9 ms·

Same reason we should have had a problem with it then. If racism is wrong, then it shouldn't matter which race.

ceejayoz 4y ago
- drstewart 4y ago
  No, it's a little like physical abusing someone for decades and then saying you need to let their kids physically abuse your kids to make it even
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- tomrod 4y ago
  You and I probably agree on the principle. I just want to call attention that this sort of snipe doesn't communicate well, in my opinion. I feel like the term racism has been split between race-based bigotry (which most people argue when they say "I'm not racist!") and supporting systems which encourage systemic preferences for certain groups. As I mention in another comment, I wish I understood this topic more, because the latter definition appears to be where folks are complaining about affirmative action since the end-state metrics aren't well defined (or maybe they are, but aren't well communicated?).
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    - tomrod 4y ago
      I get your confusion on the topic. But your approach fails to consider that the removal of privilege of a socially preferred group feels like discrimination to members of that group. This means the nuance is a distinction with difference.
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        We’re not talking about “removing privilege”, ie, ending a racist program that favors Asians. We’re talking about discrimination against an 18 year old Asian kid who has done nothing on the basis of race.
        tomrod 4y ago
        Negative discrimination of one group results in privilege to another (or, by default, all others).
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        Yes — you’re discriminating against Asians by privileging blacks in selection. That’s what makes this racism.
        tomrod 4y ago
        Ah, you agree with me. Great. You're just missing that bigotry of an individual is not equivalent to a systemic policy.
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        No — individuals can still be racist. But we’re discussing systemic racism against Asians in college admissions, so that’s an irrelevant distinction.
        tomrod 4y ago
        It seems you may have lost the thread of your original complaint on my comment.
  - TimTheTinker 4y ago
    > supporting systems which encourage systemic preferences for certain groups The newest definition is "systems that do not ensure equal outcomes between ethnic groups". I'm sure you can discern the dark side of that statement. The idea is that we should ignore the problem at the source - injustice, unequal treatment, real racism (by your first definition) -- and instead correct it via racial quotas wherever there's supposed to be an objective, impartial test of one's fitness for a role. One of the USA's great mottos used to be "equal opportunity". Not anymore, sadly -- between nepotism, promised donations, and racial quotas it's become nigh on impossible for some otherwise highly qualified but poor kids to go to an ivy-league school.
- colpabar 4y ago
  But yale was one of the institutions that was doing the abusing, right? Shouldn’t they be the ones who are punished? That isn’t what’s happening though, they are punishing “non-diverse” (see: white and asian) students instead.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  I see affirmative action less as treatment for historical grievances and more like reverse racism. We should be suspicious when the treatment looks so similar to the abuse, to use your analogy.
- nxm 4y ago
  How did I, as a white recent immigrant, physically abuse anyone? I had 0 advantages over others that were born here
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Or worse yet you came from someplace like South Africa, where you were abused for racial reasons and then after coming to the US you get blamed for historical action of some plantation owner physically abusing others. Double points if you're Palestinian or something and barely made it here with the skin on your back.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Let's see if I understand the argument. Many people's ancestors didn't own slaves. But, because of social construct, they have a leg up (+advantage) in the present because of skin color in the present society of the US (not because their ancestors were abolitionists or slave owners). Which is why people argue against current racism, not solely historical racism. So even if you didn't benefit from past injustices directly, the ongoing inertia in society results in your net benefit or detriment as an immigrant on average due to skin color. (Note, I'm trying put the argument into perspective with a steelman, not dismiss your experience as you've described it.)
- Aunche 4y ago
  The difference is that the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are wealthy black people and African immigrants, not the ones who were the hurt most by slavery and Jim Crow.
longtimelistnr 4y ago
Sure but this isn’t racism, it’s compensating for inequalities that are not fixable by “trying harder” or any individuals personal responsibility.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    It is not racism, as for it to be racist it would have to support the idea that people of one race are inherently superior in some form or another to another race. Adjusting representation is not making any claim whatsoever about ability around members of any race, it's attempting to adjust for those kinds of claims that have already (falsely) been made. Nobody who is implementing these policies in any of these Ivy League schools thinks Asian students are smarter or that non-Asian students are dumber.
    - Rebelgecko 4y ago
      >as for it to be racist you would have to believe that people of a certain race are inherently superior in some form or another. I don't think that's the standard definition, I think treating people differently because of their race is usually considered racist, even if the discrimination is of the "separate but equal" variety. Especially if the difference in treatment is due to stereotypes and prejudices.
      - TameAntelope 4y ago
        notch656a 4y ago
        >People want different treatment as a result of their different values and life experiences that they gather from their cultures Yes exactly. A white kid adopted by someone in a village in Kenya isn't going to want to be treated like an Englishman, and a black kid who grew up his whole life in a Montana country town full of white people with white parents (probably) doesn't want to be treated differently than the rest of the people in the town even though he's an entirely different color. "Colorblind" is a good policy in these circumstances. If someone wants to be treated differently purely on their color I will wait for them to tell me (individually tell me, not someone else of the same color to tell me) and presume not otherwise.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

drstewart 4y ago
No, it's a little like physical abusing someone for decades and then saying you need to let their kids physically abuse your kids to make it even
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tomrod 4y ago
You and I probably agree on the principle. I just want to call attention that this sort of snipe doesn't communicate well, in my opinion. I feel like the term racism has been split between race-based bigotry (which most people argue when they say "I'm not racist!") and supporting systems which encourage systemic preferences for certain groups. As I mention in another comment, I wish I understood this topic more, because the latter definition appears to be where folks are complaining about affirmative action since the end-state metrics aren't well defined (or maybe they are, but aren't well communicated?).
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  - tomrod 4y ago
    I get your confusion on the topic. But your approach fails to consider that the removal of privilege of a socially preferred group feels like discrimination to members of that group. This means the nuance is a distinction with difference.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      We’re not talking about “removing privilege”, ie, ending a racist program that favors Asians. We’re talking about discrimination against an 18 year old Asian kid who has done nothing on the basis of race.
      - tomrod 4y ago
        Negative discrimination of one group results in privilege to another (or, by default, all others).
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        Yes — you’re discriminating against Asians by privileging blacks in selection. That’s what makes this racism.
        tomrod 4y ago
        Ah, you agree with me. Great. You're just missing that bigotry of an individual is not equivalent to a systemic policy.
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        No — individuals can still be racist. But we’re discussing systemic racism against Asians in college admissions, so that’s an irrelevant distinction.
        tomrod 4y ago
        It seems you may have lost the thread of your original complaint on my comment.
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  > supporting systems which encourage systemic preferences for certain groups The newest definition is "systems that do not ensure equal outcomes between ethnic groups". I'm sure you can discern the dark side of that statement. The idea is that we should ignore the problem at the source - injustice, unequal treatment, real racism (by your first definition) -- and instead correct it via racial quotas wherever there's supposed to be an objective, impartial test of one's fitness for a role. One of the USA's great mottos used to be "equal opportunity". Not anymore, sadly -- between nepotism, promised donations, and racial quotas it's become nigh on impossible for some otherwise highly qualified but poor kids to go to an ivy-league school.
colpabar 4y ago
But yale was one of the institutions that was doing the abusing, right? Shouldn’t they be the ones who are punished? That isn’t what’s happening though, they are punishing “non-diverse” (see: white and asian) students instead.
DiggyJohnson 4y ago
I see affirmative action less as treatment for historical grievances and more like reverse racism. We should be suspicious when the treatment looks so similar to the abuse, to use your analogy.
nxm 4y ago
How did I, as a white recent immigrant, physically abuse anyone? I had 0 advantages over others that were born here
- notch656a 4y ago
  Or worse yet you came from someplace like South Africa, where you were abused for racial reasons and then after coming to the US you get blamed for historical action of some plantation owner physically abusing others. Double points if you're Palestinian or something and barely made it here with the skin on your back.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Let's see if I understand the argument. Many people's ancestors didn't own slaves. But, because of social construct, they have a leg up (+advantage) in the present because of skin color in the present society of the US (not because their ancestors were abolitionists or slave owners). Which is why people argue against current racism, not solely historical racism. So even if you didn't benefit from past injustices directly, the ongoing inertia in society results in your net benefit or detriment as an immigrant on average due to skin color. (Note, I'm trying put the argument into perspective with a steelman, not dismiss your experience as you've described it.)
Aunche 4y ago
The difference is that the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are wealthy black people and African immigrants, not the ones who were the hurt most by slavery and Jim Crow.

Sure but this isn’t racism, it’s compensating for inequalities that are not fixable by “trying harder” or any individuals personal responsibility.

zmgsabst 4y ago
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  It is not racism, as for it to be racist it would have to support the idea that people of one race are inherently superior in some form or another to another race. Adjusting representation is not making any claim whatsoever about ability around members of any race, it's attempting to adjust for those kinds of claims that have already (falsely) been made. Nobody who is implementing these policies in any of these Ivy League schools thinks Asian students are smarter or that non-Asian students are dumber.
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    >as for it to be racist you would have to believe that people of a certain race are inherently superior in some form or another. I don't think that's the standard definition, I think treating people differently because of their race is usually considered racist, even if the discrimination is of the "separate but equal" variety. Especially if the difference in treatment is due to stereotypes and prejudices.
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      - notch656a 4y ago
        >People want different treatment as a result of their different values and life experiences that they gather from their cultures Yes exactly. A white kid adopted by someone in a village in Kenya isn't going to want to be treated like an Englishman, and a black kid who grew up his whole life in a Montana country town full of white people with white parents (probably) doesn't want to be treated differently than the rest of the people in the town even though he's an entirely different color. "Colorblind" is a good policy in these circumstances. If someone wants to be treated differently purely on their color I will wait for them to tell me (individually tell me, not someone else of the same color to tell me) and presume not otherwise.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]