3 ms·

Seems like a situation where Harvard is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.

by caligarn 8y ago

daenz 8y ago
So maybe it should do the fair thing.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- unclebucknasty 8y ago
  >maybe it should do the fair thing. The "fair thing" is the matter of perspective that's being debated.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - daenz 8y ago
    Is it really debatable on whether or not discriminating against individuals/groups makes things fair for other individuals/groups? At best, you've made things fair for one group, unfair for another group. Meanwhile you've re-enforced the idea that it's institutionally acceptable to discriminate against groups of people for physical attributes they have no control over.... an idea I thought we were all supposed to be moving away from.
    - unclebucknasty 8y ago
      >Is it really debatable on whether or not discriminating against individuals/groups makes things fair for other individuals/groups? I don't think that comment could be any more centered at the heart of this debate. Thanks. The problem with your reasoning though, is that it starts in the middle. It wipes away history and fast-forwards us to a state of egalitarianism that doesn't exist. That is, it really just begs the question by assuming the very reality we seek to create. So, where we agree is that any sort of consideration of race is lamentable. Where we depart is in the idea that we address that fact by discounting the history that got us here and also ignoring that we're actually still here. In other words, this idea that we just do nothing and hope that people will suddenly stop discriminating completely offloads the burden of unfairness to those who have already been systematically and inter-generationally disenfranchised/disadvantaged; and so can least afford such a laissez-faire approach. It's easy to say "hey, let's just all love one another". But, what are generations of systematically disenfranchised people supposed to eat while we're waiting patiently for our society to get there? Which leads to... >At best, you've made things fair for one group, unfair for another group No fun answer here, but here's what it comes down to: Yes, individuals in the latter group may experience some "unfairness". But, as a whole, which group can best weather a bit of "unfairness"? Is it the group that has other options because they won the birth lottery or those who are hanging on by a thread due to a host of complicated historical reasons that essentially boil down to their complexion? This is a cold truth and it churns my stomach to posit it, but it's the hard reality of the reasoning. I want to qualify my "birth lottery" comment though. Because, what is incorrect is the idea that every member of the majority has these tremendous advantages simply by being a member. What I'd really like to see is a system that acknowledges people's station in life and history, irrespective of race. For instance, if we were to say that coal-miners in West Virginia are having a rough go of it and set aside some educational opportunities and jobs specifically to transition those folks, I think most of us can get behind that. And, we would accept as the cost that "a Kid in the Suburbs" might lose a scholarship as a result. Affirmative action is no different. A harder irony is that it is deliberately ginned-up racial animus that has birthed much of the discrimination that created the need for affirmative action and simultaneously generated resentment for those who benefit from it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Seems like a situation where Harvard is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.

daenz 8y ago

So maybe it should do the fair thing.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
unclebucknasty 8y ago
>maybe it should do the fair thing. The "fair thing" is the matter of perspective that's being debated.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- daenz 8y ago
  Is it really debatable on whether or not discriminating against individuals/groups makes things fair for other individuals/groups? At best, you've made things fair for one group, unfair for another group. Meanwhile you've re-enforced the idea that it's institutionally acceptable to discriminate against groups of people for physical attributes they have no control over.... an idea I thought we were all supposed to be moving away from.
  - unclebucknasty 8y ago
    >Is it really debatable on whether or not discriminating against individuals/groups makes things fair for other individuals/groups? I don't think that comment could be any more centered at the heart of this debate. Thanks. The problem with your reasoning though, is that it starts in the middle. It wipes away history and fast-forwards us to a state of egalitarianism that doesn't exist. That is, it really just begs the question by assuming the very reality we seek to create. So, where we agree is that any sort of consideration of race is lamentable. Where we depart is in the idea that we address that fact by discounting the history that got us here and also ignoring that we're actually still here. In other words, this idea that we just do nothing and hope that people will suddenly stop discriminating completely offloads the burden of unfairness to those who have already been systematically and inter-generationally disenfranchised/disadvantaged; and so can least afford such a laissez-faire approach. It's easy to say "hey, let's just all love one another". But, what are generations of systematically disenfranchised people supposed to eat while we're waiting patiently for our society to get there? Which leads to... >At best, you've made things fair for one group, unfair for another group No fun answer here, but here's what it comes down to: Yes, individuals in the latter group may experience some "unfairness". But, as a whole, which group can best weather a bit of "unfairness"? Is it the group that has other options because they won the birth lottery or those who are hanging on by a thread due to a host of complicated historical reasons that essentially boil down to their complexion? This is a cold truth and it churns my stomach to posit it, but it's the hard reality of the reasoning. I want to qualify my "birth lottery" comment though. Because, what is incorrect is the idea that every member of the majority has these tremendous advantages simply by being a member. What I'd really like to see is a system that acknowledges people's station in life and history, irrespective of race. For instance, if we were to say that coal-miners in West Virginia are having a rough go of it and set aside some educational opportunities and jobs specifically to transition those folks, I think most of us can get behind that. And, we would accept as the cost that "a Kid in the Suburbs" might lose a scholarship as a result. Affirmative action is no different. A harder irony is that it is deliberately ginned-up racial animus that has birthed much of the discrimination that created the need for affirmative action and simultaneously generated resentment for those who benefit from it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]