Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!hu From: hu@sdcsvax.UUCP (T. C. Hu) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <898@sdcsvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-May-85 22:12:28 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.898 Posted: Wed May 29 22:12:28 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Jun-85 07:24:58 EDT References: <354@iham1.UUCP> <250@spar.UUCP> <266@unc.UUCP> Reply-To: hu@sdcsvax.UUCP (T. C. hu) Organization: EECS Dept. U.C. San Diego Lines: 62 I just thought I'd throw this in to try to stir up some thoughts: Most of us, I am sure, disapprove of racism and want to find a fair solution for all parties involved. In the following situation, however, what is fair? Consider the following two high school seniors who are applying to Big Prestigious University. You are the admissions officer and must decide which one to admit. There is only one place left in the freshman class, so one must be rejected. (If you don't like this scenario, you can find similar ones for job applicants, grad school, scholarships, anything competitive, etc.) Applicant 1: Valedictorian of Expensive Prestigious Prep School, (Thanks to a combination of hard work, intelligence, and his private tutor.) Senior Class President (Leadership, gave lots of good parties), Very good SAT scores (with a little help from an SAT prep class), Varsity Tennis Team (He's been playing since he was 5.), Has already done well in a number of college classes (enrolled during summers at Major East Coast University Summer Session), Accomplished pianist (Taking lessons since he was 7), speaks fluent French and German (His family travels a lot), has won several awards in science fairs (with projects he did on the extensive IBM PC system his parents bought for him), active in community service, etc. Applicant 2: Good grades (but not outstanding) at Depressed Inner-City High School, above average SAT scores (her classes didn't prepare her very well), she had no time for extra-curricular activities because she had to work 30 hours a week to help support her mother (who is unemployed), she had no place to study at home or at school, so she had to take the bus across town to the main city library to study or to get books to read. We may argue to admit: Applicant 1: Clearly, he is far better qualified. At Big Prestigious University, you demand academic excellence from your students. To choose Applicant 2 over him is blatantly unfair. It is not his fault that his parents are wealthy. Why should he, the better qualified, be punished for what happened in the past, for something which he had no part in? Applicant 2: Although Applicant 1 may be better educated, Applicant 2 clearly has much more potential. If she has done so well under the strain of her life, she will probably thrive in the intellectually supportive environment of Big Prestigious University. To choose Applicant 1 over her is blatantly unfair. Why should she be penalized for her parent's poverty? She has fought so hard and come so far in overcoming the obstacles that fate had imposed on her. Doesn't she deserve a chance? Which would you choose? While you may be able to make a quick and easy decision, I can't. It seems that any decision is only a value judgement: do you emphasize where a person is or how far he has come? I have been unable to find a clear cut reason why it is universally more fair to choose one or the other. If any of you can find such a reason, please enlighten me. --Alan J. Hu sdcsvax!hu