Affirmative Action - For the Privileged or Underprivileged
I saw a news item that the Trump administration expressed support for a lawsuit against Harvard University's affirmative action admissions policies.
I thought this could start an interesting look at the social / political motivations in these kinds of matters.
Generally, the affluent and/or members of traditionally privileged groups in society find anti-discrimination and affirmative action rules inconvenient. In recent years, they've been pushing back the laws on such policies claiming government should not be involved in such things. However, the privileged may consider it appropriate for the government to take action to tell a private company or college that they can't have anti-discrimination or affirmative action policies. The logic or standard the privileged use changes depending on what benefits the privileged - "heads I win, tails you lose."
I also thought this was an interesting example to discuss mainstream assumptions. The lawsuit opposes Harvard giving underprivileged students more priority in admissions. The logic behind that begins with the assumption of what the "normal" priority rules should be. Traditionally, colleges tended to give priority to students with the highest academic scores, most money and criteria of that kind. There's a saying, "When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME." So, let's consider this assumption.
To the extent that a college wants to have the reputation of a place with high test scores, students being admitted to associations for those with academic awards, high graduation rates, and high employment rates of its graduates, giving priority to applicants with high grades may make sense. However, this need not be the objective of all colleges. A few colleges specialize in students with learning disabilities. Colleges which have an emphasis on the arts may put the priority on creativity rather than math, science and history. There's no reason why a college might not have the mission of finding students who have done poorly in school but show other signs of having potential. And other colleges may want to have a mix of these qualities.
What constitutes "affirmative action?" If a "Christian University" puts a priority on admitting students who have certain religious beliefs, does that mean they are illegally discriminating against those of other religious beliefs? If a college admits top high school athletes whose academic scores aren't as high as some other applicants, is that unacceptable "affirmative action?" If a college admits students with lower academic scores because the parents are alumni and/or donors to the college, is that inappropriate affirmative action? Is it affirmative action which we should question if a college does not admit students strictly by academic scores in order to maintain certain numbers of students majoring in math, science, history, philosophy, literature, etc.?
These kinds of admissions policies are taken for granted or are considered sacred by those who benefit from them. But when a privately-run institution attempts to help the underprivileged, then criticism and legal action may come from those used to getting their own way.
Note: Colleges are not necessarily acting purely "to help the underprivileged." They may consider diversity to benefit the open-minded and creative atmosphere which is good for college students.
The arguments against affirmative action may become more significant at some future time when public schools are funded in such a way that schools in poor communities have teachers and resources on an equal par as schools in wealthy communities. That's not how it is now. Even if one blames the parents for in which community the child is raised, it is not the child's fault or responsibility. The current reality is that the children of underprivileged parents are often taught in inferior public schools. The privileged do not demand these children be given equal opportunity. But when a private institution gives those from underprivileged families the chance to compensate for that disadvantage, the privileged suddenly become vocal and claim to be concerned with equality. An "equality" which is based on the results of having unequal public schools.
I thought this could start an interesting look at the social / political motivations in these kinds of matters.
Generally, the affluent and/or members of traditionally privileged groups in society find anti-discrimination and affirmative action rules inconvenient. In recent years, they've been pushing back the laws on such policies claiming government should not be involved in such things. However, the privileged may consider it appropriate for the government to take action to tell a private company or college that they can't have anti-discrimination or affirmative action policies. The logic or standard the privileged use changes depending on what benefits the privileged - "heads I win, tails you lose."
I also thought this was an interesting example to discuss mainstream assumptions. The lawsuit opposes Harvard giving underprivileged students more priority in admissions. The logic behind that begins with the assumption of what the "normal" priority rules should be. Traditionally, colleges tended to give priority to students with the highest academic scores, most money and criteria of that kind. There's a saying, "When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME." So, let's consider this assumption.
To the extent that a college wants to have the reputation of a place with high test scores, students being admitted to associations for those with academic awards, high graduation rates, and high employment rates of its graduates, giving priority to applicants with high grades may make sense. However, this need not be the objective of all colleges. A few colleges specialize in students with learning disabilities. Colleges which have an emphasis on the arts may put the priority on creativity rather than math, science and history. There's no reason why a college might not have the mission of finding students who have done poorly in school but show other signs of having potential. And other colleges may want to have a mix of these qualities.
What constitutes "affirmative action?" If a "Christian University" puts a priority on admitting students who have certain religious beliefs, does that mean they are illegally discriminating against those of other religious beliefs? If a college admits top high school athletes whose academic scores aren't as high as some other applicants, is that unacceptable "affirmative action?" If a college admits students with lower academic scores because the parents are alumni and/or donors to the college, is that inappropriate affirmative action? Is it affirmative action which we should question if a college does not admit students strictly by academic scores in order to maintain certain numbers of students majoring in math, science, history, philosophy, literature, etc.?
These kinds of admissions policies are taken for granted or are considered sacred by those who benefit from them. But when a privately-run institution attempts to help the underprivileged, then criticism and legal action may come from those used to getting their own way.
Note: Colleges are not necessarily acting purely "to help the underprivileged." They may consider diversity to benefit the open-minded and creative atmosphere which is good for college students.
The arguments against affirmative action may become more significant at some future time when public schools are funded in such a way that schools in poor communities have teachers and resources on an equal par as schools in wealthy communities. That's not how it is now. Even if one blames the parents for in which community the child is raised, it is not the child's fault or responsibility. The current reality is that the children of underprivileged parents are often taught in inferior public schools. The privileged do not demand these children be given equal opportunity. But when a private institution gives those from underprivileged families the chance to compensate for that disadvantage, the privileged suddenly become vocal and claim to be concerned with equality. An "equality" which is based on the results of having unequal public schools.
Comments
Post a Comment