This article (and the underlying paper) provides documentation of what those of us who have done hiring HONESTLY have known for a long time: That Affirmative Action works because even though it gives minorities and women apparent preferential treatment, it is simply offsetting unearned prejudices that favor men and white men in particular.

Consider the premise put forth that women judges are better than their experience equivilent male judges. This raises the question of how might this come about? On viable mechanism is the unearned positive preferences given to whites and white males in particular in any subjective evaluation setting. This was most recently documented in an Institute of Management study that took two evaluation approaches:

• A "cooked" setting - a retail store in a mall that was fully video monitored so that behaviour could be scored by independent evaluators - and where the "sales reps" were actually actors who had been coached and scripted as to how to act. Cusotmers were then polled to assess their SUBJECTIVE Evaluation of the sales staff.
• For Identically scripted behaviour, the only correlation between higher scores was ... Gender and race
• For situations where men intentionally behaved worse - they still got more positive evaluations than women and minorities
• A hospital Setting - in a hospital that has implemented OBJECTIVE outcome measures as a way of improving its process, patients were also polled on SUBJECTIVE evaluation of the healthcare staff
• "white" staff - consistently got better evaluations even when the OBJECTIVE medically based outcomes were worse
• Male staff - consistently got better evaluations as well

So how does this get us to the conclusion that Affirmative Action is working? Consider what it takes to become a judge. Yes there are some objective measures along the way SATS, LSATs, Bar Exams. But there are decades of SUBJECTIVE evaluations along the way as well. And the key is that these SUBJECTIVE evaluations are cummulative in their effect: HS Grades (partially subjective) lead to better school admissions - Univ grades (partially subjective), Recommendations, and Admissions interviews lead to better Law school admissions - Law School Grades, admission to Law Review, Recommendations and Job interviews - ALL Subjective ==> Lead to more prestigious jobs.

So the cummulative effect of this unearned positive prefrence that males receive is that Males and white males in particular - have required LESSER QUALIFICATIONS to reach the same position as their female and minority counterparts because they had to ACHIEVE LESS.

And all Affirmative Action does is recognize this lower level of achievment by putting the thumb on the scale at the major evaluation points.

Since this means that Less Qualified candidates (white males) receive less consideration - why is this wrong?

/yawn

Hmmm . . .

This reminds me a great deal of a conversation I had with a bisexual "womyn's studies" major. We were talking about our trip to Mexico and our siteseeing among the ruins. I, I thought blandly enough, commented that we often think about the glories of Aztec or Inca culture but that life for the commoners was not so glorious, what with the king taking thousands of wives, owning all the property, and the human sacrificing.

She proceeded to tell me that I had no right to judge them by my standard, because my view of right and wrong was Eurocentric and it was the great conceit of white people to think that they had superior morals to other cultures when we had been so oppressive to native cultures for hundreds of years.

I granted she had at least one point - military dominance does not make moral rightness. But I asked her how she thought it happened that the West grew to dominate the world both militarily and culturally in the first place. She started blabbing about "colonialim" and "oppression" again, but I stopped her because she wasn't answering my question. How did Western civilization get to the point where they had the power and influence to do all these things in the first place? Why was there such assymetry of power between Europe and all the rest of the world for 500 years? What caused it?

I'm going to ask you the same question. If white men work less, don't try as hard, and are generally lazy, then how did they get into their positions of power and influence in the first place? Why don't the harder working latinos and black women rule the world?

I think it is in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers that he suggests that after you meet minimum requirements, there is not necessarily any benefit to being more qualified. This would apply to the women judges. If they are qualified enough, it doesn't matter whether someone else is nominally more qualified. For any job, you don't need to pick the "most qualified" person. You only need to pick someone who is sufficiently qualified.

People obviously applied this standard to Barack Obama. No one could reasonably think that Pres. Obama was more qualified than John McCain (even Obama wouldn't have said that). However, people decided that he was qualified enough, even if he wasn't the most qualified.

It would be nice if we could replace affirmative action with reasonable minimum standards of qualification and then randomly pick from the pool of qualified people, rather than trying to find the "most qualified".

It would be nice if we could replace affirmative action with reasonable minimum standards of qualification and then randomly pick from the pool of qualified people, rather than trying to find the "most qualified".

I suppose you'll be perfectly happy picking your doctor, lawyer, and airline pilot this way too?

Not a friggin' chance.

I'm going to ask you the same question. If white men work less, don't try as hard, and are generally lazy, then how did they get into their positions of power and influence in the first place? Why don't the harder working latinos and black women rule the world

The simple and short answer is "legally enforced discrimination". That last government enforced discrimination lawsuit was settled in 1979 - two years before Reagan started eviscerating the EEOC and Affirmative Action.

Consider the Conservative Nemesis - the Kennedy Clan. They made their wealth back when discrimination was legally enforced. And MOST of those now "in power" got their educations and initial jobs when discrimination was still legally enforced.

So money that was garnered (yes illegally) and then invested and grown when minorities were LEGALLY prohibitted from doing so, and then LEGAL discrimination was leveraged (Intentionally or not the benefit was there) to elevate the education of the offspring.

And now you want to compare Caroline with Chamiqua who's parents were legally prohibitted from getting a mortgage to buy a home???

BTW, Guns, Germs and Steel does a better job of explaiing the source of colonialism and why "western civilization" got to that position of power - a fortuitous combination of:

• Domesticable horses (from China) vs. undomesticable Zebras
• climate that works well for cereal grains - as opposed to a climate less amenable to cereal farming
• Geography that enhances settlement vs. nomadism.

IOW nothing inherent in Western civilization, just the luck of the geographic draw.

the true conservative:

It would be nice if we could replace affirmative action with reasonable minimum standards of qualification and then randomly pick from the pool of qualified people, rather than trying to find the "most qualified".

I suppose you'll be perfectly happy picking your doctor, lawyer, and airline pilot this way too?

Not a friggin' chance.

This is particularly ironic coming from a conservative. Conservatives have long argued this very line of reasoning:

• MDs can be "qualified enough" in a cost/performance trade off (the current healthcare debate)
• Government "minimum standards" are "good enough" to insulate vendors from "failure to perform" lawsuits

etc.

Now back to KevClark's comment about "Qualified Enough". I would agree that for a given role, "qualified enough" is sufficient. But particularly in the hyper adversarial hyper competitive realm of American Law and Jurisprudence, the sort of "stack ranking" is going to be hard to avoid.

Now the premise might still work IFF legal skills matter less in the "stack ranking" within a practice than other skills (people skills, accounting etc). But I'm not convinced

The simple and short answer is "legally enforced discrimination".

You're still missing the point. I am very well aware that the west in general, and america in particular, has a history of racial discrimination that needed, and to some extent still needs, rectified. That is not in dispute. What I'm asking is, if white men are generally lazier, work less efficiently, and are less productive than non-whites and women, how did they amass the power to become the oppressors in the first place? You can't argue "legally enforced discrimination" to explain how someone got into the position to be able to legally enforce that discrimination. At some point, someone had to have acheived something that someone else didn't.

And now you want to compare Caroline with Chamiqua who's parents were legally prohibitted from getting a mortgage to buy a home???

No, but I do reserve the right to say that if Chamiqua is still not doing as well as a Chinese or Hispanic immigrant that came to america penniless (and possibly even without the benefit of legal papers) then something besides historical disadvantages or current white animosity towards minorities is at work.

BTW, Guns, Germs and Steel does a better job of explaiing the source of colonialism and why "western civilization" got to that position of power - a fortuitous combination of:

• Domesticable horses (from China) vs. undomesticable Zebras
• climate that works well for cereal grains - as opposed to a climate less amenable to cereal farming
• Geography that enhances settlement vs. nomadism.

IOW nothing inherent in Western civilization, just the luck of the geographic draw.

Oh come now. Vast swaths of Africa and China are at least as productive agriculturally as Europe. China especially had cities, horses, large populations, centralized government, steel, and gunpowder.

This is particularly ironic coming from a conservative. Conservatives have long argued this very line of reasoning:

• MDs can be "qualified enough" in a cost/performance trade off (the current healthcare debate)
• Government "minimum standards" are "good enough" to insulate vendors from "failure to perform" lawsuits

etc.

Absolutely false comparison.

I may choose to hire the less experienced guy if I'm convinced he's good enough and the cost tradeoff is worth it to me. But nobody better try to take away my right to make that choice as I see fit.

If you are engaged in Commerce, The Fed is empowered to regulate you.

And there is no logical reason why society should not have a right to set standards of behaviour for treatment of citizens in the workplace.

What I'm asking is, if white men are generally lazier, work less efficiently, and are less productive than non-whites and women, how did they amass the power to become the oppressors in the first place?

Ok then it goes back to the focus on Rape and Pillage in the middle ages. Might makes right. Europe was largely devoid of non-whites. So Might Makes Right puts white men physically in power. From this they rationalize it via "divine right of kings" and reinterpret the "bible" to provide divine authority for this.

We see this across most cultures where food or resources are scarce. In Polynesia where food and resources are abundant we see different societal structures emerge.

Europe happens to be blessed with an environment that fosters equestrian martialism and cereal agrarianism. That gives them a leg up in military development that puts them ahead of all but the Chinese and Japanese.

And they transplant it around the rest of the globe at the point of the sword backed by "legal" (church) authority.

QED you arrive in the USA with white males already in power and passing laws that avoid putting this at risk until we get to the same place the polynesians were a millenia ago- plenty of resources, and no external threats. AKA the 1950s/60s. At which point the oppressed get enough power to start to fight for equality.

China especially had cities, horses, large populations, centralized government, steel, and gunpowder.

And china was one of the greatest empires for a very long time. They achieved a much bigger empire for much longer long before Europe. In some ways this ended up being their downfall. They had created an empire before military technology made the next leap. Europe made that leap because when they got Chinese technology, they were still in the Might Makes Right phase and hence developped it further. So when the cultures met again in the late 1800s western war technology had gotten the edge. So we subjugated them by force. Might Makes Right again.

Africa lacked the ability to create cavalry and long distance interior transport because of a lack of domesticable equine or equivilent.

Goes back to Might Makes Right of the few. IE rewarding visciousness rather than other forms of competency

Degsme. I smile every time I see you jump on your "white males must be put down" wagon--your number one issue. I only wish I could understand your motivations--since you're a white male yourself. So am I. But I fail to see why it's so important for society to focus its vitriol on me (and it has--I've felt it). Both sides of my white family had ALWAYS been poor--my father's family were the poorest of Eastern European farmers. I know because I personally visited the mud huts they lived in (in the '60s). I'm the first of either side of the family to go to university, and the first to make any significant money and/or not be a wage slave--at best.

What's my crime again? Why the enthusiam to find the "social criminals," and IDENTIFY them by race and gender?

There have ALWAYS been more poor and downtrodden within ANY race or gender than there have been priviledged. Don't you know that? There are and have always been PLENTY of oppressed white men. I will admit there are far fewer now than, say, two hundred years ago. But I see that as a good thing--there are also far fewer oppressed Blacks and far fewer oppressed women. Apparently, things are trending better for everyone, without needing to put down white men to create that trend. So...why are there (happily only a few) lingering zealots like yourself who NOW see the key to "progress" to be the oppresion of white males?

Hmm how to explain. Ok lets try it this way.

Lets look at your opening premise and the implied conclusion.

I smile every time I see you jump on your "white males must be put down" wagon--your number one issue. ... I fail to see why it's so important for society to focus its vitriol on me (and it has--I've felt it).

What I take from this is that you perceive from my support of Affirmative Action a demand that "white males be put down" and you also perceive anger in society on issues of race as focus of Vitriol ON you.

Now I'm not denying that I openly support the need for continued Affirmative Action. Nor that you have seen people angry and possibly angry at you based on your race and gender. But the MEANING you assign to this seems to come purely from your experiences as a white male.

So hypothetically lets pretend that we are talking about StevieW (can't get the inverted N I'd like) not StevieN. StevieW overtly and openly believes in white male superiority.

And lets also consider StevieH - StevieH is a born American but of Meztiso (aztec/Toltec) heritage and because his family (like mine) spoke their mother tongue at home, he speaks with accented english.

So lets look at how each of these two would perceive my support of Affirmative Action as offsetting white male priviledge:

• StevieW would see it as my selling out my race and gender
• StevieW would see my actions as threatening to him
• StevieW would see my actions as "putting him down"
• StevieW would see my actions as supporting the less qualified candidate.

Meanwhile

• StevieH would see me as being aware of how race and gender discrimnate against him
• StevieH would see my actions as treating him fairly
• StevieH would see my actions as simply levelling the playing field
• StevieH would perceive that finally he had a chance to show off his real qualifications.

Notice the difference based on how they have experienced gender and race in the USA. White males for the most part simply do not have any real awareness of the impact of racism on everyone else. I'm an egalitarian. I want to be creditted for my achievements because of what I did, not because I'm white and male.

In any job where the number of qualified applicants is far greater than the number of available slots, you're not going to see much performance difference between one random member of the qualified group and another.

However, this doesn't justify affirmative action. Contrary to what you're saying, affirmative action doesn't offer positions to minorities at the expense of the well-connected. It offers positions to minorities at the expense of poorly connected white men. Essentially, you're just exchanging a power advantage between one group of outsiders and another. Instead of the band geeks getting a spread in the yearbook, the math club does. But the football players and cheerleaders - no matter what their skin tone may be - are still front and center.

This effect has been well-documented. While Affirmative Action has increased the involvement of minorities, it has completely crippled the ability of poor whites to access elite educational institutions and jobs.

It offers positions to minorities at the expense of poorly connected white men. Essentially, you're just exchanging a power advantage between one group of outsiders and another. Instead of the band geeks getting a spread in the yearbook, the math club does

I will acknowledge that this does occur. And this is largely why middle class and particularly undereducated whites are frustrated with Affirmative Action. Elite whites have been very clever to protect their priviledges through "connections" and "legacies" and the like while Affirmative Action makes inroads into the opportunities by the less connected whites. But that doesn't mean that Affirmative Action is being done "at the expense of " poorly connected white men.

Consider - 10 openings.

It used to be that the well connected underqualified white males would take 3 of them. 4 or so would go to qualified connected and middle class white men, and the remaining 3 would go to marginally qualified lower status white males.

With Affirmative action (lets say we are back in the era of quotas) 1/2 the jobs go to women. Now odds are that 2 of those women are underqualified well connected women. 2 of them are qualified elite women and 1 is a minority woman that like the lower status males is marginally qualifed.

Now of the remaining 5 jobs, connected qualied men and connected underqualified men split them 3 and 2. And this leaves out the marginally qualified lower status men.

But here is the issue. The reality is that like in the Bakke UT Law case, the marginally qualified white men ARE NOT being displaced by the marginally qualified minorites. INSTEAD they are being displaced by the CONNECTED BUT UNQUALIFIED white men and women. Because clearly these marginally qualifed white males could do the job better than these UNQUALIFIED WHITE MALES. This was true in Bakke as well. White Males with LOWER GRADES AND LSATS WERE ADMITTED ahead of Bakke. Their qualifications were... Legacies - ie connectedness.

But note, both Bakke and theses marginally qualified white males do not identify the UNQUALIED WHITE MALES as those displacing them. Instead they notice Race and become even more preoccupied with race.

QED the objection to Affirmative Action IS ITSELF BASED in ...racism. So the idea that eliminating Affirmative Action is simply giving in to racism