51–60 of 624 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not beat around the bush here. It's "messy" because it's racist against Asians.
How do you suggest we increase admissions for under-represented groups?
That shouldn't ever be a goal.
Unfortunately a lot of people don't realise that the real world isn't, and can't be, that way.
Set standards, let people meet them, and don't worry about what they look like.
What is the mainstream Progressive justification for discriminating against Asians?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Admission slots are not artificially scarce. You don't have to be a genius to imagine why you can't admit 100 million students into a particular school. You're still avoiding the question. Is your position "I support inclusion, only when resources are not scarce?"
> You don't have to be a genius to imagine why you can't admit 100 million students into a particular school. You don't admit 100 million students to an excellent school. You make 1 million excellent schools and admit 100 students to each. There is no reason for there to be a scarcity of excellent education in our wealthy, developed country. I support actions that make the world a more just place in the Rawlsian sens…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I never agreed to artificial scarcity in the form of admission slots, and so I'm not interested in defending any particular consequence of that system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
I don't think there's anything particularly dreamy or fanciful about a more equal educational system. My understanding is that the US, with its uniquely devolved set of educational authorities and standards is alone in the developed world in terms of the inequality of education offered to its children.
There is most definitely similar inequality in other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proportional representation is inherently fixed sum. If X% of one group is too low and you want to increase it, then increasing that representation must also reduce the representation of other groups. There's no way around this. The change to subjective admissions criteria that led to a drop from 73% Asians to under 50% at Thomas Jefferson could be said to be more inclusive of the races that saw increased representat…
> Proportional representation is inherently fixed sum. If X% of one group is too low and you want to increase it, then increasing that representation must also reduce the representation of other groups. There's no way around this. The overall quality of America's educational system is not fixed-sum. We should be creating a dozen more TJs for every one that currently exists.
To narrow down more surgically on the issue here:
> Many progressives believe in affirmative action, which doesn't say anything about the particulars of the groups that aren't being explicitly included. Nobody at all is interested in exclusion; they are interested in more inclusion.
This is incorrect. Affirmative action is absolutely just as much about exclusion as inclusion. Advantaging one group is the same thing as disadvantaging all other groups. And yes, the mainstream progressive platform is to advantage minorities other than Asians - which is the same thing as disadvantaging Asians.
My company tried to pull this argument when proposing a larger bonus to recruiters for hiring diverse candidates. "Oh it's not disadvantaging any group, it's just being more inclusive towards diverse groups". But it's not. The company phrased is as an extra $250 to ($500 vs $250) to inspire recruiters to be more inclusive towards women and URM. But you could say the normal bonus is $500, but there's a $250 penalty for non-diverse candidates. Advantaging vs disadvantaging, and inclusion vs exclusion. They're all two ends of the same lever.
What is the mainstream Progressive justification for discriminating against Asians?
There is no "mainstream Progressive (sic) justification" for discriminating against Asians, because there is no progressive political platform built on discriminating against Asians. Many progressives believe in affirmative action, which doesn't say anything about the particulars of the groups that aren't being explicitly included. Nobody at all is interested in exclusion ; they are interested in more inclusion .
In a contingency, the inclusion of a group will result in exclusion in other groups.
What is the mainstream Progressive justification for discriminating against Asians?
There is no "mainstream Progressive (sic) justification" for discriminating against Asians, because there is no progressive political platform built on discriminating against Asians. Many progressives believe in affirmative action, which doesn't say anything about the particulars of the groups that aren't being explicitly included. Nobody at all is interested in exclusion ; they are interested in more inclusion .
There is no "mainstream Progressive (sic) justification" for discriminating against Asians, because there is no progressive political platform built on discriminating against Asians.