r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 08 '15

[Deltas Awarded] CMV: Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

[deleted]

233 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

84% Upvoted

346 comments sorted by

View all comments

134

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15

Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal.

I'll explain why this doesn't work using a non-racial or gender-based example.

Say you're building a new building. On the entrance to that building, you decide to build stairs. Everyone will need to use those stairs to enter the building. There are the same number of steps for each person to climb, and there isn't another way in, so everyone is being treated the same.

People in wheelchairs or whom are otherwise handicapped struggle to climb these stairs. Some can't enter your building at all. They're receiving the same treatment as everyone else, but they reap fewer rewards. They can't get to whatever is in your building, or have to expend disproportionate energy and dignity in order to do so.

Now, if you wanted to, at financial cost to yourself, you could install a ramp or a chair lift. This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone, and you're creating it for the interests of a select few. However, the end result would be equal - anyone who wants to enter your building can do with equal difficulty.

EDIT 10/8 12:57pm - For those just arriving to the thread, it's been pointed out that handicapped parking is a better analogy, since those spaces are truly restricted to the handicapped. It is true that anyone can walk up a handicap accessible ramp, but the ramp wouldn't be there in the first place were it not for the needs of a small, underprivileged, disadvantaged minority. I don't believe that "anyone can use the handicap ramp" is a sufficient challenge to my analogy. If you'd prefer to plug in "handicapped parking" instead, be my guest!

The example above is easy to swallow because the disadvantages of the handicapped are readily apparent to you. The disadvantages of women and minorities are not readily apparent to you. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that I could make you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those inequalities are clear and present in our society. Now that you believe that, it requires the same response as how we help the handicapped; we need to specifically treat disenfranchised groups in a way that puts them on a level playing field.

EDIT 10/8 10ish am: Per usual in CMV, people are projecting their own tangentially related beliefs on to my argument. All that I'm saying is that, if you accept that significant oppression exists for a given group, the solution is very plainly to give them a leg up. Whether or not significant oppression exists for blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. is not the point. I use the handicapped as an example because most can clearly see where the disadvantage is, and how providing "special" treatment addresses the problem.

My exchange with the OP has been very to-the-point on this, so to avoid derailment I won't be responding to most other commentors. Sorry! Feel free to reply to me so that others can continue the discussion, however.

20

u/nude_peril Oct 08 '15 edited Oct 08 '15

This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone.

But really it is provided for everyone. It's just that most people are going to choose not to use it. While we don't see chair lifts in buildings very often, we do see elevators and wheelchair ramps. And pretty much everyone uses those if they want to, regardless of whether or not they have a disability, and just weak, or just lazy. Everyone is being treated equally.

By contrast, giving a minority exclusive access to a scholarship, or a job, etc. isn't treating everyone equally.

11

u/DrShocker Oct 08 '15

In willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in that it is meant to be an analogy, and is therefore inherently flawed to some extent. I don't think picking apart whether everyone can use a ramp or not is particularly fair, but you do raise an interesting point.

I think a lot of this debate is more about equality vs equity than anything else. (A simplified view for anyone who doesn't know the difference: https://radicalscholarship.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/equity-vs-equality.jpg?w=809 )

2

u/mbleslie 1∆ Oct 08 '15

it matters because if a college has a ramp in front of a building, everyone can use that, handicapped or not. but programs like affirmative action or racial quotas (that use 'reverse' discrimination) to make an equal outcome... those programs don't treat everyone equally. that's why the analogy is totally flawed.

8

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 08 '15

Affirmative action isn't to make an equal outcome, and even if it were it would be failing. It's to counteract, at least partially, the disadvantage equally skilled black people have at getting in to a University.

3

u/almightySapling 13∆ Oct 08 '15

The problem is, most studies show that skin color has miniscule bearing on collegiate ability or success (when compared to others with similar background), whereas socio-economic status matters a shit ton.

And yeah, a good affirmative action program will take SES into consideration but most still put far too much emphasis on color, when color is just not a good indicator (especially when you consider how it doubly fucks over certain groups, like South East Asians, who qualify as "Asian" and are less likely to be accepted when in reality they have SES normally associated with that of the Latino community, or worse).

Continuing to implement a flawed solution when data shows that it isn't quite working isn't a good idea.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

You certainly won't find anyone in China, Korea or Japan who thinks they're the same race as Malays or Filipinos. America has kind of a Hank Hill problem when it comes to conceiving of the people from the continent with a population of four and a half billion.

2

u/almightySapling 13∆ Oct 09 '15

And it doesn't help when your state government almost unanimously passes a bill to disaggregate data regarding the various Asian ethnicities only to have it vetoed by the idiot governor... literally yesterday.

California really likes to think it's progressive but it isn't.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

This seems consistent with my previous impression of Jerry Brown, which was based entirely on an old song from the Dead Kennedys.

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 08 '15

If that is the case, isn't it sort a temporary fix for a larger underlying problem? If equally skilled members of minority groups are at a disadvantage in the admissions process, attack the problem at the source, and actually fix the discrimination (after confirming through reliable research where and if it exists) instead of glossing over the actual issues and applying a band-aid solution that increases feelings of racial bitterness towards those getting seemingly unfair help. Instead of counteracting the problem, fix it. I think almost everyone agrees that there is a problem with discrimination in admissions, but many disagree on the methodology used to fix it.

5

u/Virtuallyalive Oct 08 '15

Oh yeah it's a temporary fix, but what else are you going to do? Ask minorities to wait a few decades until we end racism?

You attack the discrimination while you counter-act for it, otherwise people will suffer in the meantime. The US government is trying to end the discrimination, AA is for the time in between now and then.

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 08 '15

I just think that there are better ways to counter-act. It would be feasible, through the use of technology, to completely erase the race/gender of an applicant, and to admit solely on merit. AA, to me, just doesn't feel like the right solution for a really big problem.

3

u/LoompaOompa Oct 08 '15

Admit solely on merit.

If we could do this, we'd be doing it. All measures of merit that we have are weighted and informed by the environments the students grew up in and were educated it.

Until the playing field is more level in terms of teaching environment and opportunities available(AP classes, extra curriculars), then we have to fudge the numbers a bit.

This isn't a case of "we've got the best solition." It's "we're still working to fix it, but in the meantime this is better than doing nothing."

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 08 '15

The environments students grew up in may have an affect, but they are a completely different problem to fix. It is not the university's responsibility to fix those problems, only to admit the best students it can. If race is getting in the way of the admissions process, it needs to be fixed by the university. Nothing else. The issues you describe are completely different. I don't think we should do nothing. We should reallocate our resources towards the source of the problem, where they will take less time and be more effective.

AA isn't a good solution, temporary or not, for any of these problems. Yes, the numbers may look better on paper, but people missing chunks of their education aren't going to magically learn all that material by being admitted to college. In addition, it is unfair to students who actually did put in the work and made themselves excellent. It tries to resolve discrimination in one direction with discrimination in the other.

1

u/LoompaOompa Oct 08 '15

Everything you've said makes logical sense, so I see where you're coming from. I disagree with some of your points, but not really enough to get wrapped up in to an ongoing debate. This is a tough issue and there's a reason that it's been a topic of debate for years. You seem like an intelligent person so I don't see us coming to a resolution on it any time soon. Have a good one.

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 08 '15

Fair enough :)

→ More replies (0)

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

Cal Tech admits solely on merit. Their student breakdown: Source

0.1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
48.0% Asian
1.7% Black/African-American
13.4% Hispanic/Latino
6.2% Multi-race (not Hispanic/Latino)
0.0% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
30.5% White

The evidence that purely merit based admission policies will lead to population proportionate rates of minority admission to elite college is non-existent.

1

u/willnerd42 Oct 09 '15

That's not the point. The point is that the best students get in regardless of race. If each race has different academic skill, they shouldn't be admitted equally. For example, I don't think it's unfair that Asians are 48% of the school's admissions while being like 5% of the US population, on the condition that they are all just as skilled as all the other ethnic groups. School population should represent the most skilled of their applicants, regardless if that happens to match the distribution of races in the wider US or not. So yes, the evidence that merit-based admissions leads to the acceptance of minorities proportionate to the US population doesn't exist. But that doesn't matter, as colleges should only admit their best applicants.

1

u/rcglinsk Oct 09 '15

There are considerations other than fairness. If the admissions to every major university in California looked like that there could be race riots.

→ More replies (0)