[throwaway74432]

If they knew that blacks have less resources and are therefore on average worse applicants as a result, then they knew that a bad application statistically meant a black applicant. So by not picking the worse application, they were in effect being statistically racist.

[akoboldfrying]

I think you're kidding, because this reasoning means (a) assuming a priori that blacks will do noticeably worse and (b) deliberately choosing worse applications, both of which are crazy. At least, it's the kind of convoluted joke I'd enjoy making to certain friends who know my real thoughts on the matter.

But I can't really tell.

[throwaway74432]

It's not crazy to assume that people with less resources and support will do worse. The logic is sound and its in fact the standard explanation (along with discrimination) as to why marginalized groups do worse.

[akoboldfrying]

>The logic is sound

It's really, really not. You have come to the conclusion that grant deciders should deliberately choose worse applications based on a series of shaky assumptions, including that black applicants have had less support and resources, that this will cause them to produce conspicuously worse applications, and most glaringly of all, that this assumed effect dominates all other considerations!

I hope you're just trolling me and don't seriously believe this.

[throwaway74432]

Honestly I think that you are trolling me, but I am trying to assume good faith. In your first reply to me, you said "[an explanation is that] systemic racism in education in the past has left black applicants less well prepared than other applicants." Now you are saying this is a shaky hypothesis and has minimal impact on the applications?