> You're talking about a generation of white men who were told growing up that treating people differently based on skin color was the worst thing they could do.
There’s a linguistic sleight of hand that you’re using here that belies your emotional attachment to this topic.
It’s not that “treating people differently based on skin color” was the worst thing, it was that using skin color as a basis for discrimination, harassment, and even violence was the worst thing you could do.
You’re equating these two things:
- giving children who grew up in zip codes with terrible education outcomes a handicap during college admissions
- lynching
… which I find laughably monstrous and points to a convenient ignorance of history
> It’s not that “treating people differently based on skin color” was the worst thing, it was that using skin color as a basis for discrimination
Those are the same thing. "Discrimination" literally means "treating people differently based on skin color." Which is what the universities were doing.
> giving children who grew up in zip codes with terrible education outcomes a handicap during college admissions
That's not what universities were doing. We know that because they said so! In Harvard's brief to the Supreme Court, for example, Harvard argued that it had no "workable race-neutral alternative" that would achieve its goal of "diversity." Harvard.Br.52-53.
What you're describing--"giving children who grew up in zip code with terrible education outcomes a handicap"--is a race-neutral approach that focuses on socioeconomic factors. Harvard told the Supreme Court that such approaches would not work to achieve its goals: To achieve diversity targets without considering race, "Harvard would have to give socioeconomic tips of disproportionate magnitude ... so large that they would 'essentially automatically put[] in any applicant ... with an average probability of admission.'" Harvard.Br.53.
Centuries of discrimination against whole populations (women, non-whites) and I'm supposed to get bent out of shape that a university is preferring to admit people of those discriminated groups?
Given all the other advantages my male whiteness has benefited me, I think I can look past that.
(Not willfully blind, just keeping everything in perspective.)
> Centuries of discrimination against whole populations (women, non-whites) and I'm supposed to get bent out of shape that a university is preferring to admit people of those discriminated groups?
Yes, not because you’re white, but because as a citizen you have a moral obligation to help ensure that our institutions treat citizens as individuals, not as “groups.” Individuals living today shouldn’t be treated as if they personally suffered that discrimination by grouping them together based on skin color with people in the past who did. That doesn’t mean ignoring the effects of past discrimination. But those effects are baked into people’s individual circumstances and can be evaluated in those terms. Rich people should be treated alike morally and poor people should be treated alike morally regardless of the individual path dependency that led them both to the same place.
You can’t have your group identity cake and eat it too. I can’t demand better treatment than a similarly situated white person because other Bangladeshis are poor. I’m not them any more than you are them. Conversely, it’s wrong to discriminate against my wife’s poor white extended family members because other white people are rich. My kids go to private school with WASPs, some of whom definitely have slave owner legacy money. My wife’s family aren’t those people, and it’s racism to arbitrarily group them together.
Don't confuse rational discourse for "victimhood". Finding reasoned discourse difficult to understand and centering it around "victimhood" is ironically an effeminate trait.
[flagged]
> You're talking about a generation of white men who were told growing up that treating people differently based on skin color was the worst thing they could do.
There’s a linguistic sleight of hand that you’re using here that belies your emotional attachment to this topic.
It’s not that “treating people differently based on skin color” was the worst thing, it was that using skin color as a basis for discrimination, harassment, and even violence was the worst thing you could do.
You’re equating these two things:
… which I find laughably monstrous and points to a convenient ignorance of history
> It’s not that “treating people differently based on skin color” was the worst thing, it was that using skin color as a basis for discrimination
Those are the same thing. "Discrimination" literally means "treating people differently based on skin color." Which is what the universities were doing.
> giving children who grew up in zip codes with terrible education outcomes a handicap during college admissions
That's not what universities were doing. We know that because they said so! In Harvard's brief to the Supreme Court, for example, Harvard argued that it had no "workable race-neutral alternative" that would achieve its goal of "diversity." Harvard.Br.52-53.
What you're describing--"giving children who grew up in zip code with terrible education outcomes a handicap"--is a race-neutral approach that focuses on socioeconomic factors. Harvard told the Supreme Court that such approaches would not work to achieve its goals: To achieve diversity targets without considering race, "Harvard would have to give socioeconomic tips of disproportionate magnitude ... so large that they would 'essentially automatically put[] in any applicant ... with an average probability of admission.'" Harvard.Br.53.
4 replies →
Centuries of discrimination against whole populations (women, non-whites) and I'm supposed to get bent out of shape that a university is preferring to admit people of those discriminated groups?
Given all the other advantages my male whiteness has benefited me, I think I can look past that.
(Not willfully blind, just keeping everything in perspective.)
> Centuries of discrimination against whole populations (women, non-whites) and I'm supposed to get bent out of shape that a university is preferring to admit people of those discriminated groups?
Yes, not because you’re white, but because as a citizen you have a moral obligation to help ensure that our institutions treat citizens as individuals, not as “groups.” Individuals living today shouldn’t be treated as if they personally suffered that discrimination by grouping them together based on skin color with people in the past who did. That doesn’t mean ignoring the effects of past discrimination. But those effects are baked into people’s individual circumstances and can be evaluated in those terms. Rich people should be treated alike morally and poor people should be treated alike morally regardless of the individual path dependency that led them both to the same place.
You can’t have your group identity cake and eat it too. I can’t demand better treatment than a similarly situated white person because other Bangladeshis are poor. I’m not them any more than you are them. Conversely, it’s wrong to discriminate against my wife’s poor white extended family members because other white people are rich. My kids go to private school with WASPs, some of whom definitely have slave owner legacy money. My wife’s family aren’t those people, and it’s racism to arbitrarily group them together.
He was talking about the opinion of other white men, not Bangladeshis angry on our behalf
Why is a Bangladeshi not capable of empathizing with and articulating how a white person would feel under given circumstances?
1 reply →
Don't confuse rational discourse for "victimhood". Finding reasoned discourse difficult to understand and centering it around "victimhood" is ironically an effeminate trait.
I wasn't specifically addressing the person I was replying to—speaking instead to the general victimhood I see on display when this topic comes up.
I've lost friends to the "man-o-sphere" that think women and minorities have it easy, it's the white male that is being persecuted.
Pathetic.
>I wasn't specifically addressing the person I was replying to—speaking instead to the general victimhood I see on display when this topic comes up.
Oh, so just whatever you feel like is happening you delusionally believe is happening. Not surprising.
>I've lost friends to the "man-o-sphere" that think women and minorities have it easy, it's the white male that is being persecuted.
I've lost friends to the "DEI-o-sphere" that think men and majorities have it easy, it's the non-white female that is being persecuted.
Pathetic.