One of the frustrating aspects of current discourse on merit is the widespread presumption that an individual’s potential for success can be identified based on some transparent measure of past performance. For higher education, the measure that most advocates of meritocratic selection have in mind is something like a test score or composite academic index. Taking account of extraneous factors that are not directly and causally linked to performance is viewed as a departure from meritocratic selection.
I think you may have strawmanned the opponents of DEI to some extent. I doubt there are many people who oppose taking into account individual struggle along with test scores and GPAs. What DEI opponents called out was the use of race by itself as a factor in the selection process, ostensibly with the aim of a visibly diverse class or with the aim of providing a visibly diverse group of potential future leaders.
What is missing in the current DEI conversation is a an admission that simply using race for the purpose visibly diversifying classrooms provided no educational benefit (because most beneficiaries had similar lives despite being from a different race than other students) and that there was therefore no moral reason to discriminate against White/Asian students in this way.
A highly polarized political climate makes this difficult but it is necessary for colleges and other institutions that are left leaning to vocally distance themselves from this unjustified systemic discrimination.
In the absence of such an admission or at least a declaration of a future policy, people are right to be suspicious of DEI and the potential that these institutions will try to get around the SCOTUS decision to still get an arbitrary racial breakup in their classrooms instead of trying to assess merit on an individual basis which includes an assessment of personal struggles that someone has been through.
Thank you for your always thoughtful and reasonable perspective on these matters.
Affirmative action began as a well intentioned attempt to redress past wrongs in 1965, but a half century later, it’s ossified into the foundation of today’s problems. Both Guinier and Fryer are telling—Guinier because she brings up 1968 (stuck in a time warp), and Fryer because he talks about 95th percentile vs 99th percentile when the preferential gaps in college admission are now much larger. At Harvard, which gets the pick of applicants, it’s about 93 v 99. What people see in their daily lives is systemic discrimination against whites and asians in the pursuit of equality of outcome (equity). The political formula doesn’t work any more and liberals pining to return to 1990 will have as much luck as conservatives pining for 1950.
I am curious what you think will move us forward given the motte-and-bailey of DEI being about merit has collapsed?
I think too many people have experienced DIE firsthand—through workplace discrimination or ESG etc.—and so reject
I think you may have strawmanned the opponents of DEI to some extent. I doubt there are many people who oppose taking into account individual struggle along with test scores and GPAs. What DEI opponents called out was the use of race by itself as a factor in the selection process, ostensibly with the aim of a visibly diverse class or with the aim of providing a visibly diverse group of potential future leaders.
What is missing in the current DEI conversation is a an admission that simply using race for the purpose visibly diversifying classrooms provided no educational benefit (because most beneficiaries had similar lives despite being from a different race than other students) and that there was therefore no moral reason to discriminate against White/Asian students in this way.
A highly polarized political climate makes this difficult but it is necessary for colleges and other institutions that are left leaning to vocally distance themselves from this unjustified systemic discrimination.
In the absence of such an admission or at least a declaration of a future policy, people are right to be suspicious of DEI and the potential that these institutions will try to get around the SCOTUS decision to still get an arbitrary racial breakup in their classrooms instead of trying to assess merit on an individual basis which includes an assessment of personal struggles that someone has been through.
Thank you for your always thoughtful and reasonable perspective on these matters.
Affirmative action began as a well intentioned attempt to redress past wrongs in 1965, but a half century later, it’s ossified into the foundation of today’s problems. Both Guinier and Fryer are telling—Guinier because she brings up 1968 (stuck in a time warp), and Fryer because he talks about 95th percentile vs 99th percentile when the preferential gaps in college admission are now much larger. At Harvard, which gets the pick of applicants, it’s about 93 v 99. What people see in their daily lives is systemic discrimination against whites and asians in the pursuit of equality of outcome (equity). The political formula doesn’t work any more and liberals pining to return to 1990 will have as much luck as conservatives pining for 1950.
I am curious what you think will move us forward given the motte-and-bailey of DEI being about merit has collapsed?
I think too many people have experienced DIE firsthand—through workplace discrimination or ESG etc.—and so reject