7 ms·

The Model Minority Might Be Too Good at the Game

17 points by 1sembiyan 4y ago

chiefalchemist 4y ago
What happens if (e.g.) Harvard changes its ends (i.e., education / degree) to its means. And its ends becomes (e.g.) "we develop tomorrow's leaders." Wouldn't that not only provide it the legal freedom to admit who they want because the criteria for a successful leader is 10x broader than objective academic performance; but also force them to seek out that broader range of signals? There is certainly a place for pure academics. That said, is the world not discovering that isn't enough? That progress is more than traditional IQ points?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  We have to understand that there's no escape hatch. Any measure of admittance has a corresponding racial makeup. Saying that one is choosing a different admittance measure M for reason X when it has Y effects racially is indistinguishable from choosing M for Y effect. The reason is a window dressing.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    I see it different. These is a significant difference between a traditional objective checkbox based "education", and a more well-rounded, contemporary, forward-thinking "training". The former has deep roots going futher back. The latter is to say, we know enough not to de-root from the past and look forward. The future at this point is not in the past. We can't keep playing to a paradigm that's about the past.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      If you'll allow me to demonstrate. If the admissions metrics associated with the former and the later both have racial implications. Deciding to favor one or the other will always pull in racial consequences. Those making those decisions (eg: "we chose <X>, and the subsequent changes in admission metrics _despite_ the racial implications") should be at the bare minimum be confronted with critique directly stemming from the such decisions.
      - chiefalchemist 4y ago
        What I'm suggesting is Harvard more or less say "We're pivoting. We no longer consider ourselve a traditional higher learning institution...and thus our criteria and selection process is not - for good reason - limited to test scores and traditional metrics..."
- musicale 4y ago
  Harvard's mission is already "to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society." (Also the parent comment became less legible because it was downvoted to grey. It didn't seem to me to be obvious trolling or spam.)
zozbot234 4y ago
"Too good at the game"? That's just sour grapes. One could have made the exact same arguments against another newly-emancipated minority back in the 1930s or so, and come to think of it, that's pretty much what happened. It's astonishing that this thinly-veiled hateful screed was published by a self-described "critical" venue. They're supposed to know better!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
zemvpferreira 4y ago
Because many minorities have been oppressed and disadvantaged, all minorities must be oppressed and disadvantaged. Any group whose success contradicts this idea is hushed away and eventually portrayed as part of the oppressive majority. Whiteness acquired through success. The Narrative must be preserved at all costs. There are real problems regarding race, wealth and opportunity in life. Identity politics hurt everyone but the politicians.

17 points by 1sembiyan 4y ago

What happens if (e.g.) Harvard changes its ends (i.e., education / degree) to its means. And its ends becomes (e.g.) "we develop tomorrow's leaders." Wouldn't that not only provide it the legal freedom to admit who they want because the criteria for a successful leader is 10x broader than objective academic performance; but also force them to seek out that broader range of signals? There is certainly a place for pure academics. That said, is the world not discovering that isn't enough? That progress is more than traditional IQ points?

kelseyfrog 4y ago
We have to understand that there's no escape hatch. Any measure of admittance has a corresponding racial makeup. Saying that one is choosing a different admittance measure M for reason X when it has Y effects racially is indistinguishable from choosing M for Y effect. The reason is a window dressing.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  I see it different. These is a significant difference between a traditional objective checkbox based "education", and a more well-rounded, contemporary, forward-thinking "training". The former has deep roots going futher back. The latter is to say, we know enough not to de-root from the past and look forward. The future at this point is not in the past. We can't keep playing to a paradigm that's about the past.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    If you'll allow me to demonstrate. If the admissions metrics associated with the former and the later both have racial implications. Deciding to favor one or the other will always pull in racial consequences. Those making those decisions (eg: "we chose <X>, and the subsequent changes in admission metrics _despite_ the racial implications") should be at the bare minimum be confronted with critique directly stemming from the such decisions.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      What I'm suggesting is Harvard more or less say "We're pivoting. We no longer consider ourselve a traditional higher learning institution...and thus our criteria and selection process is not - for good reason - limited to test scores and traditional metrics..."
musicale 4y ago
Harvard's mission is already "to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society." (Also the parent comment became less legible because it was downvoted to grey. It didn't seem to me to be obvious trolling or spam.)

zozbot234 4y ago

"Too good at the game"? That's just sour grapes. One could have made the exact same arguments against another newly-emancipated minority back in the 1930s or so, and come to think of it, that's pretty much what happened. It's astonishing that this thinly-veiled hateful screed was published by a self-described "critical" venue. They're supposed to know better!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

zemvpferreira 4y ago

Because many minorities have been oppressed and disadvantaged, all minorities must be oppressed and disadvantaged. Any group whose success contradicts this idea is hushed away and eventually portrayed as part of the oppressive majority. Whiteness acquired through success. The Narrative must be preserved at all costs. There are real problems regarding race, wealth and opportunity in life. Identity politics hurt everyone but the politicians.