This feisty blog has occasionally talked about issues of discrimination against minority-group members and women, in science, or in academia, or just more broadly. We have also, one must admit, occasionally taken the Bush administration to task for this or that example of egregious malfeasance. Thus, rigorously fair folks that we are, it’s only right that we also mention those instances when the administration takes time off from its busy schedule of intelligence-doctoring, operative-outing, deficit-growing, and hurricane-ignoring to actively fight the pernicious effects of discrimination.
So, here we go: the Justice Department is going to sue Southern Illinois University for discriminating against white males.
No, you can’t make this stuff up. SIU, like almost every university in the country, is seriously under-represented by minority groups among its graduate students; out of 5,500 graduate students, only about 8 percent are Latino or African-American (compared to over 20 percent of Americans). So they have a few fellowship programs that specifically target women and minorities, and help out a tiny number of people — perhaps 40 per year. The Bush administration, tireless warriors for social justice that they are, will stop at nothing to squelch this manifest anti-white bias:
“The University has engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination against whites, non-preferred minorities and males,” says a Justice Department letter sent to the university last week and obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.
The letter demands the university cease the fellowship programs, or the department’s civil rights division will sue SIU by Nov. 18.
I don’t know about you, but if I’m going to discriminate against someone, I would be able to do a much better job than that. You know, like actually having fewer members of the discriminated class at my university than in the surrounding society, rather than significantly more.
Sadly, this is an issue that (even) scientists don’t always think very clearly about. There is a feeling in some circles that perfect fairness consists of taking the tiny part of society’s workings over which you have control, and pretending within that part that there is no such thing as race or gender, everyone should be treated equally. But in the real world, where we are not all born into equal circumstances and presented with equal opportunities, it makes perfect sense to recognize that and account for it when we recruit and train students.
Of course, people will complain that singling out minority-group status forces us to treat people according to some external characteristics rather than as individuals, and amounts to an insidious form of reverse racism, ultimately hurting the people it tries to help. This philosophically appealing position has the downside of being in flagrant contradiction with the evidence. Although it’s true that programs typically aim (small amounts of) resources at people because of minority-group status rather than a detailed understanding of their personal history in overcoming obstacles, the fact is that this clumsy strategy actually works. People gain access to education and training that they otherwise would not, and the result is that the pool of highly-educated and successful people grows more diverse, which helps both the people in those groups and the society as a whole. As crude as it is, the strategy of targeting fellowships at under-represented groups is both cheap and effective.
Deep down, nobody likes affirmative-action type programs. Nobody. We would all much prefer it if universities and other employers could truly ignore the race or gender of applicants and workers, because they were treated completely fairly throughout all of society. But that’s just not reality. And until it is, making a tiny little effort to help out people who have faced systematic bias throughout their lives — even if the efforts are clumsy and imprecise — is the least we can do.
Comments
85 responses to “Fighting discrimination”
Quibler,
Yes, that’s true, I was oversimplifying a bit. Still, it is hard to see how one could arrive at such high costs. I managed to master some important subjects (linear algebra, complex analyses, quantum mechanics) while still at high school all by myself using university books.
Reading books and solving problems all by yourself is the most important part of the learning process. Attending lectures is the least important part.
As a simple guy I offer a simple argument.
We have every reason to believe that talent is distributed evenly across race and gender. If, in the outcome, the diversity of society is not represented in the pool of those employed, you are wasting talent.
Or, as one author said, the talent of Elizabeth I of England hints at the amount of talent Elizabethan society wasted by keeping women in subordinate postions.
Affirmative Action is not for the benefit of the individual, it is for the benefit of society. If we want better results we can spend more money and create a better tool, but the programs in place are fairly successful.
On the last point, I’m not too certain. The medical and legal fields seem to have accessed the talents of women pretty well, but it seems likely that in many fields the talents of women and minorities are not being fully accessed.
Quibbler,
“Belizean, medians don’t actual tell one an awful lot.”
Actually, they are the single best way of comparing the distributions of some property between different groups. If you know of a superior comparative measure, I’d love to hear it.
“…anti-black discriminiation is based on skin colour not country of birth, so it’s not clear to me why you think that would affect immigrant blacks more than people who have live in the US all there lives but are black.”
I don’t think it would affect immigrants more. My point is that IF anti-black discrimination is significant, THEN it will affect black immigrants to the same degree as it affects black natives. While the economic progress of native blacks has been retarded, that of immigrant blacks has NOT. So I conclude that anti-black discrimination in the U.S. is negligible.
[If A ==> B, not B ==> not A]
Nice argument, serial catowner!
Elliot, when you say that it is not “admission preference” but rather “financial aid”, you are twisting the words in a way that judges will never be able to. The amount of garbage that you derive by your game with words is exactly equal to the amount of garbage that you inserted.
The fellowship is money paid to a student who has it as a job, and giving this fellowship to someone means to admit the person for the job. Moreover, I don’t believe that you don’t understand this elementary point. You’re just pretending that you don’t understand it.
Lubos,
When you say that judges will be unable to twist words, I will simply refer you to to the SCOTUS decision that put GWB in office in 2000.
Here are the descriptions of the fellowships. I’d like for you to directly point out where giving a fellowship is the equivalent of making the admissions decision. Do the fellowships make it easier for minorities to pay for their education? Absolutely. Does it encourage them to apply? Certainly. Do they make it easier to to get accepted into the programs academically? I don’t see that anywhere in these descriptions. Therefore the logical conclusion is that although there is a benefit to minorities, there is no detriment to white candidates.
FELLOWSHIP: Bridge to the Doctorate
Started: 2004
Award: $30,000 stipend, plus $10,500 for education expenses
Purpose: “For underrepresented minority students to initiate graduate study in science, technology, engineering and math.”
Budget: $985,000
Number of awards since inception: 24 (19 blacks, 5 Latino, 1 Native American)
FELLOWSHIP: Proactive Recruitment and Multicultural Professionals for Tomorrow
Started: 2000
Award: Tuition waiver and $1,200 monthly stipend
Purpose: “To increase the number of minorities receiving advanced degrees in disciplines in which they are underrepresented.”
Budget: $158,000
Awards since inception: 78 (61 blacks, 14 Latinos, 1 Asian, 2 Native Americans)
FELLOWSHIP: Graduate Dean’s
Started: 2000
Award: Tuition waiver, $1,000 monthly stipend
Purpose: “For women and and traditionally underrepresented students who have overcome social, cultural or economic conditions.”
Budget: $67,000
Awards since inception: 27 (16 whites, 7 blacks, 4 Latinos)
Law unlike, unlike science (at least supposedly), is an advocacy process using language as its tools. Using those tools to make a point is the name of the game. There are no underlying truths here. Having actually studied law I know that truth is only an occasional byproduct of the justice system. Not that it shouldn’t be but that is not how the process is structured.
I further repeat my assertion that I believe these suits are politically motivated by an administration that is dangerously and desperately trying to pull themselves out of a quicksand of their own creation.
Elliot
http://www.drizzle.com/~jwalsh/sokal/guestbook/1998january.html
Patricia Schwarz, patricia@theory.caltech.edu, visited on Thursday, January 01, 1998:
Message: I think Sokal’s act was odious. In my field, physics, verbal abuse and intimidation, lack of respect for others, are rife. Sokal’s act smacks of that same attitude. If you disagree you’re an idiot and must be mocked. I am really sick of hearing tenured professors squeal like victims. Meanwhile I spent five years at Caltech hearing “scientific” explanations for why women can’t do math. There was really no science involved, but when a tenured science professor wants to make a political point, he’ll always try to make it seem like all of science and reason is 100% on his side.
[ sounds like what Larry Summers/Harvard did ]
And of course anyone who doesn’t see things his way – why that’s proof that you’re just ignorant. Even if you’re a grad student in physics. That’s what I mean about the general lack of human respect within science. When can we get past this crap? When can members of the scientific elite start coming back to their own humanity, abandon their authoritarian attitudes, and stop portraying science vs. humanity as some monumental crisis of a new Dark Age? I know I’m totally venting here but as a physicist who is culturally aware, I see a lot to vent over from within physics, and the Sokal extravaganza epitomizes it. GROW UP my fellow scientists GROW UP and learn to accept disagreement without resorting to name-calling and childish pranks to control the situation.
[Pasadena, United States]
Jesus Christ, I would never believe that Patricia Schwarz would disagree not only with Lawrence Summers but even with the point of Alan Sokal that the postmodern “scientists” were doing pseudoscience.
Alan Sokal’s hoax was excellent, important, and it has shown that the postmodern empty heads had no clothes. Respect for others must always have some reasons, especially respect that exceeds the average respect that one can have for any human being, and the previous quote by PS almost certainly does not seem to contain anything that one should have a respect for.
Dear Elliot,
George Bush became the US president in 2000 exactly because the judges could not twist the words contained in the US laws. They could not twist the words even though thousands of far left-wing lunatics wanted them to do it.
And it is likely that they won’t be able to twist them in this case either.
Not sure why you exactly copied the evidence of the apparently illegal activity at SIU once again here.
Every decision of the Department of Justice is political – or politically motivated – and it is up to the courts to decide what the law says. Got it?
“There is no underlying truth.” I beg to differ, but even if you don’t like the truth, there are still underlying laws – words – and they are damned clear. Think twice whether there is any truth or justice before you decide to do your first crimes.
Best
Lubos
“We have every reason to believe that talent is distributed evenly across race and gender. If, in the outcome, the diversity of society is not represented in the pool of those employed, you are wasting talent.”
Dear catowner, we have absolutely no reason to think so. On the contrary, we have now hundreds of reasons to be convinced that your statement is incorrect. See, for example, here.
But even if you decided to believe in your problematic hypotheses, it just can’t justify you to violate the existing law. Moreover. Affirmative action is universally guaranteed to lower the expected results, and whoever does not understand why, probably got to the Academia via affirmative action himself or herself.
Lubos,
Apparently you read a different SCOTUS decision placing Bush in office than i did. The reasoning in that case was that GWBs equal protection rights would be violated by a recount. Apparently he had a “right” to be president. Anyway back to the SIU case.
You seem to miss the key point that a fellowship is not affirmative action. It is not a method of discrimination. It is an offer of financial aid. I’m glad you were careful enough to call it “apparently” illegal because I think in the end the justice department will lose this one.
The richness of the constitution is that the words although clear are subject to a variety of interpretation. The 14th amendment prohibits activity that interfere with life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that citizens enjoy equal protection under the law. You have so far failed to specifically point out how these fellowships violate either the 14th amendment or the civil rights act. You can’t just say they are illegal because you don’t like the underlying philosophy you have to make the case. I personally don’t like the war in Iraq. I could try make the case that it is illegal but I think I would have a difficult time prevailing in a court of law.
Where did you get your law degree by the way?
Regards,
Elliot
the point i was making is that people still have prejudices about racial groups and women. there is NO reason to think that women or minorities are innately less capable of doing math or science than middle class white men.
–Q
Repeating some excerpts of what Patricia Schwarz wrote in 1998:
In my field, physics, verbal abuse and intimidation, lack of respect for others, are rife. …If you disagree you’re an idiot and must be mocked. … GROW UP my fellow scientists GROW UP and learn to accept disagreement without resorting to name-calling and childish pranks to control the situation.
Dear Elliot,
I have no idea what decision you have read, but the decision by the Supreme Court that I read explained very clearly that a new recount would violate the 14th amendment of the US constitution that requires the states to protect Bush’s rights as much as they protected the rights of his far left-wing opponent.
This clause would have been violated by the recount, especially because supervisors for the counties could not have been identified and the standards in different counties differed. Meanwhile, the Florida’s congress or what was that exactly confirmed that Bush is their candidate anyway.
There was a genuine interest of far left-wing forces to continue with recounts as long as a fluctuation gives Gore an edge, which reminds me of the stalinist “elections”. At any rate, I am amazed that even in 2005 a person who is demonstrably capable to use the internet browser can be silly enough to cry about the 2000 elections. Have not the 2004 elections sufficiently demonstrated that Bush is a better candidate than the left-wing candidates?
What do you exactly expect from attacking the courts and questioning the laws, even 5 years after your unsuccessful attempted coup?
I will leave to the judges to decide about your bizarre statement that “fellowships are not affirmative action”. To me, it sounds as a complete idiocy. You are free to spread your fog – and your ugly statements that the law can and should be always dilluted and misinterpreted – as long as the judicial system will guarantee that you will be in the prison whenever you make a crime.
All the best
Lubos
Wow, the count did not violate anyone’s rights, but the recount would?
If ‘white’ people start to feel discriminated against, they will soon dislike being called ‘white’. Perhaps we should call them ‘European Americans’? 🙂
Dear Lubos,
You are probably right. No point replaying the 2000 election as Bush stole it fair and square. We could discuss Katherine Harris, the deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters through misidentifying them as felons, well documented threats against black voters in Miami, the unfortuate Buchanan incident is WPB, but there is no going back and changing it now. Scalia paid daddy back for his seat and that is that. Which is why I hope the Democratic Senate does everything possible to keep Alito off the court so we can avoid a replay in the future.
As for the SIU case, I don’t think that suggesting that diversity is a good thing and supporting programs that encourage it constitutes an “ugly statement”. You still have not explained why providing financial aid to an underrepresented class is the equivalent of giving that specific class admission slots (affirmative action). And even if it were AA, that does not make it illegal.
Still waiting for your legal credentials. I have a J. D from University of Miami 1978.
Cheers,
Elliot
Lubos said:
Lubos, you posted a Scientific American article about the various differences between male and female brains. The article also makes a clear point: “To date, no one has uncovered any evidence that anatomical disparities might render women incapable of achieving academic distinction in math, physics or engineering…”
So I’m not sure why you used this article to refute serial catowner. Saying that there are differences among the races or genders is not profound. It remains to be seen whether these differences significantly affect overall performance in some field.
You say there’s absolutely no reason to think that talent is evenly distributed across race and gender. I just can’t take you seriously if you are concluding that from e.g. this article.
Lubos also said:
Wow, I never knew that the popular vote/opinion decides who the “better candidate” is. But let’s assume that it does. Now, check out Bush’s latest approval ratings.
couple of points: >”total average nonresident tuition and fees at UC are $19,740 for undergraduates and $19,333 for graduate students per year.” (2003-2004) taken from the University of California fee structure pdf file found on the Regents site. I am not sure which fees and costs Samantha and Jennifer were selecting.
Sean’s point regarding legacy admissions is right on the mark, so much so that Regents and Trustees at various universities are encouraging reviews of the policies to reduce the number of such “automatic” admissions. It is simply bad business to encourage rich students to attend schools like Yale where they only strive to achieve the C- grades necessary to not get thrown out. For the record legacy appointments also occur at the various military academies as well.
Recent studies of schools and districts funded through increased contributions from their associated “foundations” record significantly better achievement scoring. There is a direct correlation to familial wealth within those communities. Poverty, regardless of race/color/gender, is the most significant factor in determining and predicting outcome on varous achievement testing. Affirmative Action in any form, while being strikingly beneficial for some over the last 40 years, cannot begin to address the dramatic increase in the discrepency between the richest and poorest in this country. Funding higher education is becoming increasingly more expensive (here or abroad), student loan dollars are shrinking both as in what is totally available as well as in how much more per student must be used, fewer and fewer families can support fulltime attendance at four year universities and colleges. We need dramatic tuition support, more scholarships, more foundation funding. All of these can be “discriminatory” as they are private, and yet can target increasing the opportunities for poor students of color, race, and gender to attend universities and colleges of their choice.
“Discrimination against racial minorities has been negligible in the United States for over thirty years.”
I refer you to the recent response to Hurricane Katrina (though that, too, is a class issue as well as a racial one).
Kate,
There is no compelling case for racism in the Katrina response. The response was consistent past relief efforts. For example, boots were on the ground 5 days after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but they were on the ground 3 days after Katrina.
The only possible argument for racisim stems from the road blocks set up by the sheriffs of surrounding parishes and counties. Their objective was to keep New Orlean’s looters and other criminals out of their jurisdictions. The overwhelming majority of these criminals are black.
Had Katrina solely ravaged a posh suburb known to the inhabited by wealthy blacks, no one would have feared these wealthy people taking refuge in their counties.
It is now very easy to live one’s entire life as a black person in the United States without experiencing a single incident of detectable racism (other than attempts to grant one special privileges).
Lubos,
For your review:
Supreme Court Decisions: On June 23, 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court finally issued its much awaited decisions in these two cases. The Court issued its Grutter decision first–a 5-4 decision written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. In it the Court endorsed Justice Powell’s decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, finding diversity in higher education to be a compelling state interest and upholding the law school admissions program. The Court noted the individuality of the review in the law school, and held that race can be considered as a “plus” factor in admissions if it is considered in the context of a “highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s file, giving serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment.”
At SIU it isn’t even admissions it is fellowships which follow admissions.
Regards,
Elliot
Elliot
“It is now very easy to live one’s entire life as a black person in the United States without experiencing a single incident of detectable racism.”
Belizean, I respectfully disagree on this point. Here is a link to a description of a study about racial disparities in hiring. The researchers sought to determine if a “black-sounding” name would fare as well in the job market as a “white-sounding” name. So they sent out something like 5000 resumes and they determined that a white-sounding name was 50 percent more likely to get a callback, the equivalent of about eight years job experience. The study isn’t perfect, but it is clear and simple, and unfortunately, uncovers what I would say is “detectable racism” with a big impact on people’s lives.
Tim
As I wrote before, racism continues to exist but it is now well exceeded by other common forms of discrimination. Being fat, ugly, short, or stupid is a much greater obstacle to employment than is being black.
Moreover, Laquisha and Jamal can simply change their first names on their resumes or use their initials. Name changing for economic and social advancement is hardly unknown in the U.S. It was a common practice, for example, in the entertainment industry (e.g. Crackor Ohanian –> Mike Connors).
In a similar vein, socially ambitious residents of Brooklyn and the Bronx invested heavily diction lessons to escape discrimination on the basis of their their annoying accents.
Fortunately, most blacks do not have “black-sounding” names and are not subject to the particular form of (readily circumvented) discrimination that you cite. They can easily live their whole lives without personally detecting racial discrimination directed against them. [They will, however, experience misguided discrimination intended to help them.]
Again, this is not to say that discrimination no longer exists. I would probably not be welcomed into The Billionaire Yacht Club of the Hamptons. I would probably have a hard time getting an Idaho Neo-Nazi chick to date me. But this is hardly the sort of thing that I’m going to notice. It is, moreover, a blessing in that I’m not particularly interested in socializing with bigots. [Unless, of course, the Nazi chick is exceedingly hot.]