The Future of Affirmative Action Explained.
video description
Date: 2019-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Omari_X 65
This is SUCH a big issue in terms of all the things influencing the situation, its hard to talk about. Ex: Latinos tend to be poor. By being poor, they have to live in low-income neighborhoods. Low-income neighborhoods undeniably have subpar education systems. Thus even if a Latino student has the intellectual capacity to be a highly above average scholar, they may not reach that full potential due to their environment. Then when they apply to a school like Harvard where they can finally get the cultivating environment they need, they are shut out because they weren't given the same societal boosts as others. When we talk about pure merit its not as if we live in a world where everyone receives the same quality of education in the first place. So sole merit creates a problem as well (mostly because as it is currently determined, is actually very surface-level. But obviously that's not the case for every single minority individual, and it also varies by region, and probably literally hundreds of other things. It's hard to articulate my thoughts on this, but I don't like AA but I also wonder if it is not the marginally lesser evil for our time period. Going back broad, if the case if that due to the course of history, certain groups are rooted in high advantage over other groups, the solution (without outright stripping gains from the established privileged) is to TEMPORARILY give advantage to the less fortunate so they can catch up then cease all created boosts, right? How exactly long temporarily is, is the question I don't know. Has it gone on long enough at this point? Is this type of advantage even the right advantage to help or is it misguided? This is a very, very complicated issue.
reply
This is SUCH a big issue in terms of all the things influencing the situation, its hard to talk about. Ex: Latinos tend to be poor. By being poor, they have to live in low-income neighborhoods. Low-income neighborhoods undeniably have subpar education systems. Thus even if a Latino student has the intellectual capacity to be a highly above average scholar, they may not reach that full potential due to their environment. Then when they apply to a school like Harvard where they can finally get the cultivating environment they need, they are shut out because they weren't given the same societal boosts as others. When we talk about pure merit its not as if we live in a world where everyone receives the same quality of education in the first place. So sole merit creates a problem as well (mostly because as it is currently determined, is actually very surface-level. But obviously that's not the case for every single minority individual, and it also varies by region, and probably literally hundreds of other things. It's hard to articulate my thoughts on this, but I don't like AA but I also wonder if it is not the marginally lesser evil for our time period. Going back broad, if the case if that due to the course of history, certain groups are rooted in high advantage over other groups, the solution (without outright stripping gains from the established privileged) is to TEMPORARILY give advantage to the less fortunate so they can catch up then cease all created boosts, right? How exactly long temporarily is, is the question I don't know. Has it gone on long enough at this point? Is this type of advantage even the right advantage to help or is it misguided? This is a very, very complicated issue.
reply
scotsworth
I don't understand why purely socio-economic-based affirmative action is unacceptable. In the video, it's mentioned that Harvard claims that kind of police would reduce minority admissions by thousands over several years. but. why? Ultimately, I find the point made by the one woman about an impoverished Asian American kid being disadvantaged based purely on their race to be the biggest problem with affirmative action policies based around an individuals identity. It shows where poor kids who aren't an under-represented minority can fall into the cracks of the system. A poor white kid who will be a first generation college student doesn't have the leg up that a rich white kid with Harvard alum parents has. Yet that poor kid could get denied admission because they happen to be white, while a much more wealthy Latino kid (for example) would get a leg up because of their identity. To me, the issue with that shows exactly why factoring race in admissions is flawed. Also, plenty of data shows that, for example, the average black person is much more likely to be living in poverty than the average white person, and the average income of black families is much less than that of white families. So it stands to reason that a socio-economic approach would still benefit people that truly would need a leg up. I'll end with this specific theoretical example. should President Obama's daughters, who have grown up in a life of luxury with educated, wealthy parents. get a leg up in admissions due to their race against some poor asian kid? Absolutely not. That's a perfect example for why race shouldn't be a factor.
reply
I don't understand why purely socio-economic-based affirmative action is unacceptable. In the video, it's mentioned that Harvard claims that kind of police would reduce minority admissions by thousands over several years. but. why? Ultimately, I find the point made by the one woman about an impoverished Asian American kid being disadvantaged based purely on their race to be the biggest problem with affirmative action policies based around an individuals identity. It shows where poor kids who aren't an under-represented minority can fall into the cracks of the system. A poor white kid who will be a first generation college student doesn't have the leg up that a rich white kid with Harvard alum parents has. Yet that poor kid could get denied admission because they happen to be white, while a much more wealthy Latino kid (for example) would get a leg up because of their identity. To me, the issue with that shows exactly why factoring race in admissions is flawed. Also, plenty of data shows that, for example, the average black person is much more likely to be living in poverty than the average white person, and the average income of black families is much less than that of white families. So it stands to reason that a socio-economic approach would still benefit people that truly would need a leg up. I'll end with this specific theoretical example. should President Obama's daughters, who have grown up in a life of luxury with educated, wealthy parents. get a leg up in admissions due to their race against some poor asian kid? Absolutely not. That's a perfect example for why race shouldn't be a factor.
reply
Burt C0caine
I understand why affirmative action was brought about. It was necessary at the time. Do I think it still is? I'm not sure. I don't think racism is gone nor is it rare. It's just changed to fit the times. It's not socially acceptable to call a black person an n word, so what do you do if you still harbor those feelings and are a racist individual but don't want to get caught? You call them something else that passes as being generally acceptable. I think racism has just put on a suit and tie. My worry is with lack of affirmative action we are reverted back to the days when minorities struggled to get education and work, based on their race alone. But I also don't think white people should have the same issue. I think affirmative action might still be necessary, but not as heavy handed. If the job is in an area with a 90% white population and the workers reflect that so be it. But to this day people discriminate without even realizing it. I think employers need to stop being so lazy with hiring and not just hiring the first black/asian/Hispanic person who walks in the door cause they have quotas to make. Like finding qualified hard working people of varying races isn't impossible. When I worked at hiring in a predominantly white area we still managed to have a pretty diverse team without having affirmative action being a factor. So I don't know. The system itself is outdated, but it still might be completely necessary.
reply
I understand why affirmative action was brought about. It was necessary at the time. Do I think it still is? I'm not sure. I don't think racism is gone nor is it rare. It's just changed to fit the times. It's not socially acceptable to call a black person an n word, so what do you do if you still harbor those feelings and are a racist individual but don't want to get caught? You call them something else that passes as being generally acceptable. I think racism has just put on a suit and tie. My worry is with lack of affirmative action we are reverted back to the days when minorities struggled to get education and work, based on their race alone. But I also don't think white people should have the same issue. I think affirmative action might still be necessary, but not as heavy handed. If the job is in an area with a 90% white population and the workers reflect that so be it. But to this day people discriminate without even realizing it. I think employers need to stop being so lazy with hiring and not just hiring the first black/asian/Hispanic person who walks in the door cause they have quotas to make. Like finding qualified hard working people of varying races isn't impossible. When I worked at hiring in a predominantly white area we still managed to have a pretty diverse team without having affirmative action being a factor. So I don't know. The system itself is outdated, but it still might be completely necessary.
reply
Sounds
When she was saying how the point of affirmative action was for inclusion, she has to understand that there are a limited number of slots available. This means that for every applicant you include using race-based policies, you are (at the same time) excluding multiple applicants because of their race. I agree with Lee's comment about people who push for race-based policies are usually doing so because they want to protect students of different socioeconomic backgrounds. However, completely abolishing these race-based policies would require a complete restructuring of a lot of universities' decision process because we have been using race to help these students rather than socioeconomic background for so long. After reading the document you showed which detailed all of the categories Harvard uses in their decision making process, it's pretty obvious how many of these are centered around race and how many of them piggyback off of each other. This is what leads me to believe that many universities would need to completely overhaul their admission process if affirmative action was to be removed. Hypothetically after these changes are made, it would be extremely difficult for universities to check each member of their Board of Admissions for personal racial biases that may be used to exclude anyone based on race. It's not as simple as removing the ethnicity portion of the form.
reply
When she was saying how the point of affirmative action was for inclusion, she has to understand that there are a limited number of slots available. This means that for every applicant you include using race-based policies, you are (at the same time) excluding multiple applicants because of their race. I agree with Lee's comment about people who push for race-based policies are usually doing so because they want to protect students of different socioeconomic backgrounds. However, completely abolishing these race-based policies would require a complete restructuring of a lot of universities' decision process because we have been using race to help these students rather than socioeconomic background for so long. After reading the document you showed which detailed all of the categories Harvard uses in their decision making process, it's pretty obvious how many of these are centered around race and how many of them piggyback off of each other. This is what leads me to believe that many universities would need to completely overhaul their admission process if affirmative action was to be removed. Hypothetically after these changes are made, it would be extremely difficult for universities to check each member of their Board of Admissions for personal racial biases that may be used to exclude anyone based on race. It's not as simple as removing the ethnicity portion of the form.
reply
Einhorn Unicorn One Horn One Life.
I think yes there should be affirmative action to an extent. The problem I see is when they try to limit a certain amount of people from one sort of racial category. So lets say they have quotas of 10% Hispanic 10% African American 10% Asian 10% Native American 10% White and the rest as undecided. The problem here is that they are limiting students from coming to their school based on race. I understand having a minimum amount of students from different backgrounds to make sure there is a diversity of backround and racial experiences. What I do not understand, nor support, is the capping that amount as a maximum of students who are X race. Why not include students from those racial backgrounds on their own merits, and once they have filled the quotas admit any other applicant who meets the personal requirements as part of the rest of the 50% undecided REGARDLESS of their race. Treat all of the students in an equal manner in the area of grades and creative achievement. To not cap personal achievement just because they happened to be born a certain way seems fair to me. This idea to me will achieve diversity of not only diversity of background, but of thought, creative achievement, and experience.
reply
I think yes there should be affirmative action to an extent. The problem I see is when they try to limit a certain amount of people from one sort of racial category. So lets say they have quotas of 10% Hispanic 10% African American 10% Asian 10% Native American 10% White and the rest as undecided. The problem here is that they are limiting students from coming to their school based on race. I understand having a minimum amount of students from different backgrounds to make sure there is a diversity of backround and racial experiences. What I do not understand, nor support, is the capping that amount as a maximum of students who are X race. Why not include students from those racial backgrounds on their own merits, and once they have filled the quotas admit any other applicant who meets the personal requirements as part of the rest of the 50% undecided REGARDLESS of their race. Treat all of the students in an equal manner in the area of grades and creative achievement. To not cap personal achievement just because they happened to be born a certain way seems fair to me. This idea to me will achieve diversity of not only diversity of background, but of thought, creative achievement, and experience.
reply
Annabelle
It seems like one of the most pervasive issues here that was brought up rather quietly is alumni, and faculty children, as well as athletes. 5% of applicants making 30% of admissions is a ridiculous number. Also I feel race and socio economic factors must be considered in conjunction. A poor Asian American is more financially disadvantaged compared with a wealthy African American, but race still plays such a large role in treatments of others that it cannot be ignored. It should be gradually phased out until racial biases about intelligence or competency dont exist. Remember that home loan and job opportunity bias still exists, even when social class and credit scores are controlled for. This indicates an ever existent role of race in society. But neighborhood is also the the next biggest factor in Job discrimination which is indicative of social class and elitism in society. I also think the personal rating presents a huge problem. Its too subjective. But currently its the best we can do to address personality. A great idea would be giving essays to third party readers who dont know the race, and they can determine more subjective qualities. This would eliminate some of that stereotypical bias.
reply
It seems like one of the most pervasive issues here that was brought up rather quietly is alumni, and faculty children, as well as athletes. 5% of applicants making 30% of admissions is a ridiculous number. Also I feel race and socio economic factors must be considered in conjunction. A poor Asian American is more financially disadvantaged compared with a wealthy African American, but race still plays such a large role in treatments of others that it cannot be ignored. It should be gradually phased out until racial biases about intelligence or competency dont exist. Remember that home loan and job opportunity bias still exists, even when social class and credit scores are controlled for. This indicates an ever existent role of race in society. But neighborhood is also the the next biggest factor in Job discrimination which is indicative of social class and elitism in society. I also think the personal rating presents a huge problem. Its too subjective. But currently its the best we can do to address personality. A great idea would be giving essays to third party readers who dont know the race, and they can determine more subjective qualities. This would eliminate some of that stereotypical bias.
reply
Justin Hollowell
While some students are just academic oriented, ivy league students require qualities beyond academic merit, i. e. above normal creative qualities some people just need to apply to other universities, who cares if they dont get into Harvard, great students come from every university, its the students within the university that give the university their credibility. Which is why a university like the University of New Mexico School of Medicine ranks higher than Harvard in rural medicine, and Top 3 overall nationwide. Students who get rejected from Harvard and take it personal lack improvisation competencies, openmindedness, and empathy, as there are so many other higher education alternatives. This is the issue; people who are objecting to Harvards admissions process just arent used to rejection and need to get over their ego, as they are not entitled to everything, and need to consider all other facets in society that dictate their positions in life and academia. Get over yourselves and your individualistic self satisfaction, apply to the University of New Mexico or some other matte university where youll make just as an equal of an impact on society. Harvard lol smh
reply
While some students are just academic oriented, ivy league students require qualities beyond academic merit, i. e. above normal creative qualities some people just need to apply to other universities, who cares if they dont get into Harvard, great students come from every university, its the students within the university that give the university their credibility. Which is why a university like the University of New Mexico School of Medicine ranks higher than Harvard in rural medicine, and Top 3 overall nationwide. Students who get rejected from Harvard and take it personal lack improvisation competencies, openmindedness, and empathy, as there are so many other higher education alternatives. This is the issue; people who are objecting to Harvards admissions process just arent used to rejection and need to get over their ego, as they are not entitled to everything, and need to consider all other facets in society that dictate their positions in life and academia. Get over yourselves and your individualistic self satisfaction, apply to the University of New Mexico or some other matte university where youll make just as an equal of an impact on society. Harvard lol smh
reply
Osovo Yo
I don't think the admissions process is perfect, but if you look at the numbers, in terms of minority groups, there are more Asian Americans (22. 9%) than either African American (15. 2%) or Latino American (12. 3%, with majority of white students take up the other 50. 4%. So, the fact that the narrative from the SFFA seems to be implying that the issue is that African American and Latino students are getting more privilege from this is what gives me pause. The idea that these minority groups are TAKING something from others is a very toxic and concerning way to look at it, and does give me a reason to believe that the case is less about fairness. I feel like socio-economic status certainly can be important to include, and I also think that it could be interesting to not ask for race at all. But school (especially ivy league) historically have an issue of not being very diverse, and I think everyone can agree that diversity is important for many reasons, especially in terms of understanding the world and its varying perspectives. In order to ensure diversity, going blind on race could be very risky. I feel like there's got to be a middle point in here, though.
reply
I don't think the admissions process is perfect, but if you look at the numbers, in terms of minority groups, there are more Asian Americans (22. 9%) than either African American (15. 2%) or Latino American (12. 3%, with majority of white students take up the other 50. 4%. So, the fact that the narrative from the SFFA seems to be implying that the issue is that African American and Latino students are getting more privilege from this is what gives me pause. The idea that these minority groups are TAKING something from others is a very toxic and concerning way to look at it, and does give me a reason to believe that the case is less about fairness. I feel like socio-economic status certainly can be important to include, and I also think that it could be interesting to not ask for race at all. But school (especially ivy league) historically have an issue of not being very diverse, and I think everyone can agree that diversity is important for many reasons, especially in terms of understanding the world and its varying perspectives. In order to ensure diversity, going blind on race could be very risky. I feel like there's got to be a middle point in here, though.
reply
Damocles54
OK, honest question here. (Literally not trying to be facetious, genuinely curious)Why not remove all racial, gender, and socioeconomic variables from the application process and have admissions do it blind? Literally just take the students that would be the best fit under current standards but without the admissions department knowing if they're taking a gay, trans, Jewish, Chinese girl (all the same person. She's very diverse. ) OR a poster boy for the reich. Your stereotypical blond haired, blue eyed, male. (He is REALLY a walking stereotype. And kind of an idiot)You'd have to have a separation between the folk that processed the applications and those that reviewed them. Yes. You'd also then have to make sure that the admissions data and the financial data were totally separate. Keep the can i get in? and the howdafuq i'ma pay for this? separated so that things like socioeconomic data isn't figured into the admissions process. I mean, if it's blind it's fair. Isn't it? (Obviously, this is all a simplistic overview. I know is not THAT easy. I'm interested in knowing if the idea is as fair as i think it might be or not and why or why not)
reply
OK, honest question here. (Literally not trying to be facetious, genuinely curious)Why not remove all racial, gender, and socioeconomic variables from the application process and have admissions do it blind? Literally just take the students that would be the best fit under current standards but without the admissions department knowing if they're taking a gay, trans, Jewish, Chinese girl (all the same person. She's very diverse. ) OR a poster boy for the reich. Your stereotypical blond haired, blue eyed, male. (He is REALLY a walking stereotype. And kind of an idiot)You'd have to have a separation between the folk that processed the applications and those that reviewed them. Yes. You'd also then have to make sure that the admissions data and the financial data were totally separate. Keep the can i get in? and the howdafuq i'ma pay for this? separated so that things like socioeconomic data isn't figured into the admissions process. I mean, if it's blind it's fair. Isn't it? (Obviously, this is all a simplistic overview. I know is not THAT easy. I'm interested in knowing if the idea is as fair as i think it might be or not and why or why not)
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
23:8
13:18
16:12
12:55
13:56