Quote:
Originally posted by CamB
I'll have another go at the "rationale" - note that I actually am only semi-subscribed to it. It has flaws.
Basically, the concept is that if you have a specific % representation of different races in the population, and that same % is not represented in college education outcomes, then an affirmative action style rationale exists to change from a goal of equality of access (what most of you guys want) to equality of outcome.
It is a flawed concept, IMHO, but quite well meaning. It presupposes that the same underrepresented minorities in college outcomes are underrepresented because the same minorities are overrepresented in poverty.
That is why I referred to race as a proxy for poverty.
I guess theoretically there comes a time when the equality of access and outcome become the same, and affirmative action drops away.
This is a pretty interesting discussion though.
|
Cam,
The entire argument for affirmative action is based on the presumption that minorities are economically disadvantaged and that "equal" access to higher education will ultimately level the economic playing field.
The problem is that the law assumes, for example that
all blacks are economically disadvantaged. So the young affluent black man whose parents are both well educated gets preferential admission over a poor white from a family that has never had a member attend college.
If affirmative action were colorblind and preferences were given based on true economic disadvantage, blacks would likely be the largest beneficiary, but the advantage would go to blacks who are truly economically disadvantaged.
I support the goals of affirmative action, but the implementation is terribly flawed.