> 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.
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.