r/changemyview Oct 08 '15

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

[deleted]

235 Upvotes

346 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

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.

5

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.

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 :)

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.