Phase 1, Post 8: Affirmative Action
In the Harvard case, lacking context makes it hard to determine who is right. However, as you go deeper into the case, it becomes increasingly clear there is no hard evidence in the plaintiff's favor. What this case seems like is an instance of faulty causality, where the lower population of Asian students at Harvard is framed as a lower population of students because they are Asian. While it is easy to complain that there were qualified Asian students with high GPAs and test scores, there is an admissions process for a reason - you won't get into the school just because you meet a benchmark. Furthermore, looking at the case from this perspective, it can feel as though the accusation is naive to factors outside of intelligence that impact school performance. Coming back to an old source (Questioning the 3D Printing Revolution) from last blog post, "marginalized people have always created goods, products, arts, platforms and businesses, it’s just that those creations aren’t recognized or valued by dominant oppressive systems." There are other students who - for reasons entirely independent of intellect - cannot maintain a perfect GPA or ace standardized tests. These numbers are not perfectly indicative of how smart or talented these students are, or how much they contribute to a community.
While, broad strokes, the SFFA is well-intentioned, I believe the judge was right in ruling in favor of Harvard.
Comments
Post a Comment