Friday, Dec. 6, 2002
Bakke 1, 2, 3: Michael Kinsley's argument that affirmative action post-Bakkediscriminates, just not much and not against the people who are usually upset by it, has brought out some great posts.
1. In this thread, Publius and JackD debate the changes at the Ivies. Publius makes the interesting point that the aggressive quota and diversity seeking system has improved admission possibilities for many white kids, too. Asking where did the African-American students admitted under quotas come from, Publius answers:
[M]ost came from public schools where the Ivies had never recruited, and in the process, admissions from private prep schools dropped from two thirds of each class to one third, so that public school graduates of every background had a better shot.
In another thread, ShriekingViolet makes the anti-contrarian argument (the scarcity argument)
2. Here, TheSlasher-8 (we'll get that changed) claims that the problems is a scarcity of professional schools to begin with:
The number of medical schools in this country is ridiculously low, and in almost all cases is further burdened by other kinds of quotas such as state residency, parents who are graduates, etc.
3. Last, Ananda Gupta has overcome posting problems to argue that Kinsley's logic
appeals to an implicit double standard -- it's okay for Michigan to consider the beneficial effects of its policies on one group, but when it comes to the costs, only the cost to individuals is relevant. This is analogous to my arguing that the government should pay everyone with the first name "Ananda" $1 million in subsidies per year, and if some impudent taxpayer were to object, my defending this policy by saying that each individual taxpayer's share is just pennies …