(05-10-2021 06:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-10-2021 05:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess I need to more fully explain myself not only to 93, but to certain other posters that lad seems to think I am in lockstep with.

Let's take race out of the equation for a moment, just for illustrative purposes. let's instead talk about the height initiative, which aims to correct the historical advantage that taller people have over shorter people in most endeavors of life, including hiring and promotion. BTW, this is a real advantage.

So if we have a policy that says short people will be given preference, is that policy heightist?

I think we should hire the best person for the job, regardless of height. Whether they are 5'2" or 6'2", hire them on their resumes and interviews. some people here have a problem with that approach.

I don't think anybody here has a problem with this approach. I know I don't.

When discussing college admissions, though, I have a problem with the notion that the "best" kids are the ones with the highest combination of [(SAT score) + (A/P classes) + (extracurricular activities)] in high school. Those can be coached up and/or more available to families that have the means. This means leaving families from poorer backgrounds (often BIPOC families) on the outside looking in for the most part.

What if we didn't look at race but tried to bring in more kids from impoverished backgrounds. Would you see that as "richist" because you were picking a poor kid over a wealthy kid?

I personally don't have an issue with this approach.... having said that, it DOES put the burden of fixing a societal ill on universities who have other priorities. Imagine being a small, struggling business rather than a University... who is now challenged with hiring the guy who is available right now who can work tonight when he has a need, or attending his child's graduation, birthday, wedding whatever.... versus him saying 'I can't hire you and I can't attend my kids graduation because I need to address this societal ill'. Rich places like Rice University can afford to do this... and it certainly can be virtuous... but making it a mandate of some sort can put an unfair and even terminal burden upon a business; especially if 'social media' gets involved and people who have NO IDEA what the real situation might be for a business owner... yet they drive consumers and can close a business, often on false information.

Its the difference between allowing, encouraging or even incentivizing companies to do something (the carrot).... vs 'the stick' of regulation and/or POORLY INFORMED public pressure.

In many ways, this seems like it could be simple. If you hire someone and now they're getting a w-2 rather than unemployment or support, you get a credit. This too might be a challenge since we don't ask things like 'are you receiving assistance' on a resume, but maybe its something people could choose to self-identify?? Just spit-balling.

I think there is great value in diversity and this comes from a variety of sources... including but not exclusive or even definitively to race.... There are plenty of minorities more similar to me than some other whites.