12 ms·

I'm a confused by the equity claim to justify discriminatory behavior with what seems like heavy emphasis on race. It seems difficult to achieve equity without

by tyjen 5y ago

I'm a confused by the equity claim to justify discriminatory behavior with what seems like heavy emphasis on race. It seems difficult to achieve equity without transparent, and standardized methods emphasizing a holistic assessment covering visible and invisible, immutable and mutable characteristics--each of which impact individual outcomes. I understand that tackling overrepresentation and underrepresentation is important; but, when emphasizing race to the degree that these academic institutions are, isn't this leading to representation disparities within the racial categories themselves? The racial categories are a very American centric and limited term, and arguably rooted largely as social constructs that loosely define the ethnic populations they cover. For example, and I don't mean any offense or to call any group out specifically, Koreans are overrepresented compared to Cambodians at the academic institutions listed in the article per their population proportion. This doesn't seem to be captured and accounted for under the current system. The same underlying disparity potentiality applies to whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc... The interpretation being, that it's a sort of half-committed approach to equity that isn't really leading to equitable outcomes if that makes sense, and may even be exacerbating ethnic marginalization within the racial categories. Another question is, if this isn't leading to genuine equity of outcomes and instead passing discriminatory behavior onto smaller, marginalized ethnic groups, what do you do then? Do you revisit implementing an improved meritocracy system, or implement an equity based system with greater accuracy and precision to prevent this? This doesn't even begin to tackle the issues current racial categorization creates with multiracial people and the essence of "purism."

uejfiweun 5y ago
You have to understand, this is the last dying throes of a liberal fire that has been raging for hundreds of years. Liberalism has achieved great things in the west, including expanding the rights of women, minorities, and LGBT individuals. We are all better off for its achievements. However, the low hanging fruit is taken, and now the same activists that once fought for noble goals are reduced to taking ever more divisive measures in pursuit of an unattainable ideological purity. The hyper focus on race, the election of Trump, the increasingly bizarre language of the modern liberal intelligentsia - these are all symptoms. Expect these crazy racist programs & ideas to intensify in the next 10 years until the whole movement collapses in on itself like a dying star (it may have already started, look at SF school board elections).
- boredumb 5y ago
  Liberals need to start speaking out against the 'progressives' that have commandeered their ideology in the public eye or I emphatically agree with your ending to the movement. My worry is what comes next, the people preying on american liberals aren't going to die with them.
- gxs 5y ago
  Thank you for contributing something other than pop-sociology to the comments (omg race is a social construct guys). I hadn’t thought about this this way before - eventually anyone with an inclination to “rage against the machine” will have to really pinpoint that energy and drill down and down until it seems like a parody. Not saying we’re there now, but an interesting thought exercise.
  - anon7725 5y ago
    When the idea is backed by corporate HR departments and academic orthodoxies, it’s no longer raging against the machine. It is the machine.
    - kbelder 5y ago
      I've noticed this in young people, in school or fresh out. They've somehow been convinced that they're rebelling against the system by thinking and acting exactly as they've been taught.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  Nit: it's not liberalism, but rather the general progressive/socialist movements. Some of the things being championed are highly illiberal, for example CRT has anti-liberalism as a central tenet.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Is there some manifesto or doc for it?
x3n0ph3n3 5y ago
> The racial categories are a very American centric and limited term, and arguably rooted largely as social constructs that loosely define the ethnic populations they cover. For example, and I don't mean any offense or to call any group out specifically, Koreans are overrepresented compared to Cambodians at the academic institutions listed in the article per their population proportion. This doesn't seem to be captured and accounted for under the current system. You've really hit the heart of the logical conclusion of intersectionality that those espousing it fight to avoid: individualism. Once you have to start accounting for subgroups of subgroups, you reach the fact that the smallest subgroup to account for is an individual person.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  While Asians not being fungible has something to say about individuality (although not much), I don't know what it has to do with "intersectionality." It's very difficult to be Cambodian yet not Asian. Being both Asian and Cambodian is not an "intersection."
  - x3n0ph3n3 5y ago
    It's not about the intersection of the group with the subgroup, but the fact that the group is not a good proxy for the individual. The subgroup is a _better_ proxy, and each further subdivision becomes closer and closer to clearly representing the individual. Ultimately, the person being an individual is the highest fidelity subdivision.
roenxi 5y ago
> ... when emphasizing race to the degree that these academic institutions are ... There is a fairly classic manoeuvre where the elites feel threatened by the middle class, so they form an alliance with the lower classes to fight them. Eg, a lot of tax & spend policies make it harder to accumulate wealth in the middle class but the very wealthy can shield themselves. If Asians are not benefiting from being a racial minority, I do wonder if admission policy is focused more on race or more on excluding people who look middle class. I see some mention of Harvard. The point of Harvard is to politely set up the next generation of leaders. Not educate the masses. Possibly the article offers a view on this, but it is paywalled.
- weq 5y ago
  100% this is poltical properganda. Asians are conservative gold-mines in Australia. Somehow our version of the Republicans have convinced them they are on their side, while also playing the jobs saviour for the working class and being anti-asian. its a schitzophrenic relationship underscored public debts subsidising private profits. The only this article points out correctly is that "Elite" universities, and therefor most modern day research in every field, is tainted by Racist Aristrocratic idealogies. They protect their own kind at the expense of all others. If you are dreaming of an elite school, you are the problem. You give them power.
psyc 5y ago
It’s all so depressingly primitive. Half of me wants to protest that surely we’re more enlightened than this in current year. The other half would settle for everyone else admitting that yes we are definitely still this backwards.
- artificial 5y ago
  We are chimps with electricity and gunpowder.
BadCookie 5y ago
It would be more fair to create admission quotas based on family economic status, but I can’t imagine that would ever be put into practice because it would hurt the wealthy too much. The universities wouldn’t like the financial impact either. But if true equality of opportunity were the goal, then that’s how you’d need to do it I think.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > but I can’t imagine that would ever be put into practice because it would hurt the wealthy too much. It definitely would hurt their bottom lines, since most of the private elites also provide non-loan financial aid out of their endowments to people who can’t otherwise afford to go. That only works if only a few poorer people make it over the bar. Public schools should step up more here, as it is their mission.
  - MontyCarloHall 5y ago
    > That only works if only a few poorer people make it over the bar. That is not true. The per-capita endowment of Harvard (and other schools of its caliber) is so large that it could afford to entirely eliminate tuition[0]. Currently, approximately 60% of students receive some sort of financial aid, and 20% pay no tuition at all[1]. These figures are similar at other similar schools. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-should-stop-charging-tuition-2014-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-should-stop-charging... [1] https://college.harvard.edu/guides/financial-aid-fact-sheet https://college.harvard.edu/guides/financial-aid-fact-sheet
- giveyouareply 5y ago
  It can be gamed. A long while back at University, I noticed very wealthy students on student income schemes that were only meant to be accessed by students whose parents qualified as low income status. The bar to qualify was quite difficult, if you had one parent employed in a job then it was unlikely you would qualify. I asked how they could qualify, while almost everyone had to work part time jobs to cover costs. It turns out their parents paid themselves a very low salary in order to qualify.
ThrustVectoring 5y ago
For elite universities in particular, I doubt they care about racial equity for its own sake. Instead, it's a component of their strategic interests, to wit: 1. Admitting children-of-elites for funding and advancement purposes 2. Admitting extremely high-competent students to build an alumni reputation 3. Maintaining a demographics profile that the general population will see as legitimate Fundamentally, today's racial quotas and preferences are in place for the same reason as why Harvard discriminated against Jewish students in the 1920s and 30s. If they didn't, the university would be seen as an attempt by outside demographic groups to install elites by a significant section of the population.
tootie 5y ago
NYC is going through the same thing and it's really awful. They have danced around a wild mix of policies to encourage meritocracy through testing, school choice across boroughs, charter schools. I am all for equity and inclusion, but achieving it by changing the rules of admission to top schools is the lamest answer. What we need are for schools to be better. Let's stop having so many bad schools that people run away from. Unfortunately, that's the hard problem we don't have an answer for. And the author of this article isn't presenting any decent solutions either.

by tyjen 5y ago

uejfiweun 5y ago

You have to understand, this is the last dying throes of a liberal fire that has been raging for hundreds of years. Liberalism has achieved great things in the west, including expanding the rights of women, minorities, and LGBT individuals. We are all better off for its achievements. However, the low hanging fruit is taken, and now the same activists that once fought for noble goals are reduced to taking ever more divisive measures in pursuit of an unattainable ideological purity. The hyper focus on race, the election of Trump, the increasingly bizarre language of the modern liberal intelligentsia - these are all symptoms. Expect these crazy racist programs & ideas to intensify in the next 10 years until the whole movement collapses in on itself like a dying star (it may have already started, look at SF school board elections).

boredumb 5y ago
Liberals need to start speaking out against the 'progressives' that have commandeered their ideology in the public eye or I emphatically agree with your ending to the movement. My worry is what comes next, the people preying on american liberals aren't going to die with them.
gxs 5y ago
Thank you for contributing something other than pop-sociology to the comments (omg race is a social construct guys). I hadn’t thought about this this way before - eventually anyone with an inclination to “rage against the machine” will have to really pinpoint that energy and drill down and down until it seems like a parody. Not saying we’re there now, but an interesting thought exercise.
- anon7725 5y ago
  When the idea is backed by corporate HR departments and academic orthodoxies, it’s no longer raging against the machine. It is the machine.
  - kbelder 5y ago
    I've noticed this in young people, in school or fresh out. They've somehow been convinced that they're rebelling against the system by thinking and acting exactly as they've been taught.
cuteboy19 5y ago
Nit: it's not liberalism, but rather the general progressive/socialist movements. Some of the things being championed are highly illiberal, for example CRT has anti-liberalism as a central tenet.
- oblio 5y ago
  Is there some manifesto or doc for it?

x3n0ph3n3 5y ago

> The racial categories are a very American centric and limited term, and arguably rooted largely as social constructs that loosely define the ethnic populations they cover. For example, and I don't mean any offense or to call any group out specifically, Koreans are overrepresented compared to Cambodians at the academic institutions listed in the article per their population proportion. This doesn't seem to be captured and accounted for under the current system. You've really hit the heart of the logical conclusion of intersectionality that those espousing it fight to avoid: individualism. Once you have to start accounting for subgroups of subgroups, you reach the fact that the smallest subgroup to account for is an individual person.

pessimizer 5y ago
While Asians not being fungible has something to say about individuality (although not much), I don't know what it has to do with "intersectionality." It's very difficult to be Cambodian yet not Asian. Being both Asian and Cambodian is not an "intersection."
- x3n0ph3n3 5y ago
  It's not about the intersection of the group with the subgroup, but the fact that the group is not a good proxy for the individual. The subgroup is a _better_ proxy, and each further subdivision becomes closer and closer to clearly representing the individual. Ultimately, the person being an individual is the highest fidelity subdivision.

roenxi 5y ago

> ... when emphasizing race to the degree that these academic institutions are ... There is a fairly classic manoeuvre where the elites feel threatened by the middle class, so they form an alliance with the lower classes to fight them. Eg, a lot of tax & spend policies make it harder to accumulate wealth in the middle class but the very wealthy can shield themselves. If Asians are not benefiting from being a racial minority, I do wonder if admission policy is focused more on race or more on excluding people who look middle class. I see some mention of Harvard. The point of Harvard is to politely set up the next generation of leaders. Not educate the masses. Possibly the article offers a view on this, but it is paywalled.

weq 5y ago
100% this is poltical properganda. Asians are conservative gold-mines in Australia. Somehow our version of the Republicans have convinced them they are on their side, while also playing the jobs saviour for the working class and being anti-asian. its a schitzophrenic relationship underscored public debts subsidising private profits. The only this article points out correctly is that "Elite" universities, and therefor most modern day research in every field, is tainted by Racist Aristrocratic idealogies. They protect their own kind at the expense of all others. If you are dreaming of an elite school, you are the problem. You give them power.

psyc 5y ago

It’s all so depressingly primitive. Half of me wants to protest that surely we’re more enlightened than this in current year. The other half would settle for everyone else admitting that yes we are definitely still this backwards.

artificial 5y ago
We are chimps with electricity and gunpowder.

BadCookie 5y ago

It would be more fair to create admission quotas based on family economic status, but I can’t imagine that would ever be put into practice because it would hurt the wealthy too much. The universities wouldn’t like the financial impact either. But if true equality of opportunity were the goal, then that’s how you’d need to do it I think.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> but I can’t imagine that would ever be put into practice because it would hurt the wealthy too much. It definitely would hurt their bottom lines, since most of the private elites also provide non-loan financial aid out of their endowments to people who can’t otherwise afford to go. That only works if only a few poorer people make it over the bar. Public schools should step up more here, as it is their mission.
- MontyCarloHall 5y ago
  > That only works if only a few poorer people make it over the bar. That is not true. The per-capita endowment of Harvard (and other schools of its caliber) is so large that it could afford to entirely eliminate tuition[0]. Currently, approximately 60% of students receive some sort of financial aid, and 20% pay no tuition at all[1]. These figures are similar at other similar schools. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-should-stop-charging-tuition-2014-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-should-stop-charging... [1] https://college.harvard.edu/guides/financial-aid-fact-sheet https://college.harvard.edu/guides/financial-aid-fact-sheet
giveyouareply 5y ago
It can be gamed. A long while back at University, I noticed very wealthy students on student income schemes that were only meant to be accessed by students whose parents qualified as low income status. The bar to qualify was quite difficult, if you had one parent employed in a job then it was unlikely you would qualify. I asked how they could qualify, while almost everyone had to work part time jobs to cover costs. It turns out their parents paid themselves a very low salary in order to qualify.

ThrustVectoring 5y ago

For elite universities in particular, I doubt they care about racial equity for its own sake. Instead, it's a component of their strategic interests, to wit: 1. Admitting children-of-elites for funding and advancement purposes 2. Admitting extremely high-competent students to build an alumni reputation 3. Maintaining a demographics profile that the general population will see as legitimate Fundamentally, today's racial quotas and preferences are in place for the same reason as why Harvard discriminated against Jewish students in the 1920s and 30s. If they didn't, the university would be seen as an attempt by outside demographic groups to install elites by a significant section of the population.

tootie 5y ago

NYC is going through the same thing and it's really awful. They have danced around a wild mix of policies to encourage meritocracy through testing, school choice across boroughs, charter schools. I am all for equity and inclusion, but achieving it by changing the rules of admission to top schools is the lamest answer. What we need are for schools to be better. Let's stop having so many bad schools that people run away from. Unfortunately, that's the hard problem we don't have an answer for. And the author of this article isn't presenting any decent solutions either.