> If two groups are equally capable and have equal opportunity, you would expect similar outcomes.

No, because this assumes that different groups have equivalent values. This is plainly false. There are some broad similarities for sure, but each ethnicity and culture values different things which will inevitably produce different outcomes.

This is why obsessing over outcome equity is doomed from the start. It implicitly relies on either enforcing homogeneity, thus erasing cultural uniqueness, or outright discrimination in preferring some groups over others to overcome any cultural values that might impact outcomes so the final numbers look pretty.

> No, because this assumes that different groups have equivalent values.

Values are not intrinsically tied to your race, they just correlate to some degree like income and geography. Saying we shouldn't compensate for your parents values is like saying we shouldn't compensate for your parents income or zip code. That's fine, and it's not immoral to believe that, but just make sure you're being logically consistent in the things you believe we should and shouldn't control for.

But what empirical historical example of "outcome equity" has proven as harmful in scale and magnitude as slavery or other oppressive, authoritarian social orders? How much of this concern is founded in actual history? Even one example would help ground such a hypothetical concern.

Who said anything about harm? Harm is not the only consideration.

We could reduce harm to indigenous peoples living in the Amazon by forcibly moving them into cities with proper healthcare, but this would destroy their culture and violate their right to autonomy.

My parent comment explicitly said that AA is harmful, and I see it like how people abstractly state that communism is harmful to the social fabric or something. Now give a relevant empirical example. Even a scientific study would suffice. Stop playing lazy abstract word games unbefitting of STEM experts. And please carefully reread the upthread remakes before joining replying, Naasking.

No your parent comment said no such thing. I think you're confused.

I doubt there is such an example that fits; there certainly is a lack of significant historical evidence for actual harms of affirmative action. I think we would agree that some (many?) detractors of affirmative action give the impression that they believe affirmative action is an evil on the approximate level of slavery, warranting maintenance of the status quo. Still, slavery is an unfairly high bar to establish injustice, and I agree with other AA detractors in that the outcome of AA is morally dubious. I firmly believe that AA doesn't tackle the root of the problem and thus has dubious efficacy, too. I hope everyone embraces reform along the lines of reduced or nullified college tuition and better public school and health infrastructure to lift all communities up. Money shouldn't be an issue at this time, except for the backwards society that we live in. The fine game of nil, indeed!

I think there's no contradiction that AA doesn't tackle the root of the problem (I think that is a half truth) and AA is actually what universities morally ought to do on their part, and that it is neither proven nor disproven that AA policy could actually accelerate reparations through intergenerational effects.

Noam Chomsky points out that in poor countries such as Brazil and India, there is much more affirmative action (e.g. to compensate for wrongs of the caste system). It's America--a rich, powerful, and unequal country--that is so ideologically opposed to this.

I note your mention of other countries, though progress still seems slow there. There still seems to be plenty of corruption. I think the reforms I've mentioned are far more promising, though if AA is to be implemented in a way, I should think that framing it based on actual economic status is both more correct and more defensible; people need money in most things and a reasonable demonstration of merit can justify generous financial accomodations.

Equity is about justice. It’s an ethical issue. If you cannot understand justice, you cannot understand equity. Very simply, when a majority group uses its power and position to enforce its cultural norms and policies on the rest of society, they benefit or at least are not harmed, and further their own group. And this becomes so embedded in the society that the injustice becomes “invisible” it is just accepted as fair. Something as simple as where a highway is built heavily skews to minority neighborhoods being negatively affected.

Understand this. Then you will understand equity is fundamentally about justice and if we don’t seek to establish justice then we have failed.

> Equity is about justice. It’s an ethical issue.

I understand you think it's ethical, and I disagree for the reasons I laid out in the post you just replied to, among others. It doesn't seem like you've engaged with the points there so I have nothing further to say.

My previous comment did engage with your points. It’s not about making everyone the same, it is about reducing the unfair aspects and power games that the majority group continues and has in the past, exerted on the marginalized.

If Someone says that siding with an oppressor is justice, I think they should relearn ethics.

> It’s not about making everyone the same, it is about reducing the unfair aspects and power games that the majority group continues and has in the past, exerted on the marginalized.

And the methods by which it attempts to do so enforces homogeneity or discrimination. The ends do not justify the means.

At a most naïve level, yes. But the post-modern left’s big assumption is that evolutionary, biological, and other factors can’t play a roll in those outcomes.

For example, if a group of people is biologically predisposed to becoming dependent on alcohol, and are thrown into an environment (equally relative to other populations) where consumption of alcohol without developing a destructive dependence on it is part of a “success”, then wouldn't you expect to see an inequality of successful outcomes?

So instead of legally discriminating against the genetic groups who are alcohol tolerant, the just answer is to say that we can’t control that and look for other ways to define success. Sometimes success is toxic and should be redefined, but the hard part is navigating situations where success isn’t toxic and does serve a clear function and is a utility to society. At some level we have to be okay allowing for inequality of outcomes because we cant even identify let alone control all the social and biological variables of being human.

> At a most naïve level, yes. But the post-modern left’s big assumption is that evolutionary, biological, and other factors can’t play a roll in those outcomes.

Democracy's big assumption too btw.

> At some level we have to be okay allowing for inequality of outcomes because we cant even identify let alone control all the social and biological variables of being human.

We are. MIT isn't admitting people with IQs in 60s due to genetic defects are they? It's a matter of degree, and managing that requires measuring. We can't measure people's inborn abilities, so we have to make palatable assumptions measure what we can, and act accordingly. The "to discriminate or not to discriminate" choice is purely one of lesser evil. There is no good answer here.

So what are the numbers today? Where’s the gap?

> Rather, it’s an unfortunate adversity that needs to be overcome.

Well yeah, but again

> ideally with awareness, empathy, and support of other people even those who do not have to face that adversity

the question here is how much support and what kinds. Any amount based on race is still a form of affirmative action, it's just not happening in a college admissions office.

In the context here I think people take affirmative action to mean “official race-based consideration in the college admissions process”. While helping others out when they demonstrate need is action, it’s usually just called being a decent person and you don't have to limit it to artificial racial boundaries.

> While helping others out when they demonstrate need is action, it’s usually just called being a decent person and you don't have to limit it to artificial racial boundaries.

100% But back to the context: controlling for racial disparity. If your answer is "just be nice" then you're choosing the "wait it out for 100's of years" option. That's totally your prerogative, and I personally flip flop between the two in terms of which I think is better for society.