Vivian 03/24 13786
下面是对于把升学上的肤色Affirmative Action概念偷换成holistic admission 的反驳。
It's so hypocritical for the mainstream media to claim that it is just a "perception". I almost don't read the Times any more these days, can't stand its position on AA.
Some people I think are also worried about the repercussions of our fight against AA. For example, like the point someone else made a few days ago about the federal government favoring minority contractors. Is that a form of AA and if it is, are we also against that? I think to evaluate each policy, we should look at what its stated mission and whether the result justified it.
In college admission, AA was established to correct the historically legalized discrimination. That was the rationale. But half a century have passed since that and if you look at all the main steam rhetorics, no one is saying that was the justification any more. People refer to holistic approach. But the question is, why should race be a factor in the holistic approach, if the justification for AA is gone? We are not arguing against holistic approach, we are arguing against using racial profile in that holistic approach - why does your race matter in the holistic approach to choose the best students?
On the other hand, if the goal of the government policy to favor minority contractors is to have more minority contractors, period, not to find the holistically best contractors, then the policy is serving its stated purpose. Now you can argue whether or not that purpose is correct, but no one is hypocritically using race as a proxy for something else.