I advised a student to not publish evidence of reverse racism
quillette.com
quillette.com
But how do they determine ethnicity when it comes to affirmative action?
Just subjective self-identity?
Visually? I.e "measuring skulls and skin colors"?
Ask your peers what they think you are and base it on that?
Need at least N generations of ancestry to some specific place?
N % DNA match common to some specific group of genes?
The "One drop rule' says you are wrong.
E.g. according to Wikipedia, Florida passed a law in 1865 stipulating that you were black if you had at least one black great-grandparent. So if you were only one-sixteenth black, you'd have been considered black under the one-drop rule, but you weren't black in Florida.
Which is precisely my point.
Another question: how do they determine if a candidate is a trans person? Given that only self-identification counts, and it's "wrong" to only suggest that a trans person should be identified by looks, registered gender, sexual preferences or even self-chosen pronouns, anybody could declare themselves a trans person without changing how they live their life in any way, save checking the "trans" checkbox on their forms. When it comes to positive discrimination or affirmative action in favour of trans people (or probably any LGBT+ person), it's not only impossible, but potentially a PR nightmare, to check who is "eligible", so to speak, and who is not.
We do not have such measures and I was wondering what would happen if I, a white man, "self-idetified" myself as black for the sake of receiving formal positive discrimination, grants, etc.
Racists tend to determine race visually.
First, I was taught racism here. I didn't aware any racism in my home country. Here, after I became a victim of reverse racism, I learned how this industry works: holding the barometer needle and pretending the pressure are changing.
Second, for the competitiveness, we can't fool ourselves, and others as well.
If I join a competitive group that I don't deserve because of my quality, I know I don't deserve to be here, hence will feel inferior. I can fool the admission office, but cannot fool myself.
Top science requires top brains. Now I can see US is importing more and more top brains worldwide, because she cannot produce enough here. Immigration country is built on sand. Top brains can easily find other better places to live, if you don't treat them equally, no matter what the so called "original intention" is. That's how free market works.
Above are my 2 lessons.
There is difficulty of breaking out of a culture and certain cultures do not play well with classical education. Compliant cultures will always excel in a conventional schooling system, which can only approximately determine performance. The lack of individual education leads to very smart people often having trouble in school, the effect mostly lessens in higher education at some point. Additionally there is a positive feedback for behavior not relevant to education and I think that is a large problem. There are countless problems with the way people get educated, how resources are artificially restrained and how the profession of teaching is seen in wider society.
But not enough of a problem to allow for racism at any point.
The obvious part of that is how skilled the applicant is at the task to be performed in that role. This is where the "hire the one best suited for the job" argument comes in, and usually where it stops. At least in the case of a group/organisation that will work together though there is the more hidden value of differing viewpoints. That, in itself, also has value. I think there's a clear argument to be made that the value in hiring, for example, a developer with weaker (though still "good enough") programming skills in many cases could be the better option when that developer is expected to bring additional value in differing viewpoints compared to a developer having stronger programming skills but otherwise fitting the norm in the industry/business. That is, for the weaker programmer, the sum of the contributed values might still be higher than for the stronger programmer.
I think, expressing the problem this way, and being clear about it, makes it easier to reason about. If the aspects taken into consideration were expressed in this way in a job application, I would probably be easier to accept for rejected applicants too, possibly both in the parent comment and in the article.
There is however the question of what, exactly, the motivation is for diverse hiring. I'd argue that in a healthy business, it should be what I outlined above; the team is, overall, expected to perform better with more diverse viewpoints. Although, I'd wager a guess that many times is more about the image of the business than actual performance. While the image is important, and of course will affect profit, it would probably be hard to justify, publicly, such hiring choices on those grounds.
The problem here is that if this is systematic - and there is reason to believe it is systematic - then there is a chance that the next generation of elites (I'm thinking high level government bureaucrats, corporate executives and down the line towards more successful supervisors) might end up being measurably less competent than the last. Success at universities is treated as a signal of academic ability. If that signal is corrupt there are going to be some poor choices made. As troops are currently crossing the Russian border, it is worth reflecting that some decisions we do want the best and brightest working on.
Going back to using race and sex as a basis for selection is immoral and unfair, but it was the norm until recently. Many of the old white men at the top of government and corporate leadership now received more help on account of their race and sex than a young black woman is likely to receive today. I'm not saying this to justify racism today, just to say that I don't think we are likely to notice any difference by swapping one privileged class for another.
> Racism [...] is wrong and unfair to the individuals affected, but [...]
Maybe search for better "solutions".
That signal has been getting less and less reliable for a few decades at this point, even at the highest levels.
What the hell should anyone do about it?
You have to remember that you, the individual, have absolutely zero power whatsoever to make any sort of significant change. No matter what, anything you do to fight these types of systems will just make you look like a worse person, while changing nothing. Mapping out the possibilities of outcomes:
- You fight the system, win and become known (not a good thing, because remember you don't have any power to make a societal change!) or lose and not get into the college you want
- You play to the system, and it either doesn't work (same situation you were in before doing any action) or it does work (you get in!).
There is no logical scenario where you should do ANYTHING other than play into the system. So put down that 1% Hispanic.
The question then becomes who has the balls to be the first, most likely ruining their own career in the process?
A comprehensive CS education is available for free for anyone sufficiently motivated and able to structure a proper curriculum for themselves.
That leaves the credentials and weak social networks that the system provides. Well, you have four years you're no longer wasting in the system to create a portfolio and build your own network. Plenty of time.
Done.
A lot of people go to college to build that network... and also, almost every single young person does not go to college for the reason of wanting to learn. They want the piece of paper that allows them to get jobs. You have infinite potential to learn as much as you want, but that means jack to anyone who requires a degree.
And if everyone always thinks this way, nothing will improve.
It's interesting to see that we're now grouped along with the "Whites". We've played the game so well, that we're no longer in the "Others" category.
Why do climate denial or anti-vax movements exist? Its because academia lost all integrity in the eyes of the public. You can wave all the research you want in front of their eyes but no one will listen as science is just another part of marketing nowadays.
Let it sink in that speaking out the truth is career suicide and institutions publicly portrayed as sources of truth are actively pushing for it to stay that way.
Where do you get that from the article?
The author’s purpose seemed to be to make sure that “Daniel” didn’t fall victim to his own naivety. His advice was based on his own judgement of Daniel’s understanding of the situation.
Standing up for what you believe is right is great - if you understand what you’re doing, why you’re doing it, how likely you are to succeed, and the what the consequences are if you don’t.
What sucks for people like his student is that they counted as a minority and got shafted by that until they didn’t count as a minority anymore and got shafted by that too. It sucks to be an invisible minority.
Just calling affirmative action racist isn’t helping. Things are a bit more nuanced than that and should be treated as such so that useful conversations can happen instead of two sides just calling each other names. Besides, “affirmative action is racist” doesn’t fallow from “Daniel was shafted by racism” and is attackable based only on that point.
If you want to argue against affirmative action here you could say:
1) The action is taken towards a group that is already privileged (well performing university students) and is superfluous 2) That the action is more likely to build up bad feelings towards the recipients by deserving individuals that get ignored 3) That the recipients of this action can never be as secure in their achievement and will suffer doubt from outside and inside because of it
Argue your point, don’t just assert it. What be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
My comment doesn't provide new information — it's merely a laconic summation of arguments implicit in the article.
We should listen to the people that want to do science.
A white male friends is worried he will not make MD at a large US bank because he is not the right sex, race or sexual orientation...The established white male MDs are entrenched and it is the up and coming generation which is getting discriminated against.
Will people start to withhold information on race and sex in their applications for fear of being discriminated against? I think so...
Most of the men at my campus just shrugged and laughed it off. It was just one company (if memory serves right) among the dozens that came to the campus that year. I wonder now if this was happening more, but quietly. Hey, at least IBM was open about it!
This is a very difficult slope. We want to help minorities. But we also want to be fair to others at the same time. In the case of academia, it is much worse situation simply because there is a huge pool of qualified applicants for a very small number of positions.
They're known for ageism[1] amongst other things, which won't affect new graduates but should be seen as a canary in a coal mine.
If they're penalising people solely based on age what are the chances they'll also penalise you for not matching some other non-performance based criteria?
1. https://www.consultancy.uk/news/30498/ibm-accused-of-ageism-...
don't you see how that affects new graduates chances of being hired?
Anyway, the illogic of this movement already starts with the fact that only certain characteristics are seen as a source of discrimination, while others are not. Skin color and gender are known to be factors of discrimination. But what about "beauty," "social origin" or "age"? It is known from studies that attractive people are considered to be more competent or more successful and are promoted more often - less attractive people therefore suffer an unfair disadvantage. Shouldn't this therefore also become part of any effort to stop discrimination?
> I’d also formed a hypothesis, based on a certain bluntness and lack of social tact he exhibited, that Daniel might be on the autism/Asperger’s spectrum.
And yet I am not sure what people mean to communicate by bringing in autism and Asperger's into the picture. What is up with questioning people's mental health just to explain bluntness and lack of social tact? Is that an instant self-correction to the negative observation about somebody, to remind yourself to be compassionate just in case?
For one thing, I wouldn't necessarily consider Autism or Aspergers a mental health condition. It's certainly a difference in mental functional, but unlike something like depression it's not so clear cut that it's always a negative thing.
Secondly, I think the quality of an autistic outlook on the world is very different to simply lacking social tact. It also typically includes a disregard for social norms (sometimes because they are not understood, but sometimes also because they are understood but are rejected), and a very strong sense of morality, both of which are relevant here.
Are you thinking about high functioning autism? Sure, sometimes it's just "that person has weird behaviours". But on the other side of scale there are people who cannot communicate at a level required for independent daily living.
There certainly are. But it's pretty clear that isn't what was being talked about in the original article as the person in question was university student who was writing papers and having an extended conversation with the author of the article.
> Sure, sometimes it's just "that person has weird behaviours"
I don't think that's quite the right way to look at it. This is true on a surface level, but I think there is quite a fundamental difference in cognitive processing going on under the surface. And FWIW, a lot of those differences in thinking are shared between those who are better at communicating and those for whom that is a real struggle.
I was a substitute teacher for a special autism/asperger class with 15yo students, in math.
Some half of them obviously had clinical introvert problems.
I was asked not to touch the students and I really understand why, becouse my first instinct was to touch them when someone didn't seem to hear me.
But like half of them seemed to be there for playing Magic the Gathering too much.
I believe what's meant to be communicated is that since this would be a lifelong deficiency engaging in common social interactions, that a certain amount of leeway would be appropriate.
Otherwise it isn't really relevant. Not much else about him is revealed.
Maybe not "explain" but "describe"? Asperger leads not to just any bluntness, but to very specific, in specific situations.
I saw this reference to Asperger as one of key pieces of a puzzle. He was not just stupid person when he planned to overthrow committee. He was bright enough but not in his social decisions. Moreover the author poses a question "did I do the best when discouraged him". If person have troubles grasping the nuanced picture of a social interactions, then the best strategy for him to trust his advisor more than his own ideas.
If he was not Asperger (and he might be not, he was not diagnosed), then his advisor could left his to his own devices without experiencing a moral dilemma: student should be adult enough to think for himself in such situations, without his advisor making decision and then manipulating his advisee by giving him a biased sample of facts and thoughts.
As for Daniel, if it were me, I would have resorted to changing my identity (although I'm not sure this would work in practical terms in this given instance). Superficially, this seems petty, but I think at this point it's the only way to effect change in so called progressive societies.
Affirmative action should redesigned to specifically target the founding/native group of black Americans that were systematically disenfranchised, enslaved, and robbed by the dominant society.
Given how many Americans as a whole don't go to a university at all, and a huge majority don't go to a "top university" (however you measure that), I think this phrasing from the dean should be nominated for some kind of Orwellian Newspeak of the Year award.
I realize this may not be feasible. But being a growing society does come with benefits.
> "I’ve never been quite clear on how we’re supposed to get over centuries of judging people by their skin color or ethnicity by paying more and more attention to skin color and ethnicity."
This seems like the author fundamentally doesn't understand the difference between equality and equity.
I'll cite the Monopoly example. If you and I are 100 turns in to a game where I have been given $2000 every time I pass GO, and you have been given $2, you can't just give both of us $200 going forward and expect our inequality to be solved. For starters, I probably own all the board.
What's the solution? I don't know. But it's clear from this wording that the author is unwilling to accept relatively small concessions to fix enormous historical oppression.
> the author is unwilling to accept relatively small concessions to fix enormous historical oppression
1) why is it "clear"? You where just "suspicious" but now you are certain?
2) it's not obvious these concession are either small (certainly not for "Daniel"), or that they'll fix anything (they might make them worse).
3) lowering standards doesn't actually mean equality - the new grad is qualified on paper, but not as qualified in practise. I've heard arguments that this doesn't matter - fair enough, but it's an argument that assumes how meaningless educational standard are, and I'm not sure that applies across the board - the US still has to compete with the rest of the world.
4) the concession is not official, but apparently covert, which is objectionable in itself - you might agree with AA, but disagree with extra-legal, "off-the-books" AA.
It's literally the most common talking point I have ever seen. It is neither original nor a good argument at all.
Maybe it isn't original, but so what - its antithesis is also common.
> What's the solution? I don't know. But it's clear from this wording that the author is unwilling to accept relatively small concessions to fix enormous historical oppression.
The confession you want the teacher to just accept is bullshit. Why should anybody accept a relatively huge advantage for some of an ethnic group (while the rest of that group gets nothing) as an acceptable form of restitution? Worse still, the advantage goes to people in that group that are already advantaged!
I honestly see this as a problem, the problem that you need to be important enough in you “group” to get those advantages to get ahead while the rest need to go without. Can you imagine how it feels to be on the wrong side of that line? These types of practices aren’t giving people who need a leg up a leg up. They are pulling more lines where more people landing on the wrong side of.
I know that the type of solution I prefer is many, many small solutions rather than a few big ones. If I land on the right side of some and the wrong side of others I still have something that boosts my self worth and supports me in some small way.
P.S.: The “equality vs equity” argument makes more sense too if you leave skin color out of it. When I think about equity I think about water fountains and entryway that are accessible for people in a wheelchair, not about skin color.
My understanding is racial equality is treating people the same regardless of race. Racial equity is using various forms of racial discrimination to generate desired outcomes.
Is there a way to achieve racial equity without using racial discrimination?
I think part of the problem we're having is we're not having the right conversation, what we should be discussing is why are there only N "good jobs." Even better, why are there any "bad jobs"? What does it mean for a job to be bad and why then would we expect, even demand, that people do such jobs? I think we'll have more meaningful and productive conversations focusing on those questions rather than focusing on race.
Only problems
- is "merit" an indicator of knowing to do the job better?
- are you able to evaluate "merit" - specifically whether a person started from second base or not?
Unfortunately by voting for democrats you are giving a democratic mandate for this type of racist policy. Stop doing it.
I suppose, despite the provenance of the data, that causal inferences taken on this data are valid because (1) he seems to be on the spectrum, (2) did well in physics, and (3) did "various types of statistical analysis".
And going to the specifics of the student "evidence", the deans list is extremely biased for socioeconomic conditions (which are correlated to race or ethnicity), so by using that as the single data source, the student built an admission's list extremely biased towards rich (white) people. I find it incredible that the student couldn't see such glaring bias in his study, and that he would leap to such unfounded conclusions.
You could give an advantage to people who grew up in poor areas, had poor parents, graduated from poorly preforming schools (or failed to graduate at all), etc. If you wanted to help people who faced more adversity.
Affirmative action discriminates in favour of the children of millionaires who had every opportunity to succeed but happen to be black, and against white and Asian kids who grew up in a trailer park and went to a school that couldn't afford books.
It's what happens when you target statistics without caring about people. People are individuals, not statistical representatives of demographic groups. You can't fix discrimination by discriminating, but you can hide it and that's what affermtive action seeks to do.
My personal heritage includes one of mankind's most horrific periods of slavery.
Can you tell me which external difficulties I have faced? Can you tell me what I am owed by society?
Apparently you base it all on their skin color, unless I am misreading OP's statement. Doesn't seem logical, maybe they can clarify.
Affirmative action is not "measuring someone's achievements relatively to the external difficulties they faced along the way". It is racial discrimination against whites and asians.
Affirmative action does not measure people by external difficulties they faced. It measures people by their races and seek to benefit some races over others - being fueled by racial resentment.
Somebody needed to explain that to Europeans for about 600 years.
There are several things that I notice in this paragraph. The first is that the underlying claims deserve to be analysed with the same rigor that Daniel applied in creating his spreadsheet. If, for example, the chances of a Black male getting a tenure-track position are even lower than that of a White male getting one, then however low the absolute values, one could make a coherent argument for affirmative action. Without the data I can't judge the situation any better than just forming a personal opinion.
The claim that it's virtually impossible for a White male to get a tenure-track position is undoubtedly true (for a not completely unreasonable definition of "virtually"), that is by design and has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with academia's business model in extracting maximum surplus from grad students and non-tenured faculty. For example, ACOUP (that some HN readers will be familiar with) talks about how terrible the grad student experience is in the humanities [1], and others have likened academia to a drugs gang [2], which I think was also posted on HN when it came out. Tenured positions are in very short supply by design, and subscribers to ACOUP's newsletter can read the author's regular updates on his attempts to get a tenured position (so far with no luck). Some of these are public in his "Fireside Friday" threads.
Also, the bar for a tenured position (or even tenure-track position) is much higher than "had finished his PhD and published a book". Generally in STEM, being able to obtain grant income and produce a steady stream of not-too-terrible publications are the table stakes.
One of the problems why, as the article mentions, "I’d seen plenty of searches in which members of the hiring committee went out of their way to try to hire persons of color" but many of these searches still fail, is that there might be structural problems in the pipeline before you come to the tenure-track decisions, that means PoC are much less likely to get a PhD in the subject in the first place. If this could be shown with the same rigour as Daniel did to demonstrate affirmative action later on in the pipeline, then there are many other motives than "white liberal guilt" for affirmative action later on.
[1] https://acoup.blog/2021/10/01/collections-so-you-want-to-go-... [2] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/12/11/ho...
The definition that's usually used in sociology involves structural power and, perhaps most importantly, white supremacy. Particularly the latter point means that the term racism, in the academic context, always refers to power dynamics that flow out of white supremacy.
There are still valid critiques (such as, arguably, unfalsifiablity) and, personally, I don't think the directionality built into the term help us as much as it hinders the conversation—especially given the divergence from the colloquial meaning of "racism". At the same time, though, systemic power is on the side of (certain) white people and the effects of discrimination are compounded by systemic power differentials. It seems important to bring that aspect of racism into the conversation.
Pretty typical for Americans to make themselves the center of the definition of a basic term.
Just because some academics redefine a term, doesn't make someone else's argument invalid.
Not my field (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but I believe there are other terms like "racial discrimination" that didn't come from white supremacist thought, and that can be used in academia to describe mistreatment of white people on the basis of their skin.
This does mean that, yes, so-called 'reverse' racism in such contexts, particularly when accompanied by systemic prejudice against e.g. whites and asians (such as an implied theory that they have less "character", "well-roundedness" or "diversity" than other groups) is in fact racism.
That is 100% american. I would advise against going to Europe, the east specifically, and claim that "you can't be racist against whites".
And to be rational systemic racism is just a subset of the concept of racism as a whole.
This term, reverse racism, has always confused me. What would then racism and reverse racism be defined in Japan a predominant Japanese society?
The definition in itself is racist. It's doublethink!
Rewriting the meaning of terms so as they mean the opposite of what is socially/historically expected or contradictory is evil because it undermine discourse. As proposed by Habermas, norms are derived inter-subjectively in processes of argumentation between individuals. In this framework it's an presupposition that participants in communicative exchange are using the same linguistic expressions in the same way. The latter is tautological as any argument that is constructed with an unmeaningful term violates the three laws of logic: P is P; P is not non-P; either P or non-P. The externals social/historic and replaced meaning of the term doesn't matter for this analysis and just that they are contradictory.
TLDR: It's not even unfalsifiable, just plainly meaningless.
Maybe explain what is your problem with distinguishing these two behaviors? Are you afraid that a fix would only be applied to a subgroup? Naming patterns makes communication more efficient.
And then now define a new term, "reverse racism" to mean a better/lesser quality of racism based on which racial or ethnic group it originates from, you are being racist in your very definition.
It is as ridiculous as a square circle.
To disconnect emotions something like: scientist first not including some outliers in the data set, but after having been scolded for that, adding a few random points here and there so that he's not accused of it again. Both bad, both fabricating data, but we can still talk about them naming them differently.
That said, since racism is in the name of that subgroup, I can see parent comment's point more clearly now, and yes it makes sense, at least given that name.
I might be wrong about that, but it's my current understanding.
This happens very often because that race is also a minority.
So much so that most experience of racism is also the experience of being discriminated for being a minority.
That doesn't make racism against a majority in the wider population less racist. It just doesn't make it racism and not minority discrimination.
The "reverse" of something that isn't strictly a logical statement could mean any number of things: is "reverse racism" positive discrimination? Is it the lack of discrimination because of race? Is it discrimination because of lack of racial identity? is it simply "msicar" (racism spelled backwards)?
What one tries to say is: "Reverse racism" is supposed to mean "racist behavior towards a group of people that make out the majority of the population". That has a word: It's "racism". It unfortunately overlaps with the type of racism that happens on minorities, but there's nothing "reverse" about it. "Reverse" carries some undertone of "retributal", as in being racist back because of racist treatment... there's a whole can of worms of implied meaning here that is not well-intended or seeks to understand why people behave racist. Whereas if you use the term "racism" to describe this behavior, it's actually well-defined.
This is the really questionable comment
The term is just bad.
In this case, it could be called "race quotas" or something.
Counter question: Which discrimination based on race is right?
Well, he doesn't really "argue" it, he just asserts it, and I can't say I'm convinced, but the book is a massive bestseller and these ideas are very influential.
How can introducing more disparities reduce the average of disparities?
But I don't think we're using the word "discrimination" in the same way as each other. What I mean is this: if (say) black people are underrepresented in academia, Kendi thinks that universities should discriminate in favor of black people to rectify this disparity. And the same logic should apply across all sectors of society - we should actively discriminate everywhere until all races are equally represented in all endeavours. As Kendi puts it, "the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination." It's a simple philosophy... one might even call it simplistic.
Coleman Hughes wrote a good review of the book. I agree fully with Hughes: https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist
I can't imagine such a scenario. Maybe you could give an example?
It is not that simple. I think of it as plain racism vs acceptable/approved/sanctioned racism. In the first case, you will have the politicians and media all talking about how bad this is. In the second case, the only response you will get from this crowd is a collective "meh."
The preferred term in use seems to be "racial equity".
You should. The media won't, because it now becomes a loaded term. You can make fun of "reverse" racism, but not "sanctioned" racism.
Sometimes I wonder whose side these so-called centrist/neutral or even expressly right-wing publications are on because they often present the weakest argument in favor of an issue that is all but ready for opponents to demolish.
"Reverse" racism is because it is describing the fact that straight white men can no longer rely on their sex and race and sexual orientation to help narrow the field of competitors for whatever they want. It's the reverse of racism, in which the field of competition is narrows to those without certain apparent traits or attributes. The reverse of racism, not racism pointed the other direction.
He adopted the null hypothesis that his lack of acceptance to the program was due to random chance alone. The evidence used to reject that null hypothesis consisted of some hand-picked samples from a subpopulation of applicants with whom he had social-networking contacts (and sure, he's got some friends who don't look like him, maybe even some of his best friends), further categorized by him and his collaborator subjectively into racial groups and the proxy metric of being on the dean's list, compiled into some regression numbers of unspecified strength. There are plenty of opportunities for skew and bias an the method of his research. If this study was robust enough, there would be plenty of parties interested enough that it would be a career-making, not career-breaking publication.
The author of the piece simply wanted an anecdata to support his racist views, and if you're thinking "hell yeah, white guys gotta stand together to stop those people" you're exactly the base he's pandering to.
Let's have an intelligent discussion, rather than an ideological waste of time...
If you wish to discuss the ideas and merit behind them it would be beneficial to go to the original source, and Peterson has primacy of publication here.
Policies that ignore race increase the odds that black Americans who are born poor will die poor, and the proportion who are born poor is huge relative to other races because of the US history of slavery followed by overt discrimination.
(Worth noting: it may be possible to achieve the same goals by affirmative action around poverty, not race... But would Daniel have been satisfied were he told he was too rich for the honors program?)
No, Daniel would be happy if he was judged on his individual merit.
Honest question, what if we swing the pendulum too far with fixing the past. Do we then need to be racist again in the other direction in the future to fix that?
It's a ridiculous idea to try and tweak society at this level, and the only correct fix is unequivocally enforcing equal opportunity at the level of the individual.
We lack the power to do that. You can't control who somebody's parents are, and we observe that birth status has huge statistical significance in opportunities available to an individual.
Well... Some countries have tried experiments with making everybody wards of the state, but the observed outcomes were not desirable.
That having been said, it's a difficulty universities are already familiar with because they have to evaluate students in this fashion to determine who gets needs-based scholarships.
(Anecdotally, during my university years I lost one of my needs-based scholarships because my parents' income spiked. Of course, that income was from one of them getting a severance package upon termination...)
This may be expected given policies of the previous several decades seeking out minority students and the correlation in the US between minority membership and poverty (though there's certainly correlation / causation concerns with an assumption like that).
You can change the culture of a child by forcibly separating them from their parents, putting them in a boarding school, beating them when they try to speak their mother tongue with other children, and so on, methods that have been successfully applied in Australia and Canada, I believe. Changing the culture of an adult is more difficult, though they may have tried similar methods rather more recently in ... you know where.
You can to a certain extent change your "race" simply by changing your dress, hairstyle and name, provided your physical appearance is roughtly consistent with several "races", which is not an unusual situation in many of the societies in which "race" is a thing.
also:
> forcibly separating them
> beating them when
why is violence necessary? What - specifically - are we trying to change?
You're making extraordinary reaches to redefine words and concepts, which is another societal problem.
1. They had better weapons and better immunity to diseases (Europeans vs Native Americans).
2. There were more of them (British Settlers vs French Settlers).
So it's not like they were some true human achievements worthy of praise.
And they create a better life for their children...
Do you still think everyone should have equal opportunities and that child doesn't deserve anything better than someone who's parents didn't give a shit and wasted their lives?
Well - to the child, it's obviously unfair if the parents didn't care. But to the parents who worked hard, it's equally unfair to blame the child and say they don't deserve a better life.
This whole equity movement seems to always look at the child's perspective (surprise, in this age of childlike narcisim!) and never at the parents perspective, who wants to create a better life for future generations.
But it's actually almost equally unfair to someone in both cases. Except in the parents case if you make it completely worthless to try and improve your child's life, you are taking away a large chunk of motivation for almost all people.
Ever heard of slippery slopes? You just hit the bottom of the ravine.
It's not "completely worthless" to try to improve your child's life and plenty of people have managed to live good lives without going to the absolute best college. Many haven't even finished college. You sound like you'd be very bitter if your kids fail at school, which is not a great place to be in.
Plus, what does this say about the other people who are discriminated against daily? You just don't like it that now you have to give the "college talk" to your kids just like fathers of girls have always had to give the "some men are predators" talk to their daughters and African-Americans have had to give the "suicide by cop" talk to their kids.
Does that mean in the name of equality we should level the playing field for children advantaged by their parents? How will that affect society if you try and nullify the hard work of every parent?
Yes, it sucks for individuals.
But as long as you have entire swathes of people discriminated against, personal responsibility is not enough. You need general principles, laws, policies.
And yes, laws and policies can be blunt instruments and some people get hurt. Yet we still use them because on aggregate they help us.
And no, I don't believe that people will be less motivated to take care of their kids even if they're at a disadvantage. If anything, I'd just make these shadowy ideas in the article actual written policies. "Yes, we only accept new students in proportion to population quotas". People will adapt.
And yes I know it was for a different group, what you are proposing is creating the same situation but in reverse, over time.
Two wrongs make a right?
For example the proportional representation. Just always have it always be proportional, no matter how the distribution changes. That's fair (again, probably unpleasant for some groups).
And these historical example apply to modern America less because of various laws that level the playing field. I' mean cultural differences between modern groups.
The initial land was taken over by Europeans, by force, then the Westward expansion was also by force and the land was given to Europeans.
After WW2 there were huge investments into infrastructure and housing and those were given to... Europeans.
Kind of hard to catch up with people who have everything. You need to be exceptional and large groups of people aren't really exceptional. Most people just stay where they are (geographically and socially).
Can you clarify what you mean by this. Racial Europeans? Does that include the mass immigration of Irish? Or are you talking about the British and other colonial powers?
> Kind of hard to catch up with people who have everything
What people? Europeans? There are plenty of poor whites, and plenty wealthy immigrants who "started with nothing".
Also, it appears the context of this post is wrt to someone who might be Asian - how did those non-European immigrants end up on the wrong side of this? Seems that that group managed to catch up, and are now being penalised for it.
Let's assume that you have group A, in a position of power, wealth, education, connections, etc.
There is also group B, which has none of that.
Let's assume that naturally group A doesn't want to give that up. If you don't agree, you don't know enough about human nature and I'd really like to see studies that back up your opinion.
Let's assume that most people are ordinary and statistically most people don't break through to a higher position.
How do you equalize groups A and B?
None of this is new, the Ancient Greeks knew this (zoon politikon).
So your proposal is just to abandon the second group, am I right?
Ok, I'll answer you, but you won't like it.
> Why is it fair to penalize someone for the color of their skin?
Because it's already happening in real life... It's just not codified anymore, or it isn't codified in obvious ways (see crack cocaine vs cocaine).
So this "penalizing" is just evening the scales.
> I thought the whole point is to make things better for people?
You need both the carrot and the stick. A dominant group rarely abandons its position willingly.
Eisenhower had to send freaking paratroopers to enforce desegregation in schools.
You're right, discrimination happens and it's not codified. So the solution is to start codifying discrimination? That kind of thing is either wrong or it isn't. The ends don't justify the means.
There are plenty poor whites, many struggling in red states / rust belt, that don't have power, wealth, education, connections etc. Would it be reasonable to group them with other whites who do have those connections to offset that to justify positive discrimination on a racial black/white basis?
Same thing, proportional representation, but based on social classes.
However, how do you do that and how do you prevent it from being gamed? Are universities allowed to ask for paychecks going 10 years back? Asset lists? ZIP codes for where the family lived in the last 10 years? Proof that you've been on the dole?
The US already keeps tabs on socioeconomic status in the form of the IRS and tax laws, so any hidden income/assets would have to answer to that first.
When you take from those that contribute to society and give to those that don't, in order to equalize, fewer and fewer will keep contributing.
The game is rigged.
In Romanian we say "cine se aseamănă, se adună": "those who are alike, gather together".
It's something that needs to be fought actively otherwise the first mover advantage is eternal.
Why do Americans speak English? Surely the non-British immigrants greatly outnumber the British ones?