I have long thought that it would be a good idea to try class - based affirmative action. If Obama signed on to this - as you write, Noam, not in a craven fashion but just laid down in a calm week as a matter of belief - this might well help him with working - class whites who may otherwise be crossover or stay - at - home voters in November. This would be a wise move and certainly a no - lose one.

I've run across at least two instances where Obama has said some things to show preference for class-based affirmative action over old-school affirmative action. The one I remember was surprising because he was talking about his daughters and college admissions officers, and how he did not feel they should benefit from traditional affirmative action policies practiced by the college (he did not mention a particular college) because they were not traditionally disadvantaged. He made a compelling case for it, and brought me around to the idea pretty quickly: it would still benefit some traditional beneficiaries, but level the playing field for "poor white folk" as well.

I wish I could remember where I heard him talking about this, probably some clip from youtube.

LR, that is right. Class is the great divide in society, although race certainly is one as well, selling it as class relief is far easier (of course, the Republicans will just scream class warfare)

GSpinks,

I remember that exact interview though I also can't recall where I came across it.

I thought it was an eloquent comment on privilege and justice in America but I didn't come away with any sense that he was suggesting class-based affirmative action.  I think he was simply pointing out the limitations of our current approach to affirmative action.

I also don't see how class-based affirmative action could possibly be a winner for him politically.   How would class-based affirmative action work?  Based on income?  Measures of inheritiance? Father and grandfather occupation?  Penchant for latte and champagne?  It sounds a little nutty to me.  

And rather than appeal to white working class voters, I think it will repel many more because it sniffs of Marxism.   I could certainly be missing something here, but to me, it's got disaster written all over it.  

"of course, the Republicans will just scream class warfare"

No they won't. The Republicans have long wanted to replace race-based AA with class-based AA. Even evil Republicans recognize that bringing people out of poverty and giving them a taste of the American dream isn't wrong. They just don't want to angle it at black people.

Frankly - I think we're almost reaching the end of usefulness for AA. It's been about 30 years since legalized discrimination. Blacks will be feeling its effects for a couple more generations, but I think we've almost passed the point where the government bears a responsibility. So...the only remaining legit argument for AA (in my opinion) is achieving diversity. But as the racial issues slowly disappear and cultures continue to blend, even that argument will fall to the wayside.

Blackton -

Sorry, I should have given an example. George W. Bush's college admissions program in Texas was based on allowing everyone who attended Texas public schools who reached a certain level of achievement to attend college in Texas. In effect, this was class based AA, because it leveled the playing field between elite public schools and lesser schools (this is traditionally the divide. Take the great school of UVA. It took 45 students from my high school many years ago, but only 1-2 students from many other VA high schools with similar enrollment)

I've favored class-based affirmative action in the past.  

Now I wonder if it is a solution in search of a problem.   Are there a lot of poor whites, who live in crappy neighborhoods with hig crime rates and terrible schools that don't have a chance to go to an excellent college?  I know there are some in our large Country, but how many?

I think two things are at work when people discuss class-based affirmative action.  One, they see a lot of rich black kids in schools and wonder whether those kids got in on an affirmative action plan.   Two, people see stats that say something along the lines of entering black students have lower test scores.  That's it.

What we don't know is whether admissions officers are really exchanging high-testing poor white kids with  low-testing rich black kids.  I doubt it.  

After having attended a couple of fairly good schools, one ranked in the top ten, I've learned that the up-by-the-bootstraps person is very rare.  Whether Black or White.  I'm pretty certain that the brilliant white kid from Flint who was aced out of a chance to attend [Insert Great School]  is mostly a myth.  Moreover, if he's brilliant he can go to State U for a couple of years and transfer.      

Right now, I wish Obama would pander a bit.  I'm worried that he's not being enough of a street fighter.  Telling working-class whites that he feels their pain too could help get rid of his elitist label.   And unlike the gas tax, class-based AA makes sense.  

Sirhc?  Of course the brilliant kid from Flint will get in.  We're talking about the ones who aren't so brilliant but still deserving.  And lots of times, they can't afford it.  Where do you think this, yes, "bitterness" is coming from?  

thanks VA, I hope you are right. The University I teach at is almost all class based affirmative action, pretty much since pretty much everyone is poor (the state is rich from oil revenue, my University is essentially funded by Pemex via taxes) It gives me a slightly different perspective.

Some of us have been pushing this idea for more than a year (several years, in my case), before anyone paid any attention to Barack Obama. It has f-all to do with Souljah-ing or similar calculations and everything to do with demonstrating a solid grasp of the real challenges that working families in this country now face.

Those challenges have next to nothing to do with race and everything to do with

-- sh*tty schools, which thwart opportunities for their children to gain some measure of economic security;

-- our broken economic relationship with Mexico, which has caused the low-end labor market to be flooded with semi-literates and social services in moderate- and low-income areas to be overwhelmed by these refugees fleeing Mexican corruptiona nd economic devastation;

-- the asinine linkage of health insurance to employment.

I've seen absolutely nothing from our party's prospective nominee in the way of a credible plan and an iron commitment to turning around any of the above.

He would gain some real credibility with working Americans were he to end the fibs 'n' fairytales and speak some plain truths about ANY of the above-- for ex, that our schools piss away >40%, in most districts, of expenditure on non-classroom items, or that we need to close NAFTA's loopholes and stop dumping corn into Mexico and help Mexican campesinos succeed _in Mexico_, or that the insurance-employment link needs to be severed, full stop, no compromises.

Again, none of this has anything to do with Souljahing or racial politics. It's about showing some real understanding of working class American life in 2008.

You might call it common sense-- called such, as Shaw said, for being so rare.  

citizenghost, divert Affirmative Action grants and scholarships to existing (or new) need-based programs. Most institutions of higher education already have need-based programs in the form of government grants, subsidized loans, and private scholarships; these would provide the framework on which to build up and out.

Of course, this does not even begin to address affirmative action policies of employers, or anywhere else, but it seems like a pretty decent start to improving educational opportunities. Perhaps, in time, we will be able to just phase the other stuff because it won't be an issue anymore.

One of the reasons that those of us who refuse to quaff the Obamaian Kool-Aid are underwhelmed by the guy is that, of all the candidates we've seen over the past 20 years, he's the one for whom junking race-based aff action in school admissions should have been a no-brainer.

Blindlngly obvious, actually: given that he effortlessly gets 90% of the afr-amer vote in the primaries, he has tons of political capital to spend on the issue, and his own family's example demonstrates how ludicrous is a system that would grant melanin points to the children of two Ivy-educated lawyers and zero points to a poor white (or asian) child of a single mom. (Actually, given the de facto ceiling quotas now in effect at 45%-asian UC-Berkeley, the asian child has points taken AWAY from him due to his race).

Finally, the issue's not even controversial anymore. The people of California and Michigan have spoken already, knocking down race-based aff-action by lopsided margins (in MI's case, Connerly and Co., were outspent 4-1 and they still won over 60% of the vote!). And more states will follow soon.

Were Obama a truly visionary with real leadership chops, he'd have been all over this issue-- YEARS ago. As it is, jumping on it now doesn't even take any balls; it would mark him, yet again, as a weak and very conventional pol whose imagination and courage are imprisoned by his charisma and his belief in his own Carter-esque rhetorical trope about being above politics.

tep,

jumping on it now may not take balls, but making it happen would because people will still fight tooth and nail to maintain the system. then again, Obama got Chicago cops to agree to record confessions from suspects in capital crimes.

As for assessing what he would or would not have done if he was the kind of person you wanted, I think you should enlighten us with a detailed account of his time as a civil rights attorney and public servant in Illinois, and explain how the things he has accomplished were wasteful and needless.

:)

Not needless at all. Just not evidence of political skill, maturity or fitness to be POTUS.

He's a nice guy. He means well, looks good, gives a good speech. A lot of people find him glamorous. I'm sure he was a cut above his peers in Springfield, and he's probably smarter than most of his peers in the Senate.

As to teh glamorous aspect, Charismatic is certainly a valid leadership type, but charisma without toughness and vision doesn't make you a leader. Obama's not a visionary, he's not tough, and he has no signature issue-- aside from Iraq and "Bush Sucks"--  that edxplains his run. Sure, I voted for him in my state's primary and would do so again in the general at this point, but let's stop pretending that he's an exceptional leader.

I don't see him as much of a leader at all, to be honest, but he's a liberal Dem, as I am, and has my vote. Just as Carter, Mondale and Dukakis all did.

MollySimon: We're really on the same side, but to answer you question, my opinion is that a lot of the bitterness is misplaced.  At least to the extent that a working-class white person is thinking, I'm really smart but I couldn't go to college because a rich black guy took my spot.  I don't think college admissions or life works that way.

There are really two issues:  1) Does the smart working class person of whatever race have chance to go to college? Yes.  Especially, if he or she goes to a decent high school.  Once he or she gets to college can he or she do well enough to go to the grad school of his or her choice or transfer to a more highly-anked school?  Absolutely.  Letting in a rich black kid has virtually no impact on these truths.  

2)  Does the working class kid have enough money to go to college? Now we're getting somewhere. Maybe not. But are any of the beneficiaries of affirmative action the reason that a kid can't afford college? I doubt it.  

The real issue is the cost of college and how to get more people in college.  There are plenty of spaces for people who can afford to go.   The slots at the top schools will always be tough to get to and those schools are always going to look at more than raw numbers.

In fact, the raw numbers scam is just something that was put in after affirmative action came into place and was used to justify keeping out RICH minorities.  Years ago the elite colleges scoffed at the idea of bringing in students based on raw numbers instead of family connections.  Colleges were expected to want the upper class kids.  In other words, the raw numbers debate was meant to hide the fact that affirmative action was supposed to give Black people the chance to create their own class of legacy admissions.    The working class black or white kid wasn't supposed to get a break from legacy admissions or affirmative action - which, by the way, was a conservative response.  Ironic isn't it?  

If class-based affirmative action will assure that colleges are allowed to look at what is best for their community, the university's goals and so on and gets rid of legacy admissions, I say whoopee.  My guess is that won't happen.  IF the working class kid wants to look to the people who are keeping him out of college, it is almost certainly not a black person.  

When did Black people get all this supposed power anyway?

Sirhc - with preferential admissions programs, you have a binary outcome: A gets the spot, B does not. Of course there's an element of subjectivity, and of course there are other options, but the hard fact of binariness remains. One person is privileged, the other disadvantaged.

Given the de facto ceiling imposed on asian enrollments In the CA public university system-- a reverse quota or ceiling that's eerily similar to the one the Ivies imposed on those "pushy", uppity jewish kids back inthe first half of the 20th century-- in practice this means that a high-achieving, ambitious filipino, say, or a desi or a korean who deserved a spot at UC Berkeley is bumped and has to settle for UC Santa Cruz or Davis. And the asian kid who deserved a spot at UCSC or Davis is bumped to Irvine or Riverside if he's lucky  or the Cal State system if he's not. And the kid who would have gone to Cal State has to settle for junior college.

Meanwhile, we have hundreds of race-preferenced kids who can't hack the work getting into, and dropping out of, Berkeley and UCLA etc each year because of this policy that became an anachronism  decades ago. It benefits few people-- certainly not the afr-amer working class and underclass-- and harms many.

Time to scrap and move on to a top x % of HS class-gets-admitted system a la the Texas model.

Tep:  I don't want inspired, I want competent.  He's proved he can get things done, he's run for the most part a terrific campaign, and frankly, he has enough spine not to have wallowed in slimy politics, unlike our friend Billary.  Though I do have to say, he's not hammering enough points home.  

The war, however, is not a minor signature issue.  It's costing us trillions that could be helping with education, health care.  Don't care much for what he says on the immigration issue, which as far as I can tell is next to nothing.  You're absolutely right, though, that letting them flood our low-skilled jobs market is a crime.  

Curious about this:  If corn is in such demand, then why isn't Mexico itself getting its farmers to grow more.  There's a world-wide food crisis.  Isn't this their time to capitalize?  Of course, I'm way oversimplifying here.  I do think there are rumblings right now about taking away farm subsidies.  Would love to hear your thoughts.  

By the way, I do not think Obama is in the same class as Dukakis and Mondale.  Neither of them got folks half as excited.  

Sirhc:  You've done the impossible at TNR.  You've changed my mind.  (When I say at TNR, I mean rarely does any poster get convinced of anything.)  

I think the real issue is affordability.  I started thinking what it would mean to let the better state schools let in lesser students.  We don't need mediocre.  We've got plenty elsewhere to go around.

Still, getting a decent education at a second-rate school makes sense.  Just let them get there without taking on massive debt.  Now in England, everybody's tuition is taken care of.  But not everybody gets to go to university.  Many simply go to vocational schools (probably programming fits under this).  

When I really think about it, elementary/high school that's the problem.  As Teppy says, our system is crumbling.  The thing is, here in California, Prop 13, which capped property tax, has wiped out any chance we have of decent schools.    Now Massachusetts, which has always had  amazing schools , is doing the same thing.  Just watch what happens to the quality of their education.

Molly, when and where has Obama "gotten things done"?  What things?  I know of nothing that he has accomplished during his time in the US Senate - correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, I know, I'm a mouth-breathing repug and all, but seriously, what has this man ever DONE?  Looks great, gives a great speech, you bet.  That's it?  We should turn the country over to him on that basis alone?  Really?

BTW, there's a big world out there, and most of it isn't named Iraq.  What about the rest of the world?  What is his overarching f-p vision, if he has one?  The rise of China, relations with Russia, Latin American policy, just to name a few.

As for class-based AA, I'm with tep.

Thanks, Molly.  I agree with you on quality of education.  The same thing is happening in Michigan and Wisconsin.  

I also agree with Tep.  The only really fair way to go is to let in X top percentage at any school.  That system forces all school districts and parents to internalize the crappy school systems.

Now when a kid from Bloomfield Hills who is in the top 5% of his class  can't get in to Michigan we say, darn those black kids from Detroit Cass get a break.  It would be better if we could say, hey, if you think it is an advantage to be at Detroit Cass go there.  Finish in the top 5%, you will get into Michigan too.  My guess is that very few of the suburban kids will be willing to give up their superior education, help on the SAT and so on, but who knows.

Also, simply let the top X in will do away with the argument voiced above regarding drop outs.  If your kid gets displaced by a kid who will probably drop out, then be in favor of fixing the crappy school system.  But don't blame the kid in the crappy system.

It is also much closer to the way that elite State schools were supposed to work all along.  Everyone gets in.  The smartest get out.   The rich kids go to the Ivies.   (I'd still like to change the latter though).

Butchie:  I don't think all Republicans are mouth-breathers.  I actually like the idea of the old-style country club Republican.  It's these new war-mongering social conservatives that have me turned off.  If McCain were more liberal in social policy--and weren't so old--I'd actually vote for the guy, despite what he says about Iraq.  I can't see him keeping more people there.  It's just not politically possible at this point, and he's not a nimrod like our current exec in chief.  But we can't have everything, can we.  

Also, Butchie, he got plenty done as a state senator.  Look at his record.

Sirhc:  What happens though when the less capable kid drops out?  Whitey from Bloomfied doesn't get to fill his spot.  He's already taken what was offered.  Plus, you could say Whitie can go private, but that tuition is insane.  

I'm actually not in favor of letting in mediocres even if they are in the top 5 percent.  Like I said before, affordability and  better primary/secondary education, which really should go federal.  Allowing the states to run things, what with their capping property taxes, takes away any possibility for equal access/opportunity.   But what about saving, say, 10 percent of the spots for the top achievers at less-advantaged schools?  Somebody would have to create a formula, which would be imperfect but better than we have now.

Vis-a-vis the Ivies, Harvard is beginning to give free tuition to those whose families earn less than $70,000.  Raise it to 100,000 and you really are helping the middle-class.  

Another problem with class-based affirmative action is the definition of class.

Take two very average, but smart, kids in the midwest.  

Child A lives in Suburb of Large Rust Belt City.  Mom doesn't work.  Dad is professor at the local college.  He makes 100K.  They live in a very tony suburb because Child A's grandfather, who owned a succesful business and now lives in Florida, gave his parents the money for a down payment on a home.  The same grandfather also paid for his son's (child A's father) education, so Child A's parents have been out of debt and saving since they were in their mid-twenties.  They are set for retirement.

Child B lives in a inner-ring suburb of Large Rust Belt City.  His mom and dad both work at Large Rustbelt Company.  Last year, his parents made 65k each - 130k. But they might have to take pay cuts to keep ensure that they could keep their jobs.   Both parents moved to  Large Rust Belt City in the  seventies from Alabama with basically the shirts on their back.  They have no savings.

I would say I knew about 100 of these types kids in school.

Are these children in the same class?  Who decides?  The admissions officer?

MollyS:

When the less capable kid drops out, that spot will be open.  If the capable kid wants to try to transfer in he can.  If he likes where he is, he can

The problem with saying that you cannot let in Mediocre Kid is that she might be Capable Kid From Toughville and the future drop out might be Incapable Kid With All the Breaks.  We don't know.  There is too much divergence in high school experience.  

Sirhc,

I believe the simplest answer is to do what they did when I entered college, a copy of my parent's most recent tax return (or two)  and a credit check. Even a quick glance will tell exactly what kind of need is present for any particular student.

GSpinks:  

I don't believe that works.  My point was  that income does not indicate wealth or class.   Do you disagree?  What if your parents only had income of 50k per year, but were able to spend every dollar they had on school because 5 years ago your grandparents left them 500k in stock (along with the requisite stepped-up basis) that they didn't sell?

Are you in the same class as someone whose parents make 60k, but have no stock?  No way, in my opinion.

Molly - my limited understanding of the economics of the Mexican countryside is that it is massively corrupt and dominated by a class of PRI-aligned "bosses" who have prevented small farmers from getting anything more than a toehold in terms of land ownership, market access, investment capital etc. IOW there are structural barriers preventing the kind of adjustments that one would expect when prices soar.

Another structural barrier is our continuing subsidies to ADM and Cargill and the like for corn that is exported, ie dumped, into Mexico in clear violation of the spirit of NAFTA> By my cursory read of the trade data, in 2006 there was at least $1b in subsidized US corn dumped into Mexico. Add in other crops and you come up to a figure of at least a million, probably a couple million, Mexican farm jobs wiped out from this structural absurdity alone.

Re Prop 13 and the schools, I'm skeptical of the importance, at the margin, of funding for schools. We spend *far* more per pupil than any advanced nation east of the Elbe, and have less to show for it. I'd recommend we fix the curriculum first-- specifically, toughen the damn thing up and stop infantilizing our kids-- and then insist that we change the allocations of the money that is spent on the schools rather than raise it still higher.

On that last point, I could be wrong but my understanding is that some absurd % of school expenditure-- 40% or more, IIUC-- doesn't even reach the classroom, ie does NOT go to teachers' salaries, supplies and meals, operating expenses related to plant, property equipment. SOmeone started a campaign to raise the figure of classroom-related spend to a minimum of 64%.

Even that's too low. 64%?! Where the f--- does the other 36% go? What else does a school do besides house teach and feed kids for a portion of the day?

Why is it that kids from schools in (take your pick) Hungary Korea Finland Taiwan Czech Republic Singapore Estonia etc routinely kick our kids' arses on head-to-head tests from grade 4 onward?

Could it be that school performance has nothing to do with per pupil spend and almost everything to do with the importance accorded to teachers, high standards, and a recognition that yes, rote memorization and drilling are not only not evil but absolutely a NECESSARY component of any effort to master math, algebra, history, foreign languages and other serious academic subjects?

"income does not indicate wealth or class"

In 2008 America the best indicator of wealth and class is residential neighborhood, down to the individual street level. Residential patterns show an enormous amount of self-selection these days, by all kinds of groups, be they afr-amer federal bureaucrats in Prince George's County or moderate-income liberals in the college towns and green enclaves in the Pacific NW and Atlantic NE, or religious types flocking to their megachurch exurb of choice.

The correlation with wealth and class isn't exact, esp in absurdly overpriced enclaves like my blue-collar neighborhood-in-transition in Silicon Valley, but it's the best one we have. Outside of LA and the Bay Area, it's very rare these days to find a school district that is very heterogeneous in terms of wealth and class. Hence the wisdom of George W Bush's 10% program in Texas.

Get rid of race-based aff action and embrace the Bush Texas plan, everywhere we can. You'll see a very sharp increase in motivational levels across all the schools when you do.

"My point was  that income does not indicate wealth or class.   Do you disagree? "

I agree completely. That is part of why I mentioned credit checks, to verify total wealth accumulated as well as total debts; I also mentioned them because the institution I attended performed credit checks on applicants' parent(s)/guardian(s) as part of the financial aid verification.