Vision Circle

Huh?

What does your constant change model have to do with growth of the middle class? Moreover, who argues that middle class growth is impacted negatively by affirmative action programs (whatever you define them to be)?

I'm missing something here; help me understand what your point is.

Conservatives make the argument that we didn't need affirmative action to grow the middle class. in fact, they argue that it has HURT the growth of the class.

what ed is saying is that of course there is going to be massive growth when your n is damn near non-existent.

what ed is saying is that of course there is going to be massive growth when your n is damn near non-existent.

Yep.

I don't know that "affirmative action" IS a viable strategy for growing a middle class but then again, I tend to be very strict in what I refer to as "affirmative action."

If the point is "don't let "x" get away with playing statistical games," then the post makes sense -- at least partially. Remove the statistical gameplaying and you are still faced with a challenging cause and effect problem.

Certainly, the recipients of many "affirmative action" remedies were able to enter the "middle class" -- but many were not and many entered without the remedies. So, how are you going to parse out the total picture?

In the end, I think the question comes down to what are those arguements that these "conservatives" offer?

I think anti-affirmative action conservatives would properly argue that affirmative action is a corruption of meritocracy and they'd be mostly right. But I think many of them go one small step further, which is too far, when they apply the stigma argument against blacks as a class. The first argument is not racial, the second is.

The question is whether or not affirmative action is a sufferable corruption of meritocracy, and i think the answer is yes, so long as you don't buy stigma. The difficulty is that if you don't give stigma any weight, neither can you give 'represent' any weight. Thus you disable the political significance of affirmative action.

Problem with your arguement, "Cobb," is that real "affirmative action" IS NOT a corruption of meritocracy: it is a narrowly-applied, legal remedy for demonstrated and proven illegal discrimination. Period.

When we allow those "anti" folks to apply the label to other programs and then try to throw out even true AA, we got trouble. We do nothing as supporters of the selective application of preferences for ourselves when we misuse the concept ourselves or allow them to. Frankly, I expect the "anti" crowd to misrepresent; you'd think the "pros" could get it right but we don't and in the process open the discussion to considering them "mostly right." They are not even a little bit right!

The only conservative I have read who argues persuasively that affirmative action (as it is practiced) has an overall net negative effect is Thomas Sowell. He argues this point historically and internationally, showing how affirmative action has had a net negative effect in countries as diverse as Singapore and India. When discussing affirmative action here in the U.S. he says there is no actual evidence that affirmative action has helped the middle class more than if the natural progression of the time had just continued. The idea being, when affirmative action became an idea of political acceptability by all those white congressmen, the society had already started changing in their hearts and the law reflected the changing society which would have continued in its positive direction. However, although affirmative action became an initial rallying point, it ended up just being another ineffective program that white people can point to to pat themselves on the back and say "see, we are doing something" (that's Shelby Steele). Thomas Sowell has historically and internationally shown that affirmative action, where ever practiced, has always had a net negative impact.

(My own personal view, I believe affirmative action, or head start, or welfare, or medicare, when done on a federal scale is the tower of babel: ie. man saying somehow we can create utopia ourselves and be gods. When communities create local programs like head start, or welfare, etc. their is accountability and quick response when things aren't going as planned.The programs aren't necessarily bad, the scale of the programs, and the execution of the programs, are the problem. In other words, man is sinful, and whenever we think we can create universal equity, equality, or utopia we are just fools.

PDN

I agree with part of the last statement. I don't believe man is sinful. I do believe that utopia is an impossibility, as life is much too complex. Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. I find it difficult to stomach arguments that insist we would be in the same place if people didn't fight for workplace regulation, civil rights, consumer protection, etc.

I've been meaning to get to Sowell's book. I have to say at the outset that I am not expecting much, but I believe this one was actually vetted by an academic press. This gives me hope.