I'm not really trying to 'read past that part quickly'. I don't really have a personal 'horse' in this as I'm neither black nor white. I'm not even suggesting that they're rejecting capable people for 'dullards'. I've seen that argument used often so I can understand why you'd think I'm saying that, but I'm aware that usually it's more like choosing between two equally qualified candidates.
I just don't really see how that changes the fact that it's unfair to the person rejected because of an immutable characteristic. Your argument about having a student body that reflects the broader population has that same 'disconnect' to me, is it fair for an equally qualified candidate to be rejected just because they don't fit a statistic that they're powerless to influence?
That same point is also exactly why I think the focus should be on bringing everyone to a similar level in high school, so given equalizers for class differences like sufficient scholarships specifically targeted at poorer families (and similarly preventing the rich from paying their way in), every group has an equal chance of admission, which, along with a purely merit based admission criteria should naturally result in a student body representative of the population.
It's my mistake for not clarifying that I'm not saying that the SAT is somehow important in this. I'm solely talking about this idea of intentionally applying racial bias to the system. Personally I'm quite happy that these standardized tests are going away for the same reason that they aren't particularly objective and success in them depends on the guides and coaching you can get access to, and how many times you can afford to try.
>I don't really have a personal 'horse' in this as I'm neither black nor white
I think we all do, to be honest. But, I shouldn't have phrased my response in a way that suggested you were being disingenuous. Sorry if it came across that way.
What I was trying to say is that was the really important bit and deserves more focus IMO.
>I just don't really see how that changes the fact that it's unfair to the person rejected because of an immutable characteristic
Well, the short answer is, that there may be some who are so rejected, but there are also real individuals on the other side.
And, this brings up a really important point, that I think presents the challenge when discussing these things. That is, we kind of oscillate between the macro and micro levels without announcing it.
So, we're talking about these ongoing and historical effects that really are generational and persistent, so bear down on Black people in ways that disadvantage them today. And, generally, you have many White people who benefitted from that equation and passed those advantages down to individuals. Not all, but certainly many, and even neutrality is better than disadvantage.
Now, we'll acknowledge that it's not fair to the Black individual. However, when any talk of remedy is had, there's an intense focus on whether an individual White person might be perceived to be negatively impacted. And, the conclusion generally runs along the lines of "well, you can't fight racism with more racism".
But, then, what about the individual Black person, who continues to be disadvantaged? He/she just becomes an externality; the by-product of a history and system that are really hard to address.
So, this treats the Black person at the macro level
("we must fix the system!") and the White person at the micro level ("we must now apply treatment evenly to every individual!").
However, if we do attempt to address the issue, then we charge the individual Black person with receiving any perceived benefits, and we forget about the system that operates at the macro level. So he is treated in the micro at the least advantageous time for him.
But, going the other way, we tend not to attribute generational/systemic advantages to White people at the micro level. So, individually, they are seen only as victims of efforts to remediate, and we push those advantages up to the system at the macro level. So she is treated in the micro at the most advantageous times.
The other part is that we tend to talk about this as if it's only the legacy of our history that we're remedying, when there are very real, persistent systemic issues from redlining to mortgage rates to unequal pay and more. So, these are ongoing advantages and disadvantages being mitigated. It's not as simplistic as a head-to-head match up wherein a Black person benefits from a diversity policy that directly disadvantages a White person.
Those two individuals are part of a larger system that doles out advantages and disadvantages in various ways and at various times.
I just don't really see how that changes the fact that it's unfair to the person rejected because of an immutable characteristic. Your argument about having a student body that reflects the broader population has that same 'disconnect' to me, is it fair for an equally qualified candidate to be rejected just because they don't fit a statistic that they're powerless to influence?
That same point is also exactly why I think the focus should be on bringing everyone to a similar level in high school, so given equalizers for class differences like sufficient scholarships specifically targeted at poorer families (and similarly preventing the rich from paying their way in), every group has an equal chance of admission, which, along with a purely merit based admission criteria should naturally result in a student body representative of the population.
It's my mistake for not clarifying that I'm not saying that the SAT is somehow important in this. I'm solely talking about this idea of intentionally applying racial bias to the system. Personally I'm quite happy that these standardized tests are going away for the same reason that they aren't particularly objective and success in them depends on the guides and coaching you can get access to, and how many times you can afford to try.