On Affirmative Action-BECKER

Arguments about affirmative action, and its offshoots, diversity and quotas, bring out almost as much passion as arguments over abortion. Passion usually replaces reasoned analysis, so I will try to discuss as objectively as I can why I oppose practically all the major forms of affirmative action in place now at universities, the political sector, and businesses in the United States, Western Europe, and many other countries in all regions of the world. Let me say at the outset that I view affirmative action programs as mainly catering to special interest groups, in the same way as quotas on imports of agricultural goods cater to domestic farming interests. To be sure, affirmative action programs are defended with attractive language, such as that they are designed to offset the harm of past discrimination, or that they are simply trying to level the playing field for persons of different races, genders, or ethnicities. But all special interests programs are typically defended with nice-sounding language, such as that agricultural support is necessary to preserve the rural way of life, or that American ownership of energy resources is necessary for national security reasons, or that subsidies to small businesses is necessary to prevent predatory actions by large companies. I also want to stress that though I oppose affirmative actions, I believe that many other special interest programs, such as various aspects of the social security system, subsidies to agriculture, restrictions on immigration of skilled workers, and the presently developed tort system, do far more economic and social damage than does affirmative action. Most affirmative action programs, disguised or openly, use lower standards for African Americans and members of various other minority groups than for white males in determining whether they are promoted to higher level jobs in private business or government, admitted to better universities, and in other situations. Universities have openly used affirmative action by lowering substantially the acceptable SAT score for African Americans (and certain other groups) seeking admission compared to the scores required for whites or Asians. A disguised way, adopted by some states, is to admit applicants to state universities and colleges if they rank in the top 10 per cent of their high school class. This is disguised affirmative action because schools with favored minority groups typically have much worse students than other schools, so it is considerably easier to rank in the top 10 per cent of the lower quality mainly minority schools. It is obvious why affirmative action may hurt members of the majority group who are denied promotions or admission to various colleges, even though their records are better than many minorities accepted. But why is it bad for a country like the United States to do this, and often also for the minority groups gaining these privileges? 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. The appeal of a meritocracy explains why one can, as I do, strongly oppose both affirmative action, and discrimination against African Americans, women, and various other groups that have suffered discrimination in employment and in admissions to schools and colleges. While affirmative action programs give advantages to various minorities that are not justified by qualifications, discrimination does the opposite, and gives advantages to the majority that exceed their skills and qualifications. (See my The Economics of Discrimination, University of Chicago Press, for a systematic discussion of discrimination theory and measurement.) Unfortunately, laws opposing discrimination against various minorities often evolve into affirmative action laws, where the test of discrimination is not whether better-qualified minorities are passed over for jobs and promotions, but whether firms and universities have a sufficient number of members of designated minorities. Political pressure also has extended discrimination laws to groups that have suffered little in the past from discrimination, such as older workers. It is hard to sympathize from a discrimination viewpoint with older workers since they typically earn much more and have much lower unemployment rates than young workers, they easily qualify for decent disability income, and they can retire relatively early to receive taxpayer-supported retirement and medical benefits. Affirmative action is often justified as making up to African Americans, American Indians, and some other groups for the terrible discrimination and treatment they received in the past. Some affirmative action advocates argue that giving preference to minority applicants at colleges is no different from legacies-that is, giving preferences to children of alumni. Perhaps legacies have been overused, and their use is declining at the top universities, but the objective case for them is that this makes for more loyal and generous alumni. In addition, a good school record of a relative may be a useful predictor of an applicant’s school record. I am not trying to minimize the terrible treatment especially of African-Americans in the past. I am questioning whether affirmative action programs make up for past injustices. Clearly, some members of favored groups benefit from affirmative action, but others are hurt in direct and not so direct ways. To consider a direct way, many companies try to avoid hiring minorities favored by affirmative action because they realize they may face lawsuits in the future if they do not promote them, even when the promotions are not justified. Their refusal to hire because of affirmative action pressures later on makes them subject to anti-discrimination legislation, which is one way that laws against discrimination evolves into affirmative action. A 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. 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. My concluding comment is that affirmative action is too often confused with anti-discrimination action. I believe there should be vigorous prosecution of discrimination toward groups like African Americans that have suffered from substantial discrimination. I also support positive efforts to bring children from minority groups closer to the achievement levels of others. However, affirmative action, whether under the name of quotas or diversity, does more harm than good, even though it is not the worst form of interest group politics.

Comments

[nate]

This is off-topic, but I am curious as to your thoughts on bankruptcy: recent U.S. legislation, history of bankruptcy, bankruptcy in other parts of the world vs. U.S., etc.

[Palooka]

Nate, on the recent legislation, see:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_bankruptcy.html

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/a_suggested_alt.html

[nate]

Thank you for the URLs. I should have used the "search" box on the internet. Apologies for the question, and for being a little bit off-topic. Thank you Palooka.

I did a speed read on the URLs, and will spend more time in the future. Tentatively:
-it would have been nice to see concepts from world religion(s) incorporated into the discussion. This is partly why I probably brought it up at this time (follows last week blog on 10 commandments).

Here is some delayed input on bankruptcy:
http://tinyurl.com/9fdmf

[nate]

the previous tiny url was wrong. this one should hopefully take you to some ideas from the same book as the 10 Commandments.

http://tinyurl.com/bycqo

[Jane Thirnbough]

"Since the 20th-21st century descendants of Africans forcibly brought to America as slaves have higher incomes than the descendants of Africans who remained in Africa"

Frankly, this is just racist. African-Americans are American citizens. They are not African.

[Jane Thirbough]

"How is the next great nobel winning economist comparable to a diamond?"

Isn't that a higher standard than we set for the average white student? Most white people aren't nearly so intelligent or hard-working.

[Jane Thirnbough]

"No one has ever satisfactorily explained why it's OK for the University of Michigan admissions committee to give an extra point or two for a farm girl or boy from Idaho, but it is wrong to give an extra point or two to an African American."

Well, now that you've said that, why don't we just amend the Constitution, and repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964! They're totally basless! Discrimination on the basis of race is perfectly rational! This is a winner. Repeat it often.

Often one has choices in life. For instance, to respond to the substance of a good argument, or to attempt -- pathetically -- to lampoon it. When one chooses the latter, he looks like a fool.

[Palooka]

Jane,

If nobody has ever explained why racial discrimination is particularly harmful to society and the individual (the charge of the poster I was addressing), then it is perfectly rational to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and amend the Constitution to allow for governmental racial discrimination.

[Jane Thirnbough]

PALOOKA: It is perfectly rational to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and amend the Constitution to allow for governmental racial discrimination.

You are a racist.

[WaitingForGoogle]

Palooka, you said, "If nobody has ever explained why racial discrimination is particularly harmful to society and the individual (the charge of the poster I was addressing),...."

That is, categorically, a LIE. The poster noted that no one ever explains why racially discriminating in favor of rural whites is OK while simultaneously arguing that racially discriminating in favor of blacks is not OK.

Usually, those who oppose affirmative action ONLY oppose points awarded for race, but not points awarded for living in rural areas in sparsely populated states. Obviously, such points awarded on the basis of geography are quotas for rural whites.

It is hypocritical to support quotas for whites and oppose plus-points for blacks; and the source of the hypocrisy is either irrational(e.g., stupidity) or rational (e.g., racism).

[nate]

Corey:

Do you ever listen to a band called Diamond Rio?

http://www.diamondrio.com/music/complete/index.html

I found the lyrics to Beautiful Mess to be interesting (you can click on the words "Beautiful Mess" at the site above and read the words).

Is it a coincidence that songs like this get popular when labor force participation rates descend?

[WaitingForGoogle]

JOHN KELSEY: Any kind of discrimination provides information to people making decisions.

The Nazis garnered much medical information by torturing Jews, whom they believed to be subhuman. Under what conditions is it ethical to use it? Whenever anyone can make a claim of benefit? When should we not use it? Whenever any Jew complains? Answer that, John Kelsey.

JOHN KELSEY: Would you prefer a doctor from group A or group B, assuming no other knowledge?

Let's say it's 1990. Your doctor graduated from Yale in 1960, when Yale did not admit any women. Your doctor also happened to be a legacy, whose father attended Yale when it actively discriminated against black applicants (say, black veterans seeking an education via the G.I. Bill). In other words, your doctor's medical degree was paid for by money gained by unfair advantage (less competition to enter graduate school when blacks were actively discriminated against), and was earned unfairly (less competition to enter graduate school because no women were allowed to apply). One might say that someone shielded from full and fair competition is not necessarily the best candidate. Does the fact that your doctor benefited from racism and sexism impel you to refuse his medical services? or do you not even think about that fact that by paying your medical bills you subsidize racism and sexism after the fact, John?

[Palooka]

First, I'm not in favor of legacy admission or "quotas" for rural individuals.

Jane, you know I am not in favor of appealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or amending the Constitution to allow for discrimination. That was precisely my point in addressing the person who was asking why racial discrimination was special--that uniqueness is manifest in our nation's recent history, while discrimination based on geography is, curiously, not. I am not sure what you think you're adding to discussion by deliberately misreading my post and calling me a racist.

Waiting for Google wrote: "That is, categorically, a LIE. The poster noted that no one ever explains why racially discriminating in favor of rural whites is OK while simultaneously arguing that racially discriminating in favor of blacks is not OK."

Well, I could call your error here a lie, but I won't. The poster wrote: "No one has ever satisfactorily explained why it's OK for the University of Michigan admissions committee to give an extra point or two for a farm girl or boy from Idaho, but it is wrong to give an extra point or two to an African American."

Discrimination based on geography--however arbitrary and capricious it may or may not be--is not the same as racial discrimination. Your post (and I'll assume it was not deliberate) tries to conflate the two by saying "rural whites." Yes, I would believe a system which gave preference to rural whites, while excluding rural blacks, to be unconstitutional, just as I believe race-based affirmative action is unconstitutional.

My own preference is that affirmative action, if it exists at all, should be a socio-economic one, open to all students of disadvantaged backgounds.

[Erik]

Becker's argument assumes that there is an objective standard for past achievement irrespective of past privilege. Surely, standardized tests such as SATs, do not meet that criterion given that advantaged schools explicitly train their students to do well on tests (lots of evidence for that). Is the top X% of high school admittance strategy not a reasonable response to the failure of this measurement instrument?

[bill]

No standards, ultimately, can be 'irrespective of past privilege' in the way you desire. Perhaps the top X% of the classes in some poor schools did well because their parents were better at disciplining them to be conscientious students. It's not the fault of the lower percent-tiles that their parents were neglectful -- perhaps they should receive AA treatment too.

Although it is true that privileged students have an advantage by being able to afford 'SAT courses' from the Princeton Review or Kaplan, I think that anybody who wants to shell out ludicrous amounts of money and lots of his time to learn bits of common sense such that if one eliminates one or two answer choices he has a better chance of getting the question right, he should be welcome to. This may 'unfairly' raise his score one or two hundred points, but his lack of natural intelligence will show in other parts of his application and likely prevent him from getting into that Ivy his parents so wish him to attend.

[Howard]

I know it's unlikely anyone is still reading comments to this; but if they are, let me ask proponents of "diversity" and AA to respond to the following argument. Students who attend historically black colleges (e.g. Howard U., Spellman) receive educations in a non-diverse environment. Therefore, their educations are inferior to similar individuals who attend a more diverse college. Therefore, an employer is justified in "discriminating" against Spellman (etc.) grads. More broadly, are you willing to say HBCs provide inferior educations because they are non-diverse?

[Corey]

HBC's are non-diverse on one axis (race) but could be very diverse in terms of class, politics, and culture.

There is evidence that SOME students do better in HBCs or single-sex institutions. Many people approve of them consistent with a belief in permitting diversity of educational approaches.
(See the Supreme Court VMI opinions.)

I find the concept a bit troubling because at some point, the voluntary segregation by race or gender must end and students must deal in the larger universe. Also, my best educational experience was at a very racially diverse school so I am biased to prefer that. But I would NOT say that HBCs provide inferior educations.

Imagine you are a top student at Howard or Spellman looking for a job. Your competition are top students from Harvard and Stanford. Many employers are going to search for a shortcut to evaluating you relative to them and fall back on the US News college rankings, which are based largely on standardized test scores at admission.

So the test gap rears its ugly head again. Employers will discriminate against even top Spellman grads on those grounds. I do not think they should, or that it is rational to do so. I would say a top Howard student shows as much potential as a top Harvard student.

However, there are companies and law firms out there that act as if the average students at Harvard are more qualified that the Top student at lower ranked schools. They might not take ANY Howard grads were there no diversity or AA pressure. Ask yourself if it makes sense to compare across such diverse institutions using a standardized metric. Or if it makes sense to judge graduates of universities using a ranking that is based most prominately on admissions criteria.

[Palooka]

Corey, are you really prepared to say anything? Earlier you said that AA admits were just as qualified as their peers, but then sought to explain the benefits of diversity in terms unfavorable to their qualifications (the "top students" could help them). Now you continue to tout the virtue of diversity, but also concede HBC's are not inferior, and in fact may actually be superior because of their lack of diversity. You're all over the map. I can only interpret this incoherence as the result of an ad hoc defense of what you intuitively favor. You're entitled to your beliefs, whatever their basis. But I do think it's compelling evidence that you haven't thought the diversity rationale through.

I can live with the original rationale of affirmative action. That it was (maybe is) necessary to right the wrongs of the past and fully embrace a community which (as Posner suggests) remains largely impoverished and distinct. I do not think raced-based affirmative action does much to further this noble goal, however. But I can sympathesize with the goal per se. Diversity is a different story. Diversity portends racial discrimination without an expiration date and without limit. Diversity reinforces rather than weakens the core belief of racism--that one's identity is determined by one's race.

[Bison]

HOWARD: "More broadly, are you willing to say HBCs provide inferior educations because they are non-diverse?"

No, I will say that HBCUs provide inferior educations because the schools suck. They suck because the funding isn't there, the professors don't publish and are spouting ideas circa 1970, the curricula are outdated and too remedial (because HBCUs take too many students with abysmally low standardized test scores, and those students know practically nothing), the campuses are too religious (so that learning anything in a philosophy class is an impossibility), and the socio-racial norms there are oppressive, stultifying, and blatantly anti-intellectual, not to mention usually anti-Semitic and, frankly, rooted in Marxism. I would also mention that Howard in particular is rife with corruption and its administration is hilariously poor (try finding a book in the library more recent than 1978), and its campus is open to violence (e.g., street people take potshots at Drew Hall, drug dealers from the surrounding community can drive through the campus to commit drive-bys). Not to mention the women are mostly grossly overweight; unless you're a chubby-chaser, it's not the best place to get laid, pal.

I went to Howard. I know it was crap. Was it crap because it was virtually all-black? No. But it was crap nonetheless.

[WaitingForGoogle]

Discrimination based on geography--however arbitrary and capricious it may or may not be--is not the same as racial discrimination. Your post (and I'll assume it was not deliberate) tries to conflate the two by saying "rural whites."

I didn't conflate anything. I performed the relevant analysis under the Equal Protection clause, which is to ignore pre-texts and go to the intent and impact of the invidious discrimination. You may call it "geographic discrimination" but what it IS and what it is INTENDED to be is an aid to rural whites. It is a quota for rural whites. You pretend it is not, Palooka, because you think quotas for blacks are bad, but quotas for whites are good. Given that you called for repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and, by implication, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments), one might say that you're a dirty racist just like John Kelsey and R.

[WaitingForGoogle]

Just to make clear that I was calling PALOOKA racist....

PALOOKA: Discrimination based on geography--however arbitrary and capricious it may or may not be--is not the same as racial discrimination. Your post (and I'll assume it was not deliberate) tries to conflate the two by saying "rural whites."

I didn't conflate anything. I performed the relevant analysis under the Equal Protection clause, which is to ignore pre-texts and go to the intent and impact of the invidious discrimination. You may call it "geographic discrimination" but what it IS and what it is INTENDED to be is an aid to rural whites. It is a quota for rural whites. You pretend it is not, Palooka, because you think quotas for blacks are bad, but quotas for whites are good. Given that you called for repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and, by implication, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments), one might say that you're a dirty racist just like John Kelsey and R.

[Jane Thirnbough]

PALOOKA: "I can live with the original rationale of affirmative action."

Live with? I suppose you tolerate the 13th Amendment, too, eh? You can live with Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State, too, I bet.

[Palooka]

"You may call it "geographic discrimination" but what it IS and what it is INTENDED to be is an aid to rural whites. It is a quota for rural whites. You pretend it is not, Palooka, because you think quotas for blacks are bad, but quotas for whites are good."

I don't think it's intended to be an aid for rural whites. It's intended to be an aid for rural individuals, whatever their race. Do you honestly believe such a practice is designed to help rural whites rather than rural individuals whatever their race? I don't think giving someone points based on geography makes much sense. Though geography may coorelate with socio-economic status, it is better to link affirmative action directly to it if that's the aim. That is what I'd recommend.

Jane, are you suggesting opposing affirmative action is the same as opposing the 13th Amendment? I see how fruitful this debate has become. I see no reason in debating individuals whose idea of debate is screaming racist.

[ben]

This blog is fundamentally concerned with an examination of the world through the lenses of law and economics using reason and evidence. The objective of this blog, I believe, is to share ideas and to learn.

Corey is openly hostile to such reason and evidence, what he calls "formal analysis". He appears to believe his ends justify any means. An example is his selective quoting of statistics, and his hostility to this being pointed out, two weeks ago. Corey appears to believe there is no objective truth, that people are entitled to their own facts, and that any interpretation of data is possible. He appears incapable of producing a line of reasoning. See, for example, his 12:08am post on Aug 20 at www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/08/the_ten_command.html

Obfuscation is Corey's main weapon. He produces it in many ways. His preference for diversity in assessment this week is an example. Standardized tests ease comparison, diverse tests permit any conclusion to be drawn. He regularly shifts his argument when his points are rebutted. He regularly misinterprets his opponents' points and rebuts arguments nobody made. He attacks people not arguments.

I believe Corey's postings are contrary to this blog's objectives. In fact I consider he subverts those objectives by presenting his beliefs as if they were supported by reason and evidence when, after long conversations in some cases, it is eventually revealed they are not.

I therefore conclude this blog would be substantially improved if Corey were to not post to it.

[ben]

And I look forward to a rebuttal that includes examples of all my complaints above.