Kieran Healy

Tarred with the Same Brush

Here’s a side-point from my post on nepotism that came out of an exchange with James Joyner, and that I wanted to rescue from the comments section. James says

a major difference between affirmative action and nepotism, though, is that the former tars all and the latter just the one involved. It’s not so much that the affirmative action admittee is a suspect but that all members of his race are suspect,

You hear this a lot—most recently in Clarence Thomas’s dissent on the Michigan case. But I’ve never understood this objection when it is made by people who are arguing that individuals should be assessed on their merits and not promoted as a class. If that’s what you believe, how can you then turn around and decide that an entire racial category is “tarred” if a particular individual, helped along by an Affirmative Action program, turns out not to be up to snuff? To draw a parallel with nepotism again, if you worked in a company where the CEO’s incompetent daughter got quickly promoted, would you conclude that “all rich people’s children are tarred by her failures”? I doubt it.

The obvious response is to say that of course you yourself wouldn’t tar a whole racial group on the strength of a few bad eggs, but that many other people, perhaps even the majority, would do so. But if you say this, then you have conceded a fundamental premise that many opponents of Affirmative Action wish to deny, viz, that racial prejudice in the U.S. remains persistent and severe.

I’m not suggesting that it’s impossible to make this case, but relying on that “tarred with the same brush” argument is trickier than you might think.

Incidentally, I’m well aware of the differences between nepotism as private practice and AA as public policy, and the added problems this brings to the issue. But Bellow’s complacent little article annoyed me.

Why is it that legacy admissions don’t generate nearly the amount of anger and resentment that affirmative action does? And since some of them are legacy admissions, why aren’t all wealthy white kids at Ivy League schools tarred with the same brush? I suspect the reason is this: while many Americans don’t much like it, they pretty accept (or are resigned) to the idea that rich people get the breaks, that this is more or less in the natural order of things. For many of its opponents, on the other hand, affirmative action represents a subversion of the natural order. Which is to say, sadly, that people aren’t nearly as likely to protest the power and privilege of their superiors in wealth and status as they are likely to protest what they take to be an unwarranted advantage given to those who are considered equal or lesser in status.

There seems to be a lot of sloppy analogizing here. Nepotism does cast suspicion on all children of wealthy or powerful people who are in positions that may have been obtained through nepotism. Likewise, “affirmative action” casts doubt on the qualifications of members of minority groups who are in positions that might have been obtained through minority preference.

That’s not to say, of course, that anybody should jump to unwarranted conclusions (although, sadly, many people might) about a particular person’s competence or qualifications based on these suspicions. But uncertainty is justified in these cases, simply because the person in question cannot be assumed, by virtue of holding his or her position, to be qualified for it.

Note that the beneficiaries of nepotism can easily escape these doubts simply by moving into an environment where they do not benefit from family influence. On the other hand, “affirmative action” has become so ubiquitous that in many fields its beneficiaries literally have no feasible way to avoid the doubts that go with not being judged entirely on merit.

Incidentally, an obvious explanation for why unjust forms of discrimination such as “legacy” preferences are not more widely condemned is that many of the people who would normally do so find themselves keeping their mouths shut—and even defending such practices—in order to protect “affirmative action”.

As for the claim that “legacy” admissions to elite schools are never stigmatized—well, George W. Bush might have a thing or two to say about that….

>>simply because the person in question cannot be assumed, by virtue of holding his or her position, to be qualified for it.

well, affirmative action often means choosing among many qualified applicants rather than choosing unqualified applicants.

secondly, some professions have certifying processes that are completely blind, eg engineers or lawyers.

and thirdly, isn’t it always true that one cannot assume that someone is any good at his job just because he has it? isn’t this why people use recommendations from friends, ratings services, consumer reports etc, rather than opening the phone directory and randomly picking a plumber, for example. i’m sure you have met enough incompetent whites who have no nepotistic connections to the firm.

it’s really strange to me that there is so much worry that a black employee cannot be presumed to be qualified, and so little worry that the white employee, as in the Texaco case, is sabotaging the black employee and confusing them for jellybeans. we have enough evidence of workplace discrimination to be worried, i think.

The practical difference between nepotism and AA as it is now is that size matters. For example, according to the expert testimony (http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/research/expert/bok.html ) cited by the U. Mich law school, if only grades and test scores were considered, 1.6% of accepted applicants would be black, instead of the actual number of 6.8%. In other words, about 75% of black applicants who were accepted were beneficiaries (of something, not necessarily AA), and for a random black law student, the odds are better than even that he or she benefited. I don’t know what percentage of wealthy white applicants are beneficiaries of legacy admissions, but I doubt that it’s in the same range.

if only grades and test scores were considered, 1.6% of accepted applicants would be black, instead of the actual number of 6.8%. … I don’t know what percentage of wealthy white applicants are beneficiaries of legacy admissions, but I doubt that it’s in the same range.

Although we don’t know the counterfactual (would they have gotten in?), the percentage of legacy admissions at elite/top 50 schools (bear in mind Michigan is a top-10 law program) is the same or slightly higher than the the numbers you cite. Recent figures for percent entering class who are legacies at selected colleges:

Princeton: 12.4%; 11.6% (different years)
Yale: 13.4%
U. of Penn.: 10%
Brown: 7%; “about 10%” (different years)
Columbia: 6%
Cornell: 13%
U. of Chicago: “just over 5 percent”
Bucknell: 5.6%
Boston College: 12.1%
Holy Cross: 10.7%
Wake Forest: “about 8%”
Johns Hopkins: 12.4%
Notre Dame: 23%; 22% (different years)
Ithaca College: 1.8%
U. of Virginia: 12.6%
U. of Rochester: 5.4%
Amherst: 10%
Middlebury: 5%
Colby: 4%
Villanova: 7%

See this post of mine for more and this Instapundit post for the data source.

Unless those legacy admits are a majority of the wealthy white students at those schools, it’s not the same thing. You ask why AA “tars” black students while legacy admission doesn’t “tar” wealthy white students: it’s because for the rich white kids, getting in on legacies is the exception to the rule, while for the black (law students, at least), getting in without AA is the exception.

Arguments aside, you are trying to find a balance of good and bad between apples and oranges. I don’t think I’ve ever seen where ‘legacy’ admissions are illegal and unconstitutional. Which is not the case for affirmative action. That one is blatantly unconstitutional in reverse discrimnation. Plus ‘legacy’ admissions is not an enslavement of any given ethnic group, and affirmative admissions tells the given minority group they are not capable of going it on their own due to their skin colouring.
This cancels any argument over comparing ‘legacy’ admissions and affirmative admissions.

The reason that racial preferences “tars” the whole racial group while legacy preferences don’t is that legacy is not obvious.

Assume I’m a legacy who got in on my own merit. I go to a job interview and no one knows I’m a legacy, and there’s no reason to think I am. You might think, “Hey, that white kid might be a legacy,” but there’s no reason to think I am rather than anyone else. As an interviewer, I’d be thrilled to discriminate against legacies, if I could figure out who they are. [Furthermore, since affirmative action has been going on since at least Bakke in 1977, aren’t those who benefit from legacy admissions now more racially diverse than they were in 1977? I mean, if I got in on affirmative action in 1977, chances are I have a kid around college age around now. Why does he need affirmative action, too, since he already has the legacy thing?]

If I’m black and got in on my own merit, though, the situation is different. Suddenly, it is obvious (to the extent that a person’s race is obvious) that I am a member of a group that was aided by affirmative action. It suddenly becomes my burden of proof to demonstrate that I deserve to be at the elite institution. Isn’t that unfair to me, as a black person?

Here’s the argument in a nutshell:

1. There are two ways to black (for example) diversity:
(a) Lower standards for black applicants;
(b) Lower standards for all applicants;
2. If I chose 1(a), I essentially degrade the value of a diploma for black applicants without having to devalue to diploma for white applicants as well. As a self-interested white student who gets in anyway, I’m happy with this result. A self-interested white student would never choose 1(b), because it would degrade the eliteness of their own diploma as much as it would those of black students.
3. As a sel-interetest black student who would get in anyway, I am against both 1(a) and 1(b), because either one devalues the “eliteness” of my diploma.
4. As a black student who wouldn’t get in unless 1(a) or 1(b) is used, I am indifferent between the two: both get me in. Maybe I marginally prefer 1(b), because it puts me on an even footing with white students coming out.

Conclusion: Who prefers 1(a) over 1(b)? White people. Supporters of affirmative action set up the false dichotomy of either (A) affirmative action, or (B) no diversity. But in places like California and Texas, they had kept diversity by lowering standards. The true choice is (A) diversity while degrading the eliteness of every diploma, or (B) diversity while only degrading the eliteness of the black students’ diploma.

Why would any good liberal support B over A? It strikes me as horribly racist to impose a burden on black students that is not also imposed on white students.

Or, put a different way:

A diploma from State U is valued as a 7 out of 10.

State U wants more black students. To do that, it could either lower its standards overall so that its diploma is valued as a 6 out of 10, or it could lower the value of its diploma for its black students to a 6, while maintaining the value for white students at 7.

You may say, “Sure, the diploma is being degraded for some black students, but more black students are being admitted, and that makes up for it.” Maybe, maybe not. That may be a valid argument.

But wait, if it really is a valid argument, why not do it for the white students too? Some white students will be hurt by lowering the value of the diploma, but others will be helped out by being admitted who wouldn’t have been otherwise. If the affirmative action plan is really neutral or an improvement for black people as a whole, while not extend it to white people, too?

I believe that affirmative action is a bad idea not because of “reverse discrimination” as anonreader states, above, but because of actual anti-black discrimination.

Affirmative action programs hurt black people as a whole. The proof is that if it didn’t, white people would want it too.

Nice thread. Two follow ups.

First, I hope we can agree that other readily identifiable groups admitted to college preferentially are stigmatized as stupid. “Dumb” jocks, for example. Nor is this stigma illogical—one would expect the academic performance of a preferentially admited group to be below the campus mean. It seems an open quesiton whether on one cares as much about jocks being considered dumb as one does about blacks suffeing the same fate.

Second, a potential legacy admit to, e.g., Yale, can easily find out if she “really deserved it” by applying to equally selective schools (Harvard, MIT, whatever). So at least one’s merit can be known to oneself, if no one else. In my case, this mattered to me. I was a “double legacy” at my college, but I was also admitted to other schools in the same selectivity tier. And believe it or not, had I not been, I would not have gone. A potential AA admit actually needs to hide information in order to give herself the same assurance.

Of course people jump to conclusions based upon an individuals race. It is extraordinarily disingenuous for anyone to claim differently. Justice Thomas, after his dissent was digested, though clearly not understood, was subject to the very claims that you are asserting do not naturally occur!

Maureen Dowd questioned Justice Thomas as to how he could not support affirmative action when he was the beneficiary of it his entire career? It is an intellectually dishonest argument for you to attempt to make this case.

It is clearly wrong to discriminate based upon race. All afirmative action programs discriminate based upon race. We tolerate this discrimination to address past wrongs. Any person who may have been the beneficiary of affirmative action must deal with the perception that their achievements are not entirely based upon individual merrit. You can not claim otherwise. It is the downside of the social engineering benefit that we are artificially attempting to achieve with affirmative action programs. If the policy of addressing past wrongs is the right policy, why do you make such a clearly dishonest and disgusting defense of it?

If you want to see the tar-brushing effect,
sit in on a lab class at MIT when it’s time to
match lab partners, and you will see the minority
students get shunned. It’s a phenomenon that MIT
has tried and failed to eradicate. It happens.

Diversity IS Good

I’ve been poking fun at ‘diversity’ as a rationale for academic Affirmative Action for quite a while now, despite my close understanding of what good it is in the corporate context. Diversity is good for whitefolks: Please try to be…