It is mathematically impossible to privilege one group without "disprivileging" another in a zero-sum game like college admissions. The question of whether affirmative action "punishes" some people isn't even interesting, the question is a borderline-tautological "yes". The question is, is that what we want to do? And even if historically the answer was "yes", is it still what we want to do? And what do we want to do in the future?
I'm not commenting on the answer to those questions, subtly or otherwise. (Except inasmuch that some people would rather we not ask them at all and just take various answers as axiomatically true without examination.)
It is mathematically impossible to privilege one group without "disprivileging" another in a zero-sum game like college admissions. The question of whether alumni-preference "punishes" some people isn't even interesting, the question is a borderline-tautological "yes". The question is, is that what we want to do? And even if historically the answer was "yes", is it still what we want to do? And what do we want to do in the future?
I'm not commenting on the answer to those questions, subtly or otherwise. (Except inasmuch that some people would rather we not ask them at all and just take various answers as axiomatically true without examination.)
(just for reference, around the time of the supreme court cases re: Michigan Law School, alumni preference was weighted at least as strongly as race amongst schools that used quantitative point systems for admissions)
The question of whether alumni-preference "punishes" some people
isn't even interesting, the question is a borderline-tautological "yes".
The question is, is that what we want to do?
I think we want to just stop it. Why is it even a question? I understand it is not that easy to do, but certainly easier (and less dangerous for participants) than stopping the segregation was, no? I understand there are important differences between alumni-based preferences and "race"-based preferences (such as whether the State and Federal institutions need to be involved etc), but I think these only work towards making it easier.
I agree. I think federal funding, scholarship, loans, and research dollars should be withheld from all schools with alumni preference rules going forward. Period.
Most arguments against removing alumni preference only apply when you look at one school in isolation and simply disappear when you consider all schools removing them at once.
(Federal non-profit tax-emempt status should probably be included in my list of things-that-should-disappear-unless alumni-preference-is-dropped, but I haven't thought seriously about the likely objections (religious schools etc.))
The effect of having 5% black people in colleges will have a much wider benefit for the entire society, than if you converted those 5% into asians and whites.
Yes, those 5% may become factory managers or programmers or something similar, which is great. But those 5% black people, will act as role models for the other 30 million black people that currently form the largest social underclass, and are responsible for a lot of social problems at the moment.
So I'd say that the second goal, that of creating an educated black populace, creating a 'cosby family' that the current underclass can look up to, is more important than creating another bland middle-manager.
1. I do not know how we calculate what has a "much wider benefit for the entire society".
2. But I know that if we base our decisions on the (elusive) benefit to the society versus justice, we are taking a step towards a totalitarian system. This is not where we want to go, and (I think) not what the proponents of the Affirmative Action intended.
3. I am sure there must be ways to help the underprivileged individuals, and maybe underprivileged strata, of our society without having to resort to such actions.
To your last point - you know the untouchable caste in india? Imagine you have a poor untouchable caste, and you have a poor of the highest caste. You want to help them both, so you give them both some amount of money. Even when the untouchable creates some successful business, he is still untouchable.
That's the same problem you have - your society strongly associates black with negative. That stereotype will continue to exist, unless there is a proper movement of blacks into the standard college educated strata. Otherwise, they stay down in the 'untouchable' caste.
The child of a white person who was once poor does not have this stigma anymore. But the black persons child is still stuck with the stigma, because it's part of his skin-color.
That's the problem - your lower class is also the black class, and if you want to do things only the 'just' way, then it will remain that way for a long time to come.
And by the way, if you want equal admissions, then accept that you will not get into those schools because chinese immigrants and jewish people will probably get the best scores. So please, advocate merit based only or advocate that the school can choose, and accept that it can choose blacks.
I do not know details about the situation with the untouchables. I know it is less advanced than the current situation with the blacks in the US.
What you said about the negative stereotypes about blacks is unfortunately very true. But: affirmative action does not fight against the stereotypes, it fights against the underrepresentation. As some other comments said, it may even reinforce the stereotypes (I am not sure if it works that way, however). While we cannot completely avoid stereotypes, we can try and make sure they do not affect how the people are actually treated. Well, to some extent, hopefully large extent.
You mentioned no stigma on a white child. Some people do talk about rednecks and so on. And indeed there are programs similar to Affirmative Action intended for, say, people from underprivileged backgrounds in the mountains of Kentucky. Another example is programs for Native Americans (or "first people", or whatever today's PC name is). They have been traditionally underprivileged, but I do not have they have a stigma, not for a long time.
accept that you will not get into those schools
because chinese immigrants and jewish people
will probably get the best scores
No problem, I am Jewish. :-) But more seriously: diversity of backgrounds is a good thing when it comes naturally. But not when enforced.
Those schools have a huge pool of people to choose from. If they use skin color as a criteria to ensure that the people in the schools are exposed to different COLORs of people in a society where COLOR has been used as a discriminatory tool, then I don't think that's unusual. I think that's actually fair, and I think educational institutions choosing to educate in that manner is exactly what they should do.
I'm not commenting on the answer to those questions, subtly or otherwise. (Except inasmuch that some people would rather we not ask them at all and just take various answers as axiomatically true without examination.)