4 ms·

>That's an unserious, facile argument that ignores 400+ years of history that continues to this day. It's been estimated that racism, starting with slavery, has

>That's an unserious, facile argument that ignores 400+ years of history that continues to this day. It's been estimated that racism, starting with slavery, has cost Black Americans over $70 trillion. There's a legacy attached to that which clearly disadvantages black people. Further, redlining, unequal pay, etc. continue. If it's racist to acknowledge these facts, then it is also racist not to. Is that something current people who had no choice in what happened deserve to be punished for? and yes, I recognize this applies both ways, but every time this topic comes up it seems like we forget that no college applicant had much of a choice regarding the circumstances that led to the admissions criteria being the way they are, so the claim that one needs to be biased for/against a group because of historical issues isn't entirely morally sound. In the end you are still punishing some group of innocents. Personally I think that instead the focus should be on trying to balance the field at the high school level. If everyone is brought up to a similar level of education by the end of high school, there is no need to bias admissions themselves, instead the university can just offer financial aid to poorer students. Alternatively things change so that the university one goes to doesn't really matter for future career prospects. In my opinion the former is easier to achieve.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>I recognize this applies both ways Yes, it does work both ways but, while you acknowledge that, it's kind of like you want to read past that part quickly. Because, what you're essentially saying is, "yes, this one group had a 400-year head start at the expense of that other group. But, why punish them for that?" This line of discussion, BTW, overlooks a few other oft-overlooked points: 1. There is real value to having a student body that reflects the broader population--good for the school, the students, and the broader society 2. All of these students are of top quality. They're not eschewing a bunch of Einsteins to admit a bunch of dullards. 3. Harvard has an abysmal 4.6% acceptance rate. The overwhelming majority of applicants are being rejected for all kinds of reasons. The idea that qualified people are losing their seats en masse due to racial preferences is wildly inaccurate. 4. There's never been an objective, quantitative admissions process in any case. It's kind of funny that people are so focused on the SAT score, as if that was part of some numeric point-scoring system.
- gameman144 5y ago
  > Because, what you're essentially saying is, "yes, this one group had a 400-year head start at the expense of that other group. But, why punish them for that?" I feel like you said this as an example of an obviously disagreeable point, but I unironically hold this view. Expanding opportunity for a group is always good; I'm all in favor of funding high-quality schools in historically underfunded districts, or providing free after-school programs to help kids whose parents are working, or to expand tutoring. These are all things that will disproportionately help those groups who have been marginalized throughout history. I am absolutely against, however, grading an individual differently due to their historic group membership. If an Asian student is applying to college, there is nothing that student could have done differently to avoid the opportunities they were born with, so it seems eminently unfair to punish that specific individual for something they have no control in and had no say in. Charge the student more if they're rich, sure, but don't discount the merit of a student solely because of their group membership. tl;dr: I'm all for investing in marginalized groups to level the playing field, but scoring individuals differently for things they have no control over feels flat-out wrong.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >I'm all in favor of...These are all things that will disproportionately help those groups who have been marginalized throughout history. >I'm all for investing in marginalized groups to level the playing field, but scoring individuals differently for things they have no control over feels flat-out wrong. I hear you, but what you're kind of doing there is drawing the lines around what you'd feel comfortable with, not what might actually be most effective. And, your comfort is generally tied to addressing things at the macro level. When we talk of groups, people tend to find it more acceptable than when they consider individuals being affected. But, of course, policies, including harmful ones, have historically been aimed at groups and groups are comprised of individuals. >seems eminently unfair to punish that specific individual Likewise with this sentiment. But, if we look at it as "punishing" individual people on one hand, then we're discounting the negative effects (i.e. punishment) experienced by individuals in the original group from previous and ongoing policies. That is, we're kind of unevenly oscillating between the macro and micro views, wherein the previous individual's "punishment" is lost in the group, but the current individual's is clear, present and personalized. The other thing is that those individuals in advantaged groups are frequently also the direct benefeciaries of favorable policies that they didn't earn. Where do we sort that? Because, in that context, even "merit" takes on a different meaning, relatively speaking. It's all suboptimal, but we got to this place by embarking on a massive, multi-century campaign of codified disenfranchisement of some groups in favor of others, to include violence, murder and redistribution of trillions of dollars in wealth. Millions of individuals were harmed as a result. I wish this entire discussion was unnecessary, but if earnestly attempting to address this means that a relative few individuals, say, go to Duke instead of Harvard, then it's unfortunate, but these things don't reasonably show up on the same chart.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

>I recognize this applies both ways Yes, it does work both ways but, while you acknowledge that, it's kind of like you want to read past that part quickly. Because, what you're essentially saying is, "yes, this one group had a 400-year head start at the expense of that other group. But, why punish them for that?" This line of discussion, BTW, overlooks a few other oft-overlooked points: 1. There is real value to having a student body that reflects the broader population--good for the school, the students, and the broader society 2. All of these students are of top quality. They're not eschewing a bunch of Einsteins to admit a bunch of dullards. 3. Harvard has an abysmal 4.6% acceptance rate. The overwhelming majority of applicants are being rejected for all kinds of reasons. The idea that qualified people are losing their seats en masse due to racial preferences is wildly inaccurate. 4. There's never been an objective, quantitative admissions process in any case. It's kind of funny that people are so focused on the SAT score, as if that was part of some numeric point-scoring system.

gameman144 5y ago
> Because, what you're essentially saying is, "yes, this one group had a 400-year head start at the expense of that other group. But, why punish them for that?" I feel like you said this as an example of an obviously disagreeable point, but I unironically hold this view. Expanding opportunity for a group is always good; I'm all in favor of funding high-quality schools in historically underfunded districts, or providing free after-school programs to help kids whose parents are working, or to expand tutoring. These are all things that will disproportionately help those groups who have been marginalized throughout history. I am absolutely against, however, grading an individual differently due to their historic group membership. If an Asian student is applying to college, there is nothing that student could have done differently to avoid the opportunities they were born with, so it seems eminently unfair to punish that specific individual for something they have no control in and had no say in. Charge the student more if they're rich, sure, but don't discount the merit of a student solely because of their group membership. tl;dr: I'm all for investing in marginalized groups to level the playing field, but scoring individuals differently for things they have no control over feels flat-out wrong.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >I'm all in favor of...These are all things that will disproportionately help those groups who have been marginalized throughout history. >I'm all for investing in marginalized groups to level the playing field, but scoring individuals differently for things they have no control over feels flat-out wrong. I hear you, but what you're kind of doing there is drawing the lines around what you'd feel comfortable with, not what might actually be most effective. And, your comfort is generally tied to addressing things at the macro level. When we talk of groups, people tend to find it more acceptable than when they consider individuals being affected. But, of course, policies, including harmful ones, have historically been aimed at groups and groups are comprised of individuals. >seems eminently unfair to punish that specific individual Likewise with this sentiment. But, if we look at it as "punishing" individual people on one hand, then we're discounting the negative effects (i.e. punishment) experienced by individuals in the original group from previous and ongoing policies. That is, we're kind of unevenly oscillating between the macro and micro views, wherein the previous individual's "punishment" is lost in the group, but the current individual's is clear, present and personalized. The other thing is that those individuals in advantaged groups are frequently also the direct benefeciaries of favorable policies that they didn't earn. Where do we sort that? Because, in that context, even "merit" takes on a different meaning, relatively speaking. It's all suboptimal, but we got to this place by embarking on a massive, multi-century campaign of codified disenfranchisement of some groups in favor of others, to include violence, murder and redistribution of trillions of dollars in wealth. Millions of individuals were harmed as a result. I wish this entire discussion was unnecessary, but if earnestly attempting to address this means that a relative few individuals, say, go to Duke instead of Harvard, then it's unfortunate, but these things don't reasonably show up on the same chart.