The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong.
But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people have already. Right? I mean, I can get behind that. But then why the entire detour with race? Why not just.. well, let poor people come first? Would the goal suddenly not be met if poor smart white kids get into good schools, too? Who loses in this case?
I don't mean this as a hihi actually sneaky anti-affirmative-action post, I don't understand the subject matter well enough (nor America in general). I genuinely don't get why the race thing is part of the equation. Shouldn't this just be run-of-the-mill social democratic "lets hand out some extra opportunities/benefits to the poor" program?
The intent is to factor in some unknown "racism" value. Poor White and Asian kids still beat out poor Black and Hispanic kids academically on average, so if you naively stratified by income, you'd still wind up with a mostly white and Asian student population.
There are a lot of reasons Black and Hispanic kids underperform, and it's just easier for the school to short circuit all that and choose based on race rather than incorporate all those other factors. It might not even be viable to incorporate all those other factors.
We really only have two choices:
1) Wait out the effects of racism, historic and contemporary, which will take hundreds of years.
2) Sacrifice some of our "individual determination above all else" principles to reach some palpable level of racial equality.
I think both are flawed in their own ways, but the world is always imperfect, so pick your side.
The underlying important question is what do you define as equality?
Equality of outcomes, or equality of opportunity?
This is a very slippery slope when some definitions are not equal, or stated, as we’ve come into a recent crisis of definitions being rewritten unnaturally (I understand the meaning of words change over time, but there have been recent inorganic changes, I’d argue)
The classic opportunity of outcome is proven to be doomed, and is not aligned with your imperfect world assertion.
I can get behind equality of opportunity, which I’d argue affirmative action’s impact was antithetical to this vision.
We’ve come to a point where the new generation is being held accountable for something they had no hand in.
We shouldn’t be trying to treat these diversity reports as a checkbook that needs to be balanced.
I heard something that resonated with me, and will probably get me downvoted to oblivion (if it hasn’t already happened):
those that want to look for racism, will find it.
Once a certain area is solved so to speak, some groups tend to look even harder, and we get to a point now where we have this ever-widening definition of what racism is, the goal posts ever expanding, and this endless loop is our culture eating itself alive.
I shouldn’t have to say this, but this doesn’t imply racism doesn’t exist. But it does imply that our definitions of it have radically evolved, and perhaps is being used for ulterior motives outside of “equality”
This is fundamentally the only thing that bothers me about the entire post-modern left narrative. If the goal posts were “equality of opportunity” (as they historically have been) then I’d have no problem continuing to fight until opportunity is provably equal. But if you move the goal posts to “equality of outcome” (what people mean when they say “racial equity”) and say “look we’re still a racist society” I just can’t get behind that definition and framework.
The hard reality is that we have made a lot of progress and it’s almost impossible to argue that we’re missing equality of opportunity anymore. We’ve been legally equal for at least 3 generations. Yes, there are still some poor and intensely disparaged communities of predominately minority populations. I have no problems with people coming together to help those communities. But we can’t let racial equity seep into our legal framework or we’ll literally be discriminating based on race all over again and all the way down. No horrors of the past justify that level of wrongness. It’s hopeless and fruitless to try and design a “racially equitable” society, and you’re going to always just be an angry person if you set out on that path.
All that said, as always with these situations, I ask “what is the end goal and how can I help get there”. 9 times out of 10, there is no end goal and that’s where I draw the line in lending my valuable time, my money, my vote, and/or any mental space for stress and concern to a proposed cause. If you came to me and said every white person has to pay e.g. $5000 this generation, 4k the next, then 3k, and so on to balance out slavery and then we’re done talking about race and we can move on I would pay up immediately even though I disagree with the idea of reparations and holding future generations accountable for the sins of their fathers. I would do it because there’s a clear goal (correct for the past) and path to achieve it (pay money).
What I can’t get behind is being perpetually discriminated against as a white person under a framework of ever-evolving goalposts chasing racial equity of outcomes into the sunset.
I’d never pay that. Because the money would go into someone’s pockets, sure, but not the disadvantaged. Just some fat cats of the “right” color running the group collecting the money. I mean look at what happened with Black Lives Matter.
> Yes, there are still some poor and intensely disparaged communities of predominately minority populations.
And there are poor, intensely disparaged communities in majority populations. A great example is “American Hollow”, a 1999 documentary by Rory Kennedy about an Appalachian family, their life with poverty, and making ends meet in the mountains.
Generational wealth exists, and Blacks are certainly affected, but I’m not convinced that trying to “shift” wealth so unnaturally (and especially in such racist ways) really helps anything.
LBJ gave the commencement speech at Howard more than 50 years ago and said:
That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society—to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to be treated in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.
But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.
You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.
Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.
---
It's gonna take a very long time. Reparations are valued in the trillions. Truly insane violence has been perpetuated on racial minorities in America. It's gonna take more than ~60 years of Jim Crow-free America to make things right.
Then why have the goal posts moved? That’s my only challenge to the status quo. Presumably they’ve moved because moving them is the only way (or at least the only cheap/easy way) to maintain a narrative of injustice. Shouldn't we be able to pursue this vision without frivolously chasing a metric we have absolutely no understand of let alone control over?
It’s subtle but the motives are very different: if you want to maintain a narrative of injustice, then you will find ways to do that. OTOH, if you want to build a narrative of equality, success, and support, then you need to be open to the outcome that racial undertones and the victim status of minorities will fade into history. Thats the entire goal, right?
- People of color don't experience special violence
- People of color don't experience special rates of poverty
- People of color aren't specially diverted from the pursuit of happiness
We're so far away from this goal that we can only hazily imagine achieving it. For example, white high school dropouts have higher home ownership rates than Black college graduates [0]. Either you think Black people are just bad with credit cards (which would be racist) or you think there's some structural cause.
I think people want a number, like a number of years or an amount of money so we can finally say, "we did it, we made things right." It's even in this opinion. I don't think that's a useful way of looking at it, because no metrics really capture what it's like to be in a marginalized group. Hell we can't even agree on metrics for software engineers; we definitely can't get it right for this.
What we should do instead is create race conscious policies that address inequalities when we find them. We should do this for everyone btw: white people who have been victimized by the opioid epidemic, women who've experienced violence, etc. etc. Race-conscious admissions programs were doing this work for college admissions, but sadly not anymore.
I think you jumped to a poorly argued conclusion with:
> What we should do instead is create race conscious policies
Of course, the goalposts you mentioned are good goals. But it’s far from clear that face conscious policies are appropriate or effective.
Appropriateness is, of course, a matter of opinion, but the Supreme Court has decided that the policies in question are unconstitutional. But effectiveness is an empirical matter. For example, in 1996, California banned most affirmative action in public universities. (To be clear, a lot of very well intentioned people at the universities supported affirmative action. Source: personal knowledge.). It took a few years for the situation to settle down, but the results of removing affirmative action seem to have been a pretty clear benefit to black students at the University of California campuses.
It turns out that, just because a policy is well intentioned, it does not follow that it is effective at achieving its good intentions. I could rattle off quite a few examples of policies that fail in this regard.
> the results of removing affirmative action seem to have been a pretty clear benefit to black students at the University of California campuses
This is incorrect; removing affirmative action was real bad for Black students [0]. The article you cite references the discredited "mismatch" theory also pushed by Justice Thomas. Mismatch theory was never supported by data, and the studies that do seem to support it have huge problems [1]. No serious person thinks it's real.
Race-conscious admissions were an unqualified good for millions of minority students. They're probably only second to Social Security as a US anti-poverty policy. There's no amount of weirdo reasoning or fact twisting that can obscure that.
I don’t see the “mismatch” reference. I admit that article is not great. I found a much better article at one point but can’t find it again.
I admit I’m dubious about the study [0]. It says:
> I show that ending affirmative action caused underrepresented minority (URM) freshman applicants to cascade into lower-quality colleges.
This seems like a potentially problematic metric. Drawing conclusions from this depends on the assumption that the applicant pool did not change. It appears that much of UCLA’s post-Prop 209 strategy involved programs to improve their applicant pool. I haven’t found good data, but it’s entirely plausible that the outreach works, the applicant pool has a larger (and less under-represented?) fraction of “URM” applicants, that a comparable number but smaller fraction are admitted, that a larger number and a larger fraction go to the lower-tier schools (Cal State and community colleges, for example), and that this is all a good thing.
IMO, society does not benefit when a too-small proportion of qualified minority high school students apply to top-tier schools and a too-large fraction of the applicants get in. (Of course, any admission scheme whatsoever ought to benefit those who are admitted, at least so long as second-order damaging effects from a problematic admission scheme don’t make going to the university in question worse than the alternatives and so long as the university is worth going to in the first place.)
It does appear to be the case, based on terrible but official data that I found, that the fraction of the UCLA student body that is black is similar now to what it was before Prop 209. But I could be misinterpreting what I found. (The recovery was very slow, which is unfortunate.)
The article quotes Heriot referencing Mismatch theory here:
> By eliminating racial preferences, Heriot wrote last week, the 1996 amendment did away with the pressure to admit minority students to competitive institutions their credentials hadn’t prepared them for.
> I haven’t found good data, but it’s entirely plausible that the outreach works, the applicant pool has a larger (and less under-represented?) fraction of “URM” applicants, that a comparable number but smaller fraction are admitted, that a larger number and a larger fraction go to the lower-tier schools (Cal State and community colleges, for example), and that this is all a good thing.
The paper is more or less about minority enrollment going up at non-UC schools, so UCLA's outreach is irrelevant here.
> IMO, society does not benefit when a too-small proportion of qualified minority high school students apply to top-tier schools and a too-large fraction of the applicants get in.
I think the problem is obviously a racial hierarchy is motivated to pretend that minority status is already faded into history, especially if it isn't faded right now. Similar to how my boss says that his kneecapping my career is in the past now, there's a new peer review quarter and I have new opportunities so why should I be mad? Maybe sure 10 years from now it'll be whatever, but he just sabotaged me last quarter. Of course to him it's water under a boat, he has every motivation to pretend it to be so, and to say my pointing out that I'm still a harmed party to be goalpost moving or whatever nonsense he wants to come up with to say it doesn't exist anymore and therefore he doesn't even have to lift a finger to make it up to me.
It’s important for me to be very precise and clear here: I am not arguing that speaking up and pointing out that you were actively wronged is moving the goalposts. It’s literally not and I’m not trying to silence you or discourage the royal your initiative to do so! I think your boss should probably be fired and you should get a bonus.
There are, however, people making the argument that we need to focus on equality of outcome as the solution (vs firing your boss and paying you damages). And followers of this idealogical doctrine have made political inroads in schooling and government. It’s this behavior specifically that I’m criticizing.
Yes, part of the problem is that we’re such a binary society so these nuances get bucketed into larger issues and it’s all really hard to sort out.
I would challenge you to cite any government program in history in any country that has successfully achieved "equalization of outcome for racial groups." For those advocating extreme measures and philosophies, the burden of proof should be very high.
>It's gonna take more than ~60 years of Jim Crow-free America to make things right.
How does this work, in practice? Look at the comments here; do you think one half of the population is going to vote for politicians who want to implement a special tax that sees money from their pay check going to their neighbors, based on race? That will never happen.
> It's gonna take more than ~60 years of Jim Crow-free America to make things right.
Agreed, but as the parent comment said, what's the end-goal? What are the metric(s) whereby we can say "things are now right", or even, "things are approaching the direction of right-ness"?
I wholly agree with everything above the dashes/hyphens, but I partially disagree with the bottom part and a related position I suspect you hold. Maybe we will end up dedicating trillions of dollars through solid reform, but that figure shouldn't be based on historical reckonings of damages. The history of oppression and inequality in the US is gross and tragic, but the past isn't the present isn't the future. There are enough actual issues to solve already. Now, onto attacking a stance you may or may not hold. While certain groups (I won't deign to be imprecise with wording) are heavily disadvantaged heavily from historical racism, it still ultimately remains the sole responsibility and capability of each individual to forge their own path. If the culture is flawed, so too may the people not sow healthy crops to reap. To be sure, this may not turn out to be a significant issue, but it's something to be mindful of throughout reforms. Truly though, I hope for the best.
> 9 times out of 10, there is no end goal and that’s where I draw the line in lending my valuable time, my money, my vote, and/or any mental space for stress and concern to a proposed cause
Is ending systemic injustice that hard to grok? Certain races in the United States face discrimination on a daily basis, and in addition to the social effects of this they are also significantly disadvantaged on education and family income. You can measure things like "how many people in your family went to college," as well as family AGI and do breakdowns by race. You can draw a direct line to racist social policies, even ones less extreme than slavery or Jim Crow. Ones that come to mind include redlining, the historically rough medical treatment of black folks, and, I don't know, the frequent shooting of unarmed colored people by police?
> If you came to me and said every white person has to pay e.g. $5000 this generation, 4k the next, then 3k, and so on to balance out slavery and then we’re done talking about race and we can move on I would pay up immediately even though I disagree with the idea of reparations and holding future generations accountable for the sins of their fathers.
The problem is you want a "clear goal" a.k.a simple solution when there just isn't one. This is a multi-faceted issue that requires thoughtfulness. Yours is the same mentality missionaries bring to Africa -- "just give them clothes, food, and shoes" with no regard to the more important things like building an economic engine that lets people self-sustain, contribute, and compete.
There are a _lot_ of kinds of reparations that could happen beyond affirmative action (e.g. better investment in black-majority communities via schools, favorable loans, etc) and they don't have to come out of just white folks' pockets (just spend taxpayer money so we all share the burden).
> The hard reality is that we have made a lot of progress and it’s almost impossible to argue that we’re missing equality of opportunity anymore.
Opportunity is a function of preparation and people taking chances on you.
- Preparation costs time and money and racial minorities have measurably less time and money on average.
- People taking chances on you requires network. Folks from historically disadvantaged races don't have the benefit of legacy, or even role models (consider being a mexican high schooler visiting Google campus -- would you think becoming a software engineer there is attainable for you?) The psychological impact of stuff like this is profound.
A black friend I met in college went through high school assuming that would be the end of his education because that was just how it was in his mostly-black neighborhood -- is that something you can internalize at all? Is that not evidence against "equality of opportunity" ??? The year was 2010 for pete's sake. This is a frequent thing.
> What I can’t get behind is being perpetually discriminated against as a white person under a framework of ever-evolving goalposts chasing racial equity of outcomes into the sunset.
As a white person, your individual chances of going to Harvard are not meaningfully affected by the presence of affirmative action. Consider their admission rate of 0.04, then consider affirmative action affects 10% of applicants. Your chance of admission is now 0.036, which at the end of the day is basically the same. You have a 96.4% chance of not being admitted vs 96% chance.
More importantly, as a white person _you started with a better dice roll_ so you should compete against folks who started with similar dice rolls. Affirmative action doesn't mean black folks get guaranteed admission to harvard; they still have to compete against other high-achieving people of the same race.
I'm Asian -- affirmative action is technically worse for me than you because Asian-american immigrants historically have optimized against college admission metrics very well. But I fully support it, because the continuing legacy of slavery and race-based discrimination in this country is too egregious to do nothing about. Equality of opportunity is the long term goal, but to get there you need to create less-unequal outcomes to prime to pump. It's just too lopsided as it is. My child will do fine at a solid state school if their 0.036% chance at Harvard doesn't pan out.
Take yourself out of it for a second: consider whether your child will be more or less discriminated against than an average black person's child. They have some solid advantages: they won't get killed for calling the police, they have you as their parent (you're posting multiple paragraphs on hacker news about paying $5k+ in reparations, so you're probably doing fine), they probably won't have problems booking an AirBnB or with a doctor treating them like they're 5 years older, and they probably won't do jail time for smoking marijuana or even doing coke if we're being honest.
> As a white person, your individual chances of going to Harvard are not meaningfully affected by the presence of affirmative action. Consider their admission rate of 0.04, then consider affirmative action affects 10% of applicants. Your chance of admission is now 0.036, which at the end of the day is basically the same. You have a 96.4% chance of not being admitted vs 96% chance.
I can’t follow your math at all.
Something like 30% of the student body, per the opinion, is black or Hispanic. If you assume that all of those people were admitted solely as a result of affirmative action (which is obviously not the case), that creates a 30% reduction in available slots, which will reduce the admission rate of everyone else (assuming the same people apply) by 30%.
This is made up, but I don’t see where your 10% comes from.
It's a made up number assuming _all_ black harvard students are in on the basis of affirmative action.
30, 10, it doesn't matter, my point is your chance of getting into Harvard is already vanishingly small (4%) and even if it's a 30% reduction in slots, your chance goes from 4% -> 2.8% which is a similar order of magnitude.
It's also a biased process in a thousand other ways even without affirmative action, so why are we sweating this small thing. You're likely to be squeezed out by some ultra-privileged person whose parents could pay for essays to be written, SAT coaching, and exclusive extra-curriculars to pad the resume. Not some poor hispanic kid who grew up with nothing and would have scored 200 points better on the SATs with the right coaching.
> You can measure things like "how many people in your family went to college," as well as family AGI and do breakdowns by race. You can draw a direct line to racist social policies, even ones less extreme than slavery or Jim Crow. Ones that come to mind include redlining, the historically rough medical treatment of black folks, and, I don't know, the frequent shooting of unarmed colored people by police?
Of course you can measure this stuff, that's the point!
> The problem is you want a "clear goal" a.k.a simple solution when there just isn't one. This is a multi-faceted issue that requires thoughtfulness. Yours is the same mentality missionaries bring to Africa -- "just give them clothes, food, and shoes" with no regard to the more important things like building an economic engine that lets people self-sustain, contribute, and compete.
I presented that hypothetical solution rhetorically. I actually don't think that paying money is a real solution. But I want to get to the point where someone advocating for the cause can say "these are the acceptable end conditions".
> In college one of my black friends went through high school assuming that would be the end of his education because that was just how it was in his mostly-black neighborhood -- is that something you can internalize at all? Is that not evidence against "equality of opportunity" ??? The year was 2010 for pete's sake. This is a frequent thing.
I had white and black and brown and yellow friends in college from low income neighborhoods who all experienced this. Yes, it's something I'm able to consider compassionately.
> I'm Asian -- affirmative action is technically worse for me than you because Asian-american immigrants historically have optimized against college admission metrics very well. But I fully support it, because the continuing legacy of slavery and race-based discrimination in this country is too egregious to do nothing about. Equality of opportunity is the long term goal, but to get there you need to create less-unequal outcomes to prime to pump. It's just too lopsided as it is. My child will do fine at a solid state school if their 0.036% chance at Harvard doesn't pan out.
I am well aware of the dynamics of AA.
> Take yourself out of it for a second: consider whether your child will be more or less discriminated against than an average black person's child.
Where's the framework for evaluating as much? Where's the audits to confirm that any temporary cheap discrimination is actually priming the pump and not causing more harm (and yes there is evidence that affirmative action isn't all that you're cracking it up to be). All I'm asking for is to be objective and calculated about these things and not emotional and sloppy.
---
Look, you and I are different people with different tolerances for discrimination.
I am hypothetically okay being discriminated against in the short term (as you are) if it provably corrects a clear issue and we have an agreement in place to evaluate the program as it's happening, make sure it's contributing to the desired outcome, and to stop the discrimination once clear end conditions are met.
Of course I'd rather not be discriminated against explicitly since I think that's a sloppy proxy solution and instead I'd rather address the actual problems even if they're more expensive and more difficult programs to execute--everyone should share the load of building the society we want to live in.
In general, you're okay hearing about the atrocities of the past and allowing yourself to be discriminated against on the loose grounds that any discrimination serves to correct the atrocities. You feel guilt about the wrongs of the past and are thus able to justify discrimination as a form of atonement.
On the other hand, I am not okay allowing myself to be discriminated against because of past events I had no control over or participated in, despite arguably indirectly benefitting from them loosely based on the color of my skin. I do not feel guilt or the need to atone for those previous wrongs. I do feel responsibility to contribute to correcting any outstanding issues that still exist today.
Therefore I am not phased by an argument that lists all the bad things that happened and concludes "oh you must still atone". And it is not justification outright for introducing discrimination to me or my children today.
I am swayed by logical assessments of the current situation and well thought out proposals on how to address remaining problems. I want equality of opportunity and I very much disagree we'll achieve it by focusing on equality of outcome. I don't think that's the right path. AA has primed the pump as you say of the opportunity engine for generations now. Let's assess the situation and move on.
We share a desire for the same goal, but we are different in our approaches. If that makes me an asshole and you not, well that's outside of either of our control. I can assure you my stance isn't some cheap sensational response to this headline or something. I have spent more time than I'd wager most have considering these issues and determining how I wish to engage.
> I am hypothetically okay being discriminated against in the short term (as you are) if it provably corrects a clear issue and we have an agreement in place to evaluate the program as it's happening, make sure it's contributing to the desired outcome, and to stop the discrimination once clear end conditions are met.
Do you consider it discrimination that disabled folks get to park in special spots? I don't consider discrimination. Some people just need more help to get where they're going, and some of us will be just fine using the legs we were born to walk with. In the same vein, I don't feel like I'm being discriminated against by affirmative action. And I'm not worried about my kid even if those policies remained in place.
Nobody thinks affirmative action is perfect. For example if I could make a change myself I'd focus on the economic part of socioeconomic more so that it's not mainly privileged people of color getting priority. But you have to start somewhere. With systems governing people it's just not that realistic to ask that everything be perfectly measurable or that there is a neat objective function to optimize.
> Therefore I am not phased by an argument that lists all the bad things that happened and concludes "oh you must still atone". And it is not justification outright for introducing discrimination to me or my children today.
You're very focused on yourself. Nobody is asking you as an individual to "atone" for anything because you didn't do anything. What we are discussing is _systemic changes_ designed to help folks who are disadvantaged _also without having done anything_. Broad, high-level changes like affirmative action just don't have the impact on individuals in the majority that you are making them out to have. They do however have outsized impact on folks in the minority.
In general I find it gross to be so focused on what you're calling your own discrimination when it totally pales in comparison to the experiences of folks who face actual discrimination. You say you're able to consider others' experiences compassionately, but that's clearly just lip service, otherwise you wouldn't be calling affirmative action "discrimination."
> Some people just need more help to get where they're going, and some of us will be just fine using the legs we were born to walk with.
This is exactly the issue at play. There's a fundamental difference between _unending_ affirmative action and temporary 'help'. If you believe in equality of outcome then you will never be satisfied and we will always be 'helping' the disadvantaged group achieve various metrics forever. Eventually people deserve the dignity of a level playing field, otherwise you seem to be saying they're incapable of handling a level playing field which would be.. racist (by definition).
Your example of handicaps is disturbing, I know you didn't intend it in a racist way, but read what you wrote from the perspective of an African immigrant. Just because a person is black does not mean they're 'handicapped'!
Being born a certain race is a disadvantage in the same way being born with physical disability is a disadvantage. They're not the same but that was the point I was trying to make: we look out for disadvantaged folks in some societal contexts. Why are y'all complaining about systemically disadvantaged people getting some help? Is it because you can't trace the taxpayer dollars we spend on things like Section 8 housing back to your wallet, but you can trace back your rejection letter from Harvard to accursed affirmative action?
> If you believe in equality of outcome then you will never be satisfied
If you re-read what I wrote earlier, I said equality of opportunity is the north star. But just because you believe in that north star doesn't mean you can't see the value in skewing the current state by other means until you're there.
There's another thing here: affirmative action isn't something that keeps going much past your college graduation, and it doesn't directly remedy the brokenness of the K-12 education system, where de-facto race segregation is commonplace and you can start 3 grades back just by being born in the wrong town. Even diversity programs at big companies are typically only aimed at new grads. These are limited programs that just try to boost folks who typically haven't had the necessary support to achieve their full potential. At the end of the day the free market will do its work.
Folks claiming the little boost from affirmative action is "discrimination" need to get their heads out of the sand.
> you seem to be saying they're incapable of handling a level playing field which would be.. racist
No, I'm saying colored folks _are_ capable of achieving the same things as white folks if given the same advantages and privileges. But they don't get those advantages and privileges because society is broken. Affirmative action is one tool we can use to help put more colored folks in places of power in society. Without this, we will never sniff equal opportunity -- the north star we all seem to agree we want. Having people who look like you in places of power is important because they can advocate for you and surface areas where the opportunity is decidedly _not_ equal.
> Being born a certain race is a disadvantage in the same way being born with physical disability is a disadvantage.
No it's not! That's the most goddamned racist thing I've ever heard. Holy shit.
You should listen to Thomas Sowell, a "disadvantaged" black person, respond to your argument since you clearly won't listen to me: Discrimination and Disparityhttps://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/36222735
To summarize Sowell: telling a bunch of young black children that they're handicapped is the exact opposite of lifting up and supporting those in need. Perpetuating victimhood is not the solution. This worldview is poisoning kids minds and fucking them beyond repair. It is so goddamned unhealthy it's destructive and only serves to reinforce the false narrative that minorities are victims.
How do you propose to lift up and support those in need if you can't even agree that the playing field is uneven and that when you're born black you face systemic injustices?
_That's_ racist.
Oh and I'm not going to read a book by a guy who defended Trump as being "not racist." While we're out here recommending books, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Between_the_World_and_Me exemplifies my point: a father telling his son the hard reality of our broken system.
You are certainly free to ignore logic and play identity and association politics. I doubt it will actually get you very far in an intellectual understanding of the nuanced point Sowell argues, but that’s your prerogative.
Welp we're at an impasse because your "logic" doesn't track for me either. I don't think any solution starts with talking to disadvantaged children. Fixing the broken systems they live in should have some impact though.
There's too much bullshit out there for me to read every jamoke's book without doing some filtering based on whether this person is likely to be credible or improve my understanding of a situation. It's not identity politics, it's self-preservation.
Being born black is a disadvantage to your life outcome in the current system. That's the main point.
The comparison to how we treat the physically handicapped is just asking folks to consider why we are okay with helping people at cost to ourselves in one case and not another.
> Being born black is a disadvantage to your life outcome.
You're sick and your mind is diseased. I'd like to see you try to tell this to a black child.
We’re okay helping handicapped people because it’s not racist. Duh. I’m okay helping disparaged kids get into college by subsidizing them with financial aid programs and creating compassionate admission standards. Why limit it to black people?
The supreme court seems to agree that it’s time to move forward and focus on the real issues, not the racial scapegoat.
These ad hominems don't help your point, they just alienate - probably time to take a break from affirmative action commenting for a moment :)
I think we're equivocating with kajecounterhack on what 'disadvantage' means, and they chose an unfortunate analogy to illustrate their idea of disadvantage that is perhaps more fundamental to the disadvantaged person than they were going for.
The point is that 'disadvantage' does not take away opportunity, and disadvantage in the US no longer comes purely on racial terms, at least not when it comes to opportunity for education and financial success. You can get a degree by studying hard for the SAT and better your circumstances for a well placed $20 in high school, or you can join a trade school and say screw it to higher education and still better your circumstances. These opportunities exist for pretty much every black kid as long as they don't break the law and avoid addiction. They are in no way 'disabled' and have agency over their own destiny.
> I think we're equivocating with kajecounterhack on what 'disadvantage' means, and they chose an unfortunate analogy to illustrate their idea of disadvantage that is perhaps more fundamental to the disadvantaged person than they were going for.
Yeah I do regret drawing this analogy even if I still think it's apt, since it's distracting from my point instead of reinforcing it.
> These opportunities exist for pretty much every black kid as long as they don't break the law and avoid addiction. They are in no way 'disabled' and have agency over their own destiny.
I wasn't saying black folks are disabled. I was trying to express that some folks have disadvantages in life that start from birth, and color qualifies as one of those because of the way society at large has and continues to discriminate against folks with darker skin. This particular discrimination deserves addressing through efforts like affirmative action because its impact on life outcomes is profound.
You could say that the ability to buy an SAT book is all it takes to get a degree, but this doesn't track with reality. Preparation for college education starts from youth, and in the US public school quality is related to where you live. The legacy of slavery and Jim Crow extend to where we live today. An emphasis on education as a means to better yourself is also commonly handed down by your family -- but what if your family traces back (it's not that far) to an era where black folks were discriminated against when it came to education?
There are other interesting ways to slice it (e.g. how many of your parents went to college is a predictor of whether you'll go to college and also whether you succeed if you go; being poor at harvard means you actually don't get the same experience as folks who are better off).
> They are in no way 'disabled' and have agency over their own destiny.
I 100% agree with this statement, I just think that agency can only get you so far. You need supporting infrastructure, otherwise in the aggregate we will continue to perpetuate inequities (which unfortunately also reinforce discriminatory viewpoints).
I think I agree with this entirely. The problem is these disadvantages don't justify a policy of race-based affirmative action. To do this, you'd need to do one of three things:
1. Say that the affirmative action policy is temporary based on a time frame. This is tricky because any time you come up with will seem pretty arbitrary.
2. Say that the affirmative action policy is temporary based on a metric. This is also tricky because that metric is arbitrary (worse - it may never be accomplished).
3. Say the affirmative action policy is merited indefinitely which is in my opinion racist, because this is saying there's something fundamental about this group that makes them incapable of handling a level playing field. I simply don't believe this is true.
I think we need to come to terms as a society with the hard reality that all three above cases are morally and logically bankrupt, for any meaningful length of time. Arbitrary race-based criteria for determining 'disadvantage' just don't work. People have to be given the dignity of mastery over their own fate and it's patronizing (borderline racist) any other way, unless extremely limited in scope.
> You're sick and your mind is diseased. I'd like to see you try to tell this to a black child.
First of all, I'm not going around talking to random children. Secondly, black parents _totally_ have to say at some point to their kid, "hey you have to be careful around cops because they won't treat you the same as they treat your white friends."
I don't understand where you got this "you're sick and your mind is diseased" bit. The point was just that the playing field's not level and you're willfully missing it.
> Why limit it to black people?
Because the scale of systemic injustice to black folks is so big that it should not be controversial. The legacy of slavery in this country looms large. To be clear I also fully support measures to reduce overall economic inequality as well, it's just not the topic being discussed here.
I’m not missing anything. I understand exactly what you’re parroting. I’m telling you that you’re perpetuating a racist worldview of victimhood in an effort to signal your guilt and remorse to random peers (likely not even black people). I fundamentally believe your worldview and savior complex do more harm to the very people you think need saving than good. I consider you to be reducing complex nuanced reality to skin color, which is racist. There is nothing you can say to me right now that will change the fact that I don’t feel one ounce of guilt over the history of slavery in the US. There is no possible moral framework where I am responsible for things that happened hundreds of years ago. All I can do is treat people equally moving forward and help people in need. There’s a reason people say dwelling on the past is unhealthy.
> I'm telling you that you’re perpetuating a racist worldview of victimhood in an effort to signal your guilt and remorse to random peers
I'm anon and not even white (my parents are immigrants) -- who am I signaling to or guilty about? The only effort being made is an effort to reason with other anons on the interwebs, so take it or leave it.
You can also keep calling me racist for pointing out systemic racial inequity but last I checked racism is a byproduct of ignorance, and I'm sensing a whole lot of that from you. So, right back at you.
> I fundamentally believe your worldview and savior complex do more harm to the very people you think need saving than good
I get that this is a difference between us. I fundamentally believe that your worldview is faulty because it turns a blind eye to how tilted the status quo is and doesn't consider the status quo to be unethical. Characterizing a desire to level the playing field as a "savior complex" is unfair -- it's not a savior complex to feel that something is wrong and want to fix it, it's just called being conscientious.
> I don’t feel one ounce of guilt over the history of slavery in the US.
Dude nobody cares if you feel guilt or not, you're missing the point. Guilt doesn't help anyone, systemic policy changes do. Why are you making it sound like anyone cares about what you feel as an individual?
> All I can do is treat people equally moving forward and help people in need.
You can also acknowledge the legacy of past inequities, how they persist in the systems we live in today, and work to remedy them. If you step into a colored person's shoes and think about what bullshit they STILL have to face today (which you don't have to, as a white person), you might begin to see the desire for reform less as "identity politics" and more just "advocating for equal ass treatment."
I suspect you’re not very familiar with the progenitors of anti-racism.
Anyway, I’m talking over your head because I assumed you have explored the structural foundation for your assertions that dominant cultures are systemically problematic. Ignore my comments about white guilt and the like, they’re not really apropos, we both agree.
(If you care: see it’s a problem in and of itself that you responded to my argument with a long speech about how black people are victims and should be treated differently even still today and about how I simply don't understand and empathize with black struggle enough. And how my morally bankrupt white culture is unjust and needs dismantling. Oh and we should listen to this anon because they’re asian. Like, you’re already talking past me. I never said anything to that tune. And it’s why I responded so harshly, because 1. i think race-based laws are racist despite past struggles agree to disagree, and 2. it comes from a place of arguing that whiteness confers guilt, whether you’ve explored it that deeply or not.)
Let’s be clear: nowhere did I say we shan’t acknowledge the legacy of past inequities or do our part as humans to make a better world. I simply said that the solution to any remaining problems today must be colorblind. The court agrees.
You said, well no they can’t be colorblind because black people are (charitably) “disabled” because of history and so they must still be propped up.
We can just leave it at that.
Personally I’m only interested in engaging further on these topics when the dialog is not about atoning for past sins via identity politics and race-based policy, and instead the solution is a burden carried by all, not just white people. Come what may.
Nobody is ignoring injustice, they’re just arguing that future solutions should not be anti-white. Or are you implying the only solution to supporting black people is to treat them differently based on the color of their skin?
Give it for a white person to talk about guilt and race, as if everything had to be centered around how white people feel. That exactly itself is racism. It’s pretty simple, injustice was perpetuated by the dominant group against other groups. It still exists today as well as its effects. The dominant group got to dictate the prestige culture, the policies, the norms, enforce its ways.
If you want to support good goals and justice, you must be in support of policies to combat this injustice. And it begins with acknowledging that by being part of a dominant group there are benefits, and being part of a marginalized group there are disadvantages. If you refuse to acknowledge these things, it’s similar to choosing to ignore injustices happening currently.
How did we get from “I disagree with race-based legal policy” to “I don't acknowledge privileges”? Thats’s exactly the type of rhetorically bankrupt leap SJWs make all the time. It’s silly and simply not true. Quit it with the thought-terminating cliches, please…
> You're very focused on yourself. Nobody is asking you as an individual to "atone" for anything because you didn't do anything. What we are discussing is _systemic changes_ designed to help folks who are disadvantaged _also without having done anything_. Broad, high-level changes like affirmative action just don't have the impact on individuals in the majority that you are making them out to have. They do however have outsized impact on folks in the minority.
Maybe not broad impacts, but there are definitely impacts on the margin. Lowering the admission bar for one person means that, all things equal, someone better qualified is excluded. People want the best for their children and will generally prioritize their outcomes over others', regardless of past or present ill treatment of those others.
AA is a violation of the 14th as judged by Scotus. There may well be a 5th Ammendment case if folks are looking for compensation (iirc the amendment that abolished slavery explicitly stated no 5A compensation would be granted to slave holders), but whichever solution is chosen still needs to abide by the current laws that prohibited the past behaviors.
> Lowering the admission bar for one person means that, all things equal, someone better qualified is excluded
This assumes there's some objective way to stack rank high school students by potential, and there's not. At some point exclusive schools like Harvard just shape their student populations to an arbitrary standard. How do you compare GPAs at 10,000 different schools for example? Is a 1550 student who started a company more or less valuable than a 1600 student who won a science fair?
Agreed, ranking is not purely quantitative. However, your example strives to compare two different dimensions of achievement. There is no achievement in immutable characteristics. There may be achievement based on overcoming obstacles that present due to immutables, but the immutable is not evidence enough of achievement.
Any prospect can achieve either of your two examples. People can't do anything to boost their chances if we boost based off of skin color.
If, at population level, you don't have equality of outcome, then either you don't have equality of opportunity or 'there is something fundamentally wrong' with whichever population is failing - which I'm sure we can agree is not the case.
We should not force equality of outcome, but we should observe it and use it as a guide to whether or not we are being successful in providing equality of opportunity.
> If, at population level, you don't have equality of outcome, then either you don't have equality of opportunity or 'there is something fundamentally wrong' with whichever population is failing
Do Indian people massively disproportionately own hotels because other ethnic groups don't have the same opportunities? Is there something fundamentally wrong with non hotel owning ethnic groups? It's not systemic Indian supremacy, it's just historical accidents compounded through network effects. Noticeable differences between populations frequently occur by random chance, they're usually evidence of nothing at all.
This only holds under a homogenous monoculture. What if some population doesn't value success the same way as another? You’ll see variance of outcomes for completely normal and acceptable reasons.
For population level differences to be proof of discrimination, you'd have to presume the sameness of background/culture, spread of abilities and spread of interests, which is absurd on its face.
the problem with chasing "equality of opportunity" is that it's basically impossible to quantify.
And when you do quantify it, you end up usually looking at something that is an outcome.
Example:
assume that
a) whether or not your parents are married when you are born
and
b) how rich your parents are
affect your opportunities for success.
These assumptions seem reasonable to me, but please tell me if you disagree with them.
In order to equalize opportunity for a new generation across different groups of people, you need to equalize outcomes amongst the current generation.
More generally, drastically unequal outcomes can often point to unequal opportunities earlier in the pipeline.
Assuming intelligence and conscientiousness, the two traits most correlated with success, are more or less equally distributed across all gene pools, then it does seem likely that if some groups tend to be less successful than others, it may be a cultural thing, because as a far amount of data has shown, having rich parents greatly increases the chances that you end up rich.
See for example all the legacy admissions at Harvard.
Of course, if you can reasonably show that, much like say the genes that make for good sprinters (lots of fast twitch muscle fibers), the genes for intelligence are not evenly distributed, then you could argue that a an imbalance of outcomes does not necessarily imply an imbalance of opportunities.
In practice, however, I do no think that American society is equal opportunity.
I'm a heterosexual white male, and honestly I think I've had an easier life as a result of it than I would have with pretty much any other set of gender/skin color/orientation.
I agree that the goals and means to get to them are fuzzy and it feels frustrating at times, and things like affirmative action felt like trying to make two wrongs equal a right. But it also feels shitty and callous to say "Sorry about the whole segregation thing, hopefully everything evens out in a few hundred years or so.."
I think the hard part is that "Equality of Opportunity" is either so strictly defined that it is pointless, or it very quickly becomes really squishy and feels like "Equality of Outcome".
Most college applicants today are going to be something like 2 - 4 generations removed from official, legally sanctioned segregation (a situation I think most people would agree doesn't count as equality of opportunity). Would you argue that the average white student and average black student have equality of opportunity today?
I have inherited nothing from my parents except financial help with my college education. My dad is utterly in debt from funding his 7 children's college educations because he believes (correct or not) that that is how you set your kids up for success. He will likely die barely out of debt. I am white. I have worked for everything I have. I bought an auction property in the low income neighborhood in my city and have invested blood swear and tears and financially to the point where I am in debt for years to come to turn it into a nice property for the neighborhood. I do not take my privileges for granted. Do I deserve your scorn?
But your father benefited from being part of a majority group who had its culture imposed on others or at least wasn’t suppressed itself. The elites and people who wrote laws were largely from the larger group of white people. Yes there is economic differences, but this is true for any society the elites are generally wealthy. But your father would benefit from or at least not be impeded by this white cultural dominance that was imposed.
Not in my father's lifetime either. And his father is a WWII vet who literally spent most of his "youth" stopping Nazis from killing Jews. Maybe my great grandfather lived in a time where he may have indirectly benefitted from the active segregation of blacks (ignoring that he didn't live in a problematic area), but he died before I was born.
You can't just propagate forward and say well you are guilty because your dad was guilty because his dad was guilty because his grandpa was white in a time where segregation still existed in the south. It literally doesn't make any sense. Harboring that type of animosity towards one group of people based on their skin color is the definition of racism. Reducing individuals rich lived experiences to that of their skin color is the definition of racism.
Let me explain to you, by virtue of being part of a majority culture or dominant culture, your white father already benefits. His ways and norms and cultures and mores are the “default”. He gains a leg up already by not being discriminated against like the marginalized people in society. You benefit from your own ancestors’ benefits if they acquired wealth or at least didn’t pass on trauma to you… but I’m not even talking about the sins of your ancestors applying to you (that’s a very Christian concept btw). I’m saying you benefit now and your father benefited then from being part of a majority group.
As an example, it is very common in US culture to make eye contact in business, but in other cultures this is not the norm and even considered rude or wrong. Many people live in the US who come from Asian cultures where this is the case. When white Americans try to force people to make eye contact and think it is about “respect” they are completely enforcing their way on others and this can lead to marginalization.
Another example, handshakes. Men and women in many cultures and religions do not shake hands because of gender differences, and this is often a matter of respect and beliefs. When white Americans or Europeans try to force people from opposite genders to handshake, even when this is against the way of life for other individuals, this is a form of oppression. And it’s not even far fetched to say oppression exists in handshakes… in many news articles there have been cases where European countries cancelled citizenships or deported people based on someone’s refusal to handshake the opposite gender because of the cultural and religious beliefs.
Any culture has pros and cons. You’re acting like the only positive culture history has seen has been “white” culture (which is kinda racist in and of itself). Of course people build cultures to achieve positive social outcomes!!! That’s life, meng.
What you’re explaining does not justify reparations and conveyance of generational guilt. Look at the comment I responded to. I asked whether I deserve scorn. You’re arguing that I deserve scorn and somehow need forgiveness literally for being white.
The micro fluctuations in cultural benefits you’re describing isn't tangible in any way. You’ll just be shouting into the void forever trying to equalize every culture so that no differences remain. And you’ll hate a lot of people from different cultures along the way. And guess what: our law already treats people equally, we’ve already achieved legal equality.
Finally, logically, it simply doesn't follow: culture (a) at one point in history did something we now consider wrong. Culture (a) listened and changed. Culture (a) removed the bad parts and kept the good parts. Therefore the remaining good parts must be bad and culture (a) must be dismantled and destroyed and anybody who participated in it and shares its majority skin color shall be scorned and etc.
Ok from the contents of the comment it appears you may not be interested in recognizing historical wrongs & working towards rectifying them. Even statements like “full legal equality” are very clearly biased towards certain beliefs, views, and culture. In reality there are many laws that have been written with nefarious intentions & this includes selective enforcement or enshrining one particular cultural standard over another. The crack vs cocaine laws of the 80s in the US is a very good example.
>You’re acting like the only positive culture history has seen has been “white” culture
I’m certainly not stating this. If it seemed that way then now I will plainly state white culture is certainly not the only positive culture. Every culture has positives and negatives.
This is not about generational guilt, it is about establishing justice. Generational trauma and current day injustice has been enforced against minority groups.
>guilt
I’m not here to grant any white people forgiveness or make them feel guilty. this conversation need not focus on the feelings of guilt of white people. Guilt with no action is not helpful. Don’t feel guilty for something you didn’t do. Just don’t support oppression and help in establishing justice.
It’s better if instead of denying established evidence because someone is afraid of feeling guilty, that we focus on how can we as people in society use this evidence to do better today, given the historical context.
Why do you see establishing justice as an attack on white people and their culture?? Unless your culture is to promote injustice which I don’t think most people desire, I don’t believe you should be opposed.
This is not about dismantling a culture and making everyone the same. It’s about establishing justice.
If a culture has injustice and oppression, then no doubt these elements must be opposed.
> I have inherited nothing from my parents except financial help with my college education. My dad is utterly in debt from funding his 7 children's college educations...
Contradicting yourself much? The whole point of the previous comment was if your father was black he would be much less likely to get the loan in the first place, which would result in, at the very least, crippling college debt for yourself, which would in turn lead to renting until you're ready to pass the ghost.
No, the point is I have no traceable lineage to a hoard of wealth amassed by slave owners 6 generations ago that is filling the family coffers as people seem to be implying is true of all white Americans. My family immigrated over here 3 generations ago from shit conditions in a war torn Europe.
Furthermore you have no idea my family’s situation and whether my father would or would not have been actually more likely than a black man in a similar situation to “get a loan” (he didn't even get loans like you suggest). And generally your comment doesn’t even apply to my situation it’s cant be reduced in the way you’re trying to argue it can. Also student loans ensure that there isn’t discrimination in who can take out a loan for college. Arguably my dad paid a tax because he didn't have use take out loans and help pay that way.
> They came over to this country and immediately had more rights than any black person walking down the street.
That's simply not true. Rights are not granted by laws, they're innate.
> We know for a fact that this is the case.
Can you please point me to the data on this so I can better educate myself?
> Student loans also conveniently are non-dischargable except by death. Almost like being enslaved.
The point is that complaining about access to loans and concluding that I'm privileged because my dad could have accessed loans easier than a person of color is neither here nor there, because there were (and still are) plenty of programs that give preferential access to financial aid to minorities when I went to college, including but not limited to loans.
> What's your father's poor planning have to do with the plight of other people?
About as much as the color of my skin has to do with my current situation in life.
> That's simply not true. Rights are not granted by laws, they're innate.
> Can you please point me to the data on this so I can better educate myself?
Ah, I see. You won't even pretend to argue from a position of credibility. Tell me, what rights did women have to vote before the 1920s, or blacks before the mid 60s? The term "inalienable right" is fictitious. You don't have a right in a society unless you or your society can defend it. You SHOULD have the right. It does not mean that you do.
> The point is that complaining about access to loans and concluding that I'm privileged because my dad could have accessed loans easier than a person of color is neither here nor there, because there were (and still are) plenty of programs that give preferential access to financial aid to minorities when I went to college, including but not limited to loans.
Everybody has access to that aid based on need. Now, as a person who paid every dime of my own college tuition out of my own pocket (and worked 60 hours a week while friends living in the same neighborhood with slightly poorer parents received thousands in grants), I would argue that student aid should not be based on the wealth of the parents at all.
You could hypothetically argue that the United Negro College Fund is a racially biased private organization, but then, there's a reason that the fund exists in the first place, and it's the same reason that HBCUs exist, BET exists, In Living Color existed, etc, etc. Racism has not gone away. Racial biases against people of color has not gone away. Why should attempts to mitigate them?
> About as much as the color of my skin has to do with my current situation in life.
This is not about you. This has never been about you. This is about the nation righting a wrong. You have benefitted from this, indirectly, without paying anything into it. The descendants of slaves are not so lucky.
> The term "inalienable right" is fictitious. You don't have a right in a society unless you or your society can defend it. You SHOULD have the right. It does not mean that you do.
Then civil disobedience is a sham, too. You should listen to the people who wrote the book on fighting for rights in a unjust society. The moral philosophy surrounding the civil rights movement is very informative. White people did not "grant" black people rights. Black people demanded to be treated fairly in an unjust society. And white people said, yeah the law is wrong and unfair we fucked up. And change happened.
> You could hypothetically argue that the United Negro College Fund is a racially biased private organization, but then, there's a reason that the fund exists in the first place, and it's the same reason that HBCUs exist, BET exists, In Living Color existed, etc, etc.
I mean they are racially biased. So what? It's awesome that we have advocacy groups, scholarship funds, and communities centered around black culture (a HBCU is emergent BTW not sure what you're arguing about those). These are great things! We're generally talking about whether it's okay to legally discriminate based solely on race to correct for history. The SCOTUS doesn't think so anymore.
I honestly think you're extrapolating my position into something way more pedantic and annoying than it actually is.
> You have benefitted from this, indirectly, without paying anything into it. The descendants of slaves are not so lucky
I pay taxes...? And I participated in all of this. I went through the college system with worse odds than minorities. Some white guy somewhere is a wage slave because of it. I mean you so easily write off the things we've done as a society to help the situation and act like white people don't get any credit for listening to the struggles, having compassion, and finding ways to participate. It really confuses me. How exactly should a good white boy behave? Always asking how next he can prostrate himself at the altar of racial equity? How he can demonstrate his commitment to justice by finding ways of struggling even further in atonement?
Anyway, you are trying to invalidate my comments by reducing me to my skin color and claiming that my entire life is privileged. I mean seriously it's so passé at this point. College was 10 years ago now. The world has moved on from De'Angelo and Kendi.
It used to make me angry when people did this but I've come to terms with being discriminated against based on my skin color. I'm beginning to believe that it's human nature and can't be cured. I'll still argue that it shouldn't happen and that we can transcend race and achieve a colorblind society, because two wrongs don't make a right, but I can't stop you from needing to signal your guilt by calling out white privilege as if it actually helps anybody...
> The descendants of slaves are not so lucky.
Not all black people are dependents of slaves. Not all white people are descendants of slave owners.
^ This was the topic at hand if we stop getting distracted by the details of exactly how I am and am not privileged.
Bottom line: obsessing over who historically struggled more doesn't get you anywhere. It's a tribal distraction that, if we're not careful, might derail the entire liberal society we've worked so hard to build. I really hope we didn't burn an entire generation trying to relive the glory days of victimhood. What problems have we actually solved playing identity politics? Exactly zero.
Under what moral philosophy is it acceptable to hold people responsible for things they had no part in? Other than your abstract idea that "history should be fair," do you have any justification for this idea?
I had no part in interning Americans of Japanese descent during WW2. But I believe that the country I live in is responsible for addressing that wrong. And I feel the same about addressing the wrongs of slavery and racism that continue to this day.
We decide as a country, the same way we decide that billionaires "deserve" large tax breaks. The way we decide to spend more on defense than our top 3 competitors combined. The way we decide to sell grazing, mineral, oil and gas rights for pennies on the dollar to companies seeking to "profit" off the natural resources of our country.
We elect representatives in Congress and the WH, who based on public opinion in the form of voters decide.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." --Alexander Fraser Tytler
His prediction was 300 years. Anyway I don't think it's until recently where we've really started voting ourselves money straight from the treasury. Time will tell whether that's sustainable.
We've always voted money straight from the Treasury. Government contracts, government subsidies, you name it, it's been from Day 1. Every tax break we give is money that the Treasury could spend. Every "incentive" we provide is the same. The Whiskey Rebellion was Treasury money...
With all due respect, white people don't need your forgiveness.
When will the black Africans who's ancestors sold people into slavery earn your forgiveness?
They don't need it either.
No one alive in the US has legally owned slaves.
The more we focus on this insane rhetoric of "sins of the father" the longer it will take for everyone to just see each other as humans. I'm a jew from a tiny family, most of them died in the holocaust and Russia. I don't expect reparations from the current Germans or Russians, they had nothing to do with it. I came to this country in my early teens with my parents who had literally a few k to their names after selling all their possessions in our home country.
My dad died essentially a pauper. My brother and I each are by all measures financially and socially successful now. People should stop spending so much effort blaming the past for their present, just get on with it. Its your life, do or do not.
I'm more than happy to forgive black people for the sins of their parents once they no longer inherit from their parents businesses that get preferential treatment in government contract bids, any houses bought with special mortgages designed to subsidize minorities, etc. etc. etc.
Or you could realize that civil society is impossible if you insist on punishing people of the present for the sins of the past.
Did German jews get a tax break? Or was the burden carried by all?
Generally, I think the nuanced take is that nobody is saying they don't want to help right past wrongs if the effects are still present today. They’re saying that doing so on an artificial boundary of a protected class is toxic and backwards and does not positively contribute to the solution.
What if we just invested more in poor and disparaged communities and added a 10% federal poor and disparaged communities tax. I don't see anything rhetorically sour about that (the number isn't the point). A burden shared by all to work towards a better world given to those communities with clear needs…
Equality of opportunity after centuries of slavery and then legal discrimination in a society that allows (and even outright promotes) inherited wealth and opportunity is not possible.
Imagine my ancestors stole all of your ancestors stuff and I still get to keep it all and anything I've built using it. We've stopped stealing your stuff now, though, so we have "equality of opportunity."
If you are part of a majority group you benefit or are at least not impeded by the cultural dominance asserted by the majority group’s control of policies, power, laws, etc. equity is about justice. People were not treated justly and still aren’t, this is why we are discussing this topic.
> 'majority group', 'cultural dominance', 'control of policies'
This is fundamentally a race-based conception of the world, a conception that defines power along racial lines, which groups and analyzes people fundamentally based on race.
We have the benefit in the last 50 years to move past this way of looking at the world, many of us have come to the realization that race isn't a useful way to group people, period. Any disadvantage you see in society that appears 'race' based can be better explained via other means. If people aren't treated justly, it's not because of racism except in vanishingly small amounts, in obscure and backwards parts of the US.
'Structural racism' falls prey to correlation is not causation, a misguided explanation for group differences, an oversimplification, and it won't generate progress as long as the cause is incorrectly ascribed.
No you’re just ignoring racism if you ignore the groups that exist. This is well known hence why the idea of someone being “colorblind” is erroneous because it is trying to ignore disadvantages and pretend the field is level.
Here’s a misunderstood concept: race is a result of unfair policies. “Black” as a racial group does not meaningfully exist without the historical racism and oppressive policies enacted on black peoples. Without distinction between groups, there would be unity. But we know, for example, black people were treated unfairly and still are in many aspects today in the US, so the construction of the black race occurs because of these differences. Aka, the marker “black” for a person identifies someone who faces systemic racism in the US. It’s not just about the wavelength of light a person’s body reflects. Racial groups are the result of history, culture, policies, and present day attitudes.
Not like Chinese Americans had it easy in the past, why aren't they adjusted upwards instead of downwards?
Fundamental issues I have with aiming for basically equal outcome by artificially tipping the scale until some metric evens out:
- Which dimensions do we make adjustments based on? is it just race or do we consider wealth etc?
- How much do we adjust? Black Americans had it tougher, boost by 10, Hispanics by 7? Chinese by -5 because they somehow succeeded without tipping the scales?
- Where does it end? We tip the scale for 200 years and if things are still out balanced keep adjusting?
Now imagine being from neither group, which would be the majority of Americans. Maybe we could limit the debate to descendants of slave owners and slaves? Also imagine that opportunity changes over time as society becomes more equal. the US 2023 is a lot different than the US 1865.
This example is about generosity. In this case you don't owe anything to your less fortunate peer, but not sharing it is greed and when greed is the driving force of our society, it's not surprising nobody wants to share his wealth. In a society of a far future that will run on generosity, being obsessed about possessions will be seen as a weakness. It seems that some proponents of the "affirmative action" sense that future society, and try to implement it here, but since they poorly understand human nature, and since their own nature is imperfect, they pervert the high ideal.
You're changing the definition of opportunity here to still mean outcome I think.
> <Outcome> is somewhat inherited, therefore there cannot be real equality of <outcome>.
The US used to be a land of 'opportunity' for poor immigrants. They came to the US and worked hard to overcome their circumstances and make a better life for themselves and their children.
It would be insulting and demoralizing to them to say that opportunity is impossible because they're poor, because their uncle doesn't own the bank down the street. The point of opportunity is that it's _possible_ to succeed, the scales are not unfairly weighed against you by law or societal prejudice.
Many things make achieving outcomes hard - poverty, mental health, bad luck - these are sometimes affected by the past too, but they don't necessarily take away opportunity in that the hope in success is still possible. This hope is important to the soul is it not? This is why opportunity is so important, it's essentially hope.
Opportunity is not a boolean "have" vs "don't have". It's a probability distribution, and much of that probability is inherited.
The son of an investment banking executive has much greater opportunity to also become an investment banker than some rando dude from the street, even if it is remotely possible. That opportunity delta is real, and it's largely, almost entirely, due to family ties.
I would not say that I have the opportunity to become a billionaire, even though it is technically possible, but astronomically unlikely.
I agree that opportunity is a spectrum but I disagree that it's inherited in our country because I disagree with your definition of opportunity. It's a spectrum in the sense that people can succeed regardless of societal prejudice or discriminatory laws, even though they'd have more opportunity if that prejudice didn't exist. Equal opportunity does not necessitate an equal outcome, nor does it imply it.
Immigrants don't have the opportunity to become president of the US because of US law, but any natural-born citizen of the country does have that opportunity regardless of the likelihood. The US has always had immigrants achieve boundless success here which is why it was considered the land of opportunity, not because everyone did - or because it was 'fair', but because it was possible.
Asians are not a homogenous group. For example, Filipino and Vietnamese outcomes did not do as well as Taiwanese, Korean, and Japanese immigrants in the wave from the 60s.
There are lots of factors that contribute to an ethnic group's relative success in playing the economic game, some of which are unique to that cohort and not the ethnicity itself. Past results do not guarantee future performance.
One example: the communist revolution expelled professors and academics from China, thus many Chinese and Taiwanese-american immigrants from that generation had scholarly backgrounds which obviously translates well. Compare to a history where your people were enslaved and your cultural background entirely erased.
Another example: getting an H1B as an Indian person today is super competitive / hard, but much easier if you're another ethnicity. What does that mean for future generations of Indian-Americans? There's going to be a selection bias.
> Asians are not a homogenous group. For example, Filipino and Vietnamese outcomes did not do as well as Taiwanese, Korean, and Japanese immigrants in the wave from the 60s.
There's some variation, but even so they still perform better than "white" people with the same socioeconomic status - even among Filipino and Southeast Asians: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060715/
>The underlying important question is what do you define as equality?
Equality of outcomes, or equality of opportunity?
On an individual level, the obvious answer is opportunity, but how do you measure that? Generally via outcomes. If two groups are equally capable and have equal opportunity, you would expect similar outcomes.
> If two groups are equally capable and have equal opportunity, you would expect similar outcomes.
No, because this assumes that different groups have equivalent values. This is plainly false. There are some broad similarities for sure, but each gender, ethnicity and culture values different things which will inevitably produce different outcomes.
This is why obsessing over outcome equity is doomed from the start. It implicitly relies on either enforcing homogeneity, thus erasing cultural uniqueness, or outright discrimination in preferring some groups over others to overcome any cultural values that might impact outcomes so the final numbers look pretty.
> No, because this assumes that different groups have equivalent values.
Values are not intrinsically tied to your race, they just correlate to some degree like income and geography. Saying we shouldn't compensate for your parents values is like saying we shouldn't compensate for your parents income or zip code. That's fine, and it's not immoral to believe that, but just make sure you're being logically consistent in the things you believe we should and shouldn't control for.
Equity is about justice. It’s an ethical issue. If you cannot understand justice, you cannot understand equity. Very simply, when a majority group uses its power and position to enforce its cultural norms and policies on the rest of society, they benefit or at least are not harmed, and further their own group. And this becomes so embedded in the society that the injustice becomes “invisible” it is just accepted as fair. Something as simple as where a highway is built heavily skews to minority neighborhoods being negatively affected.
Understand this. Then you will understand equity is fundamentally about justice and if we don’t seek to establish justice then we have failed.
I understand you think it's ethical, and I disagree for the reasons I laid out in the post you just replied to, among others. It doesn't seem like you've engaged with the points there so I have nothing further to say.
My previous comment did engage with your points. It’s not about making everyone the same, it is about reducing the unfair aspects and power games that the majority group continues and has in the past, exerted on the marginalized.
If Someone says that siding with an oppressor is justice, I think they should relearn ethics.
> It’s not about making everyone the same, it is about reducing the unfair aspects and power games that the majority group continues and has in the past, exerted on the marginalized.
And the methods by which it attempts to do so enforces homogeneity or discrimination. The ends do not justify the means.
But what empirical historical example of "outcome equity" has proven as harmful in scale and magnitude as slavery or other oppressive, authoritarian social orders? How much of this concern is founded in actual history? Even one example would help ground such a hypothetical concern.
Who said anything about harm? Harm is not the only consideration.
We could reduce harm to indigenous peoples living in the Amazon by forcibly moving them into cities with proper healthcare, but this would destroy their culture and violate their right to autonomy.
My parent comment explicitly said that AA is harmful, and I see it like how people abstractly state that communism is harmful to the social fabric or something. Now give a relevant empirical example. Even a scientific study would suffice. Stop playing lazy abstract word games unbefitting of STEM experts. And please carefully reread the upthread remakes before joining replying, Naasking.
I doubt there is such an example that fits; there certainly is a lack of significant historical evidence for actual harms of affirmative action. I think we would agree that some (many?) detractors of affirmative action give the impression that they believe affirmative action is an evil on the approximate level of slavery, warranting maintenance of the status quo. Still, slavery is an unfairly high bar to establish injustice, and I agree with other AA detractors in that the outcome of AA is morally dubious. I firmly believe that AA doesn't tackle the root of the problem and thus has dubious efficacy, too. I hope everyone embraces reform along the lines of reduced or nullified college tuition and better public school and health infrastructure to lift all communities up. Money shouldn't be an issue at this time, except for the backwards society that we live in. The fine game of nil, indeed!
I think there's no contradiction that AA doesn't tackle the root of the problem (I think that is a half truth) and AA is actually what universities morally ought to do on their part, and that it is neither proven nor disproven that AA policy could actually accelerate reparations through intergenerational effects.
Noam Chomsky points out that in poor countries such as Brazil and India, there is much more affirmative action (e.g. to compensate for wrongs of the caste system). It's America--a rich, powerful, and unequal country--that is so ideologically opposed to this.
I note your mention of other countries, though progress still seems slow there. There still seems to be plenty of corruption. I think the reforms I've mentioned are far more promising, though if AA is to be implemented in a way, I should think that framing it based on actual economic status is both more correct and more defensible; people need money in most things and a reasonable demonstration of merit can justify generous financial accomodations.
> At a most naïve level, yes. But the post-modern left’s big assumption is that evolutionary, biological, and other factors can’t play a roll in those outcomes.
Democracy's big assumption too btw.
> At some level we have to be okay allowing for inequality of outcomes because we cant even identify let alone control all the social and biological variables of being human.
We are. MIT isn't admitting people with IQs in 60s due to genetic defects are they? It's a matter of degree, and managing that requires measuring. We can't measure people's inborn abilities, so we have to make palatable assumptions measure what we can, and act accordingly. The "to discriminate or not to discriminate" choice is purely one of lesser evil. There is no good answer here.
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).
> 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.
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.
> 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.
In favor of affirmative action, one argument that doesn't even require comparing "equality of outcome/opportunity" between individuals, is that the university should have some say in the makeup of its incoming class, and should have a right to minimize its homogeneity. You might argue that race is not an attribute upon which homogeneity can legally be measured, but that won't change the fact that it's a proxy for life experience. All else being equal, two people of the same skin color will have more in common with each other than two people of differing skin colors, by definition of "all else being equal." So if you're an admissions office building a freshman class with the goal of optimizing the learning experience for each member of it - which includes the learning experience from interacting with classmates - then which would be the better outcome: (a) one where everybody looks the same and has a large degree of overlapping life experience simply due to shared skin color, or (b) one where each student has a chance to meet another student with a completely different upbringing from their own?
Now, I'm personally against race-based affirmative action, but I also recognize that a freshman class composed entirely of students of the same skin color is not an ideal outcome. The fact of the matter is that everyone in that class would have some degree of similarity in their life experience, because their skin color is unavoidably something upon which people notice and discriminate (e.g. dating preferences, subconscious stereotyping, etc.).
I think the ruling also understands this, and it emphasizes that university admissions offices are allowed to consider upbringing in their evaluations of applicants. So if they want a class with some poor kids and some rich kids, and some musical geniuses and some athletes, and some boys and some girls and some gay people and straight people, then they should be allowed to consider all those factors. And perhaps naturally this will result in a class with a heterogenous racial makeup. But what they can't do is work backwards from that, and assume the racial composition of their class must be a proxy for all the other axes along which they want to minimize its homogeneity.
I'm not sure about the underlying logic, and I think it's possible it just shifts the problem - because there is always some human element in admissions, and I'm not sure it's possible to minimize group homogeneity along an axis without discriminating along that axis when evaluating an individual - but I do feel that explicitly discriminating evaluations of individual applicants based on race is clearly wrong.
As a final point: It's also worth considering that even when discriminating on race, the universities were still discriminating along other axes arguably not "in the spirit" of affirmative action - for example, a black person from a boarding school would receive more "benefit of the doubt" than a black person from a public school. And isn't that institutionalizing whatever biases led one applicant to a boarding school but kept another at home? Maybe a positive outcome of this ruling is that it will force universities - who rightfully strive to minimize homogeneity of their incoming classes - to actively seek metrics for measuring diversity instead of lazily depending on skin color while ironically institutionalizing the same biases that affirmative action sought to eliminate.
"the university should have some say in the makeup of its incoming class, and should have a right to minimize its homogeneity."
If they don't take federal funding, I could understand that.
Both Universities involved in this case do, so are subject to the Constitution of the United States.
> Both Universities involved in this case do, so are subject to the Constitution of the United States.
No, accepting federal funds doesn’t make them government actors, nor does it subject them, particularly, to the Constitutional provision here (which binds neither private parties nor the federal government, but only the states.)
They are bound by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though, and the Court has a history of interpreting the language of that statute through the lens of its 14th Amendment jurisprudence regarding similar language, which it followed (while altering the guiding jurisprudence) in this case.
I agree with you; however, the federal government is of course a government actor and cannot continue to give funding to these schools if they continue to use affirmative action. Without the funding, the school essentially closes its doors or offers severely curtailed services.
> I agree with you; however, the federal government is of course a government actor
Not one affected by the restriction on state action in the 14th Amendment.
> and cannot continue to give funding to these schools if they continue to use affirmative action.
Yes, it can (this is obvious, since the decision itself explicitly allows the federal government itself use race-based criteria in its own admissions at the schools it runs, notably, the military academies) and it can change the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that the interpretation of the 14th Amendment limits on state action that the Supreme Court imported to it due to textual similarity are not imposed on recipients of federal funding.
But race discrimination should (in theory) be illegal regardless of federal funding status. So if it's already illegal, and the assertion is that universities don't have the right to minimize homogeneity in their classes (presumably along legal, non-racial axes), then taking that logic to the extreme, why should admissions offices have any discretion at all? Should every university that accepts federal funding be required to follow a standardized rubric when evaluating applicants?
Standardized metrics are one of the constraints that made affirmative action a problem in the first place, because when evaluations are limited to standardized metrics like test scores and GPA, the top universities have enough applicants to fill their class a dozen times. So they need to discriminate on some attributes. Maybe one alternative is a standardized baseline and a lottery system for the remaining spots. But when you're at the point of removing discretion from the process, and imposing government designed rubrics on every school, the process starts to look a bit Soviet...
Is it soviet or is it meritocratic? I think the Soviet Union was inherently corrupt and would wager that more discretionary decisions were made there than in the US today. I would be fully on board with your suggestion of a baseline and companion lottery system. I think all discretion should be removed. Let the most qualified people in based on high school grades and standardized test results. Everyone should have the chance to succeed based on that.
I understand completely that life is harder for some than others, whether due to race, religion, financial history, etc. but to allow for a selection process to use any combination of that and intentionally exclude people due to their race is wrong. This is America, some people have it easy and are born with golden parachutes, but those people are actually few and far between and everyone has the chance to work hard here and succeed. Again the effort involved will vary but the opportunity is always there.
Equality of outcome can only be enforced currently by a tyrannical government. It’s wholly doomed unless we can identify and correct for every hidden variable affecting outcomes.
If the outcome doesn't depend on your actions, there's no point in doing anything. Such a lethargic society cannot function, so to push it into motion the ruler has to use force and cruelty. The people will do the work, not because they hope to get something, for the outcome is always the same - cheap food and 4 hours of sleep - but because they want to avoid punishment.
I don't think anyone seriously suggests "equality of outcome" should mean "regardless of any actions/decisions you take in life". I would treat it as meaning "given two different large subsets of society that differ markedly/measurably on key indicators, there shouldn't be a difference in average outcomes between those born into one subset vs the other". Depending on the indicators/subsets in question that may well be a worthwhile & achievable goal. Particularly if the "outcomes" being measured go beyond just material wealth (e.g. health/wellbeing outcomes).
This premise about large subsets falls apart when you apply it to maples and oaks, even less it's applicable to free willed creatures gifted with intelligence. If you see a difference between two subgroups, it means your understanding of why these groups are the way they are is lacking.
I literally have no idea what you mean. But if we see that, for instance, average life expectancy is markedly lower for the subset of population that identifies as "native American" vs that of those that identify as "white", that's clearly an inequality of outcome that there's reason to be concerned about. Which isn't to say it mightn't turn out to have a genetic basis that leaves us with limited options to compensate for, but it's surely worth ensuring better understanding the causes and doing what we can to ensure there aren't systemic barriers preventing particular subgroups from accessing the same degree of medical care etc. available to others.
One issue is there's infinite metrics to measure outcome, and any measurement you choose will have certain groups excel in compared to others. Once we achieve equality in a certain metric we will always have new ones to work on essentially forever. This may be a good goal for people/institutions but it can't contribute to discrimination being indefinite in scope.
Another issue is we're talking about group level outcomes here - which means we're already accepting that there will be biases in measurements, otherwise the group wouldn't be a 'group' (unless it's literally just skin color which is - a pretty arbitrary/racist way to group people all else being equal).
Equality of outcome is just a fancy way of saying tyranny. Freedom can only exist and only be freedom if you have the right to fail or succeed, if no one can fail or succeed because everyone is made the same there is no freedom, there is no choice.
Those that advocate for equality of outcome desire to make again a slave state, where they as "superior educated white people" can ensure that black people are "taken care of" by ensuring they all have jobs, they all have housing, they all have healthcare, they all have food, and that they have no freedom.
Except it's not mostly poor, hardworking ADOS (African descendents of slavery) students that benefit. It's rich, Black students that are benefiting, especially those from outside the US and no lineage from slavery. The problem with affirmative action is that everyone is only looking literally at skin color, which is the opposite of what we should be doing.
Anyone who's attended an Ivy League school can attest to the truth of this, and I've been vehemently disagreeing with every anti-AA comment in this thread, so that says something.
Pretty much every Black student I see at school is African (immigrant)-American, not ADOS.
Rich ADOS should still benefit, though. We should be looking at lineage instead of skin color, because thinking all black people are the same is a handicap of both
the left: who think that all "people of color" should be compensated for slavery, and
the right: who love to say that US blacks were sold by "their own people." That's like claiming innocence for molesting a child because their parents sold it to you.
Test scores and income are enough, as they are objective measurements.
Grades, as mentioned in another comment, are not consistent across different high schools, and they favor people with more resources.
Sports, as in play in the university team, which demands high performance, is also fair, and probably doesn't demand a lot of places, as you can't have a sports team with hundreds of people.
The issue is that also, generally speaking, anyone who was legally discriminated against probably lives in a jurisdiction performing poorly in test scores, since all schooling in the US are based on geographic districts funded by local property tax, and due to historic discrimination the formerly discriminated groups also live in areas with lower housing wealth. (A lot of people also moved out of districts with large minority populations when integration was mandated, taking their taxes and wealth with them.)
Want to make a bunch of people very angry? Propose a metropolitan-area wide school district.
>since all schooling in the US are based on geographic districts funded by local property tax
Not true at all. There are many places like California where School funds are distributed Statewide. The results are relatively predictable. California passed the Serrano decisions in the early '70s mandating local taxes be spent Statewide on schools. This was followed immediately by a prop 13 where residents decided that if their money doesn't go to Local Schools they won't pay. As a result California dropped from top five in the nation in school funding to the bottom five.
Correct. If you live in [poor high-percentage African-American town in Alabama] you cannot choose to go to high school in [wealthy mostly-white town in Massachusetts].
No they can't. That's why Republicans are a big proponent of school vouchers so that parents can choose which school a child can go to, but Democrats say that is racist.
Not quite, because you can be house-poor due to luck with owning, and also owning a ‘bad’ house in, say, New York City would give you a high paper net worth when comparing to the entire country.
There are also large differences in salaries and income across the country due to variance in cost of living. Poor in New York may be a decent wage in Gary or Biloxi.
If you don't put any independent effort, then the tests would match whatever the school taught. However, you do have the opportunity to apply yourself and put all the extra effort you need to get a higher grade, independent of your school. The things that would matter there are family support, not in economical sense, but in moral support that your extra effort is right.
You're technically right, but you and parent (GP?) seem to ultimately be referring to the same group of people. Apologies if you picked up on that; I can't tell.
Yeah, the point should always have been explicitly to be reparations for slavery/Jim Crow and the Native American genocide. But that was never really explicit, and there was a lot of mission drift over the last fifty years.
It's probably a reliable collective action problem. For example, the point of the 1965 Civil Rights Act was to help black men so their families could stay intact, but Howard Smith poison-pilled the whole thing by diverting it to women.
For people who are in the military, I point this out in its internship form. The Skillbridge program was designed to facilitate internships for departing servicemen to address difficulties with veteran unemployment, but the spoils mostly go to officers with highly marketable skills, like submarine and cryptography officers. After all, those officers have each been practicing the art of finding and utilizing beneficial programs to their advantage for decades by that point in their lives; why wouldn't they use this one too?
and redlining, and other formal, informal, intentional and unintentional institutional (particularly governmental and financial) policies that limited people’s access to success based on their race.
Anything explicitly discriminatory that the government could have done something about and chose not to. We need to forget about "microaggressions" and deal with the macroaggressions. It's typical that white liberals have embarked on the project of detecting subtle clues to the slightest slights and condemning people for them, when they should just treat historical race-based abuse claims like any other compensation claim.
If you look at black people's family trees enough, you'll find plenty with specific inheritance claims against their white, slaver ancestors. Black people in America are the descendants of white rapists as well as imported slaves.
Not to mention so very few families owned slaves back in the day. The way people talk, you'd think everyone had slaves - no, that was a very small minority of ultra-wealthy people.
What about people who's families immigrated here post-slavery? Their tax money has to pay reparations too?
Reparations is a non-starter. Any discussion or endeavor to push for reparations is a naked attempt to buy votes with lies.
Unpopular to hear, but it needs to be said more. While I believe that the US still has a ways to go to truly achieve equality of opportunity (and then equality of outcome really would be based on culture, I would think), culture is such an important factor in peoples' personalities and therefore an important factor in peoples' outcomes. I can't speak to other life forms, but culture (nurture) is a powerful force in humans that can rival genetic dispositions (nature).
They're not concerned with the angle used - any angle that works is acceptable - just that more successful groups are brought down, and they're concerned with the levers used to bring them down (as a matter of cultural control). The idea is to be able to dominate politically through manipulation. For some political machines that's viewed as a critical tool: intentionally segment people into conflict groups (forever subdividing as you go), spur endless conflict and cultural control through the conflict (hate speech controls = end of free speech, and so on).
I think it's more that admissions aren't actually optimizing for academic success. They're optimizing for career success. If you just look at academic signals you'll accept the most academically successful students but that's not the point. It's not unreasonable to punish applicants for spending more time studying because studying skews the metric they're using to predict career success.
> studying skews the metric they're using to predict career success
Which is what?
Studying is hard, getting academic success is hard, and there is a positive correlation for both of those and career success, as academic success requires discipline, grit, and hard work, which are all useful for career success.
They've been using academic success to predict career success. I agree it's a good predictor. It's not foolproof though. The issue is that it can be skewed by devoting more resources to academic success instead of for example starting a business or political action or sports. Is someone less likely to have a successful career because they started a business instead of studying an extra hour every day? This is why the most elite schools switched to extracurricular and interview heavy admission criteria which ended up disfavoring asians who tend to spend more time on academic success.
The goal was to actually do a better job of finding the applicants with discipline and grit, not just the ones who have it in an academic context.
What kind of logic is this? So having wealthy and well-connected parents gives you a huge edge on career success, and you are saying admission should take that into account and favor that heavily?
I don't know about should, but they are taking it into account and I'm just saying why they are. Whether maximizing career success is the right choice is certainly up for debate.
The ironic thing is that standardized tests are the most objective metric we have. Things like extracurriculars reflect more on the parents and community than the kids.
It's a zero-sum game. There's no such thing as taking privilege "away" from Asian kids. If you increase the acceptance rate of some race, it has to be decreased from somewhere. There's literally nothing else that can be done.
I don't know what your definition of taking privilege away means, but in my definition giving preference to someone for limited resource means taking privilege away from others.
Yep, I got some scholarships for being the first in my family to go to college, and also from the Dante Alighieri Society for my Italian heritage. They really didn't put much of a dent into tuition, and I worked full-time or took on loans for the rest. I wouldn't describe myself as "poor" but my parents were lower-middle class.
Well non-whites especially, because the government literally gave away money to white people (specifically excluding black people) in the 50s and 60s to buy houses and build generational wealth.
So yes, poor people, but also very much non-whites.
> Why not just.. well, let poor people come first?
I recently listened to an NPR piece on this and it seems like you're right here. Even with affirmative action you're really only affecting those that are going to elite colleges, and a large amount of people who benefited from it actually didn't come from low-income households. Essentially affirmative action benefited a tiny (like <1%) portion of all people going into universities in the way it was intended. What would be much more useful is exactly what you say, taking much more of the student's overall socioeconomic status into account rather than race.
We would probably find that this does a better job of helping those who actually need help. And that would likely mean that minorities are still prioritized.
Finally, what we should really be doing if we care about helping those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder is make all community college free. It's already very cheap as-is , we just need to take the leap to make it totally free. This would also help the student loan crisis since those who are going for bachelor degrees would only need a couple more years of education vs. 4
No, we don’t need to be making community college free. Why do people always place so much emphasis on college when it’s clear that the entire system before that point is failing kids? All you’re doing is making it marginally easier for the people already sufficiently motivated to succeed in college to have a little easier time.
Elementary and Secondary education is what desperately needs attention, not college. Certainly not with public funding.
I'm married to an primary school educator and you are bang on. Not that I'm implying zero sum, but if effort is to be prioritized, this whole college discussion is moot. An emphasis on education needs to start in the home with some behavioral training by the parents to ready the kids for an educational setting. It's been a growing problem for years and if it keeps getting worse, we might as well enroll everyone in Harvard for free, because it eventually won't matter.
EDIT: What I mean by that is partially to say, dealing with motivation and behavior occurs at lower grade levels and schools are fighting an uphill battle. Affirmative action politics at the collegiate level feels like putting the cart before the horse.
A teacher friend's school was sued because they disciplined black students more often. No consideration for the fact that the disruptive students were indeed disruptive. Now they're just not allowed to keep discipline, full stop. You can imagine the results for everyone else in class, the well-behaved blacks included (who are statistically most likely in need of a good learning environment at school)
There are definitely many facets to the problem, and education is only one part of the equation in many poor (black, hispanic) neighborhoods. One can only change the variables that they have access to, however. I think it will take some time but ultimately I think elementary education in particular is super critical.
> Elementary and Secondary education is what desperately needs attention, not college. Certainly not with public funding.
I just don't get this. Yes we need to improve primary and secondary education, but we can't just pretend like tertiary education doesn't matter to people. College isn't just about learning material in classrooms. College provides a way for young people to transition in a structured way into adulthood. It provides job opportunities and social interaction that you just can't get as easily or consistently if you immediately go into the workforce as a high school grad.
> College provides a way for young people to transition in a structured way into adulthood.
Given that the majority of people in the United States do not have even an associate's degree and still transition into adulthood, even if your assumption that it gives people a structured way into adulthood was correct, it's serving less than half the population. The majority of people do complete high school, or an equivalent, though. It's pretty plainly clear that preparing children to transition into adulthood needs to start earlier. That goes hand in hand with the failure of the elementary and secondary education systems in the United States.
Also, just philosophically, I am morally opposed to the idea that people who don't or start complete college for one reason or another should be subsidizing those who can and do. College degree holders earn dramatically more money in their lifetime over non college graduates.
I understand that the goal is to expand the number of people that can attend college. I think that you would expand that number more by improving the K-12 system and you'd leave everyone better off by doing so. If you want to increase the number of disadvantaged people in university (i.e. the people that would go to college if it were free but can't afford it so they don't) you should look at expanding the Pell grant, not subsidize college for everyone.
>Why do people always place so much emphasis on college when it’s clear that the entire system before that point is failing kids?
Because the hot topic this past decade or 2 has been about the college bubble. And we conflate college with university. I think Community college is cheap enough that no one is worried about paying off debts for 20 years in CC, but there is certainly that problem with university. With almost zero alternatives.
And to be frank, it (university costs) is an easier problem to solve. there are (apparently) 1600 accredited universities. I'm not sure about free, but if we can price control tuition (and all those other "extra fees". I know your loopholes) for even 100 of those universities, that would create opportunity where none may exist now. elementary/secondary education... we're talking 10's of thousands of schools to take into account. And as is any policy would probably benefit schools that need that support less.
> but there is certainly that problem with university. With almost zero alternatives.
The alternative is mostly that a lot of people shouldn't be going to college. We shouldn't be guaranteeing loans and the government shouldn't be in the business of handing out student loans. That is a large contributor to the massive inflation in student fees. When you improve elementary education, the negative effects of less people attending college are offset by the general working knowledge of the populace being higher, of better quality, and with a mindset that allows people to really think and learn.
Without that, all we're doing is basically setting people up for failure and a whole lot of school debt. There is a large percentage of Americans who have absolutely nothing to show for their time and money spent on college because they never completed their degree.
> And as is any policy would probably benefit schools that need that support less.
The entire public school system is one that favors the privileged. They are funded largely by property taxes and so obviously the wealthier your area is, the more funding and thus better education children have access to.
So yes, there is extreme deficiencies in equity when it comes to educational opportunities in the United States. Providing subsidized college doesn't fix that issue and it doesn't target the right people, either.
I wouldn't necessarily oppose actual public (completely government funded) universities that compete with the private schools, but that's serving such a small population of people for it to really see much benefit.
>The alternative is mostly that a lot of people shouldn't be going to college
Well you need some sort of post secondary education these days if you don't want to be stuck in entry level jobs. It's not like I'm opposed to trade schools nor the peace corp nor apprenticeships. But trade schools are also feeling a similar strain these days and apprenticeships are non-existent for high school graduates.
Saying people shouldn't go to college is like saying people shouldn't have good jobs. And i don't think that's a better alternative.
> Well you need some sort of post secondary education these days if you don't want to be stuck in entry level jobs.
This is entirely because people created this notion that everyone should go to college. The vast majority of jobs don't need specialized education that college is supposed to offer. If you start deemphasizing college as a basic requirement, while simultaneously improving the education system from the bottom up, you will create better outcomes and a more educated population.
Most people don't have college degrees in the US and yet it isn't the case that half of the population is unemployed.
I don't disagree with you. But convincing jobs to lower their automated HR requirements in a time where they can still hire plenty of college grads seems harder than encouraging post secondary education. Which is already harder than getting proper primary/secondary education. In addition, it seems futile to discourage acedemia from encouraging students to remain in their bubble. It goes against their best interests.
I'm simply talking about the path of least resistance. We're well past the times where you walk into a mom and pop shop and grab a job in a few days time. At least in Metropolitan areas.
I listened to that same episode of Throughline. It was a great discussion that touched on aspects I’d not considered.
One the key takeaways for me was the question of “what is it trying to achieve?” and “is it working?” To which the answers are nobody can agree but it’s not achieving any of the possible goals.
The effects of affirmative action having been banned from California public universities since 1996, including Berkeley and UCLA, was also quite telling. This happened nearly 30 years ago, so the effects are very clear to see.
Diversity was rocky for a few years, but they eventually figured out other ways to have it without using affirmative action.
The part about community colleges being a huge lever at getting more students into higher education was interesting. It’s not talked about much but has proved to be very successful.
> I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong.
More or less, but not precisely. How do you define a "minority race"? Universities in America discriminate against Asian Americans despite them being a minority of the American population generally, ostensibly because they're over-represented in universities.
As I understand it, there was some evidence: Asians applications were being suppressed, due to volume to maintain...a more diverse student body (or maybe just every elite school was racist?).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherrim/2023/02/27/what-...
There was a logic to the idea of racial preferences as originally envisioned. Studies show that the income gaps between American descendants of slaves and indigenous Americans basically have been unchanged even after segregation and legal discrimination was ended. The reasoning goes that racial preferences are necessary to undo these disadvantages.
But the actual practice in US universities has become completely disconnected from that logic. For example, the largest group eligible for racial preferences is Hispanics. But Hispanics enjoy similar income mobility to whites and previous generations of white immigrants: https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/intergenerati.... Insofar as they are poorer than whites as a group, that’s a transient condition due to recency and circumstances of immigration, just as it was for say Italians or Vietnamese.
A child of a poor Guatemalan immigrant statistically will end up better off than the child of a poor Appalachian whose family has been in the US for centuries. It makes no sense to put a thumb on the scale in favor of the Guatemalan under the original justification for racial preferences.
Moreover, most black students admitted to say Harvard are not American descendants of slaves: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/10/15/gaasa-scrut/. Some are immigrants from the Caribbean and Latin America, who also are descendants of slaves. But many (up to half) are immigrants from Africa. Not only are they not descendants of slaves, they are typically elites in their home countries.
> Shouldn't this just be run-of-the-mill social democratic "lets hand out some extra opportunities/benefits to the poor" program?
In a lot of ways, affirmative action is a boogeyman that doesn't exist in the way many people think. In many large states, such as california, they already for a long time do not consider race as a factor in admissions, as per law. And, IMO, california has done a pretty good job of having fairly diverse schools, and they do precisely what you say - they focus their efforts on lifting up those who come from poor socioeconomic situations, which tends to capture a lot of the same people affirmative action was trying to do.
> In a lot of ways, affirmative action is a boogeyman that doesn't exist in the way many people think.
In that case, can you explain why two schools would've fought for the explicit use of race in deciding school admissions all the way to the Supreme Court?
California has been trying to overturn it's race-blind policy for some time. The original policy was instituted about the same time as everyone else's. The intent of overturning it, of course, is to then go further and institute a policy more like the one seen in this case.
It has been overturned at the referendum level every time.
You are referring to California public colleges. Some California private colleges which received federal funding were still using racial identity as a factor in admissions. I received an email from my alma mater today stating that they were discontinuing this practice due to the Supreme Court decision.
European naturalized American here and yes I do agree with you. In the few EU countries where I lived before settling in the US it would be unthinkable to include race in these policies. Just help poor people and that's it.
I'll put on my tin foil hat here, but I genuinely believe that "race" (and now "gender") is being weaponized by the American elites/politicians to form nice clear camps/teams for voters. People need to focus on race otherwise they would start to pay attention to the enormous social/financial disparity between the top and the bottom of the pyramid. And we really do not want that.
I've heard people make references to the Occupy Wall Street protests a decade+ back being the catalyst for corporations and governments to start using "diversity" as a wedge issue to distract and divide people into groups to keep people from organizing. (Further down the conspiracy rabbit-hole, the CIA has been known to work with entertainment and critical industries to push opinions and ideas to sway the populace)
It really does feel like people weren't at each others throats as much 10 years ago as they seem to be now. It's almost like it's being used as a wedge to divide and distract from more important issues.
Or maybe you just weren't as aware of the problems black people face in america? The amount of times my conservative family members tell me "Such and such wasn't a problem when I was a kid" while completely ignoring the problems proves it isn't a genuine concern.
But the identity and diversity stuff was a thing long before that time.
Don't get me wrong, politicians and elites are absolutely using identity to play the populace against each other. But this is less part of a grand conspiracy and more the oldest trick in the book of politics, there's evidence of it going back all the way to classic antiquity.
> EU countries where I lived before settling in the US it would be unthinkable to include race in these policies.
Depends on the country. As usual, Romania isn't really a EU country. We have reserved places for Gypsies in universities as a means of integration... not that it's ever worked.
The poor black urbanite and poor white trumpist are arch enemies but should be close allies.
The world is governed by international capitalist classism. It gives no shit about race or gender. It just cares about having lots of disposables that have few options. There being more disposables in a particular race is a historical artifact, not a goal in itself.
Likewise, you could diversify the captains of industry but the system remains exactly the same. Because it isn't governed by race.
Back in 2009 I thought the tea party and occupy Wall Street crowds would realize they were opposite sides of the same coin. I thought if both sides came together maybe we’d see some material change. But no, the powers that be divided them apart and convinced each the other was the real enemy. Same as it ever was.
The attitudes to race are different because of the different situations. The US is multicultural and founded on stolen land, whereas European countries (at least in the east) are nation states with a single dominant culture.
To preface: I don’t really have an opinion on affirmative action per se:
That said, the elephant in the room is that institutions like Harvard and UNC aren’t really about education. They’re “ivy leagues” for preserving class inequality having been marketed as schools.
To the extent that race is a distraction from class, the fact that counteracting racial bias in admissions has failed to uplift the poor just puts too fine a point on this arrangement.
There’s some good discussion downthread already. I want to make a particular observation that your intuition is:
- totally obviously correct in a vacuum with no other factors
- reflective of how most white Americans think of the issue, because their experience of persistent racism is that it’s mostly unnoticeable or trivially ignorable
- what people motivated to reverse AA have reinforced for decades, because they want this to be the predominant intuition even for people with more context
- logically reasonable if you assume advantage barriers generally follow a similar pattern and even then if you assume good faith
- untenable on inspection for the same reason any social democratic institution needs to exist: a thing that’s supposed to be structurally fair intrinsically isn’t, and demands correction to address that
The problem is that an economic axis isn’t the only one involved. Sometimes it isn’t even involved at all. Racism is deeply embedded in American culture and history and outcomes, even when other factors are otherwise favorable. And at least in the US, this is a huge source of conflict among otherwise like minds even on the left.
It would be much better if those with an open mind to “can’t we just level the field” had a more open mind to the various axes of relative and historically intentionally stratified advantage. That applies to race, to sex, to sexuality and gender identity, to disability. And in each, structural inequality is much more particular and involved than access to money/resources.
There are a lot of other factors that influence advantages and disadvantages in every aspect of life. This is of course trivial. The point is that you cannot reach a better approximation of justice by a complex rule set determined by some king makers. No, racial discrimination will inevitably worsen the situation. Also, this is by definition the most prominent and straight forward example of structural discrimination as well. It becomes structurally unfair.
Likewise a better approach to social democracy is to look at disadvantages today. It is a common mistake to create false problems. This would not be the first time. And participation in society sadly has a lot to do with economic factors and I am sure that is something social democracy would like to address. Of course there are exceptions, but you have to be careful about the metrics you choose.
> Why not just.. well, let poor people come first? Would the goal suddenly not be met if poor smart white kids get into good schools, too?
This is what I will never understand, why don't we focus on just helping the poor instead of based on race. If people of a certain race are proportionally more poor than people of another race than they will be helped more and it helps out the people of a specific race.
However in my more conpsiracy minded moments I can't help but wonder if the focus on race is designed to keep the power and the middle class fighting each other over things like that rather than fighting against the people that have the power.
But seriously why can't we just focus our help and aid around people who are poor and needs based rather than all this faffing about with race?
EDIT: Well the votes on this comment are going up and down faster than an "Essex birds drawers" as the BOFH would say.
> However in my more conpsiracy minded moments I can't help but wonder if the focus on race is designed to keep the power and the middle class fighting each other over things like that rather than fighting against the people that have the power.
An alternative one: A culture which has a history of structural racism due to slavery which therefore still thinks about many topics through the lens of race despite it often not being the best suite lens.
Let's imagine a hypothetical America, where we remove the economic aspect. Let's imagine that every household in america pulls in $250k/year and prices are uniform for every household across the nation. No one is poor. Everyone goes to the same excellent free schools where the teachers also make $250k/year. We've removed economics as a variable. Everyone is equally educated and equally rich.
But let's leave one variable in: America is exactly as racist as America is currently. Ethnic backgrounds and cultures still exist, and there are enough white assholes in "gatekeeping" roles to affect the distribution of people who pass their gates. This is a fact that is a true thing that already exists in America; we're not ADDING it to the model, we've just left it in as the only thing we want to measure.
Structurally, as a society, you want the distribution of people who pass through higher education into roles like "Doctors" and "Lawyers" and eventually "Politicians" to broadly match the distribution of cultures that comprise the society as a whole. Otherwise you create an apartheid state, and an angry under-class that threatens the stability of the system. This is an axiom so simple that even Lyndon Johnson understood it.
So in our Model America, you need to have a law that says "yeah we know that everyone is the same, but because a degree from [Prestigious University] has a ripple effect that affects society as a whole, we want to make sure that graduating classes have at least the CHANCE of reflecting the cultural diversity of the nation as a whole, so we need to have a law that prevents Bad Actors in Admissions from just saying 'Oh, we already let in all the white people in line, wink wink wink, sorry, maybe next year'"
That's the reason you might still want quotas. And given the distribution of test scores because everyone ISN'T identical frictionless spheres, you might want to add a weight to minority test scores to float them overall, so they get in.
And yeah, that might not seem fair if you're in the majority; or if you're in the minority whose test scores are highest, but there's a clear and self-evident purpose to those kinds of weightings. Life's not fair, but it should be equitable, overall.
Do you think being an African American hurt Barak Obama's chance to be the Democratic nominee for President? Or to be elected President?
To answer my own question - it's complicated; it did hurt him in some regards but it helped him too. There were a lot of people in the primary and general election who wanted to know they weren't prejudiced and voted for him at least in part for that reason.
This wasn't legal affirmative action. It was something else. I don't know if I'd call it an "unfair right" but for the right person in the right circumstance it can be an advantage. Does it out weigh all the disadvantages? Probably not.
These are all statistical measures. For any one individual may not see the benefits of these privileges. Grouping everybody into their race and statistics will tell you there is variation. That's unavoidable.
There are thousands of homeless white men in my city. Maybe police interactions might be calmer for them, but what does it matter for somebody whose life is sliding downhill often by their own addictions?
This is why the focus on race seems like such a distraction to me. We could be helping the poor when we're still too busy discussing race and ethnicity.
> These are all statistical measures. For any one individual may not see the benefits of these privileges. Grouping everybody into their race and statistics will tell you there is variation. That's unavoidable.
Some variation is unavoidable, but statistically significant variation isn't! Why should people in those underpriviledged groups accept a society which gives them fewer chances?
> There are thousands of homeless white men in my city. Maybe police interactions might be calmer for them, but what does it matter for somebody whose life is sliding downhill often by their own addictions?
Yes, it does matter? If police interactions are calmer and you live longer, you have more chances to turn your life around. We as a society have more chances to help them.
> This is why the focus on race seems like such a distraction to me. We could be helping the poor when we're still too busy discussing race and ethnicity.
We should help the poor, and we should work to remove disparities between races and ethnicities. Why are those things opposed in your mind?
1) Many people of that race may be independently wealthy and do not need help. Grouping people by race is a bad measure of “need”
2) I haven’t heard realistic plans for actually helping people of a specific race. Helping poor people seems achievable, helping black people sounds presumptuous.
3) Race itself is a nebulous grouping with many edge cases.
4) You could easily find other ways to group people to locate “disadvantage”. Religion is an easy one, but affirmative action based of religion sounds quite discriminatory.
5) The focus on race is actually just racist. People’s difficulty of life is not measured by privilege but by actual experiences.
> 1) Many people of that race may be independently wealthy and do not need help. Grouping people by race is a bad measure of “need”
But people are being treated badly due to their race. Why can't we use race as one criterium to decide who needs help? Why do we have to pretend that racism isn't a real social thing that affects peoples lives?
> 2) I haven’t heard realistic plans for actually helping people of a specific race. Helping poor people seems achievable, helping black people sounds presumptuous.
Well, if you define these plans as unrealistic you're not going to find realistic plans. But affirmative action for example is a very realistic plan - so much so that it is (or was) reality!
> 3) Race itself is a nebulous grouping with many edge cases.
Sure, but people are being treated badly due to those nebulous groupings with many edge cases. Why do we have to ignore that?
> 4) You could easily find other ways to group people to locate “disadvantage”. Religion is an easy one, but affirmative action based of religion sounds quite discriminatory.
Do you have statistics showing that a similarly statistically significant difference exists between different religions?
> 5) The focus on race is actually just racist. People’s difficulty of life is not measured by privilege but by actual experiences.
"The people who identify racism are the real racists!" isn't as good of an argument as you think. People have different experiences due to their race. Attempting to find ways to curb that isn't "racist", it's "normal social behavior".
> But people are being treated badly due to their race
Unfortunately, I do not think you can force racists to stop being racist. Bigotry is perfectly legal.
> affirmative action for example is a very realistic plan
It's also kinda racist.
> people are being treated badly due to those nebulous groupings
This is one of the valid reasons to discuss race. However, I do not see why this means people need "help". What kind of help? How are you going to help? I still have no answers.
> Unfortunately, I do not think you can force racists to stop being racist. Bigotry is perfectly legal.
Why should the affected groups, or society at large, accept this? Why shouldn't we band together to try to make things fair in light of this fact?
> It's also kinda racist.
Can you explain why? You cited MLK Jr. earlier. He didn't think that AA is racist. Where do you disagree with his position?
> This is one of the valid reasons to discuss race. However, I do not see why this means people need "help". What kind of help? How are you going to help? I still have no answers.
No, you've gotten answers, you just don't like them. I've explained pretty clearly why this means people need "help", what kind of help and so on.
I'm trying to take your reply in good faith, but I'm really not understanding. Can you walk me through your thought process? The earlier discussion was:
>>> But people are being treated badly due to their race
>> Unfortunately, I do not think you can force racists to stop being racist. Bigotry is perfectly legal.
> Why should the affected groups, or society at large, accept this? Why shouldn't we band together to try to make things fair in light of this fact?
So the court helped black people in regards to the bigotry of racists by "preventing universities from being racist". Your solution to racism is to treat everyone equally - which in turn means that black people just have to accept the bigotry of racists. So your solution is for them to just suck it up. Am I understanding you correctly?
"Your solution to racism is to treat everyone equally"
Yes. This is the logical solution. The way to end X is that everybody stops doing X. It's very clear, simple, and I'm sure you would agree with virtually all values of X.
Wow, so it really is just "suck it up". Do you really not understand how problematic this line of thought is for those who are being discriminated against? Or do you just think that the only racism in this world is affirmative action, and minorities aren't being discriminated against?
Why are you ignoring my point? I've brought it up multiple times. Instead of just repeating your position you could, you know, respond to my argument regarding your position.
“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”
Do you think it should be eliminated? Then why are you arguing against its elimination? Why do you claim to think it should be eliminated? Why should I be convinced that you actually believe it should be eliminated?
I will repeat the point once more, please directly engage with it.
Earlier in this comment tree the other user wrote:
> Unfortunately, I do not think you can force racists to stop being racist. Bigotry is perfectly legal.
I agree with this, so the presupposition for the rest of the comment chain is that this statement is agreed upon, unless otherwise specified. I pointed towards this statement multiple times and asked: if this means that minorities will be discriminated against (since the agreed upon statement is that racists will still exist), and the attempt at "positive discrimination" is forbidden, they are simply discriminated against. What is your solution to this problem? How do we help them to no longer face discrimination under your proposed solution?
I don't think you have a solution, as you have so far failed to bring one up (even though I asked this question multiple times). So far, your position is equivalent to "they just have to suck it up". Can you finally offer a different position?
> We could be helping the poor when we're still too busy discussing race and ethnicity.
Why not both? I expect you'd find the cross-section of people who want to, say, give black people better medical outcomes, and those who support helping the homeless and poor is quite large.
I feel like "what about the poor" reliability shows up when discussing helping brown people, but as soon as something is designed to help the poor the same politicians show up to condem it as entitlements or socialism.
I've seen no evidence to suggest that anyone trying to better minority outcomes has ever actually distracted from implementing programs to help the poor.
Well for example we already discussed that black people have worse health outcomes, we could perhaps study why that is and focus on fixing those things, ex through outreach programs.
Assume we can fix poverty entirely. We already live in a world where, accounting for income, black people have worse health outcomes than whites. Why do you assume helping poor people will fix that? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume we'd now love in a world where no one is poor , and black people still are underserved by our healthcare system? How do you propose fixing it if we can't acknowledge the racial disparities?
> The focus on race breeds inaction because we insist something must be done before we have any idea how to solve it.
Bull. We aren't unable to implement programs help the poor because people dare mention race. Plenty of people are trying to push for programs to help the poor regardless of race. It's not the people who acknowledge that black people are more likely to be poor standing in the way.
Outreach programs can't be part of the solution? Why not? The suggestion was based on studies that found a high amount of distrust of the medical system.
William J. Bennett’s Aug. 12 commentary is the latest example of a recent trend in conservative public relations--opponents of affirmative action claiming to be the heirs of Martin Luther King Jr. They invoke the sentence from King’s 1963 speech looking forward to the day his children would be judged by “the content of their character,” not the “color of their skin.”
Bennett conveniently ignores one fact--King was a strong supporter of affirmative action. In “Why We Can’t Wait,” published in 1963, he argued that given the long history of American racism, blacks fully deserved “special, compensatory measures” in jobs, education and other realms. Four years later, in “Where Do We Go From Here?” he wrote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.”
You are incorrect about MLKs assessment. From the LA Times.
Bennett conveniently ignores one fact--King was a strong supporter of affirmative action. In “Why We Can’t Wait,” published in 1963, he argued that given the long history of American racism, blacks fully deserved “special, compensatory measures” in jobs, education and other realms. Four years later, in “Where Do We Go From Here?” he wrote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.”
I also seem to recall a factory or trade uprising/strike in/around Europe between 1400-1700 where they basically made up whiteness to divide the laborers and get them to argue amongst themselves (successfully), but this may be apocryphal as I cannot seem to find a source.
Really, people had to be told that people with white(r) skin, are similar..?
How stupid do these people think 'everyone else' is. This is the most absurd thing I've read all day.
Humans, who divide themselves along such lines as _what tv shows they like_, had to have the concept of _skin colour_ invented for them. Really think about how ridiculous this assertion is.
It wasn't that they just said that they looked different obviously, what a ridiculous assertion . They seeded talking points of racial supremacy amongst them to divide them when before they saw themselves more unified as workers with their race not having inherent merit.
> But seriously why can't we just focus our help and aid around people who are poor and needs based rather than all this faffing about with race? (snip) If people of a certain race are proportionally more poor than people of another race than they will be helped more and it helps out the people of a specific race.
Because that assumes "poor people" get "help" in a uniformly fair and anti-racist way, and that's never really true in the US today.
If you help "all people" with "no regard" to race, you have just participated in favoring white folks over all others, even though you likely don't realize it. The systems by which you choose to "help" all have various types of racism built-in, and you will have racist results as output, even if you yourself never directly try to commit such an act. (This is what systemic racism is, sometimes called 'institutionalized racism' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism )
Affirmative Action, while not perfect, is one of the few things ever tried that actually accounts for this. It's saying, "you can't be more racist than X" where X is some kind of objective metric (say, "percent of enrollment by race"), and it does not care which of the thousands of people or systems involved are causing the issue, it attempts to force-corrects for it.
It is an emergency stop-gap, until such a future as that result is already happening naturally, making it redundant. The fact that we still depend on it ~60+ yrs later, is sort of living proof that we haven't really dealt with systemic racism yet. (As if all the other evidence, between housing, employment, police brutality and murders, etc, wasn't already enough)
But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people have already. Right? I mean, I can get behind that. But then why the entire detour with race? Why not just.. well, let poor people come first? Would the goal suddenly not be met if poor smart white kids get into good schools, too? Who loses in this case?
I don't mean this as a hihi actually sneaky anti-affirmative-action post, I don't understand the subject matter well enough (nor America in general). I genuinely don't get why the race thing is part of the equation. Shouldn't this just be run-of-the-mill social democratic "lets hand out some extra opportunities/benefits to the poor" program?