UofCali Repeals Proposition Against Favoritism&Restores Affirmative Action

[Monster647 445]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/university-of-california-restore-affirmative-action-trnd/index.html

TL;DR: University of California Board of Regents repealed Proposition 209 and provisions prohibiting the state from granting favorable treatment to anyone on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or nationality. UC will apply positive discrimination to black applicants in admission. 

I get the sentiment but the action is extremely illiterate for an institution that is supposed to be paragon of rationalism. Positive discrimination/affirmative action will only decrease competence within American society. 

Solutions must focus on providing equality of opportunity. Trying to create equality of outcome is neither desirable nor fair to all concerned. Dismantling meritocratic values might even open up the door for discrimination against minorities that are over-represented in positions of 'power' (ie. East Asian Americans, Ashkenazi Jewish Americans).... 

[Nino 12]

I don't think this will decrease competence. The entire point of university is to teach. Really anybody who applies themselves can get a degree and learn the life skills given the opportunity.

What confuses me though is how this will OBVIOUSLY lead to real, negative discrimination in the end against under-represented or otherwise disadvantaged people. This feels like opportunistic doublespeak. 

[derpmonster 22,412]

14 minutes ago, Monster647 said:

Solutions must focus on providing equality of opportunity. Trying to create equality of outcome is neither desirable nor fair to all concerned. Dismantling meritocratic values

I get that and I don't fully agree with Affirmative Action either but the truth is there's no perfect meritocratic test or measure. A black student who is equally competent may have a lower SAT score because they didn't have the access to the same test coaching etc.

[CautiousLurker 19,733]

23 minutes ago, Monster647 said:

Solutions must focus on providing equality of opportunity.

First of all, equality and equity is not the same thing - just because someone has the same opportunity doesn't mean they're gonna get a fair shot.

Second of all, even achieving equality of opportunity constantly gets thwarted and undermined, and the only time people bring it up is when stuff like this happens - until that changes, this will have to do... If you think solutions must focus on providing equality of opportunity, go ahead and focus on those solutions.

I'm fine with this - the whole 'it's gonna decrease competence within American society', first of all what are you basing this on? What are the actual numbers? Cuz I'm gonna guess you based it on the fear that someone might have an easier time than you getting somewhere in life (unfounded btw), and not actual outcome.

[derpmonster 22,412]

Affirmative action should mean that they take positive real action to reach out to all communities including underrepresented ones and assist them with applications, fees, etc. They should also compare people's scores to those of other people within their high school and not necessarily with the general pool. This is a good way to ensure black students get equal opportunity.

[Monster647 445]

2 minutes ago, Nino said:

I don't think this will decrease competence. The entire point of university is to teach. Really anybody who applies themselves can get a degree and learn the life skills given the opportunity.

What confuses me though is how this will OBVIOUSLY lead to real, negative discrimination in the end against under-represented or otherwise disadvantaged people. This feels like opportunistic doublespeak. 

You cannot teach anyone anything. 

Not all individuals are equal. University admission is designed to judge the individual applicants as accurately as possible so that most competent applicants get in. 

If you are accepting person x who is less competent than person y. You are decreasing competence. 

[CautiousLurker 19,733]

1 minute ago, Monster647 said:

If you are accepting person x who is less competent than person y. You are decreasing competence. 

Who's to say person y won't apply themselves more and achieve grater level of competence? Your whole argument is a strawman, you ignore all nuance just because you're afraid someone might get ahead who didn't necessarily 'deserve' it in your view - that's a very naive and selfish point of view

[audrey horne 1,180]

I can appreciate the will to tend towards more inclusivity and equity in education systems. Maybe we could simply begin with anonymous applications instead but that would be far from enough. Education is inherently unfair and you can mesure how right here: 

29 minutes ago, Monster647 said:

Positive discrimination/affirmative action will only decrease competence within American society.

Sure, because right now our leaders, CEO or politicians are the most competents? No they are just born privileged. Change is needed anyways. 

[Monster647 445]

Just now, CautiousLurker said:

Who's to say person y won't apply themselves more and achieve grater level of competence? Your whole argument is a strawman, you ignore all nuance just because you're afraid someone might get ahead who didn't necessarily 'deserve' it in your view - that's a very naive and selfish point of view

You're ignoring all factual evidence for the sake of your ideology. 

There is a reason why STEM majors have much higher intellect and abilities on average than Social Work majors.

Now, some individuals might apply themselves more and achieve greater level of competence if given the change but they will be the exception. The fact that they will be the exception means that competence within the society will decrease. 

Are you really arguing against that accepting people not based on merit but based on race would improve quality of graduates ? That's plain dumb. 

[Nino 12]

Just now, Monster647 said:

You cannot teach anyone anything. 

Not all individuals are equal. University admission is designed to judge the individual applicants as accurately as possible so that most competent applicants get in. 

If you are accepting person x who is less competent than person y. You are decreasing competence. 

You can teach anybody with an acceptable SAT score virtually anything taught in any undergrad program.

Your clearly anti semitic OP's perspective assumes that the delta between "competence" in individuals would remain after graduating. The point of a university is to turn young adults into competent professionals. Assuming 2 people work hard and graduate with a bachelor's degree, it wouldn't matter what their SAT score was. A lot of the first year of any undergrad program is reiterating high school material anyway.

[Monster647 445]

1 minute ago, adterp said:

I can appreciate the willing to tend towards more inclusivity and equity in education systems. Maybe we could simply begin with anonymous applications instead but that would be far from enough. Education is inherently unfair and you can mesure how here: 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Sure, because right now our leaders, CEO or politicians are the most competents? No. Change is needed anyways. 

 

Give "Jamal" as much equal opportunity as possible. That's desirable in every way. 

Giving equality of outcome is not desirable. 

[Nino 12]

7 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

Who's to say person y won't apply themselves more and achieve grater level of competence? Your whole argument is a strawman, you ignore all nuance just because you're afraid someone might get ahead who didn't necessarily 'deserve' it in your view - that's a very naive and selfish point of view

He's talking about jews having disproportionate representation in positions of power(factually incorrect) and East Asians(largest population on earth) overrepresented. They're relying on fallacy on purpose to enforce their otherwise indefensible world view  

[Economy 52,919]

Can anyone explain positive discrimination in more detail? Is it like favouring a marginalized group to create a diversity quota?

 

I've never heard this term

[CautiousLurker 19,733]

8 minutes ago, Monster647 said:

You're ignoring all factual evidence for the sake of your ideology. 

There is a reason why STEM majors have much higher intellect and abilities on average than Social Work majors.

Now, some individuals might apply themselves more and achieve greater level of competence if given the change but they will be the exception. The fact that they will be the exception means that competence within the society will decrease. 

Are you really arguing against that accepting people not based on merit but based on race would improve quality of graduates ? That's plain dumb. 

What factual evidence? Where are they? Show concrete evidence that affirmative action undermines American society...

My ideology is more than what you have going for you which is plain selfishness - you can't handle the idea that someone from a marginalized group will now have a better chance at a career... Again, until there is equity, this will do - if you don't like it, fix the unjust system first, and then we'll talk about whether affirmative action is a good idea...
 

[audrey horne 1,180]

2 minutes ago, Monster647 said:

Give "Jamal" as much equal opportunity as possible. That's desirable in every way. 

Giving equality of outcome is not desirable. 

I agree. Equality isn't enough, we have to aim for equity or even better, for justice.