Race-neutral policies and principles that support racism

[Loren Pechtel]

Please substantiate your claim of fact (the purpose) with a link.

Note how the 10% bit started showing up where there was a backlash against discriminatory admissions policies. We never heard anything of it until then. It's a way to discriminate without appearing to discriminate, akin to things like height requirements to keep out women.

It discriminates against anyone who did not graduate in the top 10% of their class - which means any student of any race, creed, color, religion, etc... who is not in the top 10% of their class is "discriminated" against.

You think they're going to admit why they're doing it?

 

[laughing dog]

Please substantiate your claim of fact (the purpose) with a link.

Note how the 10% bit started showing up where there was a backlash against discriminatory admissions policies. We never heard anything of it until then. It's a way to discriminate without appearing to discriminate, akin to things like height requirements to keep out women.

It discriminates against anyone who did not graduate in the top 10% of their class - which means any student of any race, creed, color, religion, etc... who is not in the top 10% of their class is "discriminated" against.

You think they're going to admit why they're doing it?

Since it is not discrimination by race, why not? After all, it helps students for low SES high schools.

But, your response indicates you have no factual basis for your bigoted claims.

 

[J842P]

I think class rank is a valid thing to consider when looking at applications. Certainly, people who finish at the top of their otherwise poorly performing schools should be given a chance. Of course, this should be tempered somewhat so as not to completely mismatch the applicant, because that can and does have bad consequences... it is a balancing act.

In my own experience, I attended a state "flagship" university, and I came from the part of the state with "good schools". Indeed, I was very, very fortunate. When I met a lot of the kids that were let in from other parts of the state, they were often valedictorians, but their preparation was miles behind the typical student from my high school. And yes, they definitely did have to work hard to catch up, but here's the thing, the ones that I knew did catch up. And you can definitely argue that doing well in high school is good evidence for their ability to do that. At least for public universities, their mission has to be to provide an education for the students from all parts of the state who show promise. Or else, my university could have probably filled its entire class from my county alone.

 

[ronburgundy]

People have brought up individuals being personally biased towards ingroups, which is not directly relevant to the OP. Informal individual bias is one thing and often unavoidable. Though is of a different nature and psychology when done by minority group members, especially recent immigrants, than when done by majority group members. The former often being a type of self defense due to vulnerability, while the latter being a more offensive (in both senses) form of racism that presumes other inferiority.

Why do you feel like some ingroup preferences are problematic and others are not? In particular, why is ingroup preference for one's own race "racism" as well as "presuming inferiority", if and only if your racial ingroup is the majority?

For the same reason that I think that punching someone in the face whose assaulting you is different and less immoral than punching someone in the face whose lying on the ground bleeding from just haven been punched by someone else.

More generally, because context of an action reveals the motive of the action. If your group is already a majority group with most of the power and no plausible threat from the minority, then the only plausible motive to bias in favor of that ingroup is to ensure inequality and the superiority of one's group based on belief that one's ingroup is more deserving of that greater power.

In contrast, if one's ingroup is a minority with notably less power and often treated as inferior by the majority group, then bias for one's ingroup is a kind of "circling the wagons" or "huddling togehter for warmth" self defense. It doesn't require any negative feelings about the more powerful outgroup, and only a desire to make oneself and one's group more equal to others rather to maintain or increase inequality in one's favor that is inherent to ingroup bias by the majority.

This is the difference between "black pride" / "gay pride", which are defense mechanisms against mistreatment as inferior, vs. "straight pride" and "white pride" which are not plausibly motivated by such in any Western society and instead are offensive efforts to keep putting down the minority groups who are just trying to get up from the last time the majority put them down.

 

[repoman]

For the most part, the fraction of gay people in society does not change, but over long times racial and ethnic demographics can swing wildly.

 

[ronburgundy]

For the most part, the fraction of gay people in society does not change, but over long times racial and ethnic demographics can swing wildly.

Want to expand on how you think that is relevant? The fact that long after someone is dead their group may no longer be the majority doesn't trigger a desire to keep the minority down unless they presume their group is superior and thus losing the majority would mean an inferior society. Also, the fact that almost everyone who thinks "white pride" is a legitimate mentality also thinks "straight pride" is too, reveals that fear of losing the majority in the long term has little to do with it. It's all about the presumption that the minority is inferior and thus one should be proud to be in the majority.

 

[repoman]

Safety, not pride.

 

[ronburgundy]

Safety, not pride.

For the minority group than isn't safe. Not a plausible psychological motive for a group that for centuries has been the dominant majority with a significantly bigger power differential than even their population differential.

 

[repoman]

Safety, not pride.

For the minority group than isn't safe. Not a plausible psychological motive for a group that for centuries has been the dominant majority with a significantly bigger power differential than even their population differential.

Not talking about now, things can turn quickly.

 

[Metaphor]

If your group is already a majority group with most of the power and no plausible threat from the minority, then the only plausible motive to bias in favor of that ingroup is to ensure inequality and the superiority of one's group based on belief that one's ingroup is more deserving of that greater power.

Really? You think people's emotions are subject to that kind of reasoning?

So, when white men identify more with a film because the lead is a white male, their feelings are immoral and part of a plot. But anybody else who responds positively to a film because the lead is an x, doesn't have immoral feelings?

In contrast, if one's ingroup is a minority with notably less power and often treated as inferior by the majority group, then bias for one's ingroup is a kind of "circling the wagons" or "huddling togehter for warmth" self defense. It doesn't require any negative feelings about the more powerful outgroup, and only a desire to make oneself and one's group more equal to others rather to maintain or increase inequality in one's favor that is inherent to ingroup bias by the majority.

So, do you believe that ingroup and outgroup bias is only and always about defensiveness?