THIS is it. The problem is when we left it to people to just do "the right thing", their right thing was black people can be slaves and women can't vote. If day one in the United States of America, the constitution and our laws were meant to be fairly applied to all Americans, we wouldn't have had to make all these modifications to legislation that specifically assigns rights to people. These laws helped to bring the still incomplete culture shift in the United States. For example, giving voting rights to black people and women helped address some of the societal issues those groups faced at the time those rights were granted. Americans had the right to vote but someone decided they were excluded from those so we had to put it in writing. Gay marriage should not be a political issue. It's a confusion of a word with multiple meanings -- a legal status and separately a religious ritual. A Catholic wedding is not "legal marriage" despite it being used synonymously. The legal act of marriage has much more at stake for the parties than sexual preference. From a legal standpoint, marriage just legally unites two people who are consenting to allow certain rights to each member over several aspects of life. There's no reason people should have been denied that. If you want to get rid of "gay marriage" in legislation, they should give the legal aspect another neutral name that will apply to both hetero and same sex unions and have that be the basis of things instead of marriage. Then you can get "married" at church. My point is you can't take the race out of the law if you're going to have people picking and choosing without consequence when to apply it.
I can't help but think that if affirmative action were to be a thing it should be targeting class rather than race, poverty rather than identity. Is this a bad take? I'm definitely not well versed on the subject
I think when affirmative action was first put into place there was more of an argument against going directly for class differences, but as time has gone by we are reaching a point where it makes more sense to target class, but still keep guardrails to ensure the racist exclusion of specific groups doesnt creep back in.
I will say that one of many goals in the construction of "race" was as a justification for the unfair distribution of economic output. Therefore, to a degree, one can not fix class without also treating and dismantling the idea of "race"
The problem is that race and class act along different axes of privilege. There are ways in which the richest black person in America is still harmed by racism and ways that being poor is a nearly inescapable trap no matter who you are, and both of those require different approaches. A lot of the ways that racism manifests systemically is in a de facto fashion, where rules on the books are colorblind but a lot of proxies for race are baked into the system or from quantifiable implicit bias from thousands of people making decisions, so the end result has a strong racial bias in various ways that can't really be isolated and addressed individually. Meanwhile, there are targeted means of directly addressing class disparity such as financial aid, outreach programs, etc. Those can't account for some things, for example obligations to support poor or sick family members, but that really would be better served by broader social programs. It would certainly be more *politically correct* to make it exclusively class-based rather than having a racial component, but then you're just conceding the problem.
It's not a bad take for sure and I can agree that class is a rarely discussed disadvantage when it comes to progress movements. I would hesitate to say just to focus on class over race. Sociological studies have shown that even when factors such as education, race, and class are considered, there's still a gap between outcomes (example "The Asset Value of Whiteness: Understanding the Racial Wealth Gap" by Traub, Sullivan, Meschede, and Shapiro). The legacy of racial discrimination still holds an unconscious hold over the American populous. A multi-pronged approach is needed to alleviate this inequality and class NEEDS be a major factor, it just can not be the only one.
I'm white and disadvantaged. I have autism and am not from a rich family. If I'd lived in the US, I would not have been able to attend university, let alone become an engineer in a country where this is a well-respected and protected title. Identity politics can oversimplistically clump some groups together while ignoring other forms of disadvantage. Education is very important, both to an individual student, and to an entire nation, and so help should equally extended across all of society. Knowledge is the greatest of our common assets, and should be shared among all. Good education should be free, and available to all people. The only determining factors in getting a degree should be whether you're smart enough and whether you want a degree. If there is any place where we should apply "each to their needs, each to their ability", it's in education.
I am white, am autistic, have ADHD, came from a poor family, attended university in the US (accepted for admitance about 20 years ago) and became an engineer. I think your confidence that you wouldn't have been able to attend university in the US is really a lack of confidence (whether justified or not) in your abilities.
Personally, I think there need to be a perspective shift. That we are often stuck in a very narrow mindset. We like to see as it a race to a finish line, and the goal of our society is to make the race fair for everyone. And we get stuck arguing over how to make the race fair. But our society is not a race. Our goal on this journey should not be to finish first. But to make sure everyone can complete the journey. Admissions to schools are such a perfect example. We try to make it fair by claim admission is about merit. And that we can correct small unfair parts of the system. But what I really want to see is that everyone that wish to learn to have the means to do so. I think that if everyone can achieve, we will do a lot better as society as a whole.
If the reason you're looking at identity is to support those who are disadvantaged why don't you just cut out the middle man and just help those who are disadvantaged (not groups who are on average disadvantaged).
I don't really understand the "Politics of Difference" section. I've never heard of this theory before, do you have any concrete examples to explain how the conception of specific social groups within specific contexts is different from "identity"?
I'm not american so I don't have any experience in places with different races and cultures, but from here and other places i've been to it feels like the affirmative action thing is used everywhere, and instead of race or other identities it just targets different levels of household incomes and it seems to be working fine so far. I also have never seen anyone complain about other people getting handouts because of their bad financial situation at home. Like, there's financial and social inequality all round the world, why does the colour of someone's skin matter so much in america?
One of those things is an immutable characteristic, the other is something that can potentially be changed through individual effort. America is, and has been more racially, diverse than most places. The relatively recent abolishment of slavery and the even more recent reduction in oppressive laws towards specific race groups is still strongly impacting the populations. There is also more animus felt between the groups than in other places from my experience.
@@anantgupta2406 could also say it's related and a subset of the same human mentality of ppl to concentrate power amongst themselves and find reasons to continue to exclude others. any system of at least trying to combat the impact of our biases is obviously better than not.
The idea that the Framers of the US Constitution were "Colourblind" is, frankly, ludicrous. Not only were they all Male, they were also all White and also all Wealthy and Privileged. More importantly, from the "Affirmative Action" position, many of them were Slave Owners and NONE of them believed that Black people (never mind Native Americans), were anywhere close to being the equal of White people. Furthermore, it's worth noting that after more than fifty years of "Race Conscious" admissions, Harvard (Alma Mater to some of the "Framers") still hasn't matched its admissions rate for Back to the wider US Demographic rate. But all of this pales into insignificance when we consider that while Classical Liberalism assumes all begin as equal, in reality NONE begin as equal - and in societies that have for centuries been as racially conscious as the US (most State Constitutions in the ante-Bellum South restricted Slavery to Black people and the "Jim Crow" laws that succeeded the Civil War, Black people were deliberately discriminated against), there needs to be conscious policies to undo the centuries of discrimination. (Those opposed to "Affirmative Action" might do well to remember that since at least 1690, the US and the colonies it grew out of, was created VERY "Race Conscious" - it is just that the "Race" being privileged were Whites). Might such policies have "time-limits"? Possibly - but it is equally possible to argue that, given the period of deliberate discrimination continued for over two centuries of US History, so should the policies that intend to create the "more equal society"....
The assumption that every subset of population (e.g. college students) should have the same proportions as the whole population is just wrong. Why don't we look at prisons for example and do something about gender and racial over representation? People are not equal. They should have equal opportunity, but that absolutely doesn't mean that they should be equally successful
3:10 i honestly feel like that sentence *PRECISELY* answers the overall question, even if it's a little roundabout: the presumption was always rich white men, in most of these philosophical and political discussions, and thus there is the presumption that anyone that deviates from that base assumption, is not included in the discussion of rights. I.e. Non white men, non rich people, and women. We aren't the target demographic for a right to liberty and the persuit of happiness, and frankly you need not look further than how they treat, and have always treated women in that context.
There is underlying assumption that the government can actually do something better than normal social dynamics, I would argue that assumption is wrong, government is structure of power and that how it solve issues with power soft or hard, those usually slow down social progress, but people that love gathering power argue that the slowed down progress is to thier credit not that it was slowed down because of its action.
I already replied this to someone else but ill say it again. Slow progress is long lasting progress. Things that are quick and easy to change will be quickly and easily changed by the next group with their own ideas
i think it's rather damaging to the entire debate to bring up the constitution so often. one of the earlier drafts was ACTUALLY color blind and did not leave many grey areas/nuances regarding certain racial issues (slavery amongst others) but they HAD to make a more vague draft to allow states to "read the meaning themselves". It may be the foundation for your states. but it's beyond obvious to outsiders the foundation was intentionally built crooked. Denying this and refusing to fix it... RIP America. RIP.
America is doing just fine, theres no ideal place in the world and never will be. All progress should be gradual to be long lasting and the trend is already there. The people who want quick results will never taste the fruits of success for long. Just my 2 cents, everyone feel free to think what you want
Thinking affirmative action is (reverse) discrimination or 'unfair' is like complaining that hospitals are for the sick, soup kitchens are for the poor, and fire departments are only for people whose buildings are on fire. And BTW international law has an awesome definition of what discrimination is: distinction, exclusion, or restriction of people which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of equal human rights, freedoms, and opportunities. So this clearly allows for affirmative actions, and precludes any complaints that such action would be (reverse) discrimination.
Defending affirmative action is like saying that hospitals, soup kitchens, and fire departments should take away the opportunities of some people in need and give them to others based on their gender or skin color. But this analogy is not perfect. Unlike these institutions, universities and companies have entrance requirements that must take knowledge and skill into account.
Nobody complains when the profit motive cuts against the 'common good.' Whatever rich people want is OK. It's only when poorer people want to be considered that the 'common good' gets brought up. It is not a concept 'they' want discussed much, lest it lead to thinking. When poorer people's Identity Pride blocks them from intersecting with others based on common class interest, that is when it starts being less than a good thing. In a developmental sense we might best see intense tribal affiliation as appropriate for teens up into 20 somethings. For the hegemonic culture this is the local high school sports scene. It's when we have these emotions about something other than high school sports that we are marked as weirdos. As we get past that age (rare for our primitive ancestors) we hopefully recognize the ways our human experience is the same even for those who seem so different. Screen culture does weird things to us, overloading our empathy while actually keeping us isolated. It keeps us reminded that so much is wrong, and that we cannot do anything except click like on wishing someone would.
I think ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) as a prerequisite to affirmative action benefits could address the need for opportunity for all. Those with low scores (say under 2?) would not be eligible, and those over let’s say, 6, are given full benefits? Seems like it might help address the race issue in affirmative action while still helping those in the lower class. Generally speaking, there’s a correlation between children with high ACE scores and poverty, mental illness, success in life, etc.
It's really about equality of opportunity... not equality of outcome. We need much better public school education K - 12 for everyone no matter what. We do not need a system of reverse discrimination disadvantaging young white males over anyone.
I personally believe that liberalism where identity is scrubbed off political discourse will always be problematic in any greater social structure/context that fosters dominance hierarchies, because it makes us all intentionally partially blind to entities that un-democratic control our lives because of those very "identities". A special brand of liberalism in the USA lead to corporations being treated by law as people just like you and me, but after a little bit of though we can both agree this is ridiculous. How is a limited liability, immortal, hugely powerful entity supposed to be in any way comparable to a single human?!
…what? The guy graduated Yale Law School as one of TWELVE Black students, admitted to the school just 6 years after their first class with any substantial number of Black students. His experience wasn’t just pre-affirmative action, it was literally at the beginning of desegregation coming in force. He literally lived through segregation himself.
It is impossible for anybody to be unbiased, so corrective measures are necessary. Perhaps there should be a "fair jury" system for college admissions and other systematically unfair processes? like an independent citizen-run organisation that itself consists of percentage wise representation of the whole country. if we take 2 steps, making corrective decision to from one group (whose rights will not be impacted by the decision), and letting this group decide on if another decision (whose right will be impacted, say college admissions), it may be fairer? of course the more layers there are the fairer, but I think 2 is the practical limit
I think in the end everyone wants fairness, the way to get there however seem to be taking too much time for most leftwing politicians, creating special policies focused around identity and race. I would argue that giving advantage to someone based on sex, religion or race should fundamentally be frown upon as it promotes sexism, religious hate and/or racism, how good it end goal may be. Rather. we should acknowledge the fact that everything people interact with will be biased in some way, and accepting this and making everyone conscious about this should be the way to solve this problem, not by applying these special policies.
The Supreme court ruled correctly that race never should have been a factor in any employment or educational situation. But they did not could not go back change the reality of history because what was supposed to be did not happen and skin tone was a real factor in most everything. So all the Supreme Court did was really confirm that US failed to live up to the principles that the founding father's stated for government in the preamble to the US Constitution. And with that acknowledged failing, reparations are owed or the US very well may not be a legitimate government because a legitimate government pays for harming it's own citizens. However, a mafia government does not.
The law may be colorblind, but the people who apply it aren't, unfortunately.
THIS is it. The problem is when we left it to people to just do "the right thing", their right thing was black people can be slaves and women can't vote. If day one in the United States of America, the constitution and our laws were meant to be fairly applied to all Americans, we wouldn't have had to make all these modifications to legislation that specifically assigns rights to people. These laws helped to bring the still incomplete culture shift in the United States. For example, giving voting rights to black people and women helped address some of the societal issues those groups faced at the time those rights were granted. Americans had the right to vote but someone decided they were excluded from those so we had to put it in writing. Gay marriage should not be a political issue. It's a confusion of a word with multiple meanings -- a legal status and separately a religious ritual. A Catholic wedding is not "legal marriage" despite it being used synonymously. The legal act of marriage has much more at stake for the parties than sexual preference. From a legal standpoint, marriage just legally unites two people who are consenting to allow certain rights to each member over several aspects of life. There's no reason people should have been denied that. If you want to get rid of "gay marriage" in legislation, they should give the legal aspect another neutral name that will apply to both hetero and same sex unions and have that be the basis of things instead of marriage. Then you can get "married" at church. My point is you can't take the race out of the law if you're going to have people picking and choosing without consequence when to apply it.
The law definitely isn't
I can't help but think that if affirmative action were to be a thing it should be targeting class rather than race, poverty rather than identity. Is this a bad take? I'm definitely not well versed on the subject
You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We're all part of the same compost heap!
I think when affirmative action was first put into place there was more of an argument against going directly for class differences, but as time has gone by we are reaching a point where it makes more sense to target class, but still keep guardrails to ensure the racist exclusion of specific groups doesnt creep back in.
I will say that one of many goals in the construction of "race" was as a justification for the unfair distribution of economic output. Therefore, to a degree, one can not fix class without also treating and dismantling the idea of "race"
The problem is that race and class act along different axes of privilege. There are ways in which the richest black person in America is still harmed by racism and ways that being poor is a nearly inescapable trap no matter who you are, and both of those require different approaches.
A lot of the ways that racism manifests systemically is in a de facto fashion, where rules on the books are colorblind but a lot of proxies for race are baked into the system or from quantifiable implicit bias from thousands of people making decisions, so the end result has a strong racial bias in various ways that can't really be isolated and addressed individually.
Meanwhile, there are targeted means of directly addressing class disparity such as financial aid, outreach programs, etc. Those can't account for some things, for example obligations to support poor or sick family members, but that really would be better served by broader social programs.
It would certainly be more *politically correct* to make it exclusively class-based rather than having a racial component, but then you're just conceding the problem.
It's not a bad take for sure and I can agree that class is a rarely discussed disadvantage when it comes to progress movements. I would hesitate to say just to focus on class over race. Sociological studies have shown that even when factors such as education, race, and class are considered, there's still a gap between outcomes (example "The Asset Value of Whiteness: Understanding the Racial Wealth Gap" by Traub, Sullivan, Meschede, and Shapiro). The legacy of racial discrimination still holds an unconscious hold over the American populous. A multi-pronged approach is needed to alleviate this inequality and class NEEDS be a major factor, it just can not be the only one.
The comment section on this is gonna be fun to watch - assuming it stays up, of course…
I all for a healthy, cooperative discussion.
After all, what point is debate if you cannot defend your views or accept the differences of others.
equity is not equality.
I'm white and disadvantaged. I have autism and am not from a rich family. If I'd lived in the US, I would not have been able to attend university, let alone become an engineer in a country where this is a well-respected and protected title. Identity politics can oversimplistically clump some groups together while ignoring other forms of disadvantage. Education is very important, both to an individual student, and to an entire nation, and so help should equally extended across all of society. Knowledge is the greatest of our common assets, and should be shared among all. Good education should be free, and available to all people. The only determining factors in getting a degree should be whether you're smart enough and whether you want a degree. If there is any place where we should apply "each to their needs, each to their ability", it's in education.
I am white, am autistic, have ADHD, came from a poor family, attended university in the US (accepted for admitance about 20 years ago) and became an engineer.
I think your confidence that you wouldn't have been able to attend university in the US is really a lack of confidence (whether justified or not) in your abilities.
The most important color is green. Always will be.
[Sideeye from the rest of the world, all of whom have multicoloured cash]
Personally, I think there need to be a perspective shift. That we are often stuck in a very narrow mindset. We like to see as it a race to a finish line, and the goal of our society is to make the race fair for everyone. And we get stuck arguing over how to make the race fair. But our society is not a race. Our goal on this journey should not be to finish first. But to make sure everyone can complete the journey. Admissions to schools are such a perfect example. We try to make it fair by claim admission is about merit. And that we can correct small unfair parts of the system. But what I really want to see is that everyone that wish to learn to have the means to do so. I think that if everyone can achieve, we will do a lot better as society as a whole.
I like this POV and resonate with it a lot of it
We gotta start calling modern political "liberals" something else because the confusion with Locke & Hobbes "liberalism" is really annoying.
If the reason you're looking at identity is to support those who are disadvantaged why don't you just cut out the middle man and just help those who are disadvantaged (not groups who are on average disadvantaged).
Part of the point
I don't really understand the "Politics of Difference" section. I've never heard of this theory before, do you have any concrete examples to explain how the conception of specific social groups within specific contexts is different from "identity"?
I'm not american so I don't have any experience in places with different races and cultures, but from here and other places i've been to it feels like the affirmative action thing is used everywhere, and instead of race or other identities it just targets different levels of household incomes and it seems to be working fine so far. I also have never seen anyone complain about other people getting handouts because of their bad financial situation at home.
Like, there's financial and social inequality all round the world, why does the colour of someone's skin matter so much in america?
Social democracy is the bare minimum
One of those things is an immutable characteristic, the other is something that can potentially be changed through individual effort.
America is, and has been more racially, diverse than most places. The relatively recent abolishment of slavery and the even more recent reduction in oppressive laws towards specific race groups is still strongly impacting the populations. There is also more animus felt between the groups than in other places from my experience.
Can anyone explain the politics of difference part ?
I loved the finish:
Next time we'll talk about when - and if - war is every justified."
haha!
Kudos for providing nuance to such massive topics!
Shout out to Mills! One of the greats and a wonderful human being.
Ty! Awrsome video!
So..
Are we to believe that nepotism and legacy admissions are ok?
No, that’s bad too. Two things can be bad at the same time.
@@anantgupta2406 could also say it's related and a subset of the same human mentality of ppl to concentrate power amongst themselves and find reasons to continue to exclude others. any system of at least trying to combat the impact of our biases is obviously better than not.
Where did you get that idea?
In a video discussing fairness, yet?
Finally, got here early 🎉
The idea that the Framers of the US Constitution were "Colourblind" is, frankly, ludicrous.
Not only were they all Male, they were also all White and also all Wealthy and Privileged.
More importantly, from the "Affirmative Action" position, many of them were Slave Owners and NONE of them believed that Black people (never mind Native Americans), were anywhere close to being the equal of White people.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that after more than fifty years of "Race Conscious" admissions, Harvard (Alma Mater to some of the "Framers") still hasn't matched its admissions rate for Back to the wider US Demographic rate.
But all of this pales into insignificance when we consider that while Classical Liberalism assumes all begin as equal, in reality NONE begin as equal - and in societies that have for centuries been as racially conscious as the US (most State Constitutions in the ante-Bellum South restricted Slavery to Black people and the "Jim Crow" laws that succeeded the Civil War, Black people were deliberately discriminated against), there needs to be conscious policies to undo the centuries of discrimination. (Those opposed to "Affirmative Action" might do well to remember that since at least 1690, the US and the colonies it grew out of, was created VERY "Race Conscious" - it is just that the "Race" being privileged were Whites). Might such policies have "time-limits"? Possibly - but it is equally possible to argue that, given the period of deliberate discrimination continued for over two centuries of US History, so should the policies that intend to create the "more equal society"....
The assumption that every subset of population (e.g. college students) should have the same proportions as the whole population is just wrong. Why don't we look at prisons for example and do something about gender and racial over representation? People are not equal. They should have equal opportunity, but that absolutely doesn't mean that they should be equally successful
Funny I was checking my last video on different election systems and saw this video right at the top of my feed 😂😂😂. I guess we are thinking alike 😅
Trans rights are human rights
No.
3:10 i honestly feel like that sentence *PRECISELY* answers the overall question, even if it's a little roundabout: the presumption was always rich white men, in most of these philosophical and political discussions, and thus there is the presumption that anyone that deviates from that base assumption, is not included in the discussion of rights. I.e. Non white men, non rich people, and women.
We aren't the target demographic for a right to liberty and the persuit of happiness, and frankly you need not look further than how they treat, and have always treated women in that context.
Poli-Sci is just for Philosophy students who want to riff.
There is underlying assumption that the government can actually do something better than normal social dynamics, I would argue that assumption is wrong, government is structure of power and that how it solve issues with power soft or hard, those usually slow down social progress, but people that love gathering power argue that the slowed down progress is to thier credit not that it was slowed down because of its action.
I already replied this to someone else but ill say it again. Slow progress is long lasting progress. Things that are quick and easy to change will be quickly and easily changed by the next group with their own ideas
Please don’t be shy 🙈
Bias continues to be an enormous problem all over the world too
i think it's rather damaging to the entire debate to bring up the constitution so often.
one of the earlier drafts was ACTUALLY color blind and did not leave many grey areas/nuances regarding certain racial issues (slavery amongst others)
but they HAD to make a more vague draft to allow states to "read the meaning themselves".
It may be the foundation for your states.
but it's beyond obvious to outsiders the foundation was intentionally built crooked.
Denying this and refusing to fix it...
RIP America.
RIP.
America is doing just fine, theres no ideal place in the world and never will be. All progress should be gradual to be long lasting and the trend is already there. The people who want quick results will never taste the fruits of success for long. Just my 2 cents, everyone feel free to think what you want
Thinking affirmative action is (reverse) discrimination or 'unfair' is like complaining that hospitals are for the sick, soup kitchens are for the poor, and fire departments are only for people whose buildings are on fire.
And BTW international law has an awesome definition of what discrimination is: distinction, exclusion, or restriction of people which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of equal human rights, freedoms, and opportunities. So this clearly allows for affirmative actions, and precludes any complaints that such action would be (reverse) discrimination.
What are you on about? Your definition clearly proves affirmative action is discrimination. It is pure and simple racism. It is inexcusable.
Defending affirmative action is like saying that hospitals, soup kitchens, and fire departments should take away the opportunities of some people in need and give them to others based on their gender or skin color.
But this analogy is not perfect. Unlike these institutions, universities and companies have entrance requirements that must take knowledge and skill into account.
Nobody complains when the profit motive cuts against the 'common good.' Whatever rich people want is OK. It's only when poorer people want to be considered that the 'common good' gets brought up. It is not a concept 'they' want discussed much, lest it lead to thinking. When poorer people's Identity Pride blocks them from intersecting with others based on common class interest, that is when it starts being less than a good thing. In a developmental sense we might best see intense tribal affiliation as appropriate for teens up into 20 somethings. For the hegemonic culture this is the local high school sports scene. It's when we have these emotions about something other than high school sports that we are marked as weirdos. As we get past that age (rare for our primitive ancestors) we hopefully recognize the ways our human experience is the same even for those who seem so different. Screen culture does weird things to us, overloading our empathy while actually keeping us isolated. It keeps us reminded that so much is wrong, and that we cannot do anything except click like on wishing someone would.
I think ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) as a prerequisite to affirmative action benefits could address the need for opportunity for all. Those with low scores (say under 2?) would not be eligible, and those over let’s say, 6, are given full benefits? Seems like it might help address the race issue in affirmative action while still helping those in the lower class. Generally speaking, there’s a correlation between children with high ACE scores and poverty, mental illness, success in life, etc.
wonderful episode! so many personal, historical, and contemporary examples and opinions all in under 12 minutes is impressive!
Been a while since I watched Crash Course. Also, first!
Learned a lot from such a short video video, thanks. Well look more into the things discussed here
Appreciate your work! Thank you!
It's really about equality of opportunity... not equality of outcome. We need much better public school education K - 12 for everyone no matter what. We do not need a system of reverse discrimination disadvantaging young white males over anyone.
I personally believe that liberalism where identity is scrubbed off political discourse will always be problematic in any greater social structure/context that fosters dominance hierarchies, because it makes us all intentionally partially blind to entities that un-democratic control our lives because of those very "identities". A special brand of liberalism in the USA lead to corporations being treated by law as people just like you and me, but after a little bit of though we can both agree this is ridiculous. How is a limited liability, immortal, hugely powerful entity supposed to be in any way comparable to a single human?!
Thomas' opinion is based in his own experience in which people thought that he got where he did because of affirmative action when it wasn't the case.
…what? The guy graduated Yale Law School as one of TWELVE Black students, admitted to the school just 6 years after their first class with any substantial number of Black students.
His experience wasn’t just pre-affirmative action, it was literally at the beginning of desegregation coming in force. He literally lived through segregation himself.
It is impossible for anybody to be unbiased, so corrective measures are necessary. Perhaps there should be a "fair jury" system for college admissions and other systematically unfair processes? like an independent citizen-run organisation that itself consists of percentage wise representation of the whole country. if we take 2 steps, making corrective decision to from one group (whose rights will not be impacted by the decision), and letting this group decide on if another decision (whose right will be impacted, say college admissions), it may be fairer? of course the more layers there are the fairer, but I think 2 is the practical limit
I think in the end everyone wants fairness, the way to get there however seem to be taking too much time for most leftwing politicians, creating special policies focused around identity and race.
I would argue that giving advantage to someone based on sex, religion or race should fundamentally be frown upon as it promotes sexism, religious hate and/or racism, how good it end goal may be.
Rather. we should acknowledge the fact that everything people interact with will be biased in some way, and accepting this and making everyone conscious about this should be the way to solve this problem, not by applying these special policies.
The Supreme court ruled correctly that race never should have been a factor in any employment or educational situation. But they did not could not go back change the reality of history because what was supposed to be did not happen and skin tone was a real factor in most everything. So all the Supreme Court did was really confirm that US failed to live up to the principles that the founding father's stated for government in the preamble to the US Constitution. And with that acknowledged failing, reparations are owed or the US very well may not be a legitimate government because a legitimate government pays for harming it's own citizens. However, a mafia government does not.