When one compares affirmative action to reverse discrimination they are assuming that a level playing field exists. It doesn't. A reduction in privilege of the dominant race in a society whose operating system is biased against other races, one which is backed by hundreds of years of treating other races as sub-human, is not equivalent to reverse discrimination. It's a small gesture of corrective and remedial action to address a huge inequity.
When one references the Supreme Court, or conflates it to be akin to a "Divine Court" of absolute justice, they fail to see that the court is also part of the same institution that codified and protected, due to constitutionally enacted tenets, the unequal and inhumane treatment of one race by another. What is accepted by many as the binding fabric of our republic was deeply flawed and far from being a divine inspiration. It was created by man, had race inequality baked into it, and was subject to all of the flaws and biases that are part of the human condition. Yes there have been amendments, corrections, rulings made, words spoken, and actions taken over the years to scrub the most abhorrent stains from the founding documents and laws that define the fabric of our society. But a lot of what was baked into US society and culture from its earliest days persists to this day, both the good parts and the bad parts, regardless of what exists in the documents.
Change comes easy on paper, but it comes much harder in the hearts of man. This is especially true when the signals that trigger the systemic and institutionalized social mechanisms of discrimination cannot be hidden from view or kept to oneself. Race neutrality is an abstract notion that does not exist in human minds or in society or culture as a whole. Top-down laws and edicts haven't moved the needle, at least not fast or far enough. Change must come from the bottom-up and it must be tangible, implementable, and measurable. Even a cursory or narrowly focused blinder perspective of where we are today as a society and culture tells an unflattering story. The data doesn't lie.
The long standing, entrenched systems and institutions that are dominating the status quo of institutionalized inequity are very resistant to change. Those in-charge are overwhelmingly those who are privileged by the status quo. They are the ones who must change and take action. Harvard University recognizes this reality and has decided that now is the time for action and is applying what they, and Apple and other companies, feel is their best possible option. If we were even remotely close to having a level playing field we could ruminate over philosophical subtleties and notions like race neutrality. What Apple and these companies are saying is that we no longer have time for philosophical musings. The suffering must end. Action is needed. Now. I agree with Harvard and Apple.
As an outsider I still am uncertain as to how this would be used to justify discrimination against Asian-Americans, which seems to be the claim here, or justify the fact that these institutions still have alumni programs if the aim is to remove entrenched privilege, which is hardly all race based in a highly unequal society.
Surely the class and race privilege of easier admission, for the wealthy and alumni, would be the first thing to go in a supposedly more egalitarian admissions system.
As it stands there are probably the descendants of slave owners who can get in to Harvard quite easily, and the descendants of Vietnamese boat people, or Sicilian serfs, who can't - even though their grades alone would get them in.
( The other criteria, like extracurricular activities are also designed to allow in the trustafarian with time on his or her hands, rather than the working class guy forced to get a job through school.)
If you read the referenced article you’ll see that Apple’s and the other tech companies who’ve weighed in on this have done so in support of affirmative action, the necessity for which is driven by the rationale behind my supporting points, i.e., systemic and institutionalized discrimination, oppression, and inequity.
Yeah, this is a controversial topic for AppleInsider to open up for comments. I appreciate everyone’s civility so far.
You didn't answer my points but referred me back to your previous statement and a statement by Apple. To re-iterate:
1) If there is a history of White American discrimination against blacks or native americans then I fail to see how the kind of affirmative action that works against Asian Americans is pay back for that. 2) If Harvard wanted to use admission policy to promote equality then removing the benefit of being related to alumni or the rich would be the first thing on the agenda. Given that the alumni would have been the (white) elite going back generations in many cases, it is likely that the actual descendants of the whites who benefited directly from slavery or Jim Crow, or previous discriminatory Harvard admission policies towards WASPS are benefitting from this policy.
I'm not in a position to know why individual applicants to Harvard and other prestigious universities have been been rejected for admission. The reason why affirmative action programs were instituted were influenced by the desire to compensate for the institutional biases that have affected admissions for centuries. Based on the events and news stories from the past year we know that there is little doubt that admissions are influenced by donors with unsavory and unseemly factors involved. None of the universities involved are pillars of virtue. All I'm saying in this specific case is that Apple weighed in on it because they see an attempt to deconstruct a remedy, affirmative action, that has been put in place and prescribed to address a much broader concern. The claims, counterclaims, and assertions of the specific case being used as an attempt to dismantle affirmative action programs is not why Apple and these other tech firms are engaged. They are fighting for the greater cause of preserving the use of affirmative action to start to right a wrong and level the playing field.
When one compares affirmative action to reverse discrimination they are assuming that a level playing field exists. It doesn't. A reduction in privilege of the dominant race in a society whose operating system is biased against other races, one which is backed by hundreds of years of treating other races as sub-human, is not equivalent to reverse discrimination. It's a small gesture of corrective and remedial action to address a huge inequity.
When one references the Supreme Court, or conflates it to be akin to a "Divine Court" of absolute justice, they fail to see that the court is also part of the same institution that codified and protected, due to constitutionally enacted tenets, the unequal and inhumane treatment of one race by another. What is accepted by many as the binding fabric of our republic was deeply flawed and far from being a divine inspiration. It was created by man, had race inequality baked into it, and was subject to all of the flaws and biases that are part of the human condition. Yes there have been amendments, corrections, rulings made, words spoken, and actions taken over the years to scrub the most abhorrent stains from the founding documents and laws that define the fabric of our society. But a lot of what was baked into US society and culture from its earliest days persists to this day, both the good parts and the bad parts, regardless of what exists in the documents.
Change comes easy on paper, but it comes much harder in the hearts of man. This is especially true when the signals that trigger the systemic and institutionalized social mechanisms of discrimination cannot be hidden from view or kept to oneself. Race neutrality is an abstract notion that does not exist in human minds or in society or culture as a whole. Top-down laws and edicts haven't moved the needle, at least not fast or far enough. Change must come from the bottom-up and it must be tangible, implementable, and measurable. Even a cursory or narrowly focused blinder perspective of where we are today as a society and culture tells an unflattering story. The data doesn't lie.
The long standing, entrenched systems and institutions that are dominating the status quo of institutionalized inequity are very resistant to change. Those in-charge are overwhelmingly those who are privileged by the status quo. They are the ones who must change and take action. Harvard University recognizes this reality and has decided that now is the time for action and is applying what they, and Apple and other companies, feel is their best possible option. If we were even remotely close to having a level playing field we could ruminate over philosophical subtleties and notions like race neutrality. What Apple and these companies are saying is that we no longer have time for philosophical musings. The suffering must end. Action is needed. Now. I agree with Harvard and Apple.
As an outsider I still am uncertain as to how this would be used to justify discrimination against Asian-Americans, which seems to be the claim here, or justify the fact that these institutions still have alumni programs if the aim is to remove entrenched privilege, which is hardly all race based in a highly unequal society.
Surely the class and race privilege of easier admission, for the wealthy and alumni, would be the first thing to go in a supposedly more egalitarian admissions system.
As it stands there are probably the descendants of slave owners who can get in to Harvard quite easily, and the descendants of Vietnamese boat people, or Sicilian serfs, who can't - even though their grades alone would get them in.
( The other criteria, like extracurricular activities are also designed to allow in the trustafarian with time on his or her hands, rather than the working class guy forced to get a job through school.)
If you read the referenced article you’ll see that Apple’s and the other tech companies who’ve weighed in on this have done so in support of affirmative action, the necessity for which is driven by the rationale behind my supporting points, i.e., systemic and institutionalized discrimination, oppression, and inequity.
Yeah, this is a controversial topic for AppleInsider to open up for comments. I appreciate everyone’s civility so far.
You didn't answer my points but referred me back to your previous statement and a statement by Apple. To re-iterate:
1) If there is a history of White American discrimination against blacks or native americans then I fail to see how the kind of affirmative action that works against Asian Americans is pay back for that. 2) If Harvard wanted to use admission policy to promote equality then removing the benefit of being related to alumni or the rich would be the first thing on the agenda. Given that the alumni would have been the (white) elite going back generations in many cases, it is likely that the actual descendants of the whites who benefited directly from slavery or Jim Crow, or previous discriminatory Harvard admission policies towards WASPS are benefitting from this policy.
Diversity policies such as this are not intended as “pay back” or reparations, or revenge. The purpose is to give people who have faced inordinate challenges just getting to the starting line an opportunity to participate in the game. It is also because ethnic and cultural diversity has value in and of itself. A lot of learning is derived from interacting with people who are different than you. Too much homogeneity at elite, ivy-league schools produces highly educated graduates who don’t understand a thing about the world around them.
Also, yes, legacy admissions policies should be discarded. Not only does it echo previous racial discrimination, it also reinforces concentration of wealth without merit by assuring that the children of the well-connected are themselves well-connected, while everyone else remains in their own caste.
I want to thank the Moderator for refraining from not allowing comments about this article.
It has not gone without moderation.
After a bad winter and spring, we are again attempting to move the line to a more relaxed stance on what gets blocked from the start. This will require forum-goer cooperation.
He! You removed now three of my comments and didn't indicate that. Thats quite uncivil of you. I must remind you that removing comments is in itself a human rights violation (freedom of speech). I want to remove/delete my account and remove all info (all my comments) with it. Your site doesn't allow me to do that, which is in violation of the U.S. law. So, since your very good at removing comments (without even indication that), please make available that I (and others) can completely remove my account and all information that goes with it. I think my comments are of value and not to be thrown away without any notice. I now delete my account as a consequence.
What has been surprising recently due to rich folks offering bribes to get into prestigious or not so prestigious colleges is that some bribes are illegal!
Slots for volley ball, rowing, legacy admissions, endow a professorship, library wing, ... always seemed a fair way to allow buying kids entry into college, regardless of merit, or benefit to society as a whole.
Before these bribe cases I thought the only “illegal” and “unfair” way to get into college was affirmative action.
I want to thank the Moderator for refraining from not allowing comments about this article.
It has not gone without moderation.
After a bad winter and spring, we are again attempting to move the line to a more relaxed stance on what gets blocked from the start. This will require forum-goer cooperation.
He! You removed now three of my comments and didn't indicate that. Thats quite uncivil of you. I must remind you that removing comments is in itself a human rights violation (freedom of speech). I want to remove/delete my account and remove all info (all my comments) with it. Your site doesn't allow me to do that, which is in violation of the U.S. law. So, since your very good at removing comments (without even indication that), please make available that I (and others) can completely remove my account and all information that goes with it. I think my comments are of value and not to be thrown away without any notice. I now delete my account as a consequence.
Perhaps it's uncivil, but after having reviewed the two, not three, comments removed by the moderators, you own incivility plus disobeying the forum rules begat that.
Moderating comments in an internet forum is not a human rights violation, and instead, is required to be done as a matter of US law. There is no law that mandates deletion of all content nor to provide a mechanism for others, including the poster, to do so.
I have fixed that "delete my account" thing for you. It's good that you think all your comments in this thread are of value, but nobody else has to think so.
When one compares affirmative action to reverse discrimination they are assuming that a level playing field exists. It doesn't. A reduction in privilege of the dominant race in a society whose operating system is biased against other races, one which is backed by hundreds of years of treating other races as sub-human, is not equivalent to reverse discrimination. It's a small gesture of corrective and remedial action to address a huge inequity.
When one references the Supreme Court, or conflates it to be akin to a "Divine Court" of absolute justice, they fail to see that the court is also part of the same institution that codified and protected, due to constitutionally enacted tenets, the unequal and inhumane treatment of one race by another. What is accepted by many as the binding fabric of our republic was deeply flawed and far from being a divine inspiration. It was created by man, had race inequality baked into it, and was subject to all of the flaws and biases that are part of the human condition. Yes there have been amendments, corrections, rulings made, words spoken, and actions taken over the years to scrub the most abhorrent stains from the founding documents and laws that define the fabric of our society. But a lot of what was baked into US society and culture from its earliest days persists to this day, both the good parts and the bad parts, regardless of what exists in the documents.
Change comes easy on paper, but it comes much harder in the hearts of man. This is especially true when the signals that trigger the systemic and institutionalized social mechanisms of discrimination cannot be hidden from view or kept to oneself. Race neutrality is an abstract notion that does not exist in human minds or in society or culture as a whole. Top-down laws and edicts haven't moved the needle, at least not fast or far enough. Change must come from the bottom-up and it must be tangible, implementable, and measurable. Even a cursory or narrowly focused blinder perspective of where we are today as a society and culture tells an unflattering story. The data doesn't lie.
The long standing, entrenched systems and institutions that are dominating the status quo of institutionalized inequity are very resistant to change. Those in-charge are overwhelmingly those who are privileged by the status quo. They are the ones who must change and take action. Harvard University recognizes this reality and has decided that now is the time for action and is applying what they, and Apple and other companies, feel is their best possible option. If we were even remotely close to having a level playing field we could ruminate over philosophical subtleties and notions like race neutrality. What Apple and these companies are saying is that we no longer have time for philosophical musings. The suffering must end. Action is needed. Now. I agree with Harvard and Apple.
As an outsider I still am uncertain as to how this would be used to justify discrimination against Asian-Americans, which seems to be the claim here, or justify the fact that these institutions still have alumni programs if the aim is to remove entrenched privilege, which is hardly all race based in a highly unequal society.
Surely the class and race privilege of easier admission, for the wealthy and alumni, would be the first thing to go in a supposedly more egalitarian admissions system.
As it stands there are probably the descendants of slave owners who can get in to Harvard quite easily, and the descendants of Vietnamese boat people, or Sicilian serfs, who can't - even though their grades alone would get them in.
( The other criteria, like extracurricular activities are also designed to allow in the trustafarian with time on his or her hands, rather than the working class guy forced to get a job through school.)
If you read the referenced article you’ll see that Apple’s and the other tech companies who’ve weighed in on this have done so in support of affirmative action, the necessity for which is driven by the rationale behind my supporting points, i.e., systemic and institutionalized discrimination, oppression, and inequity.
Yeah, this is a controversial topic for AppleInsider to open up for comments. I appreciate everyone’s civility so far.
You didn't answer my points but referred me back to your previous statement and a statement by Apple. To re-iterate:
1) If there is a history of White American discrimination against blacks or native americans then I fail to see how the kind of affirmative action that works against Asian Americans is pay back for that. 2) If Harvard wanted to use admission policy to promote equality then removing the benefit of being related to alumni or the rich would be the first thing on the agenda. Given that the alumni would have been the (white) elite going back generations in many cases, it is likely that the actual descendants of the whites who benefited directly from slavery or Jim Crow, or previous discriminatory Harvard admission policies towards WASPS are benefitting from this policy.
I'm not in a position to know why individual applicants to Harvard and other prestigious universities have been been rejected for admission. The reason why affirmative action programs were instituted were influenced by the desire to compensate for the institutional biases that have affected admissions for centuries. ... They are fighting for the greater cause of preserving the use of affirmative action to start to right a wrong and level the playing field.
While that is true, it is not all of the truth.
By granting admission to a member of a suppressed & oppressed minority and enabling him to fully access the advantages of white majority society, they are not only helping him directly, but indirectly his family & offspring as well as the society he associates with....
Affirmative Action is and was an investment in the people of America and, as we saw in 2008 (whether or not you like him), it is an investment that has paid off well as a member of that suppressed and oppressed minority was able to rise to the highest level in America. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit that affirmative action was, to a large extent, directly and indirectly responsible for letting him build the foundation that made his rise to that position possible.
Very simply, 60 years ago Obama would have most likely been struggling to feed, clothe, house and educate his family instead of struggling to win the presidency.
Changing laws helps by adjusting the formal structures that support or reject systemic racism.
Affirmative Action works by adjusting societal norms and providing wealth, education, self respect and meaning to an oppressed demographic.
Happy_Noodle_Boy said: The argument is that the process is ostensibly quota based which has been ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. You clearly disagree with that which is fine but I suspect that you, like me, don’t have the legal expertise to know how accurate the claim is. So, I’ll maintain what I said before. The court system is the correct venue to resolve the question.
Here's what I know is a legal fact: Harvard isn't required by law to base admissions on academic achievements alone. I also know that the discrimination claim in the lawsuit is entirely based on comparing academic achievements of Asian applicants to other applicants that are accepted, i.e., there are applicants with lower academic achievement that are accepted by Harvard. That's the sum total of the lawsuit. Since Harvard's Asian student population is over 20%, it's not possible to claim Harvard is discriminating when compared to U.S. demographics.
At the end of the day all you can do is either
rank candidates and cut off at the number you need -or- set a minimum standard
for entrance, then take the pool of people who meet that and have a lottery
until you have filled the number you need. Each is fraught since you have to
set a criteria and assign scores on the candidate for each of those criteria.
Which criteria are important to the program? which are subjective? which
criteria create the kind of graduates the school wants? etc. And should that
criteria be public and who should decide???
I presume this fellow has pretty damning evidence that backs his claim?
It sounds like it's more about a disagreement over what is the right thing to do. They presented documents showing different SAT score thresholds for different races (and gender to a smaller extent) to receive letters of interest:
"the documents showed, students in 2013 whose race was listed as white, Asian, other or unknown needed to score at least 1350 (for women) or 1380 (for men) to receive a letter, while black, Hispanic, Native American or other minority students of either sex needed an 1100 or better."
There has been mention of having a level playing field a few times but if you have a standard test that everybody takes, that's a pretty level playing field and using different scores for different groups makes it not level, at least that aspect of it. Although the final admissions aren't just based on scores, they are obviously a strong factor in the decision if you are trying to assess the best academic abilities from a profile ( https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/massachusetts/harvard-university/admission/ ). The question is how to handle situations where different identity groups achieve different results on the same tests on aggregate.
The stance on affirmative action seems to differ by state:
As expected, there was a reduction in minority enrolment as a result. After all, that was the point of the affirmative action.
Tech companies have seen the same issue. If they don't factor in race, the result is overrepresentation of white and asian, mostly the latter. One solution they came up with was rather than take the best people overall, take the best people from each separate race or gender. This inevitably means using a different scoring system per race or gender because they don't achieve the same results on aggregate.
This essentially weighs aptitude against representation and that's the whole argument, whether someone being represented supersedes someone else's performance.
It's an unusual setup because having a different scoring system by race and gender means saying that people's abilities or intellect varies by race or gender. That's pretty widely regarded as unacceptable, except in things like sports where men and women are separated. It's given a pass by some in these situations because the intention is deemed to be positive, it's regarded as positive discrimination because it improves representation for underrepresented groups but in cases of limited opportunities, it will adversely affect other groups.
If people (hopefully) start from the premise that abilities and intellect don't vary by race or gender and it's still assumed that every institution ought to have exactly equal representation of each identity then there has to be other factors to consider as reasons for the underrepresentation. In cases where they banned the use of race, they started considering socioeconomic factors like household income and which regions people came from and that helps.
For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity.
When institutions start implementing explicitly discriminatory policies to counter issues that are assumed to arise from identity discrimination and not aptitude then it's going to discriminate against someone else. It seems to be a common thing now where people think that countering one problem means implementing the opposite problem to balance it out, so countering perceived discrimination of group A means discriminating against group B. The opposite of any form of discrimination is no discrimination at all. This has slower results though, which is why people try to force the numbers by taking more extreme measures.
As people have mentioned, there are other issues that came to light in the admissions scandals where links with college staff give a better chance of getting in as well as payments or the expectation of payments due to having wealthy family members so it's a corrupt process but all these things that come out in the wash have the negative effect that people then see the admissions are only due to this special treatment and it's not fair on people who get there without it, especially underrepresented minorities who are accepted on merit alone.
I presume this fellow has pretty damning evidence that backs his claim?
It sounds like it's more about a disagreement over what is the right thing to do. They presented documents showing different SAT score thresholds for different races (and gender to a smaller extent) to receive letters of interest:
(Snip)
As people have mentioned, there are other issues that came to light in the admissions scandals where links with college staff give a better chance of getting in as well as payments or the expectation of payments due to having wealthy family members so it's a corrupt process but all these things that come out in the wash have the negative effect that people then see the admissions are only due to this special treatment and it's not fair on people who get there without it, especially underrepresented minorities who are accepted on merit alone.
Wow, what a balanced, well thought out post Marvin. I think you captured the heart of the problem that our society faces and possibly our best chance at facing it in a way that is hard for haters of any political persuasion to argue against.
I don't often comment much here, but I logged in just to say that. Bravo.
I presume this fellow has pretty damning evidence that backs his claim?
.....
If people (hopefully) start from the premise that abilities and intellect don't vary by race or gender and it's still assumed that every institution ought to have exactly equal representation of each identity then there has to be other factors to consider as reasons for the underrepresentation. In cases where they banned the use of race, they started considering socioeconomic factors like household income and which regions people came from and that helps.
...
For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity.
....
Like privilege, knowledge and even intelligence is largely, perhaps mostly, a factor of environment.
While it is not fair, it is reality that (generally speaking), kids from impoverished communities are not on equal terms with kids from well-to-do communities. And, as you point out in the tech field, American kids are not on equal terms with Asian kids (at least the well off ones who attended the good schools and find their way here) -- or even Asian Americans often have a different work ethic towards learning.
Intelligence is a very tricky thing -- it can even (according to my psychology book) be impacted by a hopeful, positive, confident attitude. And, the makers or IQ tests have long struggled to provide "fair" tests across various demographics.
I grew up in the industrial capital of Pittsburgh and kids through the 80's were told: "All you have to do is graduate from high school then get a good job in the mill". And, today, 30-40 years after those mills shut down, many of the kids from those mill towns are led to believe the same thing -- and achieve the same level of mediocrity. Meanwhile Asian "Tiger Moms" have their kids learning hard and continuously -- and the results show it.
And, while many of the kids from those former mill towns are white, when we speak of underprivileged and disadvantaged, in America the black community is not only very much over represented, it has a 300 year history of being oppressed and hopeless. While we can debate whether they the average black kid has the same advantages as the average white kid, the last few weeks show that even with equal abilities, they do not have equal opportunities because racism is very much alive a well.
So, a major impetus behind affirmative action was to level that playing field -- not just for the applicant but for his progeny and community. Because success breeds success.
But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied.
The question is: What kind of society do we want to be? Is it survival of the fittest? Or does everybody and every demographic get an equal chance?
By only looking at economic levels, the systemic, 300 year history of racism is being ignored.
And, as the Asians have demonstrated, income levels don't necessary reflect attitude and abilities.
I presume this fellow has pretty damning evidence that backs his claim?
It sounds like it's more about a disagreement over what is the right thing to do. They presented documents showing different SAT score thresholds for different races (and gender to a smaller extent) to receive letters of interest:
"the documents showed, students in 2013 whose race was listed as white, Asian, other or unknown needed to score at least 1350 (for women) or 1380 (for men) to receive a letter, while black, Hispanic, Native American or other minority students of either sex needed an 1100 or better."
There has been mention of having a level playing field a few times but if you have a standard test that everybody takes, that's a pretty level playing field and using different scores for different groups makes it not level, at least that aspect of it. Although the final admissions aren't just based on scores, they are obviously a strong factor in the decision if you are trying to assess the best academic abilities from a profile ( https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/massachusetts/harvard-university/admission/ ). The question is how to handle situations where different identity groups achieve different results on the same tests on aggregate.
The stance on affirmative action seems to differ by state:
As expected, there was a reduction in minority enrolment as a result. After all, that was the point of the affirmative action.
Tech companies have seen the same issue. If they don't factor in race, the result is overrepresentation of white and asian, mostly the latter. One solution they came up with was rather than take the best people overall, take the best people from each separate race or gender. This inevitably means using a different scoring system per race or gender because they don't achieve the same results on aggregate.
This essentially weighs aptitude against representation and that's the whole argument, whether someone being represented supersedes someone else's performance.
It's an unusual setup because having a different scoring system by race and gender means saying that people's abilities or intellect varies by race or gender. That's pretty widely regarded as unacceptable, except in things like sports where men and women are separated. It's given a pass by some in these situations because the intention is deemed to be positive, it's regarded as positive discrimination because it improves representation for underrepresented groups but in cases of limited opportunities, it will adversely affect other groups.
If people (hopefully) start from the premise that abilities and intellect don't vary by race or gender and it's still assumed that every institution ought to have exactly equal representation of each identity then there has to be other factors to consider as reasons for the underrepresentation. In cases where they banned the use of race, they started considering socioeconomic factors like household income and which regions people came from and that helps.
For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity.
When institutions start implementing explicitly discriminatory policies to counter issues that are assumed to arise from identity discrimination and not aptitude then it's going to discriminate against someone else. It seems to be a common thing now where people think that countering one problem means implementing the opposite problem to balance it out, so countering perceived discrimination of group A means discriminating against group B. The opposite of any form of discrimination is no discrimination at all. This has slower results though, which is why people try to force the numbers by taking more extreme measures.
As people have mentioned, there are other issues that came to light in the admissions scandals where links with college staff give a better chance of getting in as well as payments or the expectation of payments due to having wealthy family members so it's a corrupt process but all these things that come out in the wash have the negative effect that people then see the admissions are only due to this special treatment and it's not fair on people who get there without it, especially underrepresented minorities who are accepted on merit alone.
I feel the need to challenge some assumptions made here.
"There has been mention of having a level playing field a few times but if you have a standard test that everybody takes, that's a pretty level playing field and using different scores for different groups makes it not level, at least that aspect of it."
This statement makes at least two assumptions that are not necessarily true. The first assumption is one of great faith in the writers of a given test. For the most part, as long as you're not using word problems, you can create a mathematics test that will accurately measure knowledge of mathematics. As soon as you get beyond that, however, it's extremely difficult to create a test that accurately measures what's intended, without problems of misunderstanding and misinterpretation cropping up. This is why there is a significant industry in teaching people how to improve their scores on specific standardized tests. Just understanding the intent and structure of a given test can improve one's score. Add on top of that various linguistic and cultural assumptions that mismatch between test creator and test takers, and you get a lot of variables that can make that playing field a lot more bumpy than you assume.
The second assumption is much more broad, and that is the assumption that everyone has had equal opportunities leading up to arriving at the test center on test day. We know this is not the case. Multi-generational socioeconomic factors mean that basic educational opportunities are significantly affected by both individual wealth and the aggregate wealth of the community where an individual lives. Lower community wealth equals under-funded schools. Lower individual wealth means lack of individual resources (books, computers, broadband, parental education level, parental time available to help with education, etc.) on top of whatever the community has. A kid who grows up rich in a rich neighborhood has better public schools, plus optional access to private schools, plus books, computers, and internet, plus parents who were probably well educated who can help with homework or pay tutors for that help. They make movies about people who do well despite growing up poor specifically because their low-probability outcome is dramatic and uplifting. The attendant proclamations of 'because this person could escape poverty and succeed, so can everyone else' is simply not borne out by reality. While there are plenty of examples of white kids stuck in poverty in the US, there is sadly a very strong overall correlation between lower wealth and growing up black in the US. This has nothing to do with intellectual capacity and everything to do with a wealth-based negative feedback loop. Social and financial institutions in America have made certain for hundreds of years that black people will have a very hard time gaining and building wealth. All this is to say that it's very unlikely that everyone arrives to take your standardized test with equal opportunity to prepare.
"This essentially weighs aptitude against representation and that's the whole argument, whether someone being represented supersedes someone else's performance."
Due to the factors discussed above, it is unwise to assume that a standardized test accurately weighs aptitude as opposed to variations in opportunity leading up to the test.
"For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity."
This assumption is simply incorrect. People who are black in America have negative experiences specifically due to the color of their skin, regardless of their circumstances of wealth. This is not an occasional thing. It is every single day. Not even Oprah is rich and famous enough to be insulated from the experience of someone seeing a black lady who can't possibly be in the right place to buy an overpriced handbag. Keegan Michael-Key related on Colbert last week an experience of being pulled over by the police for being 'in the wrong neighborhood,' but then being 'saved' when the cop recognized him as a famous person. For a non-famous, well-dressed black person driving a nice car in a rich neighborhood? 'Where'd you get that car, boy?' That white kid born into a trailer park to drug addicted parents? If he cleans up and dresses nice, he can still drive all up and down that rich neighborhood in a nice car without ever being stopped, even if he stole the car in the first place. That's the race-based privilege that comes regardless of circumstance.
This is why the attitude, particularly strongly held in the tech industry, that simply claiming impartiality and basing everything on some sort of clinical measurement of merit misses the boat by a long shot. Even though you are individually well-intentioned and try real hard to not see race or gender or other factors, it is simply wrong to assume that your present goodwill, while ignoring everything that happened before this moment, leads to a merit-based, level playing field.
I presume this fellow has pretty damning evidence that backs his claim?
.....
If people (hopefully) start from the premise that abilities and intellect don't vary by race or gender and it's still assumed that every institution ought to have exactly equal representation of each identity then there has to be other factors to consider as reasons for the underrepresentation. In cases where they banned the use of race, they started considering socioeconomic factors like household income and which regions people came from and that helps.
...
For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity.
....
Like privilege, knowledge and even intelligence is largely, perhaps mostly, a factor of environment.
While it is not fair, it is reality that (generally speaking), kids from impoverished communities are not on equal terms with kids from well-to-do communities. And, as you point out in the tech field, American kids are not on equal terms with Asian kids (at least the well off ones who attended the good schools and find their way here) -- or even Asian Americans often have a different work ethic towards learning.
Intelligence is a very tricky thing -- it can even (according to my psychology book) be impacted by a hopeful, positive, confident attitude. And, the makers or IQ tests have long struggled to provide "fair" tests across various demographics.
I grew up in the industrial capital of Pittsburgh and kids through the 80's were told: "All you have to do is graduate from high school then get a good job in the mill". And, today, 30-40 years after those mills shut down, many of the kids from those mill towns are led to believe the same thing -- and achieve the same level of mediocrity. Meanwhile Asian "Tiger Moms" have their kids learning hard and continuously -- and the results show it.
And, while many of the kids from those former mill towns are white, when we speak of underprivileged and disadvantaged, in America the black community is not only very much over represented, it has a 300 year history of being oppressed and hopeless. While we can debate whether they the average black kid has the same advantages as the average white kid, the last few weeks show that even with equal abilities, they do not have equal opportunities because racism is very much alive a well.
So, a major impetus behind affirmative action was to level that playing field -- not just for the applicant but for his progeny and community. Because success breeds success.
But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied.
The question is: What kind of society do we want to be? Is it survival of the fittest? Or does everybody and every demographic get an equal chance?
By only looking at economic levels, the systemic, 300 year history of racism is being ignored.
And, as the Asians have demonstrated, income levels don't necessary reflect attitude and abilities.
"But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied."
This even makes an incorrect assumption. This infers the person who is now "denied" is in reality more deserving than the "disadvantaged" person, even though "disadvantage" literally means having advantage taken away. Sure, it was profoundly disappointing to invalidate all of Lance Armstrong's wins and award them to the people he "beat," but Armstrong was actually the one who hadn't legitimately earned his wins in the first place. Major league baseball's pre-1947 record books are less meaningful when you consider that only white people were allowed to play. Babe Ruth was undeniably great, but that's a harder thing to measure when you consider the competition he might've had if the league were integrated in his day.
I presume this fellow has pretty damning evidence that backs his claim?
.....
If people (hopefully) start from the premise that abilities and intellect don't vary by race or gender and it's still assumed that every institution ought to have exactly equal representation of each identity then there has to be other factors to consider as reasons for the underrepresentation. In cases where they banned the use of race, they started considering socioeconomic factors like household income and which regions people came from and that helps.
...
For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity.
....
Like privilege, knowledge and even intelligence is largely, perhaps mostly, a factor of environment.
While it is not fair, it is reality that (generally speaking), kids from impoverished communities are not on equal terms with kids from well-to-do communities. And, as you point out in the tech field, American kids are not on equal terms with Asian kids (at least the well off ones who attended the good schools and find their way here) -- or even Asian Americans often have a different work ethic towards learning.
Intelligence is a very tricky thing -- it can even (according to my psychology book) be impacted by a hopeful, positive, confident attitude. And, the makers or IQ tests have long struggled to provide "fair" tests across various demographics.
I grew up in the industrial capital of Pittsburgh and kids through the 80's were told: "All you have to do is graduate from high school then get a good job in the mill". And, today, 30-40 years after those mills shut down, many of the kids from those mill towns are led to believe the same thing -- and achieve the same level of mediocrity. Meanwhile Asian "Tiger Moms" have their kids learning hard and continuously -- and the results show it.
And, while many of the kids from those former mill towns are white, when we speak of underprivileged and disadvantaged, in America the black community is not only very much over represented, it has a 300 year history of being oppressed and hopeless. While we can debate whether they the average black kid has the same advantages as the average white kid, the last few weeks show that even with equal abilities, they do not have equal opportunities because racism is very much alive a well.
So, a major impetus behind affirmative action was to level that playing field -- not just for the applicant but for his progeny and community. Because success breeds success.
But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied.
The question is: What kind of society do we want to be? Is it survival of the fittest? Or does everybody and every demographic get an equal chance?
By only looking at economic levels, the systemic, 300 year history of racism is being ignored.
And, as the Asians have demonstrated, income levels don't necessary reflect attitude and abilities.
"But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied."
This even makes an incorrect assumption. This infers the person who is now "denied" is in reality more deserving than the "disadvantaged" person, even though "disadvantage" literally means having advantage taken away. Sure, it was profoundly disappointing to invalidate all of Lance Armstrong's wins and award them to the people he "beat," but Armstrong was actually the one who hadn't legitimately earned his wins in the first place. Major league baseball's pre-1947 record books are less meaningful when you consider that only white people were allowed to play. Babe Ruth was undeniably great, but that's a harder thing to measure when you consider the competition he might've had if the league were integrated in his day.
“Disadvantaged” is a condition which is politically determined. It being based in any kind of objective reality is pure fantasy.
I presume this fellow has pretty damning evidence that backs his claim?
.....
If people (hopefully) start from the premise that abilities and intellect don't vary by race or gender and it's still assumed that every institution ought to have exactly equal representation of each identity then there has to be other factors to consider as reasons for the underrepresentation. In cases where they banned the use of race, they started considering socioeconomic factors like household income and which regions people came from and that helps.
...
For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity.
....
Like privilege, knowledge and even intelligence is largely, perhaps mostly, a factor of environment.
While it is not fair, it is reality that (generally speaking), kids from impoverished communities are not on equal terms with kids from well-to-do communities. And, as you point out in the tech field, American kids are not on equal terms with Asian kids (at least the well off ones who attended the good schools and find their way here) -- or even Asian Americans often have a different work ethic towards learning.
Intelligence is a very tricky thing -- it can even (according to my psychology book) be impacted by a hopeful, positive, confident attitude. And, the makers or IQ tests have long struggled to provide "fair" tests across various demographics.
I grew up in the industrial capital of Pittsburgh and kids through the 80's were told: "All you have to do is graduate from high school then get a good job in the mill". And, today, 30-40 years after those mills shut down, many of the kids from those mill towns are led to believe the same thing -- and achieve the same level of mediocrity. Meanwhile Asian "Tiger Moms" have their kids learning hard and continuously -- and the results show it.
And, while many of the kids from those former mill towns are white, when we speak of underprivileged and disadvantaged, in America the black community is not only very much over represented, it has a 300 year history of being oppressed and hopeless. While we can debate whether they the average black kid has the same advantages as the average white kid, the last few weeks show that even with equal abilities, they do not have equal opportunities because racism is very much alive a well.
So, a major impetus behind affirmative action was to level that playing field -- not just for the applicant but for his progeny and community. Because success breeds success.
But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied.
The question is: What kind of society do we want to be? Is it survival of the fittest? Or does everybody and every demographic get an equal chance?
By only looking at economic levels, the systemic, 300 year history of racism is being ignored.
And, as the Asians have demonstrated, income levels don't necessary reflect attitude and abilities.
"But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied."
This even makes an incorrect assumption. This infers the person who is now "denied" is in reality more deserving than the "disadvantaged" person, even though "disadvantage" literally means having advantage taken away. Sure, it was profoundly disappointing to invalidate all of Lance Armstrong's wins and award them to the people he "beat," but Armstrong was actually the one who hadn't legitimately earned his wins in the first place. Major league baseball's pre-1947 record books are less meaningful when you consider that only white people were allowed to play. Babe Ruth was undeniably great, but that's a harder thing to measure when you consider the competition he might've had if the league were integrated in his day.
“Disadvantaged” is a condition which is politically determined. It being based in any kind of objective reality is pure fantasy.
Of course, it should be unsurprising when people who have benefitted from unfair advantage over others claim victim status at the prospect of losing some of those unfair advantages.
I presume this fellow has pretty damning evidence that backs his claim?
.....
If people (hopefully) start from the premise that abilities and intellect don't vary by race or gender and it's still assumed that every institution ought to have exactly equal representation of each identity then there has to be other factors to consider as reasons for the underrepresentation. In cases where they banned the use of race, they started considering socioeconomic factors like household income and which regions people came from and that helps.
...
For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity.
....
Like privilege, knowledge and even intelligence is largely, perhaps mostly, a factor of environment.
While it is not fair, it is reality that (generally speaking), kids from impoverished communities are not on equal terms with kids from well-to-do communities. And, as you point out in the tech field, American kids are not on equal terms with Asian kids (at least the well off ones who attended the good schools and find their way here) -- or even Asian Americans often have a different work ethic towards learning.
Intelligence is a very tricky thing -- it can even (according to my psychology book) be impacted by a hopeful, positive, confident attitude. And, the makers or IQ tests have long struggled to provide "fair" tests across various demographics.
I grew up in the industrial capital of Pittsburgh and kids through the 80's were told: "All you have to do is graduate from high school then get a good job in the mill". And, today, 30-40 years after those mills shut down, many of the kids from those mill towns are led to believe the same thing -- and achieve the same level of mediocrity. Meanwhile Asian "Tiger Moms" have their kids learning hard and continuously -- and the results show it.
And, while many of the kids from those former mill towns are white, when we speak of underprivileged and disadvantaged, in America the black community is not only very much over represented, it has a 300 year history of being oppressed and hopeless. While we can debate whether they the average black kid has the same advantages as the average white kid, the last few weeks show that even with equal abilities, they do not have equal opportunities because racism is very much alive a well.
So, a major impetus behind affirmative action was to level that playing field -- not just for the applicant but for his progeny and community. Because success breeds success.
But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied.
The question is: What kind of society do we want to be? Is it survival of the fittest? Or does everybody and every demographic get an equal chance?
By only looking at economic levels, the systemic, 300 year history of racism is being ignored.
And, as the Asians have demonstrated, income levels don't necessary reflect attitude and abilities.
"But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied."
This even makes an incorrect assumption. This infers the person who is now "denied" is in reality more deserving than the "disadvantaged" person, even though "disadvantage" literally means having advantage taken away. Sure, it was profoundly disappointing to invalidate all of Lance Armstrong's wins and award them to the people he "beat," but Armstrong was actually the one who hadn't legitimately earned his wins in the first place. Major league baseball's pre-1947 record books are less meaningful when you consider that only white people were allowed to play. Babe Ruth was undeniably great, but that's a harder thing to measure when you consider the competition he might've had if the league were integrated in his day.
“Disadvantaged” is a condition which is politically determined. It being based in any kind of objective reality is pure fantasy.
Of course, it should be unsurprising when people who have benefitted from unfair advantage over others claim victim status at the prospect of losing some of those unfair advantages.
You’ll have to be more specific, because literally anyone could claim they were a victim of unfairness.
I presume this fellow has pretty damning evidence that backs his claim?
.....
If people (hopefully) start from the premise that abilities and intellect don't vary by race or gender and it's still assumed that every institution ought to have exactly equal representation of each identity then there has to be other factors to consider as reasons for the underrepresentation. In cases where they banned the use of race, they started considering socioeconomic factors like household income and which regions people came from and that helps.
...
For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity.
....
Like privilege, knowledge and even intelligence is largely, perhaps mostly, a factor of environment.
While it is not fair, it is reality that (generally speaking), kids from impoverished communities are not on equal terms with kids from well-to-do communities. And, as you point out in the tech field, American kids are not on equal terms with Asian kids (at least the well off ones who attended the good schools and find their way here) -- or even Asian Americans often have a different work ethic towards learning.
Intelligence is a very tricky thing -- it can even (according to my psychology book) be impacted by a hopeful, positive, confident attitude. And, the makers or IQ tests have long struggled to provide "fair" tests across various demographics.
I grew up in the industrial capital of Pittsburgh and kids through the 80's were told: "All you have to do is graduate from high school then get a good job in the mill". And, today, 30-40 years after those mills shut down, many of the kids from those mill towns are led to believe the same thing -- and achieve the same level of mediocrity. Meanwhile Asian "Tiger Moms" have their kids learning hard and continuously -- and the results show it.
And, while many of the kids from those former mill towns are white, when we speak of underprivileged and disadvantaged, in America the black community is not only very much over represented, it has a 300 year history of being oppressed and hopeless. While we can debate whether they the average black kid has the same advantages as the average white kid, the last few weeks show that even with equal abilities, they do not have equal opportunities because racism is very much alive a well.
So, a major impetus behind affirmative action was to level that playing field -- not just for the applicant but for his progeny and community. Because success breeds success.
But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied.
The question is: What kind of society do we want to be? Is it survival of the fittest? Or does everybody and every demographic get an equal chance?
By only looking at economic levels, the systemic, 300 year history of racism is being ignored.
And, as the Asians have demonstrated, income levels don't necessary reflect attitude and abilities.
"But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied."
This even makes an incorrect assumption. This infers the person who is now "denied" is in reality more deserving than the "disadvantaged" person, even though "disadvantage" literally means having advantage taken away. Sure, it was profoundly disappointing to invalidate all of Lance Armstrong's wins and award them to the people he "beat," but Armstrong was actually the one who hadn't legitimately earned his wins in the first place. Major league baseball's pre-1947 record books are less meaningful when you consider that only white people were allowed to play. Babe Ruth was undeniably great, but that's a harder thing to measure when you consider the competition he might've had if the league were integrated in his day.
“Disadvantaged” is a condition which is politically determined. It being based in any kind of objective reality is pure fantasy.
The problem here is that you are seeking to use the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The inference is that without perfect, empirical definitions of things like 'disadvantaged,' there can be no valid definition at all. At the very root of the problem is the fact that the reverse has never been true. The best definition of 'human' would be at the base genetic level. People of any race can produce viable offspring with people of any other race. We're all human. Therefore, we should all be treated equally.
Unfortunately, our history is riddled with unscientific, pseudoscientific, non-objective definitions used to determine who's in and who's out. As such, people in the US with physical traits that are typically associated with African heritage are routinely and systemically treated differently, in big and small ways that effectively put them at a competitive disadvantage in the larger social and economic society. To then flip things around and insist that any remedies for this effect must be based entirely on objective and empirical definitions is simply adding insult to injury.
The best available definitions of things like who is disadvantaged are the same definitions that we all know have been and are being used to create those disadvantages in the first place. Until we remove from the entire socio-economic system the use of unobjective definitions to treat people wrongly, we are forced to use those same unobjective definitions to right those wrongs.
When one compares affirmative action to reverse discrimination they are assuming that a level playing field exists. It doesn't. A reduction in privilege of the dominant race in a society whose operating system is biased against other races, one which is backed by hundreds of years of treating other races as sub-human, is not equivalent to reverse discrimination. It's a small gesture of corrective and remedial action to address a huge inequity.
When one references the Supreme Court, or conflates it to be akin to a "Divine Court" of absolute justice, they fail to see that the court is also part of the same institution that codified and protected, due to constitutionally enacted tenets, the unequal and inhumane treatment of one race by another. What is accepted by many as the binding fabric of our republic was deeply flawed and far from being a divine inspiration. It was created by man, had race inequality baked into it, and was subject to all of the flaws and biases that are part of the human condition. Yes there have been amendments, corrections, rulings made, words spoken, and actions taken over the years to scrub the most abhorrent stains from the founding documents and laws that define the fabric of our society. But a lot of what was baked into US society and culture from its earliest days persists to this day, both the good parts and the bad parts, regardless of what exists in the documents.
Change comes easy on paper, but it comes much harder in the hearts of man. This is especially true when the signals that trigger the systemic and institutionalized social mechanisms of discrimination cannot be hidden from view or kept to oneself. Race neutrality is an abstract notion that does not exist in human minds or in society or culture as a whole. Top-down laws and edicts haven't moved the needle, at least not fast or far enough. Change must come from the bottom-up and it must be tangible, implementable, and measurable. Even a cursory or narrowly focused blinder perspective of where we are today as a society and culture tells an unflattering story. The data doesn't lie.
The long standing, entrenched systems and institutions that are dominating the status quo of institutionalized inequity are very resistant to change. Those in-charge are overwhelmingly those who are privileged by the status quo. They are the ones who must change and take action. Harvard University recognizes this reality and has decided that now is the time for action and is applying what they, and Apple and other companies, feel is their best possible option. If we were even remotely close to having a level playing field we could ruminate over philosophical subtleties and notions like race neutrality. What Apple and these companies are saying is that we no longer have time for philosophical musings. The suffering must end. Action is needed. Now. I agree with Harvard and Apple.
As an outsider I still am uncertain as to how this would be used to justify discrimination against Asian-Americans, which seems to be the claim here, or justify the fact that these institutions still have alumni programs if the aim is to remove entrenched privilege, which is hardly all race based in a highly unequal society.
Surely the class and race privilege of easier admission, for the wealthy and alumni, would be the first thing to go in a supposedly more egalitarian admissions system.
As it stands there are probably the descendants of slave owners who can get in to Harvard quite easily, and the descendants of Vietnamese boat people, or Sicilian serfs, who can't - even though their grades alone would get them in.
( The other criteria, like extracurricular activities are also designed to allow in the trustafarian with time on his or her hands, rather than the working class guy forced to get a job through school.)
If you read the referenced article you’ll see that Apple’s and the other tech companies who’ve weighed in on this have done so in support of affirmative action, the necessity for which is driven by the rationale behind my supporting points, i.e., systemic and institutionalized discrimination, oppression, and inequity.
Yeah, this is a controversial topic for AppleInsider to open up for comments. I appreciate everyone’s civility so far.
You didn't answer my points but referred me back to your previous statement and a statement by Apple. To re-iterate:
1) If there is a history of White American discrimination against blacks or native americans then I fail to see how the kind of affirmative action that works against Asian Americans is pay back for that. 2) If Harvard wanted to use admission policy to promote equality then removing the benefit of being related to alumni or the rich would be the first thing on the agenda. Given that the alumni would have been the (white) elite going back generations in many cases, it is likely that the actual descendants of the whites who benefited directly from slavery or Jim Crow, or previous discriminatory Harvard admission policies towards WASPS are benefitting from this policy.
Diversity policies such as this are not intended as “pay back” or reparations, or revenge. The purpose is to give people who have faced inordinate challenges just getting to the starting line an opportunity to participate in the game. It is also because ethnic and cultural diversity has value in and of itself. A lot of learning is derived from interacting with people who are different than you. Too much homogeneity at elite, ivy-league schools produces highly educated graduates who don’t understand a thing about the world around them.
Also, yes, legacy admissions policies should be discarded. Not only does it echo previous racial discrimination, it also reinforces concentration of wealth without merit by assuring that the children of the well-connected are themselves well-connected, while everyone else remains in their own caste.
If the idea was to give people with inordinate challenges it could be biased towards people's class which would include more people of colour, in general. If anything legacy admissions should be controlled against. If grandpa made it to Harvard, you are out.
Comments
Also, yes, legacy admissions policies should be discarded. Not only does it echo previous racial discrimination, it also reinforces concentration of wealth without merit by assuring that the children of the well-connected are themselves well-connected, while everyone else remains in their own caste.
Thats quite uncivil of you.
I must remind you that removing comments is in itself a human rights violation (freedom of speech).
I want to remove/delete my account and remove all info (all my comments) with it.
Your site doesn't allow me to do that, which is in violation of the U.S. law.
So, since your very good at removing comments (without even indication that), please make available that I (and others) can completely remove my account and all information that goes with it.
I think my comments are of value and not to be thrown away without any notice.
I now delete my account as a consequence.
Slots for volley ball, rowing, legacy admissions, endow a professorship, library wing, ... always seemed a fair way to allow buying kids entry into college, regardless of merit, or benefit to society as a whole.
Before these bribe cases I thought the only “illegal” and “unfair” way to get into college was affirmative action.
Moderating comments in an internet forum is not a human rights violation, and instead, is required to be done as a matter of US law. There is no law that mandates deletion of all content nor to provide a mechanism for others, including the poster, to do so.
I have fixed that "delete my account" thing for you. It's good that you think all your comments in this thread are of value, but nobody else has to think so.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/us/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-americans.html
"the documents showed, students in 2013 whose race was listed as white, Asian, other or unknown needed to score at least 1350 (for women) or 1380 (for men) to receive a letter, while black, Hispanic, Native American or other minority students of either sex needed an 1100 or better."
There has been mention of having a level playing field a few times but if you have a standard test that everybody takes, that's a pretty level playing field and using different scores for different groups makes it not level, at least that aspect of it. Although the final admissions aren't just based on scores, they are obviously a strong factor in the decision if you are trying to assess the best academic abilities from a profile ( https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/massachusetts/harvard-university/admission/ ). The question is how to handle situations where different identity groups achieve different results on the same tests on aggregate.
The stance on affirmative action seems to differ by state:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/22/supreme-court-says-states-can-ban-affirmative-action-8-already-have/
People voted for whether to ban it and most people overall look like they are against:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/163655/reject-considering-race-college-admissions.aspx
There's a study about the effect of those bans here:
https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/college-access/affirmative-action/the-impact-of-affirmative-action-bans-in-graduate-education/garces-impact-affirmative-action-graduate-2012.pdf
As expected, there was a reduction in minority enrolment as a result. After all, that was the point of the affirmative action.
Tech companies have seen the same issue. If they don't factor in race, the result is overrepresentation of white and asian, mostly the latter. One solution they came up with was rather than take the best people overall, take the best people from each separate race or gender. This inevitably means using a different scoring system per race or gender because they don't achieve the same results on aggregate.
This essentially weighs aptitude against representation and that's the whole argument, whether someone being represented supersedes someone else's performance.
It's an unusual setup because having a different scoring system by race and gender means saying that people's abilities or intellect varies by race or gender. That's pretty widely regarded as unacceptable, except in things like sports where men and women are separated. It's given a pass by some in these situations because the intention is deemed to be positive, it's regarded as positive discrimination because it improves representation for underrepresented groups but in cases of limited opportunities, it will adversely affect other groups.
If people (hopefully) start from the premise that abilities and intellect don't vary by race or gender and it's still assumed that every institution ought to have exactly equal representation of each identity then there has to be other factors to consider as reasons for the underrepresentation. In cases where they banned the use of race, they started considering socioeconomic factors like household income and which regions people came from and that helps.
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/what-can-we-learn-from-states-that-ban-affirmative-action/
For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity.
When institutions start implementing explicitly discriminatory policies to counter issues that are assumed to arise from identity discrimination and not aptitude then it's going to discriminate against someone else. It seems to be a common thing now where people think that countering one problem means implementing the opposite problem to balance it out, so countering perceived discrimination of group A means discriminating against group B. The opposite of any form of discrimination is no discrimination at all. This has slower results though, which is why people try to force the numbers by taking more extreme measures.
As people have mentioned, there are other issues that came to light in the admissions scandals where links with college staff give a better chance of getting in as well as payments or the expectation of payments due to having wealthy family members so it's a corrupt process but all these things that come out in the wash have the negative effect that people then see the admissions are only due to this special treatment and it's not fair on people who get there without it, especially underrepresented minorities who are accepted on merit alone.
I don't often comment much here, but I logged in just to say that. Bravo.
"There has been mention of having a level playing field a few times but if you have a standard test that everybody takes, that's a pretty level playing field and using different scores for different groups makes it not level, at least that aspect of it."
This statement makes at least two assumptions that are not necessarily true. The first assumption is one of great faith in the writers of a given test. For the most part, as long as you're not using word problems, you can create a mathematics test that will accurately measure knowledge of mathematics. As soon as you get beyond that, however, it's extremely difficult to create a test that accurately measures what's intended, without problems of misunderstanding and misinterpretation cropping up. This is why there is a significant industry in teaching people how to improve their scores on specific standardized tests. Just understanding the intent and structure of a given test can improve one's score. Add on top of that various linguistic and cultural assumptions that mismatch between test creator and test takers, and you get a lot of variables that can make that playing field a lot more bumpy than you assume.
The second assumption is much more broad, and that is the assumption that everyone has had equal opportunities leading up to arriving at the test center on test day. We know this is not the case. Multi-generational socioeconomic factors mean that basic educational opportunities are significantly affected by both individual wealth and the aggregate wealth of the community where an individual lives. Lower community wealth equals under-funded schools. Lower individual wealth means lack of individual resources (books, computers, broadband, parental education level, parental time available to help with education, etc.) on top of whatever the community has. A kid who grows up rich in a rich neighborhood has better public schools, plus optional access to private schools, plus books, computers, and internet, plus parents who were probably well educated who can help with homework or pay tutors for that help. They make movies about people who do well despite growing up poor specifically because their low-probability outcome is dramatic and uplifting. The attendant proclamations of 'because this person could escape poverty and succeed, so can everyone else' is simply not borne out by reality. While there are plenty of examples of white kids stuck in poverty in the US, there is sadly a very strong overall correlation between lower wealth and growing up black in the US. This has nothing to do with intellectual capacity and everything to do with a wealth-based negative feedback loop. Social and financial institutions in America have made certain for hundreds of years that black people will have a very hard time gaining and building wealth. All this is to say that it's very unlikely that everyone arrives to take your standardized test with equal opportunity to prepare.
"This essentially weighs aptitude against representation and that's the whole argument, whether someone being represented supersedes someone else's performance."
Due to the factors discussed above, it is unwise to assume that a standardized test accurately weighs aptitude as opposed to variations in opportunity leading up to the test.
"For the most part, privilege is an issue of circumstance rather than identity. Kim Kardashian's kids are not underprivileged because they are black, they are the epitome of privilege being born into wealth and fame. Similarly a white kid born in a trailer park to drug-addicted parents is not born into privilege because they are white, their circumstances are very much underprivileged. Institutions using socioeconomic factors is a fairer way to address inequalities between people than their identity."
This assumption is simply incorrect. People who are black in America have negative experiences specifically due to the color of their skin, regardless of their circumstances of wealth. This is not an occasional thing. It is every single day. Not even Oprah is rich and famous enough to be insulated from the experience of someone seeing a black lady who can't possibly be in the right place to buy an overpriced handbag. Keegan Michael-Key related on Colbert last week an experience of being pulled over by the police for being 'in the wrong neighborhood,' but then being 'saved' when the cop recognized him as a famous person. For a non-famous, well-dressed black person driving a nice car in a rich neighborhood? 'Where'd you get that car, boy?' That white kid born into a trailer park to drug addicted parents? If he cleans up and dresses nice, he can still drive all up and down that rich neighborhood in a nice car without ever being stopped, even if he stole the car in the first place. That's the race-based privilege that comes regardless of circumstance.
This is why the attitude, particularly strongly held in the tech industry, that simply claiming impartiality and basing everything on some sort of clinical measurement of merit misses the boat by a long shot. Even though you are individually well-intentioned and try real hard to not see race or gender or other factors, it is simply wrong to assume that your present goodwill, while ignoring everything that happened before this moment, leads to a merit-based, level playing field.
"But yeh, in a zero sum game, every time a disadvantaged person is provided an opportunity somebody else is denied."
This even makes an incorrect assumption. This infers the person who is now "denied" is in reality more deserving than the "disadvantaged" person, even though "disadvantage" literally means having advantage taken away. Sure, it was profoundly disappointing to invalidate all of Lance Armstrong's wins and award them to the people he "beat," but Armstrong was actually the one who hadn't legitimately earned his wins in the first place. Major league baseball's pre-1947 record books are less meaningful when you consider that only white people were allowed to play. Babe Ruth was undeniably great, but that's a harder thing to measure when you consider the competition he might've had if the league were integrated in his day.
Unfortunately, our history is riddled with unscientific, pseudoscientific, non-objective definitions used to determine who's in and who's out. As such, people in the US with physical traits that are typically associated with African heritage are routinely and systemically treated differently, in big and small ways that effectively put them at a competitive disadvantage in the larger social and economic society. To then flip things around and insist that any remedies for this effect must be based entirely on objective and empirical definitions is simply adding insult to injury.
The best available definitions of things like who is disadvantaged are the same definitions that we all know have been and are being used to create those disadvantages in the first place. Until we remove from the entire socio-economic system the use of unobjective definitions to treat people wrongly, we are forced to use those same unobjective definitions to right those wrongs.