We are all equal again, right?

[Dill]

(07-11-2023, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-We-are-all-equal-again-right?pid=1369767#pid1369767][/url]Pretty hard to judge AA as "unfair" if you have no knowledge of before and after.

Actually, no it's not.  Replacing an unfair system with another unfair system isn't ideal.  Or fair.  

Sure. Not hard if you pre-define a "system," then dismiss further investigation/analysis.  Case settled.

Different story though if you withhold judgement till after you've examined 1) how such a "system" actually worked to exclude one race,

and 2) consider what would happen if racial criteria were simply abolished and exclusion continued under "merit," 

and 3) what would happen if the evaluation were reversed, so that race-based criteria created preference to make up past exclusion.

Each of these possibilities could be called "fair," but not according to the same definition.
 
Some would think 1) was fair because it reflected their belief in natural equality.

Those who didn't think race should factor in admissions, but didn't care if past inequality proportionally affected who
meets the merit standard, thus continuing racial exclusion on the merit criterion, would think 2) was fair. 

Those who thought race-based exclusion and merit legacy unfair, might think race-based criteria for inclusion fair,
though it meant some formerly privileged might be excluded on race-based criteria, and opt for 3) as "fair," or at least MORE fair. 

Looks like a completely "fair" choice is not possible. You appear to be defending 2. 

I'm defending 3; That means I reject 1 because I reject the inequality argument, and I reject 2 because its effect has been historically
to reproduce 1 under different criteria.

You choose a different system because you chose a different definition of "fair."