Uh, I'm going to need some clarification on what this means? Because one interpretation could be, "letting minorities into university has ruined it." And that way, there be dragons.
Uh, I'm going to need some clarification on what this means? Because one interpretation could be, "letting minorities into university has ruined it." And that way, there be dragons.
Some people believe that we're all equal and therefore should expect equal outcomes (regardless of how hard you work). Eg, they expect that everyone gets paid the same, without necessarily putting the work in.
Others believe that we're all equal in the sense that we should be given the same opportunities, but what you do with them, is up to you. If you get the same opportunities to me, but you work on and capitalise on them and gain some beneficial outcome from it, but I don't capitalise on them, don't put the work in etc, then I can't complain that I didn't get the same things you did.
I think GP is talking about that and not at all about letting minorities into university.
Although, I've also heard stories of discrimination due to not being under-represented, that is, not getting a place despite having excellent grades in order to make space for minorities. That's not fair either. Its a difficult thing to solve fairly, someone will always be unfairly rejected when places are contended. (I do think the minority-person should get the place in this case, since the other person likely has other options that the minority may not). I think most reasonable people would agree that giving minorities more opportunities is a good thing.
Whenever someone says this, I become very leary of what they say next...to achieve "equal outcomes" you're gonna have to meddle in somebody's personal business at some point to achieve the desired "leveling"...this is bad news
Exhibit a: how many CS graduates over the last 20years could explain how a OS context switch works.
Exhibit b: how many graduates of med school know how to integrate a simple polynomial.