[459] in Discussion of MIT-community interests

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: In Defense of Affirmative Action

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (matt)
Wed May 2 13:15:45 2001

To: Jay P Muchnij <munch@mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
From: matt <deberg@xennahtron.com>
Date: 02 May 2001 13:15:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: Jay P Muchnij's message of "Wed, 02 May 2001 11:18:01 -0400"
Message-ID: <knh4rv3y8nf.fsf@chamomile.xennahtron.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

    Jay> Was it not asserted (with some evidence) that the current
    Jay> system selects less-qualified (by the rating mechanism used by
    Jay> the admissions folks) underrepresented minorities at the
    Jay> expense of the rest of the pool?  Or am I simply losing track
    Jay> of all the spewage on this list?  It seems that the argument is

it may be that i got lost in the thread, but my prior understanding is
that AA only comes into play (along w/ legacies) when choosing
acceptances out of a small pool of otherwise-equal candidates.

you may argue that MIT admissions should do a finer-grained ranking, but
that's really a different issue.  i'm not in a position to question
admissions if they claim that two people are equivalent.

    >> 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.

    Jay>       Well, that is one of the the cruxes of the debate, isn't
    Jay> it?  Whether something that's introduced for the benefit of the
    Jay> majority at the macroscopic level but unjust at the individual
    Jay> level is an acceptable practice?

but nobody has asserted unjustice at the individual level.  given two
equal candidates, if MIT picks the majority over the minority then the
minority is also justified in complaining.  AA, at least how MIT does
it, is by definition a macroscopic phenomenon.  any case-by-case
analysis lacks the very context you are trying to judge.

matt

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post