|
I think there are two questions here, both of which are totally valid, difficult, and important. One, how do you quantify "oppression" or "deservedness". My honest answer to that is I don't know. I wonder if a statistical model of demographics vs lifetime earnings can help, at a first estimation, by it wouldn't be simple at all and would probably be even more controversial than gerrymandering. But the other side of the question: the "why" should we do this at all, I think there is a clearer answer for that. Because if we don't, power and wealth quickly entrenches and polarizes society. Those with existing privileges share them with their offspring, and in so doing create dynasties of power that are counterproductive to the dream of an equitable democracy (which isn't a dream everyone shares). Those dynasties can arise from race, but also class, family name, legacy admissions, etc. People aren't just blank slate individuals but also very much the product of their environments. I think the goal isn't to wash away individual performance but to give people the chance to actually discover, express, and utilize their individual ability despite handicaps of circumstance -- at its core, the basic idea is that there are people who are richly deserving of aid and recognition because they could be great, "if only" something. It's the "if only what" that isn't easy to agree on. We don't want to exclude someone just because they had poor parents. Or because they're neurodivergent. Or white. In an ideal society there would just be ample opportunities for everyone. We don't live in such a society, so as long as there are limited resources and opportunities, we have to either fight over them or try to share them. I prefer the sharing model, but not everyone does. |