“The people cry out for affirmative action, Socrates.” “Why, my dear Glaucon?” “To achieve greater representation of Black and Hispanic students in elite colleges and universities.” “Under what moral principle?” “Under the moral principle that diversity enhances the educational value of attending college, Socrates.”
The hyperventilation over this case is particularly absurd because the court specifically allows applicants to get a boost if they describe in their essay how their racial identity has contributed to their character development and resilience. It just means they have to articulate WHY they deserve the boost, rather than getting it automatically. Honestly, if they can’t manage that, they don’t deserve the bump and certainly don’t belong at Harvard.
I think affirmative action in elite universities is valuable, but not for the reasons you're arguing against. I don't think it helps the quality of education much at all. The fact is that teenagers hardly ever have anything interesting to say regardless of their background, or at least they didn't in any of my sections. If you want an interesting perspective, read a book!
The value of affirmative action in elite universities is that it leads to a more diverse ruling elite. This is important because it increases the likelihood that when the elite make decisions that everybody else has to live by, that they take into account the needs of these underrepresented groups. If you think this is just a theoretical concern, there's actually pretty good empirical evidence which uses scheduled casts and tribes in India and gender requirements in Scandinavia in order to tease out the effects of affirmative action on decision-making by elites. Turns out these effects are quite large. Go figure!
Can someone kindly expand on this statement please? I am unclear.
“Then has the turn in the past half-century towards defining college as primarily an engine of social justice and economic mobility, advanced by politicians antagonistic to the labor movement that had traditionally served those ends, not fundamentally been a bargain with the devil for higher education?”
I feel like having a racially diverse elite is worthwhile because these institutions involve choosing who is in the aristocracy that ends up with power and people aren't really willing to do the much harder job of fixing the pipeline, or however you would end credentialism.
So instead we just fix it post hoc by allowing a few minorities into elite colleges who go on to be black politicians, business leaders and judges etc and we don't worry about the masses because people won't stand for the much bigger root and branch project that is.
Jay Caspian Kang recently wrote in The New Yorker about how we don't hear from Asian Americans on this topic, even though they're supposed to be the plaintiffs. That's not exactly true, though. We do hear a lot from a certain type of Asian American: the one who has received his or her elite education and is now fighting tooth and nail to protect the good reputations of Harvard Inc. & Co. This is the standard-issue Asian American voice in the media, academia, non-profit world, etc.
Nothing exposes the sheer social-clubbiness value of not only elite education, but also the elite progressive definition of diversity (i.e. a diversity's that's focused exclusively on racial diversity in the upper—and upper-aspiring—classes) than this fact. We're supposed to accept this definition of diversity as an unassailable social good, but who benefits the most and who pays the most? Among Asian Americans, those who benefit the most are those who get into these schools and have their elite statuses protected by the shield of racial progress. Furthermore, this model of diversity results in an intense intra-racial social competition to be one of the few select elite representatives of your group, to escape the Chinatown Social Ghetto, figuratively speaking. If you're an Asian American with a Harvard degree, you are among these winners, and for your continued social and professional benefit, you're demanding that even a working-class Asian American with absolutely no connections or wealth, and who only has a raggedly old SAT practice test book as a social ladder, to sacrifice themselves for you. And YOU get to be hailed as the enlightened champion of racial progress?
PS If you ever read novels about the modern undergraduate college experience, it's obvious that the value of an elite college is for the socially ambitious American non-elite to climb their way into the elite (I also wrote about it in my Substack). That's what it all comes down to, whether people will admit it or not. The hyper-exclusive nature of these schools plainly admits what their purpose is, but so many people, especially elite progressives, try so hard to protect their own self-image by denying that. This shouldn't be a left vs. right issue. Ultimately, it's about whether or not you can stomach such blatant self-serving hypocrisy.
Perhaps trivial, but I wonder whether white elites are really uncomfortable in all-white spaces. I feel like, subjectively, no, they are fine in all white spaces. Rather, they are uncomfortable in that other white elites will attack them for being “racist” if they don’t have some tokens around. So much white drama pretending to be social justice.
I think most of the negative reactions from the progressive social justice crowd about this ruling come down to: oh look, another ruling we don't like from the big, bad conservative Supreme Court.
For the record, I generally don't agree with conservatives, but I think they got this one (AA) correct.
Furthermore, I think that if HRC hadn't insulted the entire white working class, then perhaps the court would look a lot different today.
Freddie’s logic is unchallengeable.
spot on freddie
May I now profess this logic without being called racist? Or even worse, a conservative?
Good one.
The hyperventilation over this case is particularly absurd because the court specifically allows applicants to get a boost if they describe in their essay how their racial identity has contributed to their character development and resilience. It just means they have to articulate WHY they deserve the boost, rather than getting it automatically. Honestly, if they can’t manage that, they don’t deserve the bump and certainly don’t belong at Harvard.
Brilliant! Thank you Freddie
Can we now apply this same logic to a couple of other topics? I won't say which ones I'm thinking of.
I think affirmative action in elite universities is valuable, but not for the reasons you're arguing against. I don't think it helps the quality of education much at all. The fact is that teenagers hardly ever have anything interesting to say regardless of their background, or at least they didn't in any of my sections. If you want an interesting perspective, read a book!
The value of affirmative action in elite universities is that it leads to a more diverse ruling elite. This is important because it increases the likelihood that when the elite make decisions that everybody else has to live by, that they take into account the needs of these underrepresented groups. If you think this is just a theoretical concern, there's actually pretty good empirical evidence which uses scheduled casts and tribes in India and gender requirements in Scandinavia in order to tease out the effects of affirmative action on decision-making by elites. Turns out these effects are quite large. Go figure!
Can someone kindly expand on this statement please? I am unclear.
“Then has the turn in the past half-century towards defining college as primarily an engine of social justice and economic mobility, advanced by politicians antagonistic to the labor movement that had traditionally served those ends, not fundamentally been a bargain with the devil for higher education?”
I obviously didn't attend an elite college because I had no idea who Glaucon was until today.
I feel like having a racially diverse elite is worthwhile because these institutions involve choosing who is in the aristocracy that ends up with power and people aren't really willing to do the much harder job of fixing the pipeline, or however you would end credentialism.
So instead we just fix it post hoc by allowing a few minorities into elite colleges who go on to be black politicians, business leaders and judges etc and we don't worry about the masses because people won't stand for the much bigger root and branch project that is.
The point of elite education is to signal that one is willing to do whatever to takes to please authority.
I have more elite education that most cats, and most everything I know worth knowing I either learned from Mama or taught myself.
Jay Caspian Kang recently wrote in The New Yorker about how we don't hear from Asian Americans on this topic, even though they're supposed to be the plaintiffs. That's not exactly true, though. We do hear a lot from a certain type of Asian American: the one who has received his or her elite education and is now fighting tooth and nail to protect the good reputations of Harvard Inc. & Co. This is the standard-issue Asian American voice in the media, academia, non-profit world, etc.
Nothing exposes the sheer social-clubbiness value of not only elite education, but also the elite progressive definition of diversity (i.e. a diversity's that's focused exclusively on racial diversity in the upper—and upper-aspiring—classes) than this fact. We're supposed to accept this definition of diversity as an unassailable social good, but who benefits the most and who pays the most? Among Asian Americans, those who benefit the most are those who get into these schools and have their elite statuses protected by the shield of racial progress. Furthermore, this model of diversity results in an intense intra-racial social competition to be one of the few select elite representatives of your group, to escape the Chinatown Social Ghetto, figuratively speaking. If you're an Asian American with a Harvard degree, you are among these winners, and for your continued social and professional benefit, you're demanding that even a working-class Asian American with absolutely no connections or wealth, and who only has a raggedly old SAT practice test book as a social ladder, to sacrifice themselves for you. And YOU get to be hailed as the enlightened champion of racial progress?
It's absolute bullshit. I wrote about it more here: https://salieriredemption.substack.com/p/dont-trust-an-asian-american-who
PS If you ever read novels about the modern undergraduate college experience, it's obvious that the value of an elite college is for the socially ambitious American non-elite to climb their way into the elite (I also wrote about it in my Substack). That's what it all comes down to, whether people will admit it or not. The hyper-exclusive nature of these schools plainly admits what their purpose is, but so many people, especially elite progressives, try so hard to protect their own self-image by denying that. This shouldn't be a left vs. right issue. Ultimately, it's about whether or not you can stomach such blatant self-serving hypocrisy.
Now we need a dialogue between Gorgias and Socrates on the rise of Trumpism.
Gee whiz. I was thinking of weather or not we should pay college athletes
Perhaps trivial, but I wonder whether white elites are really uncomfortable in all-white spaces. I feel like, subjectively, no, they are fine in all white spaces. Rather, they are uncomfortable in that other white elites will attack them for being “racist” if they don’t have some tokens around. So much white drama pretending to be social justice.
I think most of the negative reactions from the progressive social justice crowd about this ruling come down to: oh look, another ruling we don't like from the big, bad conservative Supreme Court.
For the record, I generally don't agree with conservatives, but I think they got this one (AA) correct.
Furthermore, I think that if HRC hadn't insulted the entire white working class, then perhaps the court would look a lot different today.