Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Comments for: "color blind?"
This post is provided as a forum for comments for the Left2Right post:
color blind?
posted on 02/15/2006Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. So Justice Harlan wrote in his stirring dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. Harlan added that the Reconstruction amendments removed the race line from our governmental systems. That stirring...
Please see disclaimers before posting comments.
# posted by Bret @ 7:04 AM 
It's good to see Don Herzog back posting again. I hope to see the frequency increase back to last years rate.
As usual, a very moderate viewpoint (Don's my favorite milquetoast moderate).
As usual, a very moderate viewpoint (Don's my favorite milquetoast moderate).
Who, exactly, has called for color-blindness "across the board"? When the police are looking for a criminal, every bit of physical description--height, weight, sex, race--that will serve to distinguish the criminal should be used. Who could disagree with that?
And yet most people would (rightly) think it madness to use such physical criteria to determine who gets into college. For purposes of college admission, mere physical traits are (or ought to be) irrelevant. Instead, at least for tax-supported public colleges, the criterion should be: Who is most likely to benefit from this education, and in turn most likely to benefit society? A complicated question, to be sure. But a record of previous academic achievement, and performance on standardized tests, are surely better predictors than one's race or height.
And yet most people would (rightly) think it madness to use such physical criteria to determine who gets into college. For purposes of college admission, mere physical traits are (or ought to be) irrelevant. Instead, at least for tax-supported public colleges, the criterion should be: Who is most likely to benefit from this education, and in turn most likely to benefit society? A complicated question, to be sure. But a record of previous academic achievement, and performance on standardized tests, are surely better predictors than one's race or height.
nate,
You seem to think that your conjecture about my reasons for opposing racial criteria in college admissions--that they boil down to nothing more than wanting to preserve my own privileged position by keeping others down--is dispositive. You're wrong both about my motives and (I think) about how one argues questions of public policy. Let me simply explain why I think affirmative action is crazy.
Education is not something one "consumes"; it is not like a pizza. It's something one pursues. At every stage of that pursuit it requires talent and knowledge that have been built at earlier stages. A concrete example: There are many 18-year-olds with a talent for mathematics. But only a tiny minority of them have the kind of talent that would allow them to benefit from four years at MIT. The less talented, were they thrown into that environment, would suffer only frustration. Yet if they were in a "lesser" college among students of ability similar to their own, they would learn, they would eventually graduate, and they would likely become contributing members of society.
Affirmative action says to the black student or the Latino or other designated victim: "I can tell by your skin color that you have been permanently scarred by this oppressive society. You do not come from a privileged group, and didn't receive the advantages they did. So, in your case, we'll lower the bar for admission, so that you (and we) can pretend that all is well, though in fact you'll be competing with students far better prepared than you are. Good luck!" I claim there are two predictable results of this policy: 1) The student who is relatively unprepared will do worse than his peers, and is thus more likely to fail in college and in his subsequent career (if any), and 2) If the bar is permanently set low (as seems to be the intent of affirmative action proponents), there is no incentive for the "unprivileged" to improve their performance.
I oppose affirmative action in college admissions because I believe that it hurts the people it purports to help, and that it wastes precious educational resources. (On the other hand, it does keep the servant class numerous, and that's an important consideration when the grounds of one's manorial estate are as extensive as mine.)
Post a Comment
You seem to think that your conjecture about my reasons for opposing racial criteria in college admissions--that they boil down to nothing more than wanting to preserve my own privileged position by keeping others down--is dispositive. You're wrong both about my motives and (I think) about how one argues questions of public policy. Let me simply explain why I think affirmative action is crazy.
Education is not something one "consumes"; it is not like a pizza. It's something one pursues. At every stage of that pursuit it requires talent and knowledge that have been built at earlier stages. A concrete example: There are many 18-year-olds with a talent for mathematics. But only a tiny minority of them have the kind of talent that would allow them to benefit from four years at MIT. The less talented, were they thrown into that environment, would suffer only frustration. Yet if they were in a "lesser" college among students of ability similar to their own, they would learn, they would eventually graduate, and they would likely become contributing members of society.
Affirmative action says to the black student or the Latino or other designated victim: "I can tell by your skin color that you have been permanently scarred by this oppressive society. You do not come from a privileged group, and didn't receive the advantages they did. So, in your case, we'll lower the bar for admission, so that you (and we) can pretend that all is well, though in fact you'll be competing with students far better prepared than you are. Good luck!" I claim there are two predictable results of this policy: 1) The student who is relatively unprepared will do worse than his peers, and is thus more likely to fail in college and in his subsequent career (if any), and 2) If the bar is permanently set low (as seems to be the intent of affirmative action proponents), there is no incentive for the "unprivileged" to improve their performance.
I oppose affirmative action in college admissions because I believe that it hurts the people it purports to help, and that it wastes precious educational resources. (On the other hand, it does keep the servant class numerous, and that's an important consideration when the grounds of one's manorial estate are as extensive as mine.)
<< Home
