3 ms·
How on earth are they "misperceiving" anything? If Jews were considered Jews and not white they wouldn't be 17.2% of the Ivy League. They'd go back to being dis
by slibhb 4y ago
How on earth are they "misperceiving" anything? If Jews were considered Jews and not white they wouldn't be 17.2% of the Ivy League. They'd go back to being discriminated against as in the past and as Asians are currently.
The solution to this is so simple. If you must institute affirmative action, stop considering "advantaged groups". Only consider ethnicity when it helps the application. So consider ethnicity for black, Hispanic, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, etc. Don't consider it for Asians, whites, Jews, and so on.
This strategy will still hurt non-disadvantaged people but the impact will be spread across all ethnicities that are doing fine rather than focused almost entirely on Asians.
- car_analogy 4y ago> Don't consider it for [..] whites Given that something like 6-7 of the 8 Ivy League presidents are Jewish (according to their wikipedia pages), and how underrepresented non-Jewish whites are at the Ivies - why not? Or, let me ask another way: how much fewer non-Jewish whites would the Ivies have to have, before you would consider them disadvantaged (for Ivy attendance)? They are 33% now, so.. maybe when they're just 20%, one in five? Or 10%? Would that be low enough?
- slibhb 4y agoI don't consider white Americans disadvantaged for reasons that are not empirical. I similarly consider black Americans and Native Americans (and to a lesser extent Hispanic Americans) disadvantaged for reasons that are not empirical. In my perfect world there would be no affirmative action. All this stuff would be race and gender blind. But if we have to have affirmative action, we should only consider ethnicity when it helps the applicant.