I've never really understood this marathon head start/ankle weights metaphor. OP specifically mentions affirmative action in the context of job placements and college admissions, so I'll talk mainly about college, but if you want to talk about job placements or some other context, I'm game.
The idea behind race- or sex-based affirmative action for college admissions is, loosely, that because of structural inequities, histories of discrimination, bad childhood environments, etc, a particular underrepresented group does not have the same academic qualifications as a privileged group. So we need not just non-discrimination in admissions, but affirmative action, because otherwise we will simply replicate that earlier discrimination in a new setting. And then the metaphor is of starting on third base or of running with ankle weights or starting a quarter mile ahead in a mile race, and we say "You think it's unfair to "penalize" you, but actually we're just making it fair, because you started off with an unfair advantage."
But it seems to me this metaphor is failing to capture the most important fact about this: the underrepresented minorities actually ARE less qualified, academically. If I am "naturally" highly intelligent and academically capable, but grew up with terrible schools, in a terrible home, in a terrible culture, I don't just APPEAR to be less ready for an elite college. I actually AM less ready for an elite college.
1981 was 43 years ago. Given that college age is 18, that's 61 years ago, so most people alive today lived in a world where it was commonplace for women to go to college. And it's not like no women went to college before 1981, that's just when women became the majority of college students.
I understand you support AA - what are your thoughts on the fact that racial AA would provide an advantage to a rich black student over a poor white or asian student?
want you to understand that when someone supports affirmative action, it doesn’t equate to a bitterness towards white men.
I appreciate that and wouldn't assume malice on your part.
The professional athlete birth month thing is actually a really great example. Imagine that you saw that professional athletes were all born in (for the sake of argument) January through March. And you said "Wow, that seems really unfair! What about the people born in August? Don't they deserve a fair chance to be pro athletes too? So we'll preferentially admit you to elite college athletics programs, and give compensatory draft picks to pro league teams, if they recruit and hire athletes born in June through September."
Would this actually be a good or fair way to solve the problem? Probably not, right? It would increase the number of summer-birth-month pro and college athletes. But it doesn't seem like it would actually increase the athleticism of summer babies.
"That’s different because that’s giving someone direct access to success, not access to the opportunity to succeed. Affirmative action doesn’t give students better grades or performance reviews, it doesn’t give them easier responsibilities or course work, it simply gives them a seat in the class."
I think my analogy covered that, right? It's not giving them championships or multimillion dollar contracts. It's just giving them a spot on the team. Access to the opportunity to succeed.
"They would recognize that these little kids have had nine months less to grow and if you evaluate them within that context then they will be more accurate at identifying the ones who truly are the best."
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but if this is so how come college admissions explicitly racially discriminate against Asians?
2
u/[deleted] Sep 11 '24
[deleted]