3 ms·

I’m not sure I understand your MIT point. So what are the numbers today? Where’s the gap? In my example Native Americans are expected to thrive in a college en

by dcow 3y ago

I’m not sure I understand your MIT point. So what are the numbers today? Where’s the gap? In my example Native Americans are expected to thrive in a college environment that promotes binge drinking despite having equal distribution of IQs. That’s arguably unfair to them and isn't solved by tweaking the input distribution by identifiable racial characteristics. Rather, it’s an unfortunate adversity that needs to be overcome (ideally with awareness, empathy, and support of other people even those who do not have to face that adversity).

BobbyJo 3y ago
> Rather, it’s an unfortunate adversity that needs to be overcome. Well yeah, but again > ideally with awareness, empathy, and support of other people even those who do not have to face that adversity the question here is how much support and what kinds. Any amount based on race is still a form of affirmative action, it's just not happening in a college admissions office.
- dcow 3y ago
  In the context here I think people take affirmative action to mean “official race-based consideration in the college admissions process”. While helping others out when they demonstrate need is action, it’s usually just called being a decent person and you don't have to limit it to artificial racial boundaries.
  - BobbyJo 3y ago
    > While helping others out when they demonstrate need is action, it’s usually just called being a decent person and you don't have to limit it to artificial racial boundaries. 100% But back to the context: controlling for racial disparity. If your answer is "just be nice" then you're choosing the "wait it out for 100's of years" option. That's totally your prerogative, and I personally flip flop between the two in terms of which I think is better for society.