4 ms·

> I still don’t see how it’s discrimination against White students. This actually looks more like discrimination against Asians, with Whites being the biggest b

> I still don’t see how it’s discrimination against White students. This actually looks more like discrimination against Asians, with Whites being the biggest beneficiary of the discrimination based on the numbers. Because you are looking at it through the lens of total student makeup of certain top universities. If Whites need 100 points higher on SAT than some others, then Whites are being discriminated against. That is, if you remove only the discrimination against Whites then they do better in the current system. If Asians need 200 points higher on SAT and you remove all discrimination then Whites do worse at some top universities than currently. So Whites would be both being discriminated against and for at those certain universities. If you look at the overall college system, there's something like 35% of undergrads that are Black/Hispanic and 5% for Asian so in the overall system Whites net benefit more from no discrimination than Asians do. So you've picked a particular point of view between principled and subjective, global and local, to conclude Whites aren't being discriminated against. Maybe it's worth exploring why.

kenjackson 4y ago
> If you look at the overall college system, there's something like 35% of undergrads that are Black/Hispanic and 5% for Asian so in the overall system Whites net benefit more from no discrimination than Asians do. I don't understand this. The vast majority of colleges are uncompetitive. If you apply and can afford it, you get in. Affirmative action is only relevant at competitive colleges. For example, at the totality of the UC system, it's only 4.5% Black, 22.5% Hispanic, 22.2% White, and 32.2% Asian. It's in these schools Asians get the benefit. Whites and Blacks were the two groups hardest hit by the elimination of AA in the UC system. And I'm OK with this personally. I just think the AA narrative that it is Blacks that took that Asian kid/s seat is misplaced -- it was more likely the White kid who took their seat.
- bsdetector 4y ago
  > I just think the AA narrative that it is Blacks that took that Asian kid/s seat is misplaced -- it was more likely the White kid who took their seat. And at the schools that are very good the Asians that couldn't get into the best ones are taking those spots from others. But you've excluded those colleges from your calculus for some reason. People generally apply to several schools and may not get accepted to all of them, majors have limited number of spots, scholarship are limited, and so on. If the College Board subtracts 100 from every White person's score they'll apply to or get accepted to lower choice colleges, and this is effectively what race-based affirmative action is doing. When you have systemic discrimination like affirmative action the whole system is affected. It seems like you don't believe race-based affirmative action causing White kids to get accepted to their 3rd choice instead of their 2nd is fine since you're pretending it doesn't happen.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  I'm not following your logic at all. If our logic is that merit evenly falls between every racial group and the enrolment of schools should match demographics, then Asians are still over-represented and both blacks and whites are under-represented. So Blacks and whites took both era spots. If the idea is that current test scores without affirmative action represent true ability, then nobody took eachothers spot, what you describe is true fairness, only 22.2% of whites and 4.5% of blacks deserve to be in school. Is the idea that blacks deserve affirmative action, and Asians do, and Hispanics do, but whites don't, so any instance of them benefiting from AA is whites stealing from blacks? I just don't quite follow.

kenjackson 4y ago

> If you look at the overall college system, there's something like 35% of undergrads that are Black/Hispanic and 5% for Asian so in the overall system Whites net benefit more from no discrimination than Asians do. I don't understand this. The vast majority of colleges are uncompetitive. If you apply and can afford it, you get in. Affirmative action is only relevant at competitive colleges. For example, at the totality of the UC system, it's only 4.5% Black, 22.5% Hispanic, 22.2% White, and 32.2% Asian. It's in these schools Asians get the benefit. Whites and Blacks were the two groups hardest hit by the elimination of AA in the UC system. And I'm OK with this personally. I just think the AA narrative that it is Blacks that took that Asian kid/s seat is misplaced -- it was more likely the White kid who took their seat.

bsdetector 4y ago
> I just think the AA narrative that it is Blacks that took that Asian kid/s seat is misplaced -- it was more likely the White kid who took their seat. And at the schools that are very good the Asians that couldn't get into the best ones are taking those spots from others. But you've excluded those colleges from your calculus for some reason. People generally apply to several schools and may not get accepted to all of them, majors have limited number of spots, scholarship are limited, and so on. If the College Board subtracts 100 from every White person's score they'll apply to or get accepted to lower choice colleges, and this is effectively what race-based affirmative action is doing. When you have systemic discrimination like affirmative action the whole system is affected. It seems like you don't believe race-based affirmative action causing White kids to get accepted to their 3rd choice instead of their 2nd is fine since you're pretending it doesn't happen.
faeriechangling 4y ago
I'm not following your logic at all. If our logic is that merit evenly falls between every racial group and the enrolment of schools should match demographics, then Asians are still over-represented and both blacks and whites are under-represented. So Blacks and whites took both era spots. If the idea is that current test scores without affirmative action represent true ability, then nobody took eachothers spot, what you describe is true fairness, only 22.2% of whites and 4.5% of blacks deserve to be in school. Is the idea that blacks deserve affirmative action, and Asians do, and Hispanics do, but whites don't, so any instance of them benefiting from AA is whites stealing from blacks? I just don't quite follow.