Writes Jeannie Suk Gersen in "After the fall of affirmative action, liberals and conservatives want to eliminate benefits for children of alumni. Could their logic lead to reparations?" (The New Yorker).
८ ऑगस्ट, २०२३
"Once the affirmative-action-bound language of the Court’s previous instructions is swept away, and schools are no longer legally incentivized to talk about race..."
"... in admissions in terms of 'diversity' or even any sort of 'holistic' evaluation, we could end up with a more frank and substantive discussion about equity, including not only descent from enslaved people but also severe disadvantage from state-sponsored subordination, first-generation-college-student status, and family income and wealth. Many untold possibilities might open up if we look hard for alternative ways to unlock education as a means to social mobility."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
"Once the affirmative-action-bound language of the Court’s previous instructions is swept away, and schools are no longer legally incentivized to talk about race in admissions in terms of 'diversity' or even any sort of 'holistic' evaluation, we could end up with a more frank and substantive discussion about equity, including not only descent from enslaved people but also severe disadvantage from state-sponsored subordination, first-generation-college-student status, and family income and wealth. Many untold possibilities might open up if we look hard for alternative ways to unlock education as a means to social mobility."
The unstated subtext: unlocking education as a means to indoctrinate even more malleable minds; amping up the Long March to double-time.
Many untold possibilities might open up if we look hard for alternative ways to unlock education as a means to social mobility
This is true, just not in the way you want it to be. While you’re blathering about reparations and equalizing outcomes conservatives have long been supporting equalization of opportunities. Conservatives have long supported improving minority educational opportunities. You don’t know this because you’re too busy loving on the sound of your own voice and the voices of the politicians you support who are buying minority votes. Those politicians don’t want to improve minority education because the teachers unions wouldn’t allow it.
When legacy admissions go away, the elite will retreat to private elite-insider-only clubs. It'll lead to a speakeasy culture.
Those with money: (1) figured out how to get a lot of money even without ethics, and (2) focus on preserving their assets. They'll do virtually anything to persuade, fool, bully, or bribe the masses into allowing them to maintain control.
Class warfare 101. This is the history of monarchies and oligarchies for ~10,000 years.
No reparations without repatriation. There are large numbers of the descendants of slaves in this country I would gladly pay $5 million per person to see emigrate to Sierra Leone. Permanently.
"After the fall of affirmative action, liberals and conservatives want to eliminate benefits for children of alumni. Could their logic lead to reparations?"
No.
What might lead to reparations- and it would be only a state by state thing, or even city by city- is the amount of control progressives have on a state or city. No sane person would suggest that people living today, who may have come from anywhere, are responsible and must pay for things done years ago to blood relatives of people no longer around.
My relatives were running from pogroms in Russia and Ukraine when this was going on. Why would I get that bill? Because of the color of my skin? Seriously? Can you think of a better way to build disharmony, and animosity? I mean, aside from White Liberals who will feel like they've been cleansed of all sins.
But they haven't. They won't realize until too late: they've just confessed. The requests will just be starting.
Simple solution. Except for athletes and musicians, establish minimum SAT scores and then do a lottery.
They're still not looking at IQ averages as responsible for performance averages. You'd think somebody would mention it among the possibilities other than by avoidance, which is a continuing hidden command not to bring it up.
Could their logic lead to reparations?
Sure it could. Logic, loosed from tradition, common experience, and common sense can lead to just about anything.
That's why college campuses have become madhouses.
When money is involved, there will always be a way to justify getting some.
get a freaking job, and take some personal responsibility!!
The 7/8ths of our population who are not American blacks do not owe anything to the 1/8th who are. Not. A. Dime.
Education has not been "locked" for many decades now. People in the USA have more access to more forms of education than any other society on earth, now or in the past. Anyone with the remotest competence can find a level of education appropriate for her.
Dave Begley said...
"Except for athletes and musicians, establish minimum SAT scores and then do a lottery."
Why should athletes or musicians be exempted? I don't think they make a particularly noteworthy contribution to the academic mission of a university.
"The unstated subtext: unlocking education as a means to indoctrinate even more malleable minds; amping up the Long March to double-time."
Since when--at least in America, but probably all over--has education not been propaganda? Before even getting to the educational materials themselves, starting each day reciting the Lord's Prayer and/or the Pledge of Allegiance is propaganda that isn't even subtle! (Changing our currency to read "In God We Trust", removing "E Pluribus Unum," is propaganda. Many Americans today believe "IGWT" as been our national motto since the birth of the nation, rather than a recent [post-WWII] change.)
"No reparations without repatriation. There are large numbers of the descendants of slaves in this country I would gladly pay $5 million per person to see emigrate to Sierra Leone. Permanently."
Whoa! Bull Connor, Jr.! Y'ain't too subtle there, are ye?
. . . but also severe disadvantage from state-sponsored subordination, first-generation-college-student status, and family income and wealth
There are perfectly legitimate, ought-to-be-uncontroversial reasons for an undergraduate admissions committee to consider an applicant’s record of actually overcoming actual adverse circumstances. If an applicant has been able to meet the school’s minimum academic qualifications despite [insert actually experienced adverse circumstance here], that bodes well for the applicant’s likelihood of success in a new environment in which the burden of that particular adverse circumstance has been lifted. It may also indicate a desirable adaptability more generally. Conversely, an applicant who has sailed through life without having overcome any serious challenges may not be well prepared to deal with adverse circumstances as they (likely) arise in a new environment away from home. The controversy ensues when a circumstance that is not necessarily adverse in the relevant way is accepted and over-promoted as a substitute for one that is.
The dream never dies, that compared to now, we have to "unlock education as a means to social mobility." But schools simply can't make people smarter, and smarter people will always do better in school. And smarter students will pedominantly come from better off parents. There are damn few "untold possibilities".
Hasn't anybody at the NYT read Michael Young's Rise of the Meritocracy?
"But schools simply can't make people smarter, and smarter people will always do better in school. And smarter students will pedominantly come from better off parents. There are damn few "untold possibilities"."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028962200023X
Just one 'proof' among many in a growing corpus that supports your hypothesis. Yes...college students are getting dumber. You're not imagining things. You're probably also 'right' to imagine why they are getting dumber.
The funny thing is that removing the legacy admissions will hit the elite class hardest in the this country. It isn't like there are tons and tons of working class or bourgeois conservatives who graduated from the well-known elite schools in the last 35 years, and I am willing to bet that the children of the ones that did will probably be far more qualified for such schools on merit alone.
So, I bet the recent removal of legacy admissions will be quietly scrapped at some point in the near future once the hubbub has died down.
Robert Cook said...
["The unstated subtext: unlocking education as a means to indoctrinate even more malleable minds; amping up the Long March to double-time."]
"Since when--at least in America, but probably all over--has education not been propaganda?"
Other than the examples you cite, following, the content of instructional materials was centered on teaching the rudiments of language, mathematics, and the arts - at least in K-12 schools. And in higher educational settings, as far as I know, classes weren't opened with prayer or the pledge, certainly not in the Seventies when I was at university.
"Before even getting to the educational materials themselves, starting each day reciting the Lord's Prayer and/or the Pledge of Allegiance is propaganda that isn't even subtle!"
Even less subtle is the class struggle theme that is baked into syllabi and required textbooks, especially 'systemic racism.'
"(Changing our currency to read "In God We Trust", removing "E Pluribus Unum," is propaganda."
Aside from the red herring illogic - this has nothing to do with higher education - E Pluribus Unum (strange that Android spell check doesn't recognize these words) is still on the nickel and may be on other bills besides the ones in my wallet. So it's mostly removed, but not entirely.
"Many Americans today believe "IGWT" as been our national motto since the birth of the nation, rather than a recent [post-WWII] change.)"
It began to appear on some US coins around the time of the Civil War, and most of the people I hang out with know that the motto was changed during the Eisenhower administration. I'm not sure who these "many Americans" are, but I have yet to encounter them. On the other hand, I know a few people who are unaware that New Mexico is part of the USA, which is why their license plates say "New Mexico USA."
Blogger Enigma said...
When legacy admissions go away, the elite will retreat to private elite-insider-only clubs. It'll lead to a speakeasy culture.
Those with money: (1) figured out how to get a lot of money even without ethics, and (2) focus on preserving their assets. They'll do virtually anything to persuade, fool, bully, or bribe the masses into allowing them to maintain control.
We live in an Oligarchy right now, which Obama was in a big rush to join. The Oligarchy wanted a token and there he was. Our problem is that they are incompetent at governing. They can milk the system for their own advantage but they have no interest in how the other 99% live.
According to the US 1860 census, about 1.25% (395,216) of the total US population (31.4 million) owned the 3.9 million slaves existing in the 15 slave states (of 33 total states.) Those total numbers include approximately 3,000 free Blacks who, themselves, owned about 20,000 slaves. Personally, my direct-line ancestors arrived in the US in 1688, 1725, 1753, and 1762, and my wife, a certified genealogist, has traced all of those ancestors to their arrival dates and has found no indication that any of them or their descendants ever owned a slave. Almost all of those ancestors were small merchants, small farmers, clerks or military. My older brother was the 4th to graduate from college, I was the fifth and my younger brother was the sixth. We did not come from privilege, and all of us got into college the hard way: we earned it and we paid for it. Temujin gets it right at 7:19. I would like to add that I will never voluntarily support any type of reparations for slavery that does not go back and identify those 3,000 black slave owners who existed in 1860 and include them and their progeny in the reparations queue before me and my progeny. It's all leftist claptrap anyway.
Many untold possibilities might open up if we look hard for alternative ways to unlock education as a means to social mobility."
But that's the one thing you leftists are utterly opposed to.
If you favored an educational system that acted as a means to social mobility, you'd want admissions to be focused on test scores, which are difficult to game, rather than essays, "extra-circulars", and all the other BS that favors wealth and social capital over actual intelligence and ability.
If "affirmative action" were "a means to social mobility.", then Harvard Admissions would be giving the benefit to low SES black students, and UT Austin would have embraced the "10% program", rather than complaining it was letting in "the wrong blacks".
But the reality of the Harvard "AA" program was that it ONLY gave a benefit to blacks who were NOT "economically disadvantaged."
Because it's all about evil left wing politics, not about "social mobility"
How long is descent from slaves going to be an excuse? It’s been 158 years. A majority of the people who are still doing poorly in the black community have had their first child by 16. Let’s say they produce a new generation every twenty years. That means they are nearly 8 generations away from slavery.
"Many untold possibilities might open up if we look hard for alternative ways to unlock education as a means to social mobility."
Just BTW, "social mobility" means status reversal. Someone moves up, someone else moves down. After all, we can't all be in the top quintile. It is not obvious why that is necessarily a good thing. At least, not to me. Maybe it is to Jeannie Suk Gersen. That name has a kind of a second-quintile sound to it.
Ah! Naturally. Suk, her maiden name, is Korean. What do you suppose would be the upshot of those "alternative ways" of pie-slicing she wants us to look hard for?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा