5 ms·

I know there are a lot of people coming to the conclusion that affirmative action toward one group counts as negative discrimination toward another - and certai

by dahart 6y ago

I know there are a lot of people coming to the conclusion that affirmative action toward one group counts as negative discrimination toward another - and certainly technically it may. Though just like this Justice Department press release, room is rarely left for nuances like the difference between negative discrimination and positive discrimination, and it seems to be assumed or taken at face value that we're in a zero-sum game, that one race can't be helped without another race being hurt. That might be the case for Yale admissions, but is that really true in general? My main question, without disagreeing with the hypotheses given by the Justice Department, is this: if it's true that blacks are still being discriminated against, and nobody is allowed to compensate for that by taking action, what else can we need to do to solve the pre-existing discrimination, assuming that it's cultural and difficult?

jjoonathan 6y ago
> there are a lot of people coming to the conclusion that affirmative action counts as discrimination - and certainly technically it does Technically? Technically?!?!
- dahart 6y ago
  I'm attempting to be both diplomatic and open in what I already know is a contentious issue. The whole intent behind this type of positive discrimination is not to hold any specific race back, but to equalize the outcomes for some people that have been systematically disadvantaged in the past. Part of the assumption behind equalizing outcomes is that it might illuminate negative discriminatory behavior, and allow the system to equalize on it's own faster than it would without any intervention. I'd love to hear more about when & whether this works. If it does help fix racism, maybe it's worth some temporary action. If it doesn't help fix the underlying issue, then maybe the Justice Department is doing the right thing.
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    Fighting racism with racism is difficult because racism isn't just a number. If you reject the idea of fighting racism by stomping it out where you find it and instead try to use counter-racism, suddenly you're in the business of determining precisely, exactly the opposite direction of the existing racism. If you screw it up you just add to the problem. See: video-game speedrunners blasting through levels at enormous speed because devs thought that "pushing in the opposite direction" was conceptually easy, but it turned out not to be -- and that's just 3 dimensions! Here we're talking about people's lives, with hundreds of dimensions. There's no way that's going to end well, it's just tossing gasoline onto racial tensions. Sure, the gasoline might extinguish the fire. It's not impossible. I'd place a lot of money on the opposite, though.
    - dahart 6y ago
      How do we push back in exactly, precisely the opposite direction?
      - jjoonathan 6y ago
        You don't. That's my point: it's nearly impossible to do a good job of fighting racism with racism and very, very easy to screw it up catastrophically. Just look at what's already happened with Asians becoming collateral damage. Instead, you fight racism by A) stomping it out where you see it, B) instituting policies that help poor and disadvantaged people in general. Strategies like that are much more foolproof than trying to fight racism with racism. Also much more expensive, which is why there's a temptation to kid ourselves that fighting racism with racism could possibly work.
        kn0where 6y ago
        When being a member or a particular race is highly correlated with being poor and disadvantaged in America, is instituting a policy that admits more of them to Yale an example of B) or, as you say, trying to fight racism with racism?
        6y ago
- vmception 6y ago
  they're trying to play to the sensibilities of the "good people on both sides" even though it results in an incoherent and diluted argument.
- meroes 6y ago
  This is a clash of keeping a status quo of entrenched wealth, legacy, and power vs. discriminating/affirmative action at some level. Without some kind of affirmative action somewhere in the system we are just perpetuating old power and money dynamics extant since the founding of the country, if not before. As a person in the discriminated against group of the DOJ complaint, I am against the DOJ motion. I agree Yale probably violated the law, but I don't view AA as inherently immoral. Downvote time: my solution for Yale to serve the least empowered historically groups in this country, descendants of slaves and equally disempowered groups through generationally unfair/racist laws (e.g. interment camps, 3/5 compromise, Jim Crow, red lining, etc) is to say if you can trace your family history to any of these events, you get a boost. Same effect, not race based.
  - tupputuppu 6y ago
    How do asians represent wealth and entrenched power? Are you at all familiar with the history and statistics related to asian americans?
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    History is chock-full of evil. I can't think of a more backwards idea than holding a pity circus where people try to convince authorities that the evil vested upon their ancestors in particular means that they deserve reparations today. Fortunately, you don't need a pity circus to figure out who needs help today and going forward. IMO that's not only a less incendiary angle from which to approach the problem, it's much easier to correctly implement, much more productive, and much less prone to back-and-forth escalation.
  - antepodius 6y ago
    Even if you're rich? Nice.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I know there are a lot of people coming to the conclusion that affirmative action counts as discrimination Any distinction in a decision is discrimination. What is more relevant is it (legally or ethically, depending on context) impermissible discrimination.
- dahart 6y ago
  I fully agree, and that's exactly what I'd like to explore more. I went with what I believe is a common interpretation of discrimination as something that is negative and biased against a specific target.
Teever 6y ago
The question isn't whether this is an example of positive discrimination or negative discrimination because the implication of either is that it that the result is either positive/negative for another party. The question is whether or not this is justifiable discrimination.
- aeternum 6y ago
  Discrimination based on socio-economic background, the highschool attended, income level is all already legal. Those are much more difficult to game. Why not use those things instead of something like race?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - antepodius 6y ago
    Because then you might have poor people at Yale. Worse, poor whites. The people at Yale would never stand for it.
charlesu 6y ago
>if it's true that blacks are still being discriminated against, and nobody is allowed to compensate for that by taking action, what else can we need to do to solve the pre-existing discrimination, assuming that it's cultural and difficult? You won't get many responses to this question. Stated plainly: If we aren't allowed to engage in some form of positive discrimination, we aren't allowed to compensate at all. To some people, that's how it should be. I don't agree, but I understand why they may feel that way. We all just want the best for ourselves and our respective groups, I guess.
- nomdep 6y ago
  That's the point: it is disgusting that you consider strangers part of your "group" just because of the color of their skin.
  - charlesu 6y ago
    If no one cares about their “group” then helping historically disadvantaged peoples wouldn’t be controversial.
    - nomdep 6y ago
      I believe in helping currently disadvantaged people. Individuals. The "historical" part is only useful so it doesn't happen again.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "...and nobody is allowed to compensate for that by taking action..." Attempting to compensate one race by taking from another race, one that had nothing to do with the harms inflicted on the first race, is robbing Peter to pay Paul. No amount of rhetoric can hide that. Compensate all you want, just not at the expense of Asians.
- tupputuppu 6y ago
  It's rough seeing this downvoted. Asians are one of the historically more discriminated and disadvantaged populations in the US. Just as the general culture and atmosphere has be come more tolerant and they're advancing socially, some how they're immediately grouped with rich and privileged people and barred from the universities where they should be long based on their merits.
rayiner 6y ago
> My main question, without disagreeing with the hypotheses given by the Justice Department, is this: if it's true that blacks are still being discriminated against, and nobody is allowed to compensate for that by taking action, what else can we need to do to solve the pre-existing discrimination, assuming that it's cultural and difficult I’m an Asian and I’m okay with affirmative action. But it’s worth noting that over 60% of Black people think race should not be even a “small factor” in college admissions: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ... Insofar as the public might not want race-based preferences, there are things we can do that are putatively race-neutral but will disproportionately advantage Black people. One of the most effective things we could do is baby bonds: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-baby-bonds-could-help-americans-start-adulthood-strong-and-narrow-racial-wealth-gap https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-baby-bonds-could-help-a... Fixing that disproportionately negatively affect Black people, such as criminal justice reform, would help. Police reform-not just to reduce brutality, but also to reduce crime in Black communities—would help.

by dahart 6y ago

jjoonathan 6y ago

> there are a lot of people coming to the conclusion that affirmative action counts as discrimination - and certainly technically it does Technically? Technically?!?!

dahart 6y ago
I'm attempting to be both diplomatic and open in what I already know is a contentious issue. The whole intent behind this type of positive discrimination is not to hold any specific race back, but to equalize the outcomes for some people that have been systematically disadvantaged in the past. Part of the assumption behind equalizing outcomes is that it might illuminate negative discriminatory behavior, and allow the system to equalize on it's own faster than it would without any intervention. I'd love to hear more about when & whether this works. If it does help fix racism, maybe it's worth some temporary action. If it doesn't help fix the underlying issue, then maybe the Justice Department is doing the right thing.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  Fighting racism with racism is difficult because racism isn't just a number. If you reject the idea of fighting racism by stomping it out where you find it and instead try to use counter-racism, suddenly you're in the business of determining precisely, exactly the opposite direction of the existing racism. If you screw it up you just add to the problem. See: video-game speedrunners blasting through levels at enormous speed because devs thought that "pushing in the opposite direction" was conceptually easy, but it turned out not to be -- and that's just 3 dimensions! Here we're talking about people's lives, with hundreds of dimensions. There's no way that's going to end well, it's just tossing gasoline onto racial tensions. Sure, the gasoline might extinguish the fire. It's not impossible. I'd place a lot of money on the opposite, though.
  - dahart 6y ago
    How do we push back in exactly, precisely the opposite direction?
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      You don't. That's my point: it's nearly impossible to do a good job of fighting racism with racism and very, very easy to screw it up catastrophically. Just look at what's already happened with Asians becoming collateral damage. Instead, you fight racism by A) stomping it out where you see it, B) instituting policies that help poor and disadvantaged people in general. Strategies like that are much more foolproof than trying to fight racism with racism. Also much more expensive, which is why there's a temptation to kid ourselves that fighting racism with racism could possibly work.
      - kn0where 6y ago
        When being a member or a particular race is highly correlated with being poor and disadvantaged in America, is instituting a policy that admits more of them to Yale an example of B) or, as you say, trying to fight racism with racism?
        6y ago
vmception 6y ago
they're trying to play to the sensibilities of the "good people on both sides" even though it results in an incoherent and diluted argument.
meroes 6y ago
This is a clash of keeping a status quo of entrenched wealth, legacy, and power vs. discriminating/affirmative action at some level. Without some kind of affirmative action somewhere in the system we are just perpetuating old power and money dynamics extant since the founding of the country, if not before. As a person in the discriminated against group of the DOJ complaint, I am against the DOJ motion. I agree Yale probably violated the law, but I don't view AA as inherently immoral. Downvote time: my solution for Yale to serve the least empowered historically groups in this country, descendants of slaves and equally disempowered groups through generationally unfair/racist laws (e.g. interment camps, 3/5 compromise, Jim Crow, red lining, etc) is to say if you can trace your family history to any of these events, you get a boost. Same effect, not race based.
- tupputuppu 6y ago
  How do asians represent wealth and entrenched power? Are you at all familiar with the history and statistics related to asian americans?
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  History is chock-full of evil. I can't think of a more backwards idea than holding a pity circus where people try to convince authorities that the evil vested upon their ancestors in particular means that they deserve reparations today. Fortunately, you don't need a pity circus to figure out who needs help today and going forward. IMO that's not only a less incendiary angle from which to approach the problem, it's much easier to correctly implement, much more productive, and much less prone to back-and-forth escalation.
- antepodius 6y ago
  Even if you're rich? Nice.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I know there are a lot of people coming to the conclusion that affirmative action counts as discrimination Any distinction in a decision is discrimination. What is more relevant is it (legally or ethically, depending on context) impermissible discrimination.

dahart 6y ago
I fully agree, and that's exactly what I'd like to explore more. I went with what I believe is a common interpretation of discrimination as something that is negative and biased against a specific target.

Teever 6y ago

The question isn't whether this is an example of positive discrimination or negative discrimination because the implication of either is that it that the result is either positive/negative for another party. The question is whether or not this is justifiable discrimination.

aeternum 6y ago
Discrimination based on socio-economic background, the highschool attended, income level is all already legal. Those are much more difficult to game. Why not use those things instead of something like race?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- antepodius 6y ago
  Because then you might have poor people at Yale. Worse, poor whites. The people at Yale would never stand for it.

charlesu 6y ago

>if it's true that blacks are still being discriminated against, and nobody is allowed to compensate for that by taking action, what else can we need to do to solve the pre-existing discrimination, assuming that it's cultural and difficult? You won't get many responses to this question. Stated plainly: If we aren't allowed to engage in some form of positive discrimination, we aren't allowed to compensate at all. To some people, that's how it should be. I don't agree, but I understand why they may feel that way. We all just want the best for ourselves and our respective groups, I guess.

nomdep 6y ago
That's the point: it is disgusting that you consider strangers part of your "group" just because of the color of their skin.
- charlesu 6y ago
  If no one cares about their “group” then helping historically disadvantaged peoples wouldn’t be controversial.
  - nomdep 6y ago
    I believe in helping currently disadvantaged people. Individuals. The "historical" part is only useful so it doesn't happen again.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

> "...and nobody is allowed to compensate for that by taking action..." Attempting to compensate one race by taking from another race, one that had nothing to do with the harms inflicted on the first race, is robbing Peter to pay Paul. No amount of rhetoric can hide that. Compensate all you want, just not at the expense of Asians.

tupputuppu 6y ago
It's rough seeing this downvoted. Asians are one of the historically more discriminated and disadvantaged populations in the US. Just as the general culture and atmosphere has be come more tolerant and they're advancing socially, some how they're immediately grouped with rich and privileged people and barred from the universities where they should be long based on their merits.

rayiner 6y ago

> My main question, without disagreeing with the hypotheses given by the Justice Department, is this: if it's true that blacks are still being discriminated against, and nobody is allowed to compensate for that by taking action, what else can we need to do to solve the pre-existing discrimination, assuming that it's cultural and difficult I’m an Asian and I’m okay with affirmative action. But it’s worth noting that over 60% of Black people think race should not be even a “small factor” in college admissions: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americ... Insofar as the public might not want race-based preferences, there are things we can do that are putatively race-neutral but will disproportionately advantage Black people. One of the most effective things we could do is baby bonds: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-baby-bonds-could-help-americans-start-adulthood-strong-and-narrow-racial-wealth-gap https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-baby-bonds-could-help-a... Fixing that disproportionately negatively affect Black people, such as criminal justice reform, would help. Police reform-not just to reduce brutality, but also to reduce crime in Black communities—would help.