3 ms·

I don't know a lot about UMich when it comes to entrance requirements, but what information I could find shows that a GPA of 3.1 would meet the entrance require

I don't know a lot about UMich when it comes to entrance requirements, but what information I could find shows that a GPA of 3.1 would meet the entrance requirements, so in such an example both the higher GPA student and the black student with lower GPA both are qualified (at least by GPA standards) to attend the school. Even if there was no affirmative action policy at UMich, these two hypothetical students would continue to be evaluated with additional metrics beyond GPA. It should be noted that most universities do not have a mission to educate only the best performing students that exist, so a comparison of just GPA alone isn't enough (not too mention the issues with how GPAs are measured in the US, which is heavily intersectional with race and class). When it comes to admissions for universities, class (as indicated by the x.isPoor) is a big deal, not only from a standpoint of acquiring funding to attend a university, but also how classism affects primary and secondary school students in the US. Those folks do deserve help in getting education and attending university of they so desire, just as much as racial groups that have historically and currently excluded from the same things. These things are not mutually exclusive, there are strong links with class status and race that can affect people of color differently than non-minority poor folks. Ultimately both issues should be addressed and attempts made to make up for the societal shortfall in getting these people access to the kinds of education they desire. The existence of a racial affirmative action policy is not a blocking thing for tackling other inequalities in society (in fact, due to the links between classism and racism, affirmative actions policies do take on class and poverty issues). I'm not sure what you are referring to with the x : x.ssn % 104 == 7 bit, as social security numbers are strictly meant for the social security program and I find their use outside of such contexts to be inappropriate, but I'd be interested to hear what you mean by it.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
I'm not sure what you are referring to with the x : x.ssn % 104 == 7 bit There are many statistically disadvantaged subsets of humanity. For example: Group A = disadvantaged OR ssn % 104 == 7 If you object to SSN, choose A = disadvantaged OR last 4 genes = GATTACA. Group B = black You seem to assign a lot of moral weight to group B but none to group A. Why? This is the question you've been ducking for the entirety of this conversation.
- king_jester 14y ago
  Black folks have been and are on the receiving end of many institutional oppressions that keep them excluded from accessing higher education. People with those SSNs or gene patterns you mention are not discriminated against on the basis of those numbers or gene patterns and have no need for a program like affirmative action. The fact is that is that racism, sexism, ableism, etc. are alive and well and are perpetuated by US society in many respects, and we as a society need policies that will work to change this and provide a opportunities that are available and accessible to the oppressed.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    You didn't read what I wrote. Group A is defined by an OR clause - some people in group A have SSN % 104 == 7, others are disadvantaged but don't have SSN % 104 == 7. Statistically, group A has been and is on the receiving end of many institutional oppressions that keep them excluded from accessing higher education. We can tweak the definition of A a bit if it makes the analogy easier: Group A = people who are either victims of racism directly OR people with SSN % 104 == 7. Some members of group A have suffered racism, others have not. Just like group B. Both groups are statistically more likely to be racism victims, but plenty of people in those groups have not suffered racism in any significant way. How do you distinguish between group A and group B? None of the criteria you have stated here actually differentiate between them.
    - king_jester 14y ago
      I'm not sure you understand how institutional and systemic racism works, but that kind of racism affects all people of color. That some individuals receive worse treatment than others in such systems doesn't mean that the lesser affected individuals aren't affected by that racism, nor does it mean that if you have other privileges (say, class) you are protected from the effects of those systems. When it comes to implementing policies to address that, you look at who the systemic problems are affecting and you make choices to help address those effects. I'm sure some people with some arbitrary SSN are a person who is affected by institutional oppressions, but people are not targeted for inclusions in those systems based on SSN, so that's not a metric worth targeting when implementing policies (although if it can be demonstrated that there is a significant link between SSN and institutional racism, that's another story).

yummyfajitas 14y ago

I'm not sure what you are referring to with the x : x.ssn % 104 == 7 bit There are many statistically disadvantaged subsets of humanity. For example: Group A = disadvantaged OR ssn % 104 == 7 If you object to SSN, choose A = disadvantaged OR last 4 genes = GATTACA. Group B = black You seem to assign a lot of moral weight to group B but none to group A. Why? This is the question you've been ducking for the entirety of this conversation.

king_jester 14y ago
Black folks have been and are on the receiving end of many institutional oppressions that keep them excluded from accessing higher education. People with those SSNs or gene patterns you mention are not discriminated against on the basis of those numbers or gene patterns and have no need for a program like affirmative action. The fact is that is that racism, sexism, ableism, etc. are alive and well and are perpetuated by US society in many respects, and we as a society need policies that will work to change this and provide a opportunities that are available and accessible to the oppressed.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  You didn't read what I wrote. Group A is defined by an OR clause - some people in group A have SSN % 104 == 7, others are disadvantaged but don't have SSN % 104 == 7. Statistically, group A has been and is on the receiving end of many institutional oppressions that keep them excluded from accessing higher education. We can tweak the definition of A a bit if it makes the analogy easier: Group A = people who are either victims of racism directly OR people with SSN % 104 == 7. Some members of group A have suffered racism, others have not. Just like group B. Both groups are statistically more likely to be racism victims, but plenty of people in those groups have not suffered racism in any significant way. How do you distinguish between group A and group B? None of the criteria you have stated here actually differentiate between them.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    I'm not sure you understand how institutional and systemic racism works, but that kind of racism affects all people of color. That some individuals receive worse treatment than others in such systems doesn't mean that the lesser affected individuals aren't affected by that racism, nor does it mean that if you have other privileges (say, class) you are protected from the effects of those systems. When it comes to implementing policies to address that, you look at who the systemic problems are affecting and you make choices to help address those effects. I'm sure some people with some arbitrary SSN are a person who is affected by institutional oppressions, but people are not targeted for inclusions in those systems based on SSN, so that's not a metric worth targeting when implementing policies (although if it can be demonstrated that there is a significant link between SSN and institutional racism, that's another story).