1. Affirmative Action at First Glance I remember when I first heard about the idea of “Affirmative Action” (AA). I was in high school at the time, and I knew next to nothing of the political landscape. I didn’t know what the “left” and “right” positions were. But I knew that racial discrimination — e.g., refusing to hire someone because of their race or skin color — was wrong. Obviously, because that would be unfair and irrational.
I'm inclined to think that affirmative action itself isn't racist, but most people who promote it and (willingly) engage in it are (or rather racist and sexist, against specifically white men). In principle, someone could be in favor of affirmative action without having any negative attitudes about white men and while giving equal consideration to white men's rights and interests but just think that those rights and interests are overridden by the (perceived) good of affirmative action.
Yet, in practice, there is flagrant disregard for the rights and interests of white men (and often explicit negative attitudes toward them). This is both because (1) most people in favor of affirmative action discount the harms and wrongs of discriminating against white men, but also because (2) an affirmative action policy which carefully balances the rights and interests of white men against other groups would need to be carefully planned out, and affirmative action policies are often done at multiple levels by multiple people with almost no coordination.
For example, if you have been favored by affirmative action during (1) entrance to university, (2) funding for projects, (3) opportunities to discuss those projects (e.g. conferences), (4) having those projects focused on more in discussion (e.g. readings for class, groups, etc.), (5) being hired (also in part based on the record of those projects), (6) being chosen for advancement (again also in part based on projects), then the truth just is that almost no thought went into carefully balancing the discrimination involved in all of those steps with the interests of those discriminated against.
This is in part because nobody actually knows how much discrimination has occurred in your favor. Nobody even bothers to tally it up, let alone balance it. This is because they just don't care about the rights and interests of those excluded due to affirmative action (e.g. white men).
Since undergraduate degrees are primarily about signaling and do not substantially improve human capital, and since affirmative action is a well known phenomenon, employers who discriminate on the basis of race might not be racist but making the correct assumption that a member of a class that benefits from AA is more likely to have lower human capital. I do not think this is a major issue though because employees are definitely willing to discriminate further to benefit recepients of AA. It might be morally wrong to use race, but AA in colleges makes race significantly more informative. Someone could care purely about human capital and still discriminate on the basis of race without being "racist."
I think this does create racial resentment. Those white people (and Asians) could blame AA but in some cases they would be right to. On some level and in some instances, a white or Asian is being replaced with an underrepresented minority student. The ethics of this rest on a huge number of assumptions about the returns to education, the effects of historical oppression, the current level of discrimination, the origin of the gaps in academic achievement and so forth. I happen to think these assumptions are all wrong and many others do but it's pretty maximially socially undesirable to question these assumptions in our culture. And due to civil rights legislature largely, employers don't want employees talking about these things. While it is not explicit restrictions on free speech, it is still a legal restriction of some sort.
“But I knew that racial discrimination — e.g., refusing to hire someone because of their race or skin color — was wrong. Obviously, because that would be unfair and irrational.”
That seems tautological. If some people prefer to work with their own kind (perhaps in addition to reasonable assumptions about group differences in competence), it’s hardly irrational. As Herbert Spencer said: “The saying that beauty is but skin deep, is but a skin-deep saying.”
You are right. Say you need some major surgery, and you have a list of orthopedic surgeons or whatever, who have the minimal qualifications. You obviously want the best surgeon, and you have limited knowledge of their credentials It seems perfectly reasonable not to choose a black doctor, for the reasons you mention. Why take the chance?
Good analysis. I would supplement it with Thomas Sowell’s.
I'm inclined to think that affirmative action itself isn't racist, but most people who promote it and (willingly) engage in it are (or rather racist and sexist, against specifically white men). In principle, someone could be in favor of affirmative action without having any negative attitudes about white men and while giving equal consideration to white men's rights and interests but just think that those rights and interests are overridden by the (perceived) good of affirmative action.
Yet, in practice, there is flagrant disregard for the rights and interests of white men (and often explicit negative attitudes toward them). This is both because (1) most people in favor of affirmative action discount the harms and wrongs of discriminating against white men, but also because (2) an affirmative action policy which carefully balances the rights and interests of white men against other groups would need to be carefully planned out, and affirmative action policies are often done at multiple levels by multiple people with almost no coordination.
For example, if you have been favored by affirmative action during (1) entrance to university, (2) funding for projects, (3) opportunities to discuss those projects (e.g. conferences), (4) having those projects focused on more in discussion (e.g. readings for class, groups, etc.), (5) being hired (also in part based on the record of those projects), (6) being chosen for advancement (again also in part based on projects), then the truth just is that almost no thought went into carefully balancing the discrimination involved in all of those steps with the interests of those discriminated against.
This is in part because nobody actually knows how much discrimination has occurred in your favor. Nobody even bothers to tally it up, let alone balance it. This is because they just don't care about the rights and interests of those excluded due to affirmative action (e.g. white men).
Since undergraduate degrees are primarily about signaling and do not substantially improve human capital, and since affirmative action is a well known phenomenon, employers who discriminate on the basis of race might not be racist but making the correct assumption that a member of a class that benefits from AA is more likely to have lower human capital. I do not think this is a major issue though because employees are definitely willing to discriminate further to benefit recepients of AA. It might be morally wrong to use race, but AA in colleges makes race significantly more informative. Someone could care purely about human capital and still discriminate on the basis of race without being "racist."
I think this does create racial resentment. Those white people (and Asians) could blame AA but in some cases they would be right to. On some level and in some instances, a white or Asian is being replaced with an underrepresented minority student. The ethics of this rest on a huge number of assumptions about the returns to education, the effects of historical oppression, the current level of discrimination, the origin of the gaps in academic achievement and so forth. I happen to think these assumptions are all wrong and many others do but it's pretty maximially socially undesirable to question these assumptions in our culture. And due to civil rights legislature largely, employers don't want employees talking about these things. While it is not explicit restrictions on free speech, it is still a legal restriction of some sort.
“But I knew that racial discrimination — e.g., refusing to hire someone because of their race or skin color — was wrong. Obviously, because that would be unfair and irrational.”
That seems tautological. If some people prefer to work with their own kind (perhaps in addition to reasonable assumptions about group differences in competence), it’s hardly irrational. As Herbert Spencer said: “The saying that beauty is but skin deep, is but a skin-deep saying.”
You are right. Say you need some major surgery, and you have a list of orthopedic surgeons or whatever, who have the minimal qualifications. You obviously want the best surgeon, and you have limited knowledge of their credentials It seems perfectly reasonable not to choose a black doctor, for the reasons you mention. Why take the chance?
How did you escape the brainwashing at UC Berkeley?
I am counter-suggestible.