And in the real world it goes against them. What prevents someone from thinking “why should I trust your degree when you had easier time getting in?”, same with all diversity quotas
I see it as compensating for disadvantages people have. So, if one student has lower test scores, but achieved them despite going to an underfunded school and having a part-time job, then that student scores are actually more impressive than someone else who scored better, but had private tutors throughout high school. Once you account for people’s disadvantages, you should naturally get more diverse student body.
And of course minority students have disadvantages that should be accounted for. But they don’t affect everyone the same, and racial quotas is a very lazy way to do this. Instead, admissions should look at the individual circumstances of each student.
Well with the supreme court it isn’t because we elect them. They are appointed so I’d say it’s to protect the interests of the elite like banning abortions etc.
Not at all. Why should wealthy black students get consideration denied to a poor white student? Why should Asian students be straight up discriminated against?
The unfortunate reality is that left unattended these organizations revert to extreme bias for white and rich. Getting rid of AA in favor of something better is fine - but getting rid of any guideline full stop is a much, much worse answer to the problem.
California eliminated Affirmative Action. Are they some racist hellscape now?
And by all means, legislate against advantages to the rich. Make legacy admissions illegal. Make admissions tied to donations illegal. But the 2 wrongs make a right idea can’t be a basis for policy.
The problem is that people were NOT being treated equally and so we had to try to force institutions to accept people they’d otherwise discriminate against. This isn’t going to bring any equality, we’re going to go back to marginalized groups and historically discriminated groups being left out again and rich white people will be back “on top.”
I say this as a white guy with all the advantages society gives me so I’m not some rando asking for a leg up on anyone. It’s not about me.
Agreed. But if in this context, the harmful impacts of race aren’t addressed, only the beneficial impacts, then it’s just engaging in further harm.
Say Population A is constantly having their things stolen from Population B. The government steps in and says, “Ok, we will give Population A a certain amount of money to make up for what is constantly stolen.” While it isn’t enough to make up for their loss, it helps Population A mitigate the impact of the theft. Population B then says, “That’s not fair. They shouldn’t get anything just because they’re Population A. That’s populationist.” Meanwhile, Population A is still getting their things stolen by the same population that are claiming the policy is unfair, and now the policy that was implace to help mitigate that is being removed. The real immediate solution would be for Population B to stop stealing from Population A, and ultimately stop dividing the entire population into A & B. However, the latter isn’t going to happen until the former stops.
How is that so many are unable to get themselves out of that little box of thinking were people are supposed to be categorized by genetics and then deemed as a whole as deserving/worth or undeserving/unworthy?
“Population A”
“Population B”
WTF?!
Do it based on the poverty and you’ll find that you’ll end up correcting most of the discrimination since nowadays the main mechanism (by a huge margin) through which discrimination hurts and even harms people is economic. As an added benefit you’ll also correct the actual effects of tons of more subtle discrimination that doesn’t neatly match whatever categorisation is fashionable at the moment.
What kind of communal brainwashing has made “lets categorize people on genetic characteristics they were born with and then help them by category” the only option considered rather than “lets help people based on the need they have for help”.
But if in this context, the harmful impacts of race aren’t addressed, only the beneficial impacts, then it’s just engaging in further harm.
Affirmative action actively and deliberately keeps asians down purely due to the race of the asian individual applying. It isn’t some secondary effect, but a primary facet of Harvard’s race-based admissions. Why are you defending a system that keeps a minority down by specifically targeting their race? How is that not active harm?
This is gross. Why are these people allowed to be in charge of anything?
Why? Colleges can still give preference to students who live in poor neighborhoods or bad school districts. What’s the problem with that approach?
deleted by creator
Exactly. Class is more important than race anyways, but the rich and powerful prefer us to be squabbling over race instead.
And in the real world it goes against them. What prevents someone from thinking “why should I trust your degree when you had easier time getting in?”, same with all diversity quotas
my understanding was that affirmative action is about creating a diverse student body
I see it as compensating for disadvantages people have. So, if one student has lower test scores, but achieved them despite going to an underfunded school and having a part-time job, then that student scores are actually more impressive than someone else who scored better, but had private tutors throughout high school. Once you account for people’s disadvantages, you should naturally get more diverse student body.
And of course minority students have disadvantages that should be accounted for. But they don’t affect everyone the same, and racial quotas is a very lazy way to do this. Instead, admissions should look at the individual circumstances of each student.
It’s also worth pointing out, high flying students will do fine wherever they go. Cream rises to the top. They’ll be fine no matter where they go.
Diversity of opinion, background, and perspective is important. Diversity of skin color is meaningless on it’s own.
Well with the supreme court it isn’t because we elect them. They are appointed so I’d say it’s to protect the interests of the elite like banning abortions etc.
They are there to interpret laws, not go along with what’s socially acceptable at any given time
They are not the group of people you should look to for social progress and it’s by design
Not at all. Why should wealthy black students get consideration denied to a poor white student? Why should Asian students be straight up discriminated against?
Use economic status, not skin color.
The unfortunate reality is that left unattended these organizations revert to extreme bias for white and rich. Getting rid of AA in favor of something better is fine - but getting rid of any guideline full stop is a much, much worse answer to the problem.
California eliminated Affirmative Action. Are they some racist hellscape now?
And by all means, legislate against advantages to the rich. Make legacy admissions illegal. Make admissions tied to donations illegal. But the 2 wrongs make a right idea can’t be a basis for policy.
Treating people equally, regardless of their skin color, is gross?
The problem is that people were NOT being treated equally and so we had to try to force institutions to accept people they’d otherwise discriminate against. This isn’t going to bring any equality, we’re going to go back to marginalized groups and historically discriminated groups being left out again and rich white people will be back “on top.”
I say this as a white guy with all the advantages society gives me so I’m not some rando asking for a leg up on anyone. It’s not about me.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. If it was wrong to exclude people based on race before, it’s still wrong now.
Agreed. But if in this context, the harmful impacts of race aren’t addressed, only the beneficial impacts, then it’s just engaging in further harm.
Say Population A is constantly having their things stolen from Population B. The government steps in and says, “Ok, we will give Population A a certain amount of money to make up for what is constantly stolen.” While it isn’t enough to make up for their loss, it helps Population A mitigate the impact of the theft. Population B then says, “That’s not fair. They shouldn’t get anything just because they’re Population A. That’s populationist.” Meanwhile, Population A is still getting their things stolen by the same population that are claiming the policy is unfair, and now the policy that was implace to help mitigate that is being removed. The real immediate solution would be for Population B to stop stealing from Population A, and ultimately stop dividing the entire population into A & B. However, the latter isn’t going to happen until the former stops.
How is that so many are unable to get themselves out of that little box of thinking were people are supposed to be categorized by genetics and then deemed as a whole as deserving/worth or undeserving/unworthy?
“Population A”
“Population B”
WTF?!
Do it based on the poverty and you’ll find that you’ll end up correcting most of the discrimination since nowadays the main mechanism (by a huge margin) through which discrimination hurts and even harms people is economic. As an added benefit you’ll also correct the actual effects of tons of more subtle discrimination that doesn’t neatly match whatever categorisation is fashionable at the moment.
What kind of communal brainwashing has made “lets categorize people on genetic characteristics they were born with and then help them by category” the only option considered rather than “lets help people based on the need they have for help”.
Affirmative action actively and deliberately keeps asians down purely due to the race of the asian individual applying. It isn’t some secondary effect, but a primary facet of Harvard’s race-based admissions. Why are you defending a system that keeps a minority down by specifically targeting their race? How is that not active harm?
Disadvantaging certain groups now doesn’t fix what happened in the past. Arguably it makes it even worse