Are you saying that because the “system” in step A is racist we have to counter that racism in step B an/or C otherwise the purported neutrality of steps B and C are still racist?
The article is talks about mayor deblasios war on merit where where poor asian kids have crowded out mostly white kids by doing well in step C. It’s not pirivleged white kids who have the advantages given to them in step A and/or B dominating admission to that school, it is mostly poor asian kids. The onoly advantage they have is culture and your side of the argument seems to be torn between “the cultural advantage itself is not fair” and “there is no cultural advantage, there is some unseen inarticulable racism that is causing this disparity.”
Because in this case, the people thriving in this environment are not necessarily the beneficiaries of that racist environment. Poor asian kids are thriving in this context and the push to equalize results doesn’t really benefit the children of slaves, most of the students this will benefit are hispanic immigrants or their children and most of the black kids this equalization will benefit are immigrants or the children of immgirants. And we will be pushing aside better qualified poor asian immigrants (or their children) to achieve this equality)
So what actual sources of current harm is present in nyc that makes the race neutral tests racist by extension?
Of course not. But you have to at least be able to identify the institutionalized racism so we can get rid of them.
Once again, we are talking about nyc public schools. What is it about nyc public education that is racist?
What do you imagine the last step would look like? When will this finally be over? Do we actually have to achieve equality of results or is there something short of that that would satisfy you that equality of opportunity has been reached?
If we somehow manage to legislate equality of results, how long do we have to legislate equality of results before you think we can let meritocracy take over again?
So you have stated now several ways we can “start” but no real answer of when this will end.
And who do think should bear the burden of this reparation? Should it be borne by taking opportunities from hard working model minorities? Should it be funded from the taxes paid on the income earned by working class citizens?
If we are to fund reparation, I think it ought to come from wealth not income. Government lands, some portion of the stock of all large corporations, a significantly higher estate tax or some combination thereof.
I believe he described them in your quote as “nominally race-neutral”, which is remarkably accurate. They are race neutral, but the fact that they are race neutral is irrelevant.
Of course they are. If a multi-century long system of discrimination impacted a sizeable population of Americans, with the result being, among other things, reduced academic performance as a group, then they absolutely benefit from having less competition for coveted academic prizes. It’s a direct benefit from racism being directed at others, even if they didn’t participate in the racism, or were victims of other racism.
It is important in the case at hand because the people who are dominating in the race neutral steps B and C are not white. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the seats they are taking are at the expense of whites
Sure, with respect to the descendants of slaves and american indians but the beneficiaries of the policy that mayor deblasio is pushing in nyc are not typically the descendants of slaves or american indians. They are largely hispanics and immigrant blacks. Why should we push aside poor asian immigrants that earned their spot to make room for a group that is mostly hispanics and black immigrants?
Why does the burden of this historical injustice seem to fall so frequently on the backs of poor asians? Why is it that these movements for racial balancing seem to have no political traction until whites are a minority in these institutions and the burden of this balancing will be overwhelmingly borne by non-whites (specifically asians)? is there really no way to place the majority of this historical burden on white people?
I think there is. Government sponsored reparations funded by wealth taxes. White people still have the overwhelming majority of wealth in this country, sure blacks, hispanics, asians and native americans sometimes have a lot of wealth too but this seems like a much more equitable way of distributing the burden than making room for black and hispanic, kids at the expense of asian kids.
iiandyiiii wrote: “What I really mean is a process […] that would make the same sort of statement in a long term, interactive, and permanent way.” The sentence could be rewritten, “What I really mean is a process that would (in a long term, interactive and permanent way) make the same sort of statement.”
It is not implied that any individual statement will be long term, interactive, or permanent. iiandyiiii would have been using the word “statement” in two different ways (equivocation), had he not written “sort of”.
I disagree, it doesn’t matter who dominates the race neutral steps.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that step A is racist, and we all agree that it is racist. Step A eliminates 50% of the targeted population from consideration. Steps B and C are not racist, they are definitively and assuredly race neutral and we all agree on that as well.
The system A-B-C is racist. The fact that B-C is not racist, does not erase the impact of step A, it perpetuates that impact, allows that impact to continue unfettered to the conclusion of the system. Granted, it’s better than having racist B and C, continuing to deepen the impact of A on that targeted group, but it doesn’t really fix anything.
Step A: a history of slavery and white supremacy creates a distinct racist advantage for whites and distinct racist disadvantage for the descendants of slaves.
Step B: race neutral school funding and resource allocation perpetuates and even deepens the advantages and disadvantages created in step A.
Step C: stuyvesant high school uses a race neutral standardized exam to determine admissions and a school that used to be a 75% white school turns into a school that is 75% asian. The overwhelming majority of the seats lost to asians has been at the expense of whites.
Proposed policy: In order counter the racism in step A, the folks in charge of step B propose a program that would replace mostly asians with mostly hispanics. How does that address the racism in step A?
I’m sure you can see ti a different way but i don’t think my way is an unreasonable way of describing the situation.
It was intended as a down-the-road hypothetical for discussion purposes. Another way to look at it would be that if you could snap your fingers and remove all systemic racism, Thanos-style, my contention is that the black community still has attitudes and behaviors left over from before the snap that are going to hinder them going forward in achieving equality of outcome. Whose problem is it to remedy that, and if it’s the government’s problem, how is that remedied?
Now maybe the thinking is that with the slow removal of institutionally racist things in our society, maybe those behaviors will go away. I don’t know. I’m just trying to think out all the possibilities and that one struck me as one that was particularly intractable.
I think we’re talking around each other, focused on different aspects of the issue, I’ll agree that the policy does not really address step A effectively, but will drop out of further discussion that is focused on the NY public school response.
You cannot separate a culture from its history. You cannot judge the culture of a community that comes from 400 years of slavery and segregation to the dominant culture that did the enslaving or a foreign culture that provided millenia of incentives to focus on education.
How do you fix this? Culture evolves like anything else.
But when society sends distorted signals because of ongoing racism and affirmative action, the evolution in behavior might get stunted.
It’s not just nyc public schools. I am saying that this dynamic occurs in almost all academic affirmative action. I think well meaning folks look at the historic racism by whites towards blacks and support affirmative action, which primarily helps hispanics and immigrant blacks at the expense of asians.
Step A is racist at least some of the time.
Step B is meritocratic.
Step C is meritocratic.
Let’s say I am in charge of step C. What can I do to fix the problem? What should I do to fix the problem? Because you can bet the farm on real-life administrators of steps B and C exclaiming, “Don’t look at meeeee!”
Actually, Asian parents don’t love their children. It’s against Confucian principles. Family piety only works one way. I am prepared to stand, armed with nothing more than a nuclear arsenal, against all of Asia on that point.
[quote=“Max_S, post:293, topic:817385, full:true”]
How would you go about fixing the A-B-C system?
Step A is racist at least some of the time.
Step B is meritocratic.
Step C is meritocratic.
Let’s say I am in charge of step C. What can I do to fix the problem? What should I do to fix the problem? Because you can bet the farm on real-life administrators of steps B and C exclaiming, “Don’t look at meeeee!”[/quote]
If you are inj charge of step C, then I think that you should point out the racism in step A and try to address the racism in Step A. Perhaps by addressing the legacy of racism in step B. Fudging the numbers on an objective race neutral test in step C seems to be the least effective means of addressing the issue particularly since it is overinclusive and is racially discriminatory.
I always thought of filial piety as being more about duty than affection but there is nothing about filial piety that prohibits or obstructs a parent’s love for a child.