2 ms·
i don’t get why the chief beneficiary of AA is elite whites as quoted by the article conclusion? are they referring to the legacy and the donors? how is that AA
by dustingetz 3y ago
i don’t get why the chief beneficiary of AA is elite whites as quoted by the article conclusion? are they referring to the legacy and the donors? how is that AA?
- SpaceBuddha 3y agoIt wasn't worded in the clearest way but I believe the author is talking about AA in the context of Ivy leagues specifically, and that AA at those institutions has done nothing to offset the % of (mostly white) elites who gain access through athletics/legacy admissions, etc. How this benefits those same elites is that by having universities push AA as a part of their public image (i.e., we're doing our part in fixing the damage done by our slave-owning founder) it draws attention away from the privileged forms of admission that actually impact who attends Ivy Leagues. Basically AA at those schools is a smokescreen that does very little while allowing those schools to pretend like they're helping fight for anti-racism, social equity, and so on.
- dustingetz 3y agoSo AA is bad due to malicious compliance? Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
- quantified 3y agoIt's that AA affects a different pool than the ADLC (athletes, legacies, rich people, faculty/staff people). The ADLC pool remains.