48 ms·

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

> 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?
        jjoonathan 6y ago
        > is instituting a policy that admits more of them to Yale If the policy is to look at race and give/take points, that's racism in the most literal way possible. If the policy is to look at SES, it's not racist, even though there's a correlation. At some point correlations become strong enough that it's difficult to disentangle concepts, but I don't think this is an example of that. In particular: would giving points based on SES have screwed Asians in the way that trying to balance races did? Probably not. It's a better formulation of the problem.
      - dahart 6y ago
        I like this direction of discussion, and I think affirmative action actually is acknowledgement of what you're saying - that we don't have any way to push back in the exact same direction. So the idea instead is to work on equalizing the opportunities and outcomes and just hope that helps equalize the cultural forces, right? What does it mean exactly to stomp it out where you see it? How do we see it and how do we stomp it out? What if it's hard to see, or difficult to stomp out? Are there cases I can read about where these strategies have been proven foolproof, has it worked in other countries to eliminate racism by helping the poor?
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.

> 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?
      - jjoonathan 6y ago
        > is instituting a policy that admits more of them to Yale If the policy is to look at race and give/take points, that's racism in the most literal way possible. If the policy is to look at SES, it's not racist, even though there's a correlation. At some point correlations become strong enough that it's difficult to disentangle concepts, but I don't think this is an example of that. In particular: would giving points based on SES have screwed Asians in the way that trying to balance races did? Probably not. It's a better formulation of the problem.
    - dahart 6y ago
      I like this direction of discussion, and I think affirmative action actually is acknowledgement of what you're saying - that we don't have any way to push back in the exact same direction. So the idea instead is to work on equalizing the opportunities and outcomes and just hope that helps equalize the cultural forces, right? What does it mean exactly to stomp it out where you see it? How do we see it and how do we stomp it out? What if it's hard to see, or difficult to stomp out? Are there cases I can read about where these strategies have been proven foolproof, has it worked in other countries to eliminate racism by helping the poor?

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.