I think that at least with some specific issues some of it is ideologically driven. There is an IQ score disparity between whites and black in this country. That is probably at least partially some of the reason behind why fewer blacks go to college comparatively. If college isn't the answer to eliminating racial income inequality then where's the value in programs like affirmative action?
I think that at least with some specific issues some of it is ideologically driven. There is an IQ score disparity between whites and black in this country. That is probably at least partially some of the reason behind why fewer blacks go to college comparatively. If college isn't the answer to eliminating racial income inequality then where's the value in programs like affirmative action?
AA can be/was(?) instituted to eliminate or counteract as much of the disparity in social discrimination as possible and/or to make people feel like they are doing *something* (and/or more besides). Why it continues whether or not it is 'working' is a separate issue where institutional inertia and other factors play significant roles. Sociological causes often don't align with individual reasoning.
I didn't say that ideology per se plays no role. I said that Freddie hasn't convinced me that a specific one, the "Blank Slate" ideology, is doing all the work he claims.
Affirmative action can be used elsewhere besides higher education. I'd also argue there are certain occupations (like say journalism or politics) where there's a strong argument to be made that having a workforce representative of society as a whole will help deliver better results.
I am more comfortable with the concept of AA in journalism than politics, where for me it raises the specter of special interest groups vying with one another under the assumption that everything is a zero sum game where for one tribe to thrive another must necessarily suffer. And maybe in terms of government funding that is a perfectly valid world view.
I think that at least with some specific issues some of it is ideologically driven. There is an IQ score disparity between whites and black in this country. That is probably at least partially some of the reason behind why fewer blacks go to college comparatively. If college isn't the answer to eliminating racial income inequality then where's the value in programs like affirmative action?
AA can be/was(?) instituted to eliminate or counteract as much of the disparity in social discrimination as possible and/or to make people feel like they are doing *something* (and/or more besides). Why it continues whether or not it is 'working' is a separate issue where institutional inertia and other factors play significant roles. Sociological causes often don't align with individual reasoning.
I didn't say that ideology per se plays no role. I said that Freddie hasn't convinced me that a specific one, the "Blank Slate" ideology, is doing all the work he claims.
Affirmative action can be used elsewhere besides higher education. I'd also argue there are certain occupations (like say journalism or politics) where there's a strong argument to be made that having a workforce representative of society as a whole will help deliver better results.
I am more comfortable with the concept of AA in journalism than politics, where for me it raises the specter of special interest groups vying with one another under the assumption that everything is a zero sum game where for one tribe to thrive another must necessarily suffer. And maybe in terms of government funding that is a perfectly valid world view.