This is a meritocratic argument for AA! You believe that people who are benefited by AA are 'really' more meritorious than their test scores indicate (and, presumably, East Asians are 'really' less meritorious than their test scores indicate). According to this logic, AA makes the distribution of college places more meritocratic by correcting a flaw in our method for measuring merit.Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:Yes, yes, it applies perfectly both ways.
A system set up to counteract existing, empirically-demonstrated biases being attacked because people think of the current system that favours them as "normal" and "right" is exactly the same as said system being supported by people who lose out on so many opportunities because of those biases.
I can't see any difference between the two and so they must be the same both ways right?
The problem with this argument as social science is that it may be unfalsifiable: if we cannot measure merit accurately how do we know whether people benefited by AA are 'really' more meritorious or not, and if we can measure it accurately, why don't we just use that accurate measure for admissions and obviate the need for AA?