4 ms·

> only because it serves their ends. Discrimination based on skin color is morally reprehensible. Doing it systematically at an institutional level is particu

by 0x7E3 5y ago

> only because it serves their ends. Discrimination based on skin color is morally reprehensible. Doing it systematically at an institutional level is particularly damaging. The 'conservative party' as you put it recognizes this. The 'other party' only recognizes it for certain skin colors, which is a subset of the aforementioned discrimination based on skin color. So yes, you are correct in that the ends of the conservative party seem to be to end racial discrimination. The ends of the other party appear to be stoking racial hatred to garner support based on an outdated perception of their role. I much prefer the conservative take on this issue in 2022.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
Eh, not really. It's pretty obvious that there's racial discrimination in plenty of other areas, and the GOP just plays the "well hold on now" card ad infinitum. Like, they might acknowledge the occasional study showing discrimination in, say, policing, or hiring preferences. But they virtually never propose to actually do anything about it; their usual rhetoric on the issue is just to criticize whatever Democrats propose. Nothing wrong with critiquing Democrat proposals, obviously, it's just that they never seem to have a credible, serious alternative.
tqi 5y ago
It's not that simple. "Imagine a hundred-yard dash in which one of the two runners has his legs shackled together. He has progressed ten yards, while the unshackled runner has gone fifty yards. At that point the judges decide that the race is unfair. How do they rectify the situation? Do they merely remove the shackles and allow the race to proceed? Then they could say that “equal opportunity” now prevailed. But one of the runners would still be forty yards ahead of the other. Would it not be the better part of justice to allow the previously shackled runner to make up the forty-yard gap, or to start the race all over again? That would be affirmative action toward equality."
- darebak 5y ago
  Your quote would make sense if this admission discrimination was based on economic status but not race. Also, what's the goal of the race? Best possible outcome for society? Greatest contribution to society? Teaching the best possible students?
  - walkhour 5y ago
    Agreed, using race as a proxy for all "unfairness" it's simply mathematically wrong. Imagine discarding such an important confounder as economic status.
- rosndo 5y ago
  Why place such value on fairness? Shackling both runners to a post would be fair, but would it be a positive outcome? Perhaps instead of focusing on winners and losers, we should focus on increasing the total distance ran? Starting the race from the beginning would be a waste of 60 yards.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > Why place such value on fairness? This is spot on. If I'm in the hospital for something, my primary concern is the quality of care I'm going to receive, not the societal fairness/unfairness brought about the hospital's hiring policy.
WesternWind 5y ago
Affirmative action isn't racial discrimination, it's an attempt to correct for racial discrimination. The figures cited above are with affirmative action. They would be a lot worse without attempting to correct for it. But of course correcting for historic and systemic inequities is more obvious than just letting the status quo happen. That doesn't make it morally reprehensible, anymore than the status quo, in which white students are advantaged, isn't morally superior. If you think white students aren't privileged, even now, I suggest you consider the figures regarding folks who get in who are recruited Athletes, Legacies, Donors, of Students of faculty members and staff. less than 16% of Latino, Black, or Asian students are from the ALDC groups, but 43% of white students are. Of the 43% who are, 75% would have been rejected if treated as white ALDCs. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-...
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > Affirmative action isn't racial discrimination, it's an attempt to correct for racial discrimination. It's very obviously both these things. It's an attempt to try to compensate for implicit/less visible racial discrimination, with very explicit racial discrimination enshrined into policy. Not saying it's always a terrible idea, but pretending that it's not racial discrimination is exactly the kind of gaslighting discussed in the article.
- gjhh244 5y ago
  It absolutely is discrimination as not all whites are privileged. These days your skin color doesn't matter much, what really makes the difference is the wealth of your parents. A rich black guy is privileged compared to poor white guy. Yes, MOST African Americans are poorer due to historical discrimination. But similarly some whites are also poorer due to historical reasons beyond their own control. The solution should be support to the poor to help them achieve better educational outcomes, regardless of their skin color. Just raise taxes and build a system that helps all poor people achieve better educational outcomes instead of racist affirmative action. Scandinavian model provides a good example. Anything else is just nonsense and convenient to the rich elite. Also, it's possible to make college/university admissions very much anti-discriminatory simply by making them exam-based, and preventing those who check the exams from knowging who did the exam. This is how the system should work.

by 0x7E3 5y ago

TulliusCicero 5y ago

Eh, not really. It's pretty obvious that there's racial discrimination in plenty of other areas, and the GOP just plays the "well hold on now" card ad infinitum. Like, they might acknowledge the occasional study showing discrimination in, say, policing, or hiring preferences. But they virtually never propose to actually do anything about it; their usual rhetoric on the issue is just to criticize whatever Democrats propose. Nothing wrong with critiquing Democrat proposals, obviously, it's just that they never seem to have a credible, serious alternative.

tqi 5y ago

It's not that simple. "Imagine a hundred-yard dash in which one of the two runners has his legs shackled together. He has progressed ten yards, while the unshackled runner has gone fifty yards. At that point the judges decide that the race is unfair. How do they rectify the situation? Do they merely remove the shackles and allow the race to proceed? Then they could say that “equal opportunity” now prevailed. But one of the runners would still be forty yards ahead of the other. Would it not be the better part of justice to allow the previously shackled runner to make up the forty-yard gap, or to start the race all over again? That would be affirmative action toward equality."

darebak 5y ago
Your quote would make sense if this admission discrimination was based on economic status but not race. Also, what's the goal of the race? Best possible outcome for society? Greatest contribution to society? Teaching the best possible students?
- walkhour 5y ago
  Agreed, using race as a proxy for all "unfairness" it's simply mathematically wrong. Imagine discarding such an important confounder as economic status.
rosndo 5y ago
Why place such value on fairness? Shackling both runners to a post would be fair, but would it be a positive outcome? Perhaps instead of focusing on winners and losers, we should focus on increasing the total distance ran? Starting the race from the beginning would be a waste of 60 yards.
- tharne 5y ago
  > Why place such value on fairness? This is spot on. If I'm in the hospital for something, my primary concern is the quality of care I'm going to receive, not the societal fairness/unfairness brought about the hospital's hiring policy.

WesternWind 5y ago

Affirmative action isn't racial discrimination, it's an attempt to correct for racial discrimination. The figures cited above are with affirmative action. They would be a lot worse without attempting to correct for it. But of course correcting for historic and systemic inequities is more obvious than just letting the status quo happen. That doesn't make it morally reprehensible, anymore than the status quo, in which white students are advantaged, isn't morally superior. If you think white students aren't privileged, even now, I suggest you consider the figures regarding folks who get in who are recruited Athletes, Legacies, Donors, of Students of faculty members and staff. less than 16% of Latino, Black, or Asian students are from the ALDC groups, but 43% of white students are. Of the 43% who are, 75% would have been rejected if treated as white ALDCs. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-...

TulliusCicero 5y ago
> Affirmative action isn't racial discrimination, it's an attempt to correct for racial discrimination. It's very obviously both these things. It's an attempt to try to compensate for implicit/less visible racial discrimination, with very explicit racial discrimination enshrined into policy. Not saying it's always a terrible idea, but pretending that it's not racial discrimination is exactly the kind of gaslighting discussed in the article.
gjhh244 5y ago
It absolutely is discrimination as not all whites are privileged. These days your skin color doesn't matter much, what really makes the difference is the wealth of your parents. A rich black guy is privileged compared to poor white guy. Yes, MOST African Americans are poorer due to historical discrimination. But similarly some whites are also poorer due to historical reasons beyond their own control. The solution should be support to the poor to help them achieve better educational outcomes, regardless of their skin color. Just raise taxes and build a system that helps all poor people achieve better educational outcomes instead of racist affirmative action. Scandinavian model provides a good example. Anything else is just nonsense and convenient to the rich elite. Also, it's possible to make college/university admissions very much anti-discriminatory simply by making them exam-based, and preventing those who check the exams from knowging who did the exam. This is how the system should work.