3 ms·

> Discrimination against whites and/or males is still discrimination. Providing grants for unrepresented groups is not "discrimination against whites", it is a

by keyanp 10y ago

> Discrimination against whites and/or males is still discrimination. Providing grants for unrepresented groups is not "discrimination against whites", it is affirmative action -- An action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education. Now it seems likely that you find that affirmative action is synonymous with discrimination, but that has no bearing in a discussion about the Recurse Center and it's programming community. Except it being a not-so-subtle -ism [1]. [1] https://www.recurse.com/manual#sub-sec-social-rules https://www.recurse.com/manual#sub-sec-social-rules

groovy2shoes 10y ago
I contend that excluding a particular group of people from some benefit or assistance based on morphology rather than need and/or merit is, in fact, discrimination. Imagine the situation were the other way around. Imagine I opened my own school and I offered financial assistance for people to attend, but had a policy that no black person would receive financial assistance regardless of need. Would you not call that discrimination? If not, I'd like to know what your definition of discrimination is.
- wrsh07 10y ago
  I think that there are some benefits that make more sense for some groups than others. This goes towards the intersectionality of privilege. Of course we should help people in poverty of any race. But class isn't the only thing that makes it easier or harder to become a programmer. I don't have a good idea of precisely when aid should be class-based vs when it should be race- (or other category) based, but bear in mind that when programs merely try to help one group who is being discriminated against, they're not doing it because they hate other groups that are discriminated against. They're just doing what they can. They are trying to help, and even though I wish they could do more, I don't fault them for having limitations. To your point about "no black people", that would be racist / bizarre because it's not clear that the category you've defined is discriminated against. If you defined it based on class, that would be fine - even if it disproportionately benefited white people (eg need based funding in North Dakota might help more white people, but that's okay)
  - groovy2shoes 10y ago
    I don't think financial assistance for education should be based on any sort of group membership criterion. Someone can either afford to attend or they cannot. Allocation of grant money should ideally be based on nothing other than financial need (of course, seeing that grants/scholarships are investments of sorts, good risk management practices would include only allocating grants to good performers, but I think that's better left to an admissions process -- if your application is accepted and you need financial assistance, then we'll see what we can do). The way it stands currently, I'm not eligible to receive financial aid while Barack Obama, Kanye West, and Morgan Freeman -- all men who have far more income than I do -- are eligible. I'm not eligible, yet my wife is eligible, even though we have precisely the same household income and financial assets. What's the point of that? Do you think giving an "underprivileged" person money will somehow make them less underprivileged? That seems a non-sequitur to me, while on the other hand it's obvious how giving a poor person money would make them less poor. > To your point about "no black people", that would be racist / bizarre because it's not clear that the category you've defined is discriminated against. That was exactly my point. In our society, it's considered normal and acceptable to exclude white men from benefits or assistance, while at the same time withholding those same benefits or assistance from black people is considered racist and bizarre. Is that not a "double standard"? Note that I'm in no way advocating that we stop providing assistance to the present recipients, only that we also consider others who may need assistance. The way I see it, "diversity" of some group seems to be defined roughly as the ratio of non-white/non-male members to white, male members. (In this case, it appears to be non-(white|Asian)/non-male to (white|Asian) male, but the idea is the same). Now, when attempting to increase a ratio, there are two approaches you can take (note that they're not mutually exclusive): 1) Increase the numerator. 2) Decrease the denominator. Both of these actions will result in a larger ratio. From a purely mathematical standpoint, they're equivalent. But from a moral standpoint, when the numerator and denominator represent people, choosing to reduce the denominator over augmenting the numerator seems questionable at best, and it leads us away from justice! Of course, from a practical standpoint, a school or other institution will have a limited amount of resources -- space, educators, funds, etc. -- and it's not feasible to always be growing. What I propose instead is to shift preference away from aid policy and toward admissions policy. If you want to give underprivileged applicants a leg up, give them an appropriate preference/priority during the admissions process such that you can make an earnest attempt to reach some well-defined goal for diversity. Then offer an appropriate amount of financial aid to as many admittants as possible -- based on need only. With such a scheme, it's possible to still foster diversity without utterly excluding any one group of people in particular. (In fact, I'd argue that such a scheme would be better at fostering diversity -- see < https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12121291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12121291 > for an explanation).
DalekBaldwin 10y ago
I think this kind of response reinforces the cult-like image brought up elsewhere in this thread. The social rules within the Recurse Center have little bearing on an external discussion about the Recurse Center on an independent forum. There's room to talk about it here. It's not Fight Club.

by keyanp 10y ago

groovy2shoes 10y ago

I contend that excluding a particular group of people from some benefit or assistance based on morphology rather than need and/or merit is, in fact, discrimination. Imagine the situation were the other way around. Imagine I opened my own school and I offered financial assistance for people to attend, but had a policy that no black person would receive financial assistance regardless of need. Would you not call that discrimination? If not, I'd like to know what your definition of discrimination is.

wrsh07 10y ago
I think that there are some benefits that make more sense for some groups than others. This goes towards the intersectionality of privilege. Of course we should help people in poverty of any race. But class isn't the only thing that makes it easier or harder to become a programmer. I don't have a good idea of precisely when aid should be class-based vs when it should be race- (or other category) based, but bear in mind that when programs merely try to help one group who is being discriminated against, they're not doing it because they hate other groups that are discriminated against. They're just doing what they can. They are trying to help, and even though I wish they could do more, I don't fault them for having limitations. To your point about "no black people", that would be racist / bizarre because it's not clear that the category you've defined is discriminated against. If you defined it based on class, that would be fine - even if it disproportionately benefited white people (eg need based funding in North Dakota might help more white people, but that's okay)
- groovy2shoes 10y ago
  I don't think financial assistance for education should be based on any sort of group membership criterion. Someone can either afford to attend or they cannot. Allocation of grant money should ideally be based on nothing other than financial need (of course, seeing that grants/scholarships are investments of sorts, good risk management practices would include only allocating grants to good performers, but I think that's better left to an admissions process -- if your application is accepted and you need financial assistance, then we'll see what we can do). The way it stands currently, I'm not eligible to receive financial aid while Barack Obama, Kanye West, and Morgan Freeman -- all men who have far more income than I do -- are eligible. I'm not eligible, yet my wife is eligible, even though we have precisely the same household income and financial assets. What's the point of that? Do you think giving an "underprivileged" person money will somehow make them less underprivileged? That seems a non-sequitur to me, while on the other hand it's obvious how giving a poor person money would make them less poor. > To your point about "no black people", that would be racist / bizarre because it's not clear that the category you've defined is discriminated against. That was exactly my point. In our society, it's considered normal and acceptable to exclude white men from benefits or assistance, while at the same time withholding those same benefits or assistance from black people is considered racist and bizarre. Is that not a "double standard"? Note that I'm in no way advocating that we stop providing assistance to the present recipients, only that we also consider others who may need assistance. The way I see it, "diversity" of some group seems to be defined roughly as the ratio of non-white/non-male members to white, male members. (In this case, it appears to be non-(white|Asian)/non-male to (white|Asian) male, but the idea is the same). Now, when attempting to increase a ratio, there are two approaches you can take (note that they're not mutually exclusive): 1) Increase the numerator. 2) Decrease the denominator. Both of these actions will result in a larger ratio. From a purely mathematical standpoint, they're equivalent. But from a moral standpoint, when the numerator and denominator represent people, choosing to reduce the denominator over augmenting the numerator seems questionable at best, and it leads us away from justice! Of course, from a practical standpoint, a school or other institution will have a limited amount of resources -- space, educators, funds, etc. -- and it's not feasible to always be growing. What I propose instead is to shift preference away from aid policy and toward admissions policy. If you want to give underprivileged applicants a leg up, give them an appropriate preference/priority during the admissions process such that you can make an earnest attempt to reach some well-defined goal for diversity. Then offer an appropriate amount of financial aid to as many admittants as possible -- based on need only. With such a scheme, it's possible to still foster diversity without utterly excluding any one group of people in particular. (In fact, I'd argue that such a scheme would be better at fostering diversity -- see < https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12121291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12121291 > for an explanation).

DalekBaldwin 10y ago

I think this kind of response reinforces the cult-like image brought up elsewhere in this thread. The social rules within the Recurse Center have little bearing on an external discussion about the Recurse Center on an independent forum. There's room to talk about it here. It's not Fight Club.