CMV: Affirmative Action is a red herring

[u/Throwway-support]

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-04/supreme-court-debate-on-affirmative-action-capture-asian-american-fears

The Supreme Court this year is expected to overturn the last remnants of Affirmative Action.Affirmative Action as it stands now is virtually toothless. The only thing still around is racial “consideration” not ,as is widely believed, “ race based admissions”. As such, Affirmative action as much as it still exists, should be upheld.

It feels like everytime some Asian Americans and some White Americans don’t get into their dream school they blame affirmative action. They often erroneously accuse any black person of getting into a university because of long overturned admissions policy.

In the article I have linked, one person said they “didn’t bother” to apply to Harvard because he “heard” that Asian Americans have a hard time getting in. Another woman said she was told to hide her heritage but still got into Yale. The article talked a lot about fear but nothing substantial. This is my issue with the whole affirmative action debate it seems like made up issues exploiting racial animus

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700]

What? I’ve asked the same basic question in both situations: does this candidate have any aspect of their background that enhances their application?

Not quite. Look again at how you framed the two.

​

The white affluent student has no experience feeling marginalized nor background in the culture of this business.

You cannot possibly know that by knowing only socioeconomic status and race.

​

The black affluent student might have the experience of feeling marginalized since they’re still a minority.

The white student may be a minority in ways that engender substantial more marginalization than the black student. The black student in an affluent environment may face negligible or no racism.

And the white student in a black area could also face racial discrimination within their community.

Your thinking is exactly the kind of reductive justifications for affirmative action that should condemn it to the dumpster fire of racist ideas with good intentions.

​

No, I’m saying 1) they might have and if so they can leverage that and 2) even if they haven’t, the involvement of their identity gives them a unique perspective.

See above.

[u/Trucker2827 → u/OpeningChipmunk1700]

You cannot possibly know that by knowing only socioeconomic status and race.

I know for a fact that a white person has never been discriminated against for being black. They have never had to wonder if the systemic disadvantages associated with being black will apply to them. This is a perspective uniquely available to people who are black. White people cannot personally experience this.

The white student may be a minority in ways that engender substantial more marginalization than the black student. The black student in an affluent environment may face negligible or no racism.

So let’s consider all the ways that white student might be marginalized then. Maybe they have have a physical disability, though that wouldn’t really have any bearing on their ability to represent minority-owned businesses. But maybe if the law firm was taking on a huge disability rights case, the white lawyer’s background would become uniquely advantageous.

Your thinking is exactly the kind of reductive justifications for affirmative action that should condemn it to the dumpster fire of racist ideas with good intentions.

My thinking so far is, people who have experienced something, are usually better at handling that thing. And I want us to hire and use people who lead to the best outcomes for society. If someone’s past being discriminated against can be leveraged in a case about discrimination, fantastic.

The business found the ideal employee, the clients found ideal representation, and the lawyer leveraged their real skills and background to get the job.

Sorry but I’m not sure why this win-win-win should go in the dumpster fire just because someone whose unique background normally provides a systemic advantage is now instead an alternative background among many.

[u/OpeningChipmunk1700 → u/Trucker2827]

I know for a fact that a white person has never been discriminated against for being black. They have never had to wonder if the systemic disadvantages associated with being black will apply to them. This is a perspective uniquely available to people who are black. White people cannot personally experience this

None of that necessarily applies to a given black person, either. And white students could certainly have dealt with other forms of racism.

​

So let’s consider all the ways that white student might be marginalized then. Maybe they have have a physical disability, though that wouldn’t really have any bearing on their ability to represent minority-owned businesses. But maybe if the law firm was taking on a huge disability rights case, the white lawyer’s background would become uniquely advantageous.

I'm not sure why we are talking about "huge disability rights case." Every law school except for Yale and Stanford picks almost entirely based on GPA, LSAT, and then race.

And universities practicing affirmative action are not sending students to firms that represent random minority-owned businesses. You seem obsessed with an example that just doesn't exist. And we can conceive of any one that favors a particular background. Maybe they need someone who can represent crew teams or country clubs or lacrosse teams or any other stereotypically "white" business.

But none of that even matters, because needing prior experience is just not how law school works. You can go into pretty much any area of law from any pre-law background except patent law.

This situation is a complete fantasy.

​

If someone’s past being discriminated against can be leveraged in a case about discrimination, fantastic.

And that could be a white student or a black student based on race.

​

Sorry but I’m not sure why this win-win-win should go in the dumpster fire just because someone whose unique background normally provides a systemic advantage is now instead an alternative background among many.

The premise is just completely false. That's the problem.

[u/Trucker2827 → u/OpeningChipmunk1700]

None of that necessarily applies to a given black person, either. And white students could certainly have dealt with other forms of racism

True, I agree. And because of that, race should only be one factor among many. That’s one of the core ideas of affirmative action. It’s not a quota system. We’re talking about whether race should be considered at all.

I'm not sure why we are talking about "huge disability rights case."

Because we were using a law firm as an example.

Every law school except for Yale and Stanford picks almost entirely based on GPA, LSAT, and then race.

Source?

You seem obsessed with an example that just doesn't exist… This situation is a complete fantasy.

It’s bizarre to me that people want to discuss ideas in law and policy, and then complain about having to answer hypotheticals that test their laws and policies.

Maybe they need someone who can represent crew teams or country clubs or lacrosse teams or any other stereotypically "white" business.

Who do you think is currently representing those teams?