Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:53 pm
Canadiandude2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:22 pm
My words were chosen because while it’s all great to speak of equality of
opportunity, many of the barriers that women and other marginalized groups face are systemic but not easily solved through equal opportunity policies alone. In my own field of political science, there’s long been a debate as to whether the scarcity of women in politics is due to supply or demand. Over the last few years however the research suggests it’s more of a demand problem, with one proposed solution being quotas. I want a system that’s more equitable yes, but not just for women. Racialized minorities (particularly people of colour in Canada and the US), Indigenous & First Nations Peoples (who also face racial barriers), my fellow 2slgbtq+, there are a lot of people whose interests are poorly served right now. I don’t believe in any ‘end of history’ as it were, but I do think we can do better to meet the needs of disenfranchised people, and much of what the church currently stands for is either in direct or indirect opposition to this goal.
Would you be willing to compromise on competency or availability if the standard within your system is predicated on the physical features and sexual identity as you described above? I ask that because if we create a hierarchy of needs based on perceived oppression or lack of representation it’s going to get complicated quickly and will breakdown under the weight of it’s own layering.
For example, excluding legacy admissions to Harvard, there exists a system in place to diversify the student population. One of the interesting things that has come out of this is that under ‘white’ admissions something like 75% of admitted white students are Jewish. I have no idea why that rate is so high, but if Jews who make up, I dunno, 6% of the US are getting 75% of the seats, then there’s an ethnicity disequity happening where Mormons, Evangelical, Catholics, Lutherans et al are underrepresented, no? Do you mandate that admissions are predicated on the hundreds, if not thousands, of groups in which people identify?
- Doc
Firstly.
The language used here is a little direct in that it assumes ‘I’ would be necessarily the [only] one initiating such quotas and finding solutions. Furthermore, I mentioned quotas as a specific policy option for a particular problem in a particular field (political representation). I don’t know that I have a solution to tackle the problem in every field’s needs. I further acknowledge that while I can speak re: the issue fields of political science, experts on similar problem in other fields might have better, different, or concurrent solutions to match its context. Nevertheless, even if quotas themselves are not a sufficient or workable policy solution for such problems in every field, my argument would still remain, and it is not necessarily the only possible solution. Mine instead is a call for greater research, resources and imagination given to improving such outcomes. An ethical argument.
Q: Would you be willing to compromise on competency or availability if the standard within your system is predicated on the physical features and sexual identity as you described above?
A: I don’t see why we’d have to compromise anything.
You’re argument (notice I didn’t say ‘you’) assumes that these bright, competent people don’t already exist in sufficient numbers, or be incentivized, trained, and supported to become sufficiently competent. Quotas can also be set at manageable targets or ranges that reflect a demographic’s general proportion of a population. Furthermore, are different standards necessarily unreasonable? For example, in the Canadian Armed Forces men and women must meet slightly different standards of physicality, and there remain many women and men able to surpass these standards all the same. The required demands and desired qualities expected of any specific branch of service personnel have also evolved, as the technology, mandates and problems faced by the militaries of established democracies change.
Comment: “I ask that because if we create a hierarchy of needs based on perceived oppression or lack of representation it’s going to get complicated quickly and will breakdown under the weight of it’s own layering.”
Reply: There are a lot of assumptions within this argument. Are we so certain we don’t already have a complex hierarchy of needs, based on particular privileged group-interests, that’s not already breaking under the weight of its own making? What (and who) defines these needs? What is the logical and necessary progression here between each degree of your slippery slope? Are complex systems necessarily doomed to failure?
Your example:
“For example, excluding legacy admissions to Harvard, there exists a system in place to diversify the student population. One of the interesting things that has come out of this is that under ‘white’ admissions something like 75% of admitted white students are Jewish.
Qa: I have no idea why that rate is so high, but if Jews who make up, I dunno, 6% of the US are getting 75% of the seats, then there’s an ethnicity disequity happening where Mormons, Evangelical, Catholics, Lutherans et al are underrepresented, no?”
Qb: “Do you mandate that admissions are predicated on the hundreds, if not thousands, of groups in which people identify?”
My Response:
Can your argument be substantiated with a link to a reliable and valid source for the data provided?
Aa: Quotas might not be the perfect solution in equitably representing all identities, in all contexts, and I fear your argument misuses the term ‘ethnicity’. You speak of religious representation, at a university who’s prestigiousness incurs a massive amount of
global applications. But that aside. Do you mean Mormon or Latter-Day Saint? Not all of the former are the latter and many of the latter no longer associate themselves as the former. Is there a special
equity interest in representing white Latter-Day Saints at Yale or post-secondary institutions more generally? What about non-white Latter-Day Saints? Are Latter-day Saints marginalized within the United States? Are whites marginalized within the United States? In comparison to what or whom? Recall that I never had as my goal exactness. Remember that equity and equality are not the same, nor are all differences in outcomes equally disastrous. At what rate do white Latter-Day Saints achieve post-secondary education in the US? How does this compare with non-white Latter-day Saints in the US. What about between different ethnic backgrounds, and between race-based categories in the US more generally? Do the same, but with other variables: Income level; representation across high-income jobs; occupational mobility; life-expectancy; etc Is there something about being a white Latter-Day Saint that is disadvantageous in your country as opposed to being a non-white Latter-Day Saint? Caucasian compared to other ethnic backgrounds more generally in the US? Latter-Day Saints compared to other religious identities more generally in your country? What about level and degree of documented hate crimes?
Ab: Are all identities so equally and sufficiently disenfranchised in the outcomes they face as to require any special policy consideration re: attainment post-secondary education ?
My goal was never homogeneity. Exactitude. Or even the absence of unfairness. Policy furthermore is negotiable, adaptable, fluid. Indicators can be set. Other policies can be set instead or alongside. Most universities have policies that privilege the children/relatives of alumni. That could also be changed.
Final thoughts:
Upon reviewing your argument and questions, I am left with distinct impression that it
may have been a reactive defence of privilege. Reactive, because it did not consider counter-arguments, or interpretations. It did not explain some of its assumptions nor much of its underlying logic (systems slippery slope). As for privilege… Of all the anecdotes to focus upon, why so much concern re: the lack of white Mormon representation at Yale? Or the premise of challenging patriarchy, and other similar systems of supremacy, with improvement not nec perfection in mind?
Curious.
