[nlittlepoole]

They aren't saying that. They are recognizing that many forms of power in society are zero sum. There are plenty of ways to get a great education but only one Harvard and a limited amount of power to be distributed via an institution like Harvard. You and many like you believe that access to these institutions should be gatekeeped via a meritocracy. The supporters of this form of affirmative action recognize that in a system where black/latino/indigenous students have structural disadvantages (poverty, prejudice, health, etc) that any pure meritocracy leads to a system where their racial group possesses disproportionately less power vs their population.

The reason you see that as "racial tribes" is that you fundamentally are underestimating how much marginalized communities distrust communities outside of their own. Black people do not trust that if Asian students go to Harvard and gain positions of power that those adults will protect their interests. They want their own in those positions.

[MockObject]

> underestimating how much marginalized communities distrust communities outside of their own. Black people do not trust that if Asian students go to Harvard and gain positions of power that those adults will protect their interests. They want their own in those positions.

I can't adopt this level of cynicism, or else I'd have to conclude that multi-ethnic societies are doomed to fall apart like Yugoslavia, or remain together using synthetic means like the Lebanese National Pact⁰, which specifies power sharing with agreements like

* The Prime Minister of the Republic always be a Sunni Muslim.

* The Speaker of the Parliament always be a Shia Muslim.

* The Deputy Speaker of the Parliament and the Deputy Prime Minister always be Greek Orthodox Christian.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pact

[zmgsabst]

> The supporters of this form of affirmative action recognize that in a system where black/latino/indigenous students have structural disadvantages (poverty, prejudice, health, etc) that any pure meritocracy leads to a system where their racial group possesses disproportionately less power vs their population.

You’re describing why you believe it’s okay to discriminate against that Asian student because there’s “too many yellows, not enough blacks”.

You’re also ignoring that they’re choosing to engage in institutional racism rather than utilize programs such as meritocracy + individual aid, which automatically counter any “structural disadvantages” — that is, they’re choosing racism when better alternatives exist.

> The reason you see that as "racial tribes" is that you fundamentally are underestimating how much marginalized communities distrust communities outside of their own. Black people do not trust that if Asian students go to Harvard and gain positions of power that those adults will protect their interests. They want their own in those positions.

You just described racism and a belief in racial tribes — exactly what I said was driving this.

> They aren't saying that.

You start off disagreeing — and then go on to describe exactly what I said.

[nlittlepoole]

> You’re describing why you believe it’s okay to discriminate against that Asian student because there’s “too many yellows, not enough blacks”.

Not really. If intelligence is equal between races and a system is an actual meritocracy, then the balance between groups should be the same. One group outperforming indicates a difference in circumstances. If you believe those circumstances aren't because of disadvantages then you either believe one group is inherently more capable than the other, one group works harder than the other, or that one group has a more effective culture. Generally, there is a lot of animosity within the black community toward ̶A̶s̶i̶a̶n̶ people who tend to believe any of the above (because it is pretty common amongst racist).

> You’re also ignoring that they’re choosing to engage in institutional racism rather than utilize programs such as meritocracy + individual aid, which automatically counter any “structural disadvantages” — and is in sharp contrast to their proposed racist system that rewards privileged blacks ahead of poor Asians. One of the many reasons such racist systems fail, in practice: they don’t confront the issue you claim they address.

Are you arguing structural disadvantages are not real? are you arguing that the issue in the black community is effort? if the issue isn't structural disadvantages, what do you think they are?

> You just described racism and a belief in racial tribes — exactly what I said was driving this ... You start off disagreeing — and then go on to describe exactly what I said.

I'm disagreeing with the policy as an effective way to address a set of issues. I never said I disagreed with the idea that there are tribes. Tribes are going to exist as long as we live in a society that offers members of different tribes different opportunities and experiences within society. The way to fix that is not to just pretend that doesn't exist. A meritocracy can't exist until everyone within a society believes they have a fair chance to participate in it and it is not controversial to say most black people do not believe that is the status quo. You are choosing to see this as people trying to take something away from you when its really a bunch of people lashing out over the fact that the system was never fair in the first place.

[thorncorona]

> If you believe those circumstances aren't because of disadvantages then you either believe one group is inherently more capable than the other, one group works harder than the other, or that one group has a more effective culture.

The more blindingly obvious conclusion is study time among asians is far higher than all other races. [0]

> Generally, there is a lot of animosity within the black community toward ̶A̶s̶i̶a̶n̶ people who tend to believe any of the above (because it is pretty common amongst racist).

Congrats for outing yourself as a racist?

[0] https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026/tables/table_35.asp

[nlittlepoole]

just so we can be perfectly clear, is the point you are trying to defend, that the differences circumstances of black people in America as compared to Asians can be explained with work ethic?

[MockObject]

> or that one group has a more effective culture

> Generally, there is a lot of animosity within the black community toward ̶A̶s̶i̶a̶n̶ people who tend to believe any of the above

In my experience, there is much, much discourse within the black community regarding culture, and how it affects success.

[nlittlepoole]

Absolutely there is but the way that those outside the group make it seem is that we're 100% responsible for how the culture that exists got to where it is. The mainstream culture has problems but a lot of those problems are the result of historical inequities. It needs to be fixed but all of American society needs to see it as something they are also responsible for fixing and not fixing by simply pushing people to adopt the cultural norms of another group of people.

[MockObject]

> all of American society needs to see it as something they are also responsible for fixing

Responsibility for culture is an interesting issue. Very few individuals can claim any significant responsibility.

People tend to look askance at outsiders coming in to fix their culture.

Further, I don't think American mainstream culture is in any position to evangelize its greatness right now.

> not fixing by simply pushing people to adopt the cultural norms of another group of people.

I don't know, I see culture as evolutionary. Everyone should adopt the practices they see succeeding, and abandon they ones they see failing, no?

[MockObject]

> There are plenty of ways to get a great education but only one Harvard

We had only one Harvard when the country's population was quite a bit smaller. Perhaps, instead of the zero-sum struggle for Harvard attendance, we should be working to create new Harvards. We have the oversupply of academics.

[secabeen]

> Perhaps, instead of the zero-sum struggle for Harvard attendance, we should be working to create new Harvards.

That takes not dis-investing in public higher ed to the degree we did during the 2008 recession. It takes decades to build a new R1 research institution, and a commitment of large sums of money over that time. Rockefeller created the University of Chicago, Leyland Stanford his namesake, where are Buffet, Bloomberg, Walton, Mars, and Gates Universities? That could be a good use of some of the modern billionaire money, if we're not going to spend tax dollars on new R1 institutions.

[MockObject]

It's hard to comprehend disinvestment given that tuitions have increased 10x over a few decades, but

> where are Buffet, Bloomberg, Walton, Mars, and Gates Universities?

That's a very good point.

[secabeen]

> It's hard to comprehend disinvestment given that tuitions have increased 10x over a few decades, but

Disinvestement is the exact reason tuition has increased. The discount funded by state legistatures is being reduced, so tuition has to go up to balance the books.