, references, etc, unless it's a special program). And money really isn't as much a problem here (tuition is $5-6000, depending on program at UofT).
Asher,
Again, I'd suggest you check out Dalton Conley's work on the wealth gap. He runs the sociology program at NYU. I can't speak to SAT test scores, but here are his conclusions in terms of outcomes:
"This racial wealth gap accounts for many of the racial differences in socioeconomic achievement that have persisted in the post-civil rights era. When we compare black and white families who have the same income and net worth, we find that African-American kids are more likely to graduate from high school than whites and are just as likely to complete college. And when we compare individuals who grew up in families with the same economic resources--income and wealth--we find that the wage gap between blacks and whites disappears and that African-Americans are just as likely as Anglos to be working full time. But among the poor, a lack of assets makes blacks more likely to rely on welfare."
It's been a while since I read his book on this, but it was quite good:
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Black-Living-Red-America/dp/0520216733/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226049316&sr=1-4
Incidentally, this is why the past is so important. What's indisputable, is that there was a concerted effort by local, state and federal government in this country repeatedly robbed black communities of wealth, or tried to prevent them from acquiring wealth.. It was probably the most damaging thing to happen to black people post-slavery because it's effects can't be dealt with simply by ending discrimination, or even through Affirmative Action. It's much much worse than "Whites Only" water fountains.
Economic based preferences should not preclude ethnic preferences at public universities. Most public universities already use economic based preferences and many use them along side of ethnic and geographic preferences. If the Univ. of Minnesota or Oregon wants to attract minority students from majority-minority environments in order to expose its students to different people-- Why shouldn’t it be able to? More government mandates further disrupt the autonomy of our universities in selecting their student body and opens up a highly divisive issue. We have arguably the best universities in the world and it might be time to let them do their job. My hope is that Obama defends the autonomous rights of our universities. We have very real problems that need to be addressed this is not one of them.
Back in the 1980s, I was accepted to an very well-known and well-respected woman's college in the Philadelphia suburbs. I was not given any financial aid, as I was informed by the admissions counselor that my parents (my father was 62 at the time) were expected to take out a second mortgage and other loans to enable my high-SAT score, valedictorian ass to go there. I explained to the admissions counselor that I didn't study said ass off so that my parents would have to hock their retirement plans in order for me to have a bunch of Welsh consonants on my diploma. (Well, okay, I said it more nicely than that).
Now, I'm white, and I'm all for a mix of ethnic and economic preferences. But I stayed on campus that weekend, and something struck me about the young women I came across. All the women of color represented a rainbow of economic backgrounds: you might have an African-American student from Compton or Cabrini Green, and an African student whose father was the Nigerian ambassador to the UN and who graduated from a Swiss boarding school. You might have a young Latina whose parents were migrant workers and one whose father was an orthopedic surgeon.
But all the white students came from very wealthy or upper-middle-class backgrounds. It's not just that there wasn't a student from some Appalachian hollow -- there was no white student whose dad was a mailman, for chrissakes. In terms of interracial understanding and the increase thereof, all I could think of was those women from Cabrini Green and Compton. If you grew up poor and black, and you thought all white folks were rich as hell and spoiled to death, arriving on that campus would not disabuse you of the notion.
I don't think that would happen today, for which I'm grateful. I think colleges are much more aware of the value of having both an ethnic and economic mix on campus, not just the former.
As always, thanks for letting me put in my two cents, T-N.
I am a financial aid administrator for a major public university and I just don't think we need AA for anyone. There are no barriers to anyone for admission here. We admit students from all backgrounds and with all kinds of GPAs and SAT/ACT scores. You have to have failed spectacularly (without failing completely) to be turned down for admission here.
The biggest barrier is simply cost and the lack of any sort of aid other than loans. How can I counsel a lower middle class or low income student whose passion is for social work or journalism or education to come here and pay the $25,000 or so a year when I know almost all of that money will be in the form of loans? These kids and/or their parents will be at least borrowing on average $40-$60,000 over four years. Yes, there are the federal Pell and SEOG grants and my state has a good state grant program, but they don't come close to covering the bill. And, yes, the university has limited institutional aid that we can provide to early admits to help. But the students from those income levels are rarely in the early admit pool due to the general lack of experience their families have with the college admission and financial aid process. Plus our endowments for those programs is not nearly enough.
I don't experience any problem with getting these kids admitted. The problem is getting them funded.