5 ms·

>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. Be

>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.
dotnet00 5y ago
I'm not really trying to 'read past that part quickly'. I don't really have a personal 'horse' in this as I'm neither black nor white. I'm not even suggesting that they're rejecting capable people for 'dullards'. I've seen that argument used often so I can understand why you'd think I'm saying that, but I'm aware that usually it's more like choosing between two equally qualified candidates. I just don't really see how that changes the fact that it's unfair to the person rejected because of an immutable characteristic. Your argument about having a student body that reflects the broader population has that same 'disconnect' to me, is it fair for an equally qualified candidate to be rejected just because they don't fit a statistic that they're powerless to influence? That same point is also exactly why I think the focus should be on bringing everyone to a similar level in high school, so given equalizers for class differences like sufficient scholarships specifically targeted at poorer families (and similarly preventing the rich from paying their way in), every group has an equal chance of admission, which, along with a purely merit based admission criteria should naturally result in a student body representative of the population. It's my mistake for not clarifying that I'm not saying that the SAT is somehow important in this. I'm solely talking about this idea of intentionally applying racial bias to the system. Personally I'm quite happy that these standardized tests are going away for the same reason that they aren't particularly objective and success in them depends on the guides and coaching you can get access to, and how many times you can afford to try.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >I don't really have a personal 'horse' in this as I'm neither black nor white I think we all do, to be honest. But, I shouldn't have phrased my response in a way that suggested you were being disingenuous. Sorry if it came across that way. What I was trying to say is that was the really important bit and deserves more focus IMO. >I just don't really see how that changes the fact that it's unfair to the person rejected because of an immutable characteristic Well, the short answer is, that there may be some who are so rejected, but there are also real individuals on the other side. And, this brings up a really important point, that I think presents the challenge when discussing these things. That is, we kind of oscillate between the macro and micro levels without announcing it. So, we're talking about these ongoing and historical effects that really are generational and persistent, so bear down on Black people in ways that disadvantage them today. And, generally, you have many White people who benefitted from that equation and passed those advantages down to individuals. Not all, but certainly many, and even neutrality is better than disadvantage. Now, we'll acknowledge that it's not fair to the Black individual. However, when any talk of remedy is had, there's an intense focus on whether an individual White person might be perceived to be negatively impacted. And, the conclusion generally runs along the lines of "well, you can't fight racism with more racism". But, then, what about the individual Black person, who continues to be disadvantaged? He/she just becomes an externality; the by-product of a history and system that are really hard to address. So, this treats the Black person at the macro level ("we must fix the system!") and the White person at the micro level ("we must now apply treatment evenly to every individual!"). However, if we do attempt to address the issue, then we charge the individual Black person with receiving any perceived benefits, and we forget about the system that operates at the macro level. So he is treated in the micro at the least advantageous time for him. But, going the other way, we tend not to attribute generational/systemic advantages to White people at the micro level. So, individually, they are seen only as victims of efforts to remediate, and we push those advantages up to the system at the macro level. So she is treated in the micro at the most advantageous times. The other part is that we tend to talk about this as if it's only the legacy of our history that we're remedying, when there are very real, persistent systemic issues from redlining to mortgage rates to unequal pay and more. So, these are ongoing advantages and disadvantages being mitigated. It's not as simplistic as a head-to-head match up wherein a Black person benefits from a diversity policy that directly disadvantages a White person. Those two individuals are part of a larger system that doles out advantages and disadvantages in various ways and at various times.
wonderwonder 5y ago
"There is real value to having a student body that reflects the broader population--good for the school, the students, and the broader society" Harvard is currently 39% white, 8% black, and 20% Asian. This seems to indicate that Harvard should focus on bringing up the number of white students admitted and reducing the number of asian students. Whites are underrepresented by half.

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.

dotnet00 5y ago

I'm not really trying to 'read past that part quickly'. I don't really have a personal 'horse' in this as I'm neither black nor white. I'm not even suggesting that they're rejecting capable people for 'dullards'. I've seen that argument used often so I can understand why you'd think I'm saying that, but I'm aware that usually it's more like choosing between two equally qualified candidates. I just don't really see how that changes the fact that it's unfair to the person rejected because of an immutable characteristic. Your argument about having a student body that reflects the broader population has that same 'disconnect' to me, is it fair for an equally qualified candidate to be rejected just because they don't fit a statistic that they're powerless to influence? That same point is also exactly why I think the focus should be on bringing everyone to a similar level in high school, so given equalizers for class differences like sufficient scholarships specifically targeted at poorer families (and similarly preventing the rich from paying their way in), every group has an equal chance of admission, which, along with a purely merit based admission criteria should naturally result in a student body representative of the population. It's my mistake for not clarifying that I'm not saying that the SAT is somehow important in this. I'm solely talking about this idea of intentionally applying racial bias to the system. Personally I'm quite happy that these standardized tests are going away for the same reason that they aren't particularly objective and success in them depends on the guides and coaching you can get access to, and how many times you can afford to try.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>I don't really have a personal 'horse' in this as I'm neither black nor white I think we all do, to be honest. But, I shouldn't have phrased my response in a way that suggested you were being disingenuous. Sorry if it came across that way. What I was trying to say is that was the really important bit and deserves more focus IMO. >I just don't really see how that changes the fact that it's unfair to the person rejected because of an immutable characteristic Well, the short answer is, that there may be some who are so rejected, but there are also real individuals on the other side. And, this brings up a really important point, that I think presents the challenge when discussing these things. That is, we kind of oscillate between the macro and micro levels without announcing it. So, we're talking about these ongoing and historical effects that really are generational and persistent, so bear down on Black people in ways that disadvantage them today. And, generally, you have many White people who benefitted from that equation and passed those advantages down to individuals. Not all, but certainly many, and even neutrality is better than disadvantage. Now, we'll acknowledge that it's not fair to the Black individual. However, when any talk of remedy is had, there's an intense focus on whether an individual White person might be perceived to be negatively impacted. And, the conclusion generally runs along the lines of "well, you can't fight racism with more racism". But, then, what about the individual Black person, who continues to be disadvantaged? He/she just becomes an externality; the by-product of a history and system that are really hard to address. So, this treats the Black person at the macro level ("we must fix the system!") and the White person at the micro level ("we must now apply treatment evenly to every individual!"). However, if we do attempt to address the issue, then we charge the individual Black person with receiving any perceived benefits, and we forget about the system that operates at the macro level. So he is treated in the micro at the least advantageous time for him. But, going the other way, we tend not to attribute generational/systemic advantages to White people at the micro level. So, individually, they are seen only as victims of efforts to remediate, and we push those advantages up to the system at the macro level. So she is treated in the micro at the most advantageous times. The other part is that we tend to talk about this as if it's only the legacy of our history that we're remedying, when there are very real, persistent systemic issues from redlining to mortgage rates to unequal pay and more. So, these are ongoing advantages and disadvantages being mitigated. It's not as simplistic as a head-to-head match up wherein a Black person benefits from a diversity policy that directly disadvantages a White person. Those two individuals are part of a larger system that doles out advantages and disadvantages in various ways and at various times.

wonderwonder 5y ago

"There is real value to having a student body that reflects the broader population--good for the school, the students, and the broader society" Harvard is currently 39% white, 8% black, and 20% Asian. This seems to indicate that Harvard should focus on bringing up the number of white students admitted and reducing the number of asian students. Whites are underrepresented by half.