|
|
|
|
|
by bsanr2
2241 days ago
|
|
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what affirmative action is meant to correct. It's not simply about bridging economic divides, any more than college is solely about future earning potential. Rather, as higher education is intended to produce capable, responsible, and sophisticated members of society - in other words, to create a better society - affirmative action is meant to correct for long-standing and extant social bias. The x-points-lower SAT score a black applicant might need versus a comparable white or Asian applicant represents the energy redirected to physical and psychological survival particular to the black experience in America, regardless of income (as the other Mr. Gates will attest). It is not an in-spite-of situation, but a but-for one, writ large across American history and society. With college purporting to be the last stop before an educated adult's entrance into society, it is meant to remediate as well as elevate, for those who pass a minimum bar of competency. The temptation to reduce affirmative action to an economic argument is especially ironic in that many of the mechanisms used to implement it were first used in the opposite direction, to cast university as beyond a purely economic arrangement, as eminently qualified Jewish students threatened to fill class rolls in the early 20th century. Suddenly, test scores were not important, character was. With the swing to hysteria over race in admissions, the inheritors of the legacy of steel drivers and sharecroppers are subject to less-than-genuine arguments centered around money. Suddenly, character is not important, economic uplift is. Hm. |
|