It is very touching to have some of the same people who seem to have no problem with the way our current President got lots of legs up and unfair advantages all of a sudden turn all teary-eyed and devoted to the idea of a pure meritocracy when it comes to the issue of “affirmative action” as a policy issue.
It is all well and good to believe in a meritocracy but if you believe that eliminating affirmative action for minorities is the way to do this what you really are supporting, either wittingly or unwittingly, the de-facto policy of “affirmative action” as it has always effectively been: lots of advantages for rich white male folks.
But, his point is that for every one person who lost his space to a minority candidate less qualified on paper, there are probably like 10 who think they lost their space for this reason but wouldn’t have gotten in regardless. And, in fact, since minorities by definition make up a small percentage of the population, the negative effect on a non-minority applicant due to affirmative action policies is disproportionately small because they are still mainly competing with the other non-minority candidates for the large majority of spaces that end up going to non-minority applicants.
Another point (more on the subject of my previous post than this one): In a perfect meritocratic world, it is clear that a policy of affirmative action would be unfair. However, the question is not whether it is unfair in such an ideal world but rather whether it is unfair in the world we actually happen to inhabit which bears little resemblance to the perfect one.
On re-reading this, it sounds a bit more inflammatory than I meant, so I want to emphasize that this is the effect that I think would be produced by an “end it – don’t mend it” attitude toward the elimination of affirmative action, at least without a lot of thought to dealing with the other non-meritocratic things in society. And, I do think that most of the people here are in the “unwittingly” category.
I am offended by this group-identity concept. If 100,000 under-qualified minorities are accepted because of preferences, then 100,000 more-qualified non-minorities must get rejected. What good does it do for them if 2 million other non-minorities got accepted? What consolation is it to these 100,000 unfairly rejected students that they are only 5% of some arbitrarily defined group?
So rather than keeping on AA, which we know is unfair, why don’t we instead try to work against eliminating other unfair advantages? That being said, I’m not quite sure I accept on its face the assertion that only “rich white males” would receive unfair advantages in not for AA. Are women and minorities somehow incapable of making connections?
As to the OP, I would challenge CaptMurdock to present a study which refutes assertions that the lowering of standards to achieve diversity is harmful. To me, such an assertion is pretty much common sense. Fire fighters, for example, have minimum requirements for a reason - in order to assure that the fire fighters can perform all of the tasks they might reasonably be required to perform in the course of their duties. They need to have a certain minimum level of strength, height, endurance, and such. If we then lower those standards in order to allow members of group Y into the fold, then those members of group Y admitted under the lower standards will, of course, be less adept than those admitted under the normal standards.
Since the argument is pretty basic, I will require some evidence against it before I’m willing to abandon it.
Jeff
**I am offended by this group-identity concept. If 100,000 under-qualified minorities are accepted because of preferences, then 100,000 more-qualified non-minorities must get rejected. **