[532] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Affirmative Action
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sourav K. Mandal)
Thu May 3 23:21:52 2001
Message-Id: <200105040320.XAA02847@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
From: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
Reply-To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 23:20:55 -0400
Dear All:
Again, in digest format. For convenience, a quick index of people I
reply to:
* matt <deberg@xennahtron.com>
* "Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>
* "Hesky Fisher" <hfisher@MIT.EDU>
* "Richard J. Barbalace" <rjbarbal@MIT.EDU>
* Phife <aca3@MIT.EDU>
Cheers,
Sourav
********* FIRST MESSAGE **********
"matt <deberg@xennahtron.com>" wrote:
> remember, AA was put in place to rectify past injustices to an entire
> segment of our population. the premise is that the world would be a
> better place if all races were on equal footing, and that getting there
> requires active government support, including but not limited to AA.
>
> you'd have to make the same sort of argument to justify racial
> profiling. i've never heard anyone do that.
That's my whole point -- you've never heard anyone do that, because
it's so obviously racist and unfair. It concludes that we can judge
blacks and Hispanics as such strongly characteristic groups that one
can justifiably take group statistics and work backward to damn
individual blacks and Hispanics, all to help white people feel safer.
Affirmative action makes a similar conclusion, that individual blacks,
Hispanics and women are _entitled_ to extra consideration because the
groups they belong to perform poorly collectively, as if that is enough
justification to help certain individuals to the detriment of others.
The admissions committee is totally under the control of the
administration and is composed of MIT community members, so "entrenched
racism" is high unlikely to exist. As such, there is _no_
justification for affirmative action in admissions.
********* NEXT MESSAGE **********
""Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> Once again, incorrect. Equal opportunity programs by
> and large are run voluntarily by firms and are not
> covered by federal or state statues. [...]
That has no direct bearing as to whether or not the basic concept is
justifiable or not.
> What producers
> and servicers have learned is that there is a rising,
> block attitude group of minority consumers who,
> by their own cultural choice, tend to seek out
> familiar faces to market goods and provide services.
This is indeed pragmatic for business, and difficult to fault, but the
fact remains it only countenances irrational, despicable behavior. No
one should care what ethnicity his/her stockbroker, personal trainer,
etc. is.
********* NEXT MESSAGE **********
""Hesky Fisher" <hfisher@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> You can correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but if you are an
> objectivist and are more likely to get in here with Affirmative Action then
> shouldn't you be selfish about it and accept it? If you are trying to
> change the system, who are you changing it for? Is it so that other people
> will have an equal or better chance than you? Wouldn't that be (gasp!)
> Altruism?
Accepting ill-gotten gains does not constitute _rational_ selfishness;
it likely fits Prez Cannady's ethics, which I would characterize as
_irrational_ selfishness. He freely admits his moral code is based
purely on what he can get away with, and derides me (and other
Objectivists) for considering otherwise.
That's all the detail I'll go into here, since it would take the
discussion to far afield -- I'll be happy to talk about it off-list.
********* NEXT MESSAGE **********
""Richard J. Barbalace" <rjbarbal@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> As an Irish/Italian/etc. myself, I have to say that's a lovely, but
> provably wrong, argument. If this were true, then blacks would be
> extremely prosperous, since they've been in this country (and even
> free) since long before the immigrations you refer. Clearly a couple
> hundred years of slavery have set them back. If anything, the current
> lot of blacks in America shows that they need continued support.
Many ethnic groups have come to the US and have had exceptional
success; most were/are penniless or came from countries with
barrel-bottom exchange rates, and Asians certainly could not pass as
Anglo. So, why has black America not succeeded as population to the
same degree as these other groups? No one can argue that it's
impossible, because _many_ black persons have risen to excellence --
the general fraction is simply low. I second Matt Craighead's
recommendation of Larry Elder's book, which delves into the
sociological/cultural aspects of the question.
********* NEXT MESSAGE **********
"Phife <aca3@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> So here is the Anti-AA Challenge. Since so many of you seem to believe
> that, despite that fact that none of you own or administer your own
> institution of higher learning, it is your right to declare what is
> and is not acceptable admissions criteria, we will review YOUR
> admissions criteria. [...]
That's an interesting idea! If there was some way to guarantee
confidentiality of test scores and the like, I might take up the
challenge, even though no one person on the list has been accused of
getting in unfairly via affirmative action. Of course, everyone is
welcome to read my CV, posted on my website:
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/cv/
***** END OF MESSAGES ******
------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal
Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
