• octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Justice is clearly the better option.

    Sure it is, but folks fight it tooth and nail, so you end up settling for equity.

    Frankly, I find the folks who think equity looks like your image and description are usually the folks we’re also having to fight against for justice. I’m a little surprised to see you supporting the fence analogy while also tearing down the boxes one. (Maybe we have different ideas about what the fence is?)

    Personally I disagree that your third panel is accurate, and IME the occurrence of that outcome (and your “college spots” example) is a theoretical worst case, and detractors of equity-focused solutions claim it to be much more common it than it ever is.

    It’s like all those 70’s cartoons where quicksand was a likely threat. Sure, quicksand exists. Are you likely to encounter it? No. Any entity that is supposedly taking unqualified candidates for any position based on equity programs would bring other harm to itself by doing so. I think there’s a reasonable debate to be had about things that fall under the broad umbrella of affirmative action, but I don’t think a reasonable debate includes the assertion that it routinely creates outcomes that result in hiring unqualified candidates.

    It’s far easier to find cases of those programs doing exactly what they should than to find them doing harm.

    Various edits…

    • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The problem with equity is that we live under a government in which doesn’t give a rats ass about providing boxes in the first place and so rather chooses the appeasement route that takes the least amount of effort.
      They don’t actually want to do anything, just appear like they are.
      Making the comparison to the homeless crisis, it becomes more clear.
      Instead of building more housing and providing a mechanism to help the homeless, they go with hostile architecture that forces the homeless out into dangerous and deadly environments.
      They want the illusion of solving the problem while doing the most minimal amount of effort. If you didn’t know any better & saw fewer homeless people, you’d probably think that “maybe they are solving the homeless problem” when in reality they were solving “the homeless people problem” by creating an environment where the homeless either leaves or dies.

      and your “college spots” example is a theoretical worst case…

      It’s not as theoretical as you think, as there’s plenty of real world examples of the scenario I described.
      Infact, Harvard; one of the most acclaimed colleges in the world let alone the US; was doing exactly what I described prior to the Supreme Court ruling that the practice was unconstitutional, see Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
      Many colleges, do infact still engage in this practice sighting state level laws.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        So that makes it a continuing goal and imperfect solution that we should continue to improve while working on the much bigger and longer problem of taking down the fence.

        • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yes, it’s implementation is imperfect. We’re on exactly the same page.
          If equity or rather politicians focused on providing necessary supports in the first place rather than taking shortcuts, the fence would’ve already been down by now.

          Please note, that I’m neither “right” or “left”. I hold beliefs that fall on either end as well a neither.
          I’m mearly a rights advocate that looks for the truth & most effective solutions and in doing so, I believe we must look at the shortcomings of the supposed solution to patch out the jank so it can actually be a solution rather than the illusion of one.

          People often look at the solutions their side proposes through rose colored glasses and solutions proposed by the opposition through a circus mirror. As is the nature of the “us vs. them” mindset the vast majority of people take when anything political is discussed. Hopefully I helped bridge that gap by bringing an alternative more neutral perspective.