Typical
Some have wondered if Barack Obama was an "affirmative action" hire for the Harvard Law Review. I doubt it, and I don't care anyway. But here's what he had to say about it:
I have no way of knowing whether I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the Review. If I was, then I certainly am not ashamed of the fact, for I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity.But that's the problem with raced-based preferences. The beneficiaries don't "typically" rise to the challenge--not at the same levels as those who would have been chosen otherwise. What's typical here is Obama employing liberal happy talk, the kind that prevents serious dicussion of the issue.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:22 AM
6 Comments:
Could you provide any research to back up the claim that beneficiaries of affirmative action do not rise to the challenge at the same levels as those who would have been chosen otherwise? Because that would seem to me to be the first, necessary step in having a serious discussion of the issue here.
Typical bashing or affirmative action recipients.
There's lots of research (though not as much as there should be--it's as if people don't want to find this out) to show that affirmative action recipients underperform and fail in schools at higher rates, for instance. You can look it up yourself, but it just makes sense, since otherwise you'd have to claim that people who are apparently less qualified, in fact, aren't. I'd say it's the people claiming qualificatios either don't matter, or are being measured wrongly everywhere in every place, who need proof (i.e., not anecdotes).
My point here was not to provide this research, but to note that supporters of AA will do anything but actually talk about what it really means, and, worse, will fight to prevent others from looking into it.
I still can't see any serious discussion taking place without real numbers. Based on my experience and values, I presume there's something to be gained by some affirmative action programs. Against that presumption, if you tell me a beneficiary of affirmative action is 10% more likely to drop out than the other candidate, I'll have a very different view of whether it's a worthwhile effort than if you tell me she's 90% more likely to drop out. Bland generalities about "typically" and "levels" that they fail at is precisely the sort of liberal and conservative happy talk that prevents progress from either side. In short, without quantifying it, your happy talk ain't no better or worse than his.
What happy talk? I was just asking for a conversation that isn't happening. Those who favor affirmative action won't even admit that it means people less qualified, and who don't perform as well, take the place of others.
QG, I think you've missed the point here. In LAGuy's original post, it's Obama who says "...I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge..."
Using your argument, I would ask Obama if he has any numbers to back up that statement. A quick Google search reveals two studies - one by UCLA Law Professor Richard Sander and the other by economist (and noted conservative) Thomas Sowell - that suggest affirmative action recipients don't typically rise to the challenge, at least in higher education.
You're welcome to disagree with those arguments, of course, and/or present your own, but in this instance I'd agree with LAGuy that Obama is just serving up some liberal pablum for the media to feed on.
Post a Comment
<< Home