5 ms·

Emphasizing hiring of groups that have been traditionally discriminated against absolutely has a different moral character from discriminating against those peo

Emphasizing hiring of groups that have been traditionally discriminated against absolutely has a different moral character from discriminating against those people. There are a variety of ways to argue against the former practice, but to draw equivalence with the latter practice is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant.

NeverFade 4y ago
I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the Asian kid who was born in poverty, got bullied in school, struggled all his life to achieve the grades and stats to qualify for a top school, then got rejected in favor of a rich black American kid, since he was born with the wrong skin color.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Like I said, there are plenty of valid arguments against it. But they aren't equivalent, which is what I was specifically responding to.
  - NeverFade 4y ago
    It's racism with better excuses.
- NoraCodes 4y ago
  Hmm, this is not a good criticism of affirmative action programs. A child from a rich family, of whatever race, is far more likely to be able to attend the college of their (or their parents') choice, based on a wide array of factors. This is mitigated somewhat by federal and institutional need-based and merit-based aid, but I don't think it's really supportable to say that it's exacerbated by affirmative action. If your concern really is that poor students aren't able to access as many opportunities as wealthy students, you should be some flavor of socialist, as under capitalism, wealth inherently comes with more opportunity. In clearer words: I think you made this situation up without considering other factors because you have an ideological agenda.
  - NeverFade 4y ago
    > I think you made this situation up without considering other factors because you have an ideological agenda. > Arcidiacono shows that, after narrowing down applicants to those with the strongest objective academic qualifications, Asian Americans were far more likely than blacks or Hispanics to receive a low personality score from admissions officers. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/06/harvard-admissions-personality/563198/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/06/harvar... So we know for a fact that Asians received lower "personality" scores than blacks and hispanics, as a racial group and regardless of their financial status, and these lower "personality" scores were used as a basis to reject Asians and accept black and hispanic candidates. TL;DR we know for a fact this exact thing is happening.
    - NoraCodes 4y ago
      Yeah, that sounds like racial discrimination against Asian students! You'll note that I did not say there was no such thing as racial discrimination against Asian students, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.
      - NeverFade 4y ago
        So we know there is racial discrimination against Asians based on their race, and in favor of blacks and hispanics. Yet when I cited an example of an Asian kid getting rejected in favor of a black kid, you claimed I invented it. When you now admit we know it is happening.
        NoraCodes 4y ago
        At no point did I say that wasn't happening. I was responding to your comment about economic factors. Did I misunderstand your original comment? You said: > I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the Asian kid who was born in poverty, got bullied in school, struggled all his life to achieve the grades and stats to qualify for a top school, then got rejected in favor of a rich black American kid Is this not about the interaction between economic status and race in the context of affirmative action?
3np 4y ago
> Emphasizing hiring of groups that have been traditionally discriminated against absolutely has a different moral character from discriminating against those people. This is your personal opinion. > There are a variety of ways to argue against the former practice, but to draw equivalence with the latter practice is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant. This rests on sharing the former assumption. Hence, not necessarily dishonest or ignorant. Or if you want to maintain it: Want to lay out that difference for those of us who are (in your opinion) ignorant? Because I don't see it.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  I think it's inherent. One is a countervailing force against an historical wrong, with good intentions. The other is deliberately malicious, serves no benefit (not even an imagined one), and is a direct historical connection to widespread human suffering. To ignore all of that context and to treat them as exactly equivalent is reduction to absurdity, to the point where debate involving in any matter of subtlety is impossible, from my perspective. Furthermore, I would encourage you to state the equivalent case on your side. Why should I ignore all context and subtlety, and treat the two scenarios as morally equivalent?
  - 3np 4y ago
    I'm not saying you should. You are entitled to your moral framework. My point is that others can have honest and well-intentioned conclusions that differ from yours. You are not in a position to impose it on the rest of us. See some of the comments of human fungibility and realize that it may be a matter of perspective and that neither of you really are "wrong", "right", "good", "bad" or have an objectively higher ground.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

NeverFade 4y ago

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the Asian kid who was born in poverty, got bullied in school, struggled all his life to achieve the grades and stats to qualify for a top school, then got rejected in favor of a rich black American kid, since he was born with the wrong skin color.

nerdponx 4y ago
Like I said, there are plenty of valid arguments against it. But they aren't equivalent, which is what I was specifically responding to.
- NeverFade 4y ago
  It's racism with better excuses.
NoraCodes 4y ago
Hmm, this is not a good criticism of affirmative action programs. A child from a rich family, of whatever race, is far more likely to be able to attend the college of their (or their parents') choice, based on a wide array of factors. This is mitigated somewhat by federal and institutional need-based and merit-based aid, but I don't think it's really supportable to say that it's exacerbated by affirmative action. If your concern really is that poor students aren't able to access as many opportunities as wealthy students, you should be some flavor of socialist, as under capitalism, wealth inherently comes with more opportunity. In clearer words: I think you made this situation up without considering other factors because you have an ideological agenda.
- NeverFade 4y ago
  > I think you made this situation up without considering other factors because you have an ideological agenda. > Arcidiacono shows that, after narrowing down applicants to those with the strongest objective academic qualifications, Asian Americans were far more likely than blacks or Hispanics to receive a low personality score from admissions officers. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/06/harvard-admissions-personality/563198/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/06/harvar... So we know for a fact that Asians received lower "personality" scores than blacks and hispanics, as a racial group and regardless of their financial status, and these lower "personality" scores were used as a basis to reject Asians and accept black and hispanic candidates. TL;DR we know for a fact this exact thing is happening.
  - NoraCodes 4y ago
    Yeah, that sounds like racial discrimination against Asian students! You'll note that I did not say there was no such thing as racial discrimination against Asian students, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.
    - NeverFade 4y ago
      So we know there is racial discrimination against Asians based on their race, and in favor of blacks and hispanics. Yet when I cited an example of an Asian kid getting rejected in favor of a black kid, you claimed I invented it. When you now admit we know it is happening.
      - NoraCodes 4y ago
        At no point did I say that wasn't happening. I was responding to your comment about economic factors. Did I misunderstand your original comment? You said: > I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the Asian kid who was born in poverty, got bullied in school, struggled all his life to achieve the grades and stats to qualify for a top school, then got rejected in favor of a rich black American kid Is this not about the interaction between economic status and race in the context of affirmative action?

3np 4y ago

> Emphasizing hiring of groups that have been traditionally discriminated against absolutely has a different moral character from discriminating against those people. This is your personal opinion. > There are a variety of ways to argue against the former practice, but to draw equivalence with the latter practice is dishonest and/or willfully ignorant. This rests on sharing the former assumption. Hence, not necessarily dishonest or ignorant. Or if you want to maintain it: Want to lay out that difference for those of us who are (in your opinion) ignorant? Because I don't see it.

nerdponx 4y ago
I think it's inherent. One is a countervailing force against an historical wrong, with good intentions. The other is deliberately malicious, serves no benefit (not even an imagined one), and is a direct historical connection to widespread human suffering. To ignore all of that context and to treat them as exactly equivalent is reduction to absurdity, to the point where debate involving in any matter of subtlety is impossible, from my perspective. Furthermore, I would encourage you to state the equivalent case on your side. Why should I ignore all context and subtlety, and treat the two scenarios as morally equivalent?
- 3np 4y ago
  I'm not saying you should. You are entitled to your moral framework. My point is that others can have honest and well-intentioned conclusions that differ from yours. You are not in a position to impose it on the rest of us. See some of the comments of human fungibility and realize that it may be a matter of perspective and that neither of you really are "wrong", "right", "good", "bad" or have an objectively higher ground.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]