RACISM What’s The Score?
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010Author Tony De Maio
I have watched with some amusement over the years at the attempted implementation of “Affirmative Action”, “Leveling the Playing Field”, “Equal Opportunity”, and other euphemisms for favoritism, discrimination, and preferential treatment. I guess it’s somewhat of a coincidence that all these attempts results in “pleasing” some privileged faction, obtaining votes for various politicians, or currying political favor with some population or group. Since the decisions are often based upon race, it is not unreasonable to call it “racism”. It is unfortunate that the methods of implementing such decisions/policies are made in apparent ignorance, and many times operate to the detriment of the population that is being “assisted”.
Consider the practice of lowering the score on entrance examinations for entrance into various areas for certain groups. Oh, heck, lets keep it simple, be politically incorrect, and look at allowing blacks into college with lower SAT scores than whites. It is essentially the same paradigm across many similar situations—political appointments, jobs, college entrance, committees, medical school, etc.
Such a procedure raises the hackles of many people—on both sides of the issue. Battles occur as the question of just how much of a difference should be allowed—or even IF a difference should be allowed. I find it entertaining to listen to such debates. It is much like listening to a politician—much talk but little action; much rhetoric but little substance; much opinion, but few facts; much emotion, but little logic; much yelling, but little reason or common sense. I suggest to you that it may make MUCH sense to use lower scores for blacks. Alternatively, it may be absolute NONSENSE—indeed, counter productive—to use lower scores for blacks. Consider the following.
The first (perhaps the only) question one must ask in addressing this situation is, “What is the goal?” If the goal is simply to get more blacks INTO college, then it is simply a matter of determining what percentage is desired, and setting the cutoff score so that the desired percentage is obtained. Under such a perspective, perhaps a score of “zero” on the SAT may be an acceptable score. Such a goal is not amenable to analysis or science, and belongs more in the realm of politics or sociology. In terms of “fairness”, perhaps the question belongs to the realm of philosophy. Any “answer” that is obtained is subject to the initial assumptions, which may be (and most probably are) somewhat arbitrary and most probably determined by “negotiation”.
If the goal is to get people “out of college” (i.e. graduate), then the question can be addressed scientifically. The first thing one must realize is that there is no intrinsic interest or worth to the SAT score. The score is of little use other than to predict how well the student will do in college (often in conjunction with high school grades. Such grades are not relevant to the present discussion). Clearly, if there is differential performance in college between black students and white students with the same SAT score, it makes little sense to require identical scores for entrance. Conversely, it would not be expected that two students would perform identically with different SAT scores. One must understand it is the college performance—in particular, graduation—that is of interest—not the SAT score.
Suppose a group of black students and white students were to take the SAT test, and ALL were allowed to enter a given college. Suppose that four years later, a follow-up study was performed that looked at the performance of the students in terms of their SAT scores and whether or not they graduated. Suppose furthermore that it was determined that of the whites that obtained a score on the SAT of 1,100 or greater, eighty percent graduated from college; and of the blacks with a score of 900 or greater, eighty percent graduated from college. If eighty percent graduation is the appropriate (or agreed upon) graduation rate, would it not make sense to require the higher score of 1,100 for whites and the lower score of 900 for blacks to enter the college? Alternatively, the situation may be that fifty percent of the whites with a score of 900 graduate from the college and fifty percent of the blacks with a score of 1,000 graduate. In such a case would it not be appropriate to require a HIGHER score for blacks?
It is a trivial statistical problem to equate the two sets of scores in terms of the desired outcome—if such is desired. Analysis may show that identical scores result in identical graduation rates for the two groups. In such a case, it would make little sense to use different (entrance) scores for the two populations—in terms of scientific prediction. It may make a lot of sense to use different scores in terms of political pandering/posturing.
As previously stated, it may well make much sense to require different scores for blacks and whites (indeed, for MANY groups, e.g. males/females) from a strictly scientific approach to the problem. Unfortunately, such is not the usual procedure; efficiency, fairness, and effectiveness are generally NOT the goals. As each group curries favor with the (political) powers that be, an effort is made to appease, placate, and pander to that group, and the cut-off scores for that group are set by “negotiation”. Such a method does not lend itself to scientific inquiry, but it does garner votes. Like many methods of obtaining votes, it is often not only nonsense, but it is often counter productive. Allowing students to enter a college where they have no chance of success not only wastes their time and money and prevents them from entering a path where they WOULD be successful, but it usurps resources that could be used for other students that would graduate. Placing such people in employment positions where they cannot succeed could be considered brutal—even if they are not fired. As a matter of fact, I suggest it is crueler to leave them in the positions to experience failure day after day than it would be to release them.
Unfortunately, our leaders elect to use political criteria to make decisions instead of scientific criteria. They make decisions on the basis of feelings, emotions, and “political reality” rather than facts and logic.
On the other hand, perhaps this decision-making process is not based upon ignorance. Perhaps the process is reasonable and sensible when one considers the original question:
Which is: “What is the goal?”
The behavior of the politicos is quite rational, logical, and appropriate if their goal is for them to stay in power at any expense—including harming the very people they profess to assist. If our leaders decry “racism” while they practice it, it must be realized that they answer to a higher calling. They are not subject to the laws they pass that the rest of us must follow.
Related posts:
Linda Brady Traynham says:
July 21st, 2010
7:51 pm
Tony, dear, you are always as satisfying as a double slice of first class cheese cake.
Desertrat says:
July 21st, 2010
8:08 pm
Implicit in this “race-norming” of scores is, “You’re not good enough to make it on your own.”
If that’s not cruelty, what is?
‘Rat
Tony says:
July 21st, 2010
8:29 pm
Rat,
Again, you have confused the purpose of testing. In many cases, the test is only of interest in that it may predict “success”. Adjusting the “success” score based upon scientific evidence is not cruel. There appears to be some belief amongst the population that God created these tests.
If the “race-norming” is done by negotiation, political pressure, extortion, etc., then I must agree with you totally.
If the “race-norming” is done scientifically and shows equal graduation rates for lower scores for one group, it may simply reflect inefficiencies in the predicting instrument (e.g. SAT test). There is no reason why a predictor should be equally efficient with all groups, or have the same prediction equation.
Consider using a score on mechanical aptitude as a predictor for college success. I betcha men would score higher than women on the predictor instrument, but if both groups were allowed to enter, just as many women as men would graduate.
If you use just a Math test, you get the same results. If you use just an English test, the results reverse. We have no way of totally estimating the bias in a test, except by conducting an experiment. Unfortunately, those experiments are not done. I wonder why.
always,
tony
Desertrat says:
July 22nd, 2010
6:48 am
Oh, I fully understood your point, Tony, but I’ve yet to hear of race-norming for other than political reasons. SFAIK, it started with LBJ’s EEOC programs, and spread from there. My recollection is that for university entrance, Cal Berkeley was the first to use it.
Digressing: Back in the early days of the Great Society, an EEOC guy was driving his late-model Olds through the back country of Arkansas. He stopped for gas at a little two-pump operation. After the old man there had filled the tank, he asked, “Young feller, just what do you do?” The EEOC guy replied, “I’m with the War on Poverty!”
“Hmmm. Looks like you’re winnin’.”
Tony says:
July 22nd, 2010
7:16 am
Rat,
As I sed, I must agree with you.
Not only that, but I must agree with you concerning how the “adjusted” scores are derived.
The political nightmare that would ensue if the data showed it was desireable to require HIGHER scores for certain groups (unless they are whites or asians) makes it necessary to prohibit such experiments.
By the same token, try to find a reasonable (much less valid) evaluation of school bussing. Emanuel Rahm was right–we ARE cowards when it comes to “race”, although I don’t think he meant it in the same manner as I.
There are those that believe that sometimes it is best to NOT know some things. I believe it is called “sticking your head in the sand”. You see the results around you every day.
rebel without a job,
tony
Steve Foste says:
July 22nd, 2010
7:26 am
Tony and Rat,
How about the other areas of government sponsored racism, the preference and mandatory hiring of Minority owned businesses on government projects, and the military and minority preference points awarded when applying for a job with the government. It is very hard for some individuals to overcome 15 preference points on an scale of 100. That is the max advantage before they look at the qualifications for the job.
Steve
Tony says:
July 22nd, 2010
8:28 am
Steve,
THAT would be a separate paper all by itself. Your point(s) are well taken, but beyond the scope of statistical prediction, although the point system itself may well be approached through psychometrics or measurement theory. Having participated in some of those contract awards, I have as much faith in the present system as I have in the methods fused for college admission.
Such behavior (preferential treatment) probably belong in the realm of philosophy, sociology, politics, or voodoo.
always,
tony
Steve Foste says:
July 22nd, 2010
4:44 pm
Tony,
Careful there our leader Linda would never stup to voodoo. LOL, well maybe!
I have also been thinking about the term Racist lately, I think in many ways people have racism vs. prejudice mixed up. They are two different things.
James the Wanderer says:
July 22nd, 2010
5:11 pm
There is no end to government “meddling”, no positive result to come of it, and no end to politicians eager to “get it right” the 187th time.
I need to devise an “index” for government stupidity, so I can sell covered calls and retire a rich man. No one could ever short it, since that would automatically be a losing bet.
Thanks for a great article!
james
Tony says:
July 22nd, 2010
5:52 pm
Steve et al,
I ran into the term “racist” and “bigot” for the first time in a college class. I asked a simple question:
“What’s ‘wrong’ with defacto segregation?”
There were no rational answers. I answered all the objections with factual evidence. After a half hour of rather heated debate, there was silence for about 30 seconds, then one guy said, “I don’t care how much education you have, a bigot is still a bigot.”
I didn’t understand the logic of that, so I went home and looked in the dictionary for the definition of “bigot”. It said,
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
At the time, I thought, “Hell, it ain’t ME that’s closing my eyes to evidence.”
Much like the line, “Half the kids are below average in intelligence.”, we take perfectly reasonable statements, dress them up so they look stupid, then market them to the population.
To this day, I don’t quite know what “racism” is. It must have many meanings, because everyone seems to think it is something different.
Same with “prejudice”. I don’t know what it means to “prejudge”. Does it mean you have to have ALL the facts before making a decision? That’s a recipe for paralysis.
Let me ask this one question. Who is taller, Sally or Tom. If that’s all the information you have, you probably would guess “Tom”, since it is presumed Tom is male and Sally is female, and ON THE AVERAGE males are taller than females.
To those that would say, “You can’t tell, since some females are taller than some males.” I say, “You are correct. However, if you must have all the facts before making decisions, you’re not going to be able to make many decisions. Good luck making it in this world–you’re gonna need it.”
rebel without a job,
tony
I’m reminded of the old Red Skelton joke. He said he only bought stocks that went up. If they didn’t go up, he didn’t buy them.
Desertrat says:
July 23rd, 2010
4:24 pm
Just my opinion, but I think the common usage of the word racism means hostility toward a group whose only real difference is skin color. “Prejudice” and “bigot” or “bigotry” are connotatively included by many when they’re making the accusation of racism.
Dictionaries aren’t used very much, these days…
Steve, the amount of “reverse racism” by our governments at all levels and by the PC crowd get me to spluttering in frustration. So I ain’t goin’ there!
Tony says:
July 23rd, 2010
5:43 pm
Rat,
I’ve seen this “definition” before. HOWEVER, look at it from a scientific point of view.
Take a group of people. Isolate them for a few thousand or million years. Allow mutations for “survival”. Take another group of people. Isolate THEM for a few thousand years. Allow mutations for “survival”, but require DIFFERENT skills for survival.
Do you or anyone believe that these groups will be “equal” in any sense of the word? The “problem” is the left tends to place an evaluative dimension (good/bad) on damn near every statement. Those two groups WILL be different. Whether one group is “superior” or “inferior” to the other will depend upon what criterion is used. I suggest to you that “skin color” is only one criterion upon which the groups differ. Go to any track meet and try to make the argument that blacks and whites are “equal”.
rebel without a job,
tony
Desertrat says:
July 24th, 2010
5:15 pm
I’ve never worried about equality except as rights under the law. Equal rights is a whole separate deal from equal opportunity or equal abilities. When people start in on some line of BS that really means equal results under color of law, I tend to edge toward rude and impolite.
Lynne says:
July 29th, 2010
6:53 pm
Have you explained why you aren’t a racist? Have you ever said “some of my best friends are…” bad things ;happened in the past. My ethnic background is German, Irish and Cherokee/Comanche. So do I feel bad about National socialism or Nazis? Or “Manifest destiny? No, I was born well after that and I’m not beholden to the sins of my grandfather or father or any government. I’m responsible for the actions of me and no one else.
We hold these truths self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Tony says:
August 1st, 2010
7:53 am
Lynne,
Once upon a time, I was managing a unit at Calif DMV. I needed to fill a position, and went to get approval from the Affirmative Action coordinator.
He stated to me quite confidently that my boss was a racist because he had hired no Mexicans. I told him, “Please don’t tell my boss’s wife that he’s a racist.” The guy looked puzzled, then asked, “Why not?” I replied, “Because she is Mexican. Her maiden name was Enriquez.”
The surprising thing was it didn’t faze him at all.
We then went on to talk about the gal I wanted to hire. He said, “Shouldn’t you get someone bi-lingual?” (code, of course). I protested strongly, saying, “Hell, man, the position is in research. Why would I need someone bi-lingual.” He said, “Well, I don’t think I’ll approve this, I think you need someone bi-lingual.” I said, “O.K., I’ll get someone bilingual–will that satisfy you?” He said, “Sure.” To which I replied, “This gal IS bilingual–she has an MA in Spanish.” That didn’t faze him either–he just said, “You know what I mean.”
Such are the people that are “leading us” and have the power. Much like the Ag gal that didn’t want to help the white folk, they abuse their power greatly.
Gawd help us if we don’t get Obamacare repealed.
always,
tony
We
george hartje says:
August 13th, 2010
9:12 am
Let us be very truthful with ourselves,unless we are (a bird of the feather)we always have that little tinge of judgement about people of different races and colors.The civil human being may wait until he knows said individual before making his final judgement. (which can be in as little as 10 seconds.) I myself,choose not to judge by the color of ones skin only the thickness of it. I care not what color you are but if you are thin skinned you won’t like me much anyway. I believe in the truth in as few words as possible almost to the point of being crass.Whats the problem with this racial thing? As always.Skip
Tony says:
August 26th, 2010
7:23 am
Skip,
Sterotypes came into being for a reason. Sho ’nuff, they ain’t always right–matter of fact I suspect they are wrong more than they are right.
“Tell it to the marines.” came about during WW II when the navy was transporting the marines. The marines kept asking questions about ship operations. The navy folks kept telling them outlandish stories which SOME of the marines believed. It became a common saying whenever someone caught on that he was being lied to, to say, “Tell it to the marines.” The saying exists to this day.
Here’s a question for you–you’ve got ten seconds to answer. Who is taller–Sally or George? Obviously, you’re gonna guess “George”. If you have time, you’ll look at both Sally and George and THEN make your guess. If it’s close, you may even get out a tape measure and measure both of them. Good luck in doing it in ten seconds.
(If you refuse to judge, saying that SOME girls are taller than SOME men, I wish you luck in this world–you’re gonna need it. Wot’s the old saying?? ANY fool can make the right decision when he has all the information.)
When you have time, you can afford to wait for further information. When you DON’T have time, you make your decision quickly, based upon whatever information you have–be that sterotypes, mean/average characteristics of group membership, past experiences with such folk, whether or not they have tatoos, hair color, etc.
If you think about it, the same “procedure” applies to darn near everything–cars, furniture, tools, etc. Most folks think in terms of concepts–as in “chair”. If necessary, they refine it to “leather chair” or “kitchen chair”; then perhaps to “wooden kitchen chair”; and then to “walnut kitchen chair with padded seat”. The amount of “refinement” depends upon the perceived (future/type of?) interaction between the person and the “object/person” and the amount of time/resources available to gather information. (Can you imagine the resources required to interview everyone that applied to a popular university without the benefit of screening most out through an inexpensive test? How much “effort” do you put into judging whether or not someone would make a good date vs make a good wife?)
always,
tony