Or people are used to being lied to about "equality" initiatives and their effects. There's a finite number of spots at any given university, company, etc. Favoring one demographic inherently means disfavoring another, no matter what lying advocates claim to the contrary.
The mistake is thinking that there's some objective and correct way to measure eligibility for these finite spots. The reality is much more complicated; there are way more people who would be successful at an Ivy League school than there are slots available for those people. Whoever you pick, every one of them will kick ass, so it's not really about making sure everyone is qualified, it's about making sure the people who are qualified for your school and not qualified for other opportunities (because racism, caste) get their shot.
The whole point is finding the qualified people for whom this is as close to their only shot as possible, and giving them that shot. Poor minorities are more often those people than wealthy white kids, because the white kids will land on their feet.
The poor minority kid might be the first in his family to go to college, might have only had enough money to apply to one or two schools, and if college doesn't work out for them, they're basically screwed.
This was my thought - opportunities are limited. So if you are talking about equality of outcome and one group is over-represented, you are talking about policies that hurt their group. The most obvious example being that you have to hurt Asians if you want to change demographics at Harvard. There are only so many slots open.
If there are 8 demographics and you boost one, you're not "disfavoring another". You've raised one and the other 7 are all even with each other (theoretically) like they were before. If things were originally skewed unintentionally, you may have actually evened things out.
"Finite number of spots" is also kind of a faulty assumption. There are many cases where you can adjust how many spots you have available if you make more intelligent decisions about resource allocation or are willing to make junior hires that cost less than senior ones and train them up.
>If there are 8 demographics and you boost one, you're not "disfavoring another".
If the situation is zero-sum, then you absolutely have. Your post is exhibit #254,689,472,096,776 of people lying about this, and other people have caught on.
>There are many cases where you can adjust how many spots you have available if you make more intelligent decisions about resource allocation or are willing to make junior hires that cost less than senior ones and train them up.
So let's say instead of an Asian senior dev making $180k a year, you now have a (different) Asian junior dev and a Black junior dev making $90k. That doesn't disadvantage the Asian who would have been a senior dev making $180k? Preposterous.
You're presuming a zero-sum situation without specifying that. Plenty of situations are not zero-sum and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
> So let's say instead of an Asian senior dev making $180k a year, you now have a (different) Asian junior dev and a Black junior dev making $90k. That doesn't disadvantage the Asian who would have been a senior dev making $180k? Preposterous.
Why are you presuming the Asian developer has to take a pay cut? I never specified that.
