[tqi]

It's not that simple.

"Imagine a hundred-yard dash in which one of the two runners has his legs shackled together. He has progressed ten yards, while the unshackled runner has gone fifty yards. At that point the judges decide that the race is unfair. How do they rectify the situation? Do they merely remove the shackles and allow the race to proceed? Then they could say that “equal opportunity” now prevailed. But one of the runners would still be forty yards ahead of the other. Would it not be the better part of justice to allow the previously shackled runner to make up the forty-yard gap, or to start the race all over again? That would be affirmative action toward equality."

[darebak]

Your quote would make sense if this admission discrimination was based on economic status but not race.

Also, what's the goal of the race? Best possible outcome for society? Greatest contribution to society? Teaching the best possible students?

[walkhour]

Agreed, using race as a proxy for all "unfairness" it's simply mathematically wrong. Imagine discarding such an important confounder as economic status.

[rosndo]

Why place such value on fairness?

Shackling both runners to a post would be fair, but would it be a positive outcome?

Perhaps instead of focusing on winners and losers, we should focus on increasing the total distance ran? Starting the race from the beginning would be a waste of 60 yards.

[tharne]

> Why place such value on fairness?

This is spot on. If I'm in the hospital for something, my primary concern is the quality of care I'm going to receive, not the societal fairness/unfairness brought about the hospital's hiring policy.