[457] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: In Defense of Affirmative Action
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay P Muchnij)
Wed May 2 11:18:35 2001
Message-Id: <200105021518.LAA13894@all-night-tool.mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 11:18:01 -0400
From: Jay P Muchnij <munch@MIT.EDU>
> 1. nobody has claimed that MIT admits underqualified minorities instead
> of qualified majorities. the affirmative action policy is
> specifically built on the tenant that there are a great many
> undistinguishable candidates. one of the two (more like 9 of the
> 10) in a bucket are going to lose, no matter who MIT picks.
Was it not asserted (with some evidence) that the current system selects
less-qualified (by the rating mechanism used by the admissions folks)
underrepresented minorities at the expense of the rest of the pool? Or
am I simply losing track of all the spewage on this list? It seems that
the argument is more about whether the admissions' office established
practice of considering 85% of the applicants qualified is in fact
accurate. I'm certainly not in a position to state whether or not 85%
of the people who apply to MIT can handle the load as it is now. That
does beg the question of whether or not MIT *should* be an institution
where 85% of the applicants can handle the load. I get the feeling that
many of those arguing against affirmative action feel that it shouldn't
be. (I know that there are professors who bitch about how the student
body isn't what it was when it comes to drive and motivation, and blame
this on the admissions office, deservedly or not.)
> 2. it is important to view AA at a macroscopic level, not on a
> case-by-case basis. you will always rathole if you insist on
> comparing one particular guy against another. the purpose of the
> program is to give an entire slighted race a boost back to equality,
> hence it must be viewed at a higher level.
Well, that is one of the the cruxes of the debate, isn't it?
Whether something that's introduced for the benefit of the majority at
the macroscopic level but unjust at the individual level is an
acceptable practice?
j
