m********a
发帖数: 1041 | 1 The Ecomonist
Apr 27th 2013
ABOVE the entrance to America’s Supreme Court four words are carved: “
Equal justice under law”. The court is pondering whether affirmative action
breaks that promise. The justices recently accepted a case concerning a
vote in Michigan that banned it, and will soon rule on whether the
University of Texas’s race-conscious admissions policies are lawful. The
question in both cases is as simple as it is divisive: should government be
colour-blind?
America is one of many countries where the state gives a leg-up to members
of certain racial, ethnic, or other groups by holding them to different
standards. The details vary. In some countries, the policy applies only to
areas under direct state control, such as public-works contracts or
admission to public universities. In others, private firms are also obliged
to take account of the race of their employees, contractors and even owners.
But the effects are strikingly similar around the world.
The burden of history
Many of these policies were put in place with the best of intentions: to
atone for past injustices and ameliorate their legacy. No one can deny that,
for example, blacks in America or dalits in India (members of the caste
once branded “untouchable”) have suffered grievous wrongs, and continue to
suffer discrimination. Favouring members of these groups seems like a quick
and effective way of making society fairer.
Most of these groups have made great progress. But establishing how much
credit affirmative action can take is hard, when growth also brings progress
and some of the good—for example the confidence-boosting effect of
creating prominent role models for a benighted group—is intangible. And it
is impossible to know how a targeted group would have got on without this
special treatment. Malays are three times richer in Singapore, where they do
not get preferences, than in next-door Malaysia, where they do. At the same
time, the downside of affirmative action has become all too apparent.
Awarding university places to black students with lower test scores than
whites sounds reasonable, given the legacy of segregation. But a study found
that at some American universities, black applicants who scored 450 points
(out of 1,600) worse than Asians on entrance tests were equally likely to
win a place. That is neither fair on Asians, nor an incentive to blacks to
study in high school. In their book “Mismatch”, Richard Sander and Stuart
Taylor produce evidence that suggests affirmative action reduces the number
of blacks who qualify as lawyers by placing black students in law schools
for which they are ill-prepared, causing many to drop out. Had they attended
less demanding schools, they might have graduated.
Although the groups covered by affirmative action tend to be poorer than
their neighbours, the individuals who benefit are often not. One American
federal-contracting programme favours businesses owned by “socially and
economically disadvantaged” people. Such people can be 87 times richer than
the average American family and still be deemed “disadvantaged” if their
skin is the right colour. One beneficiary of South Africa’s programme of “
Black Economic Empowerment” is worth an estimated $675m; he is also the
deputy president of the ruling party. Letting members of certain groups
charge more and still win public contracts is nice for the few who own
construction firms; less so for the many who rely on public services. The
same goes for civil-service quotas. When jobs are dished out for reasons
other than competence, the state grows less competent, as anyone who has
wrestled with Indian or Nigerian officialdom can attest. Moreover, rules
favouring businesses owned by members of particular groups are easy to game.
Malaysians talk of “Ali-Baba” firms, where Ali (an ethnic Malay) lends
his name, for a fee, to Baba (a Chinese businessman) to win a government
contract.
Although these policies tend to start with the intention of favouring narrow
groups, they spread as others clamour to be included. That American federal
programme began by awarding no-bid contracts to firms owned by blacks,
Hispanics and Native Americans; now it covers people with ancestry from at
least 33 countries. In India 60% of the population are eligible for
privileges as members of scheduled castes, tribes or “other backward
classes”. Such policies poison democracy by encouraging divisions along
lines drawn by discriminatory rules. The anger thus stoked has helped stir
bloody conflicts in India, Rwanda and Sri Lanka. And such rules, once in
place, are almost impossible to get rid of. In 1949 India’s constitution
said quotas should be phased out in ten years, but they are now more
widespread than ever. America’s policies have survived decades of legal
pushback, though not unscathed.
The content of their character
The University of Texas (UT) justifies discriminating in favour of black
people not on the ground that society owes it to them, but because, it
claims, a diverse university offers a better education to all its students.
That is a reasonable argument—some companies benefit from understanding a
variety of customers, for instance, and the police probably keep order
better if enough of them share a culture with the neighbourhood they patrol
—but it does not wash for most institutions. In UT’s case, although
colleges benefit from a diversity of ideas, to use skin colour as a proxy
for this implies that all black people and all Chinese people view the world
in a similar way. That suggests a bleak view of the human imagination.
Universities that want to improve their selection procedures by identifying
talented people (of any colour or creed) from disadvantaged backgrounds
should be encouraged. But selection on the basis of race is neither a fair
nor an efficient way of doing so. Affirmative action replaced old injustices
with new ones: it divides society rather than unites it. Governments should
tackle disadvantage directly, without reference to race. If a school is bad
, fix it. If there are barriers to opportunity, remove them. And if Barack
Obama’s daughters apply to a university, judge them on their academic
prowess, not the colour of their skin. | m********a
发帖数: 1041 | 2 去除弱勢族群優惠政策的時候到了？(天下雜誌 編譯)
許多國家的政府都會針對特定種族、族群等團體提出優惠政策，用不同的標準對待他們
，美國亦是其中之一。在部分國家，優惠政策只適用於直接受政府控制的領域，例如公
家機關徵才、申請公立學校等；而在其他國家，私人企業也得考量員工、承包商甚至雇
主的種族。
此類政策推出之時，大多是出於善意，其目的為彌補過去的不平等，並改善不平等所遺
留的影響。
多數這類團體都大有進展，但由於各項影響因素盤根錯節，判斷優惠措施的明確貢獻程
度十分困難，也不可能知道某個目標群體在沒有優惠措施的情況下，會有怎麼樣的表現
。在此同時，優惠措施的缺點也越來越明顯。
研究顯示，申請美國大學的黑人，雖然分數比亞洲人少了450分，獲得錄取的機會卻相
同。這不但對亞洲人不公平，也無法鼓勵黑人在高中時期努力學習。優惠政策的目標團
體雖然通常會比較貧窮，但獲得利益的個人卻不見得如此；有項美國聯邦計畫偏好「社
會經濟上較為弱勢」的人所擁有的企業，這些人可能比平均美國家庭富有87倍，但只要
膚色對了，他們就是「弱勢」。
德州大學優惠黑人的理由為，多元化的大學可以提供更好的教育。此說法有其合理性，
例如，更了解各種顧客有利於企業，但以德州大學來說，雖然多元化有其益處，但以種
族或膚色作為判斷方式，既不公平也缺乏效率。優惠政策用新的不平等取代了舊有的不
平等，它讓社會更為分化而非團結。政府應該跳脫族群、直接解決弱勢問題；如果有人
的機會受到阻礙，應該去除阻礙才是。（黃維德譯） | m********a
发帖数: 1041 | 3 Unequal protection
by From the print edition: Briefing
April 25, 2013
WILLIAM POWERS is the president of the University of Texas at Austin (UT-
Austin). Lino Graglia holds an endowed chair at its law school. Both have
kindly demeanours, impressive records and that crucial perk of academic
success, offices with great views: Mr Powers looks out over the heart of the
university’s campus, Mr Graglia at its football stadium.
They also hold strong and opposing opinions on whether admissions to their
state-run university ought to take account of race. Mr Powers believes that
using “race as one factor in an overall holistic view of the candidate”
helps the university build a diverse campus, an achievement which has “an
educational value for all of our students”. Mr Graglia thinks “lower[ing]
standards to admit members of preferred groups” is “a bad idea”.
America has a number of policies and practices designed to increase the
presence of minorities in various areas of life from which they have
historically been excluded. But the role of such affirmative action in
university admissions has garnered the most attention. Schools and
universities provided many of America’s desegregation battlegrounds. And
gaining entry to America’s elite universities is difficult; the perception,
right or wrong, that race can in some circumstances trump merit strikes
many as unjust, not least because universities play a large role in social
mobility.
The Supreme Court is about to weigh in on the matter. In March it agreed to
hear a case that could determine whether a state may ban affirmative action
in university admissions on the basis of a referendum. In 2006 a majority of
Michigan’s voters approved such a measure, but last November a federal
appellate court ruled that the measure violates the equal-protection clause
of the constitution, which requires states to treat all citizens equally, by
preventing affirmative-action supporters from pressing their case to
individual universities. And the court will soon rule on a suit brought
against UT-Austin by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was not admitted to
the university.
Non-discrimination discrimination
Ms Fisher contends that by rejecting her at the same time as it accepted
minority candidates with less impressive academic records UT-Austin violated
the equal-protection clause. The university contends that the state’s “
compelling interest” in having a diverse student body justifies taking race
, among many other factors, into account when judging applications.
In a 2003 ruling, Grutter v Bollinger, the Supreme Court recognised that
such an interest existed. But in her majority opinion Sandra Day O’Connor
said that the court expected the use of racial preferences to further that
interest would, within 25 years, no longer be necessary. Since John Roberts
became chief justice in 2005 the court has grown increasingly sceptical of
race-conscious laws. In a 2007 opinion Justice Roberts wrote: “The way to
stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the
basis of race.”
If Ms Fisher wins, universities may find their ability to practise
affirmative action curtailed or gone. A decision in favour of the state of
Michigan in the other case would have a similar effect. Voters have banned
affirmative action at universities in at least eight states, and they could
do so in more.
Richard Sander, the author, with Stuart Taylor, of a book-length study of
affirmative action’s effects entitled “Mismatch”, estimates that an end
to the policy will affect between 20% and 25% of American universities which
between them account for around 30% of America’s roughly 20m university
students. That ending would not be out of step with the national mood, as
those state-level bans imply. Many see a world that has outgrown affirmative
action. Legally codified racism is a distant memory. In the nation’s two
biggest states whites are no longer a majority; this will be true in the
nation as a whole within a few decades. Before the 1960s, when the
foundations of affirmative action were first laid down, most blacks were
poor, few served in public office and almost none were to be found
flourishing at the nation’s top universities, corporations, law firms and
banks. None of that is true today.
The Civil Rights Act that Lyndon Johnson signed in 1964 proscribed
discrimination on grounds of race. It also explicitly stated that none of
its provisions required employers “to grant preferential treatment to any
individual or to any group”. But American law and policy soon began moving
in a different direction. In 1968 the Department of Labour required
contractors to have “goals and timetables” for increasing minority
representation. In 1971 the Supreme Court ruled that the act forbade “not
only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but
discriminatory in operation.”
A slew of affirmative-action programmes aimed at correcting that
discrimination-in-operation followed. They were intended to boost minority
employment and remedy systemic discrimination in hiring and admissions: both
worthy endeavours. But because race-based affirmative action is a blunt and
gameable instrument, it often helps successful or well-connected applicants
rather than truly needy ones.
Diverse opinions
Real progress was made during the era of affirmative action. A 1998 study
conducted by William Bowen and Derek Bok (former presidents of Princeton and
Harvard) found that in 1960 5.4% of blacks between the ages of 25 and 29
had graduated from college; by 1995 that share had jumped to 15.4%. Blacks
went from barely 1% of law students in 1960 and 2.2% of medical students in
1964 to 7.5% and 8.1% by 1995. They almost doubled their representation
among the nation’s doctors and almost tripled it among America’s engineers
and lawyers.
But that was not all due to affirmative action. Thomas Sowell, an economist,
points out that black education levels began rising, and poverty levels
falling, as blacks started to move out of the South in the 1940s and 1950s.
And even if Mr Bowen and Mr Bok are correct, and affirmative action did
greatly benefit blacks in the first couple of generations after segregation,
it does not follow that it should remain in place today, when most blacks
at university are from middle- or upper-class families and many are recent
immigrants never touched by pre-1960s discrimination.
Making history in 1964
Hence the shift in goals from remedying racial injustice to fostering
diversity: hence the insistence of university administrators that race is
just part of an “overall holistic view” of each candidate. Not everyone
believes them. During oral arguments in Ms Fisher’s case Sonia Sotomayor, a
justice who has acknowledged that she benefited from affirmative action in
her early career, said that the UT-Austin’s programme “sounds awfully like
a quota to me”.
Such diversity programmes tend to benefit black and Hispanic applicants;
unfortunately, they tend to penalise both whites and Asians. Ron Unz, a
software developer and magazine publisher, examined Asian-American enrolment
numbers at elite colleges in a 2012 article poignantly titled “The Myth of
American Meritocracy”. He found that the proportion of Asian-Americans at
Harvard rose from around 5% in the early 1980s to more than 20% by 1993.
After that, however, the proportion started to decrease, even as the numbers
of college-age Asian-Americans rose. Mr Unz found similar patterns at other
Ivy League universities. At the California Institute of Technology, by
contrast, a first-rate university with race-neutral admissions, Asian-
American enrolment rose.
In 1997 Thomas Espenshade of Princeton analysed the scores on SATs, a widely
used test for college admissions, that different races needed in order to
get into private universities. He found that Asian-Americans’ SAT scores
had to exceed those of whites by 140 points out of 1,600, those of Hispanics
by 270 points and those of blacks by 450 points. A study by Mark Perry of
the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank, found that black students
with average grades and test scores were almost three times more likely than
Asians with similarly average qualifications to get into medical school.
Given this, it is unsurprising that in the decade after voters in California
barred race-conscious university admissions, Asian-Americans entered the
state’s elite colleges in far greater numbers. The share of Asian-Americans
at UC Berkeley rose by nearly ten percentage points, from 37.3% in 1995 to
46.6% in 2005. The number of blacks and Hispanics enrolled fell,
particularly at the flagship schools, Berkeley and UCLA.
What was more surprising was that in the entering class of 2000 a record
number of black students graduated on time. Mr Sander and Mr Taylor argue
that previously low black graduation rates were a result of the mismatch
which occurs when a student granted preferential admission winds up at an
institution for which he is not academically suited. He begins at a marked
relative disadvantage and falls behind quickly. His grades get lower and
lower and in the worst cases he loses confidence and fails to graduate.
Mr Sander and Mr Taylor attribute a host of bad outcomes to mismatch. For
example, more black than white high-school seniors aspire to science and
engineering careers, but once in college twice as many black students as
white abandon those challenging fields. Black law students fail the bar exam
at four times the rate of whites. Some worry that if the Supreme Court
forbids race-conscious admissions, blacks and Hispanics will, in effect, be
shut out of elite institutions. Mr Sander and Mr Taylor argue that though a
ban might lower the number of blacks at top-tier law schools, it would be
likely to increase the number of black lawyers in practice by boosting their
rates of graduating and passing the bar exam.
That would not solve the diversity issue that UT-Austin puts at the heart of
its case. The issue is not just a fetish of lefty academics. Lewis Powell
in 1978 and Justice O’Connor in 2003—both nominated to the Supreme Court
by Republican presidents—recognised diversity as a “compelling state
interest”. Dozens of large corporations—including Dow Chemical,
Halliburton, Shell and Walmart—have filed a brief in support of UT-Austin,
noting that they have “found through practical experience that a workforce
trained in a diverse environment is critical to their business success.” A
joint brief filed by counsels to several government departments said that
the “Department of Defence has concluded that a highly qualified and
broadly diverse officer corps is essential to military readiness.” A paper
by Barbara Wolfe and Jason Fletcher of the University of Wisconsin and Yale
School of Medicine has found that there is a positive link between attending
a university with greater student-body diversity and higher earnings and
family income.
But universities can ensure diversity without race-based affirmative action.
After a 1996 ban on race-conscious-admissions by a Texas court (later
abrogated by Grutter) public universities in Texas began automatically
admitting students who had graduated in the top 10% of their high-school
classes. By 2004 the percentage of black and Hispanic students enrolled
equalled or exceeded the share before the ban, largely because of America’s
lamentable residential segregation. (Ms Fisher’s suit concerns the race-
conscious process for allocating spaces reserved for those who graduate from
high school beneath the top decile, as she did.)
Ms Fisher has her day in court
Universities are by and large pretty bad at enrolling poor students, but
there are signs of improvement. Some now use a range of demographic data to
target financial aid, outreach and, when needed, small preferences to those
they feel need it most. Admissions staff need to understand that the
constrained lives of poor students—with summer jobs rather than flashy
unpaid internships, or with the care of younger siblings squeezing out after
-school activities—can lead to less obviously interesting applications than
those of richer students.
The mismatch effect could still apply, but Mr Taylor and Mr Sander argue
that it need not. Universities can improve their recruiting efforts to find
talented low-income students. They can provide intensive summer programmes
for students from shaky academic backgrounds. They can free up more spaces
for deserving poor students by removing preferences awarded to the children
of alumni. Administrators may find it harder and costlier to sort through
such socioeconomic data rather than just looking at which race box an
applicant has ticked. But they should do so.
Though it has shown itself to be sceptical of race-conscious policies, the
Roberts court may not deliver a broad judgment against affirmative action
even if it finds for Ms Fisher. It may prefer to use the Michigan case to
confirm the right of voters to ban the policy instead. If its ruling in
either case helps bring America’s experiment with well-intentioned
discrimination in universities to a close, though, it will not be because
the country has entered, as many said when Barack Obama was first elected, a
“post racial” period. It has not. Blacks and Hispanics still lag behind
whites in income and education levels, and still exceed whites in
incarceration rates. But one set of injustices does not excuse another. | m********a
发帖数: 1041 | 4 “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop
discriminating on the basis of race.”
前天跟一位超級liberal的老爺爺聊天，我提到最怕坐地鐵時遇到黑人在車廂裡喧嘩笑
鬧。老爺爺向我解釋"black pride"的概念，因為之前黑奴不被當人看的情況，讓他們
很自卑。等到後來民權運動起來了，他們就提倡要有自己的價值觀、審美觀。所以現在
的黑人對自己的文化是很驕傲的。相對的，他們就認為在公共場合唱歌笑鬧，過自己的
日子是應該的。
這讓我更好奇了，如果黑人們都覺得說話做事寫東西都得要有黑人味，那他們心中不也
是一直在分你我他，那又怎麼能要求別人不要對他們有差別對待呢? | m********a
发帖数: 1041 | 5 {previously low black graduation rates were a result of the mismatch
which occurs when a student granted preferential admission winds up at an
institution for which he is not academically suited. He begins at a marked
relative disadvantage and falls behind quickly. His grades get lower and
lower and in the worst cases he loses confidence and fails to graduate}
適性教育，這麼簡單的道理，需要花這麼多力氣做研究才知道嗎? 感冒一星期缺了幾節
數學課再回來趕進度就很苦了捏。 | m********a
发帖数: 1041 | 6 {universities can ensure diversity without race-based affirmative action.}
{use a range of demographic data to target financial aid, outreach and, when
needed, small preferences to those they feel need it most.}
{Admissions staff need to understand that the constrained lives of poor
students—with summer jobs rather than flashy unpaid internships, or with
the care of younger siblings squeezing out after
-school activities—can lead to less obviously interesting applications than
those of richer students.}
{Universities can improve their recruiting efforts to find
talented low-income students. They can provide intensive summer programs
for students from shaky academic backgrounds. They can free up more spaces
for deserving poor students by removing preferences awarded to the children
of alumni.}
{Blacks and Hispanics still lag behind whites in income and education levels
, and still exceed whites in incarceration rates. But one set of injustices
does not excuse another.} |
|
