I know HN is gonna downvote me into oblivion for this, but… I’m a cis-het white dude, a this rings true for me:

“When you’ve been in the majority for a long time, equality can feel like oppression.”

Just because a system desires proportional representation does not mean it’s discriminatory against the majority. It just means it’s no longer preferential toward them.

▲

entrox 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

If the system values proportional representation higher than qualification, than I will either abandon my own strive towards excellence or I will actively support changing that system.

I feel the latter option is more likely than abandoning something that is often shaping one's own identity

▲

jachee 5 days ago | parent [-]

The system should value qualification higher than other factors. But the system is made up of people with inherent biases that has led to imbalanced representation of the majority over actual qualifications.

You can strive for excellence and equality at the same time. It’s not zero sum.

	▲	ajsnigrutin 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		In my country, in high school, you get grades and at the end you have a standardized test. Colleges decide what ratio will be used (and if any special requirements are needed), and in most cases it's 60% standardized test results, 40% grades + some formula to turn that into 0-100 score. This is known well in advance, before even applying to the college. College has 150 open spots, 230 people apply, 20 fail the last year of high school, the other 210 are put on a ranked list by the points they've achieved, at 150th place "a line is drawn" and that's the cuttof for who gets accepted and who doesn't. They just publish "86.5 points needed to be accepted", and you can do the math at home and don't have to wait for the post to arrive. How is that not equal? It has worked since literally the commie times.

▲

beeflet 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

kenjackson 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Is it? Almost all outcomes favor the majority. How many straight white males actually think they would have better life outcomes being born black female gay? Even with affirmative action, that only impacts a very small percentage of people at a very narrow window of time.

▲

beeflet 5 days ago | parent [-]

Why is it the job of private institutions to regulate the life outcomes of key political demographics?

Private institutions have the job of selecting the best candidates, and they don't have the right to discriminate against any candidates on the basis of race.

In one breath, supporters of affirmative action in this thread will deny that such discrimination exists, and in the other they will justify its existence. Clearly you must acknowledge on some level that it's not really defensible.

	▲	kenjackson 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		It’s a great question. And I think we are in a bit of a pickle as not doing something is just acting in the opposite way to regulate life outcomes. It’s like gerrymandering districts and then when people want to move things back to a more normal partition you say “let’s just leave things as they are and not tinker”. But you’re now just advantaging the group that tinkered last.

▲

jachee 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

When the system is dominated by the majority, and has been for a long time, a correction requires being “discriminatory against the majority”.

“The system” itself was incorrect before. This is why it’s called systemic racism/sexism/etc.

▲

ajsnigrutin 5 days ago | parent [-]

But the kids applying to colleges today had nothing to do with the history. A white (or asian) boy won't get accepted to his chosen college because of something he had no influence on, be it "history" or his skin color and gender.

Is collective punishment of kids for something they had nothing to do with really the answer?

	▲	jachee 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		This thread is specifically about jobs, where people are specifically evaluated on an individual basis. University admissions are a whole different discussion, but are broken in similar ways.