Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 09: "ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2024
- To register for the 2015 course, visit www.edx.org/co....
PART ONE: ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
PART TWO: WHAT'S THE PURPOSE?
Part 1
Sandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the schools affirmative action program violated her rights. Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action. Should we try to correct for inequality in educational backgrounds by taking race into consideration? Should we compensate for historical injustices such as slavery and segregation? Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one? How does it size up against the argument that a students efforts and achievements should carry more weight than factors that are out of his or her control and therefore arbitrary? When a universitys stated mission is to increase diversity, is it a violation of rights to deny a white person admission?
PART TWO: WHATS THE PURPOSE?
Sandel introduces Aristotle and his theory of justice. Aristotle disagrees with Rawls and Kant. He believes that justice is about giving people their due, what they deserve. When considering matters of distribution, Aristotle argues one must consider the goal, the end, the purpose of what is being distributed. The best flutes, for example, should go to the best flute players. And the highest political offices should go to those with the best judgment and the greatest civic virtue. For Aristotle, justice is a matter of fitting a persons virtues with an appropriate role.
I love how he understands and clarifies everyone's argument.
Same. He even challenges people's statements and makes them really think about what they just said.
Agree, very rare these days to hear all sides laid out in a almost scientific way; at the least a very respectful and informative way. Very refreshing.
ziolp has to work
i like how almost all the white students were against affirmative action.
Ooo9 in 🏢 tomorrow night it'll oi in rot El Camino oil in ki or on yourkso in kokkok our in Ooo it'll or in ki in K in its politicos in in k9kokooooo in K I'm okokr9 in on rokokroo in room in 9ko in kroor no or poor baby lol it'll krokoomokoo in is our ookrooo in k9oroo9ooookkooo9ok our ke in in or9kkkrooororkrkororrkooo in ki or o
Side note: How does Sandel memorize names on the fly and still put them with their statements much later in the lecture? Simply stunning.
Stunning memory
@Ronald Reagan Why use the word disgusting?
@Ronald Reagan Elaborate
@Ronald Reagan Did you actually read the book? Or you are just uncomfortable with the title of the book.
@Ronald Reagan For your first question, are you quoting him? What do you mean by effort of one person oppresses the life of other people? Do you even know what oppresses means? Don’t really understand what you are trying to say. Please also kindly provide full context and sources.
For your second question, please kindly define the term “successful people”. Please also provide sources for your claims that he made such claims.
Lastly, again i have no idea what you mean by oppressing other people. Please kindly elaborate.
So have you read his book?
This is what News debate should look like. Not the bs they put out, these kids are well spoken , they're energy is good and respectful towards each other.
Ya only people that don't mind critical thinking and have open opinions would be willing to watch.
If only we can normalize this as the standard. Because otherwise the standard I've standard in news debates or political debates between politicians is not like this. Plus, arguments in which people get offended is entertainment which sells and gets more views I suppose; compared to the video where opposing arguments are expressed logically and maturely.
"Well spoken"? 😂 Did you hear the girl Hannah talking about how this country has had affirmative action for white people for more than 400 years despite the fact that the US was founded in 1776 ☠️
Although more than 13 years later, the course is still inspiring and nourishing!
Yup! ❤
13 years and AA is still a problem plaguing America.
1000000%
!!!!
I'm very impressed that he remembers the students names.
Lies again? Argue Complain
TURN TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST BEFORE ITS TOO LATE, GIVE YOUR LIFE TO HIM AND START WALKING IN OBEDIENCE, WITHSTANDING FROM ALL SIN AND WICKEDNESS, JESUS SAID THE PATH TO HEAVEN IS HARD AND NARROW, AND FEW FIND IT. MATTHEW 7:13-14, HEBREWS 5:9, JOHN 14:15, MATTHEW 7:21-26, 1ST CORINTHIANS 6:9-10, JOHN 3:16-21, JOHN 10:7-8, MATTHEW 10:26, AND LUKE 13:5. GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
@@icebreaker9006 turn to the Darkside
Most teachers do. Dont they?
I was just going to say; this lecture is so great! Also, its fantastic that this sort of material is so easily accessible (for those that can access computers/the Internet freely)! Education should be available like this for everyone.
TURN TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST BEFORE ITS TOO LATE, GIVE YOUR LIFE TO HIM AND START WALKING IN OBEDIENCE, WITHSTANDING FROM ALL SIN AND WICKEDNESS, JESUS SAID THE PATH TO HEAVEN IS HARD AND NARROW, AND FEW FIND IT. MATTHEW 7:13-14, HEBREWS 5:9, JOHN 14:15, MATTHEW 7:21-26, 1ST CORINTHIANS 6:9-10, JOHN 3:16-21, JOHN 10:7-8, MATTHEW 10:26, AND LUKE 13:5. GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
Well haha now it’s that way
@@icebreaker9006😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. You people can never just not taint a space, huh? You just have to force your religion down our throats. And you believe you’re not in a cult!
Education is an obligated on every human being education is light
The fact this man can be humorous with such topics and even draw together an allegory of Winnie the Poo speaks to how incredible of an educator this man truly is.
I love this professor's passion, wisdom, humor and knowledge of these lessons
TURN TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST BEFORE ITS TOO LATE, GIVE YOUR LIFE TO HIM AND START WALKING IN OBEDIENCE, WITHSTANDING FROM ALL SIN AND WICKEDNESS, JESUS SAID THE PATH TO HEAVEN IS HARD AND NARROW, AND FEW FIND IT. MATTHEW 7:13-14, HEBREWS 5:9, JOHN 14:15, MATTHEW 7:21-26, 1ST CORINTHIANS 6:9-10, JOHN 3:16-21, JOHN 10:7-8, MATTHEW 10:26, AND LUKE 13:5. GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
THANK YOU HANNAH !!❤️❤️👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 WELL SAID!
LEGACY ADMISSIONS ARE DISCRIMINATING !!!
LEGACY AND NEPOTISM IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!
I agree. Both affirmative action and legacy admissions are racist and discriminatory. Both should be outlawed. 👍🏻
She is literally the dumbest there that day. It still wonders me how in the world she got into Harvard. She said: "with regard to affirmative action based on race, I just wanna say that white people have had their own affirmative action in this country for more than 400 years". The US wasn't even founded 400 years ago... It was founded in 1776. She's an idiot just like you are 🤡
@@ShimmyMD Yes I think affirmative action and legacy admission is wrong. I thought the argument that Harvard should be able to pick it's own criteria as a basis for affirmative action was a weak one. I don't think many current supporters of this would still be supportive if Harvard decided tomorrow that it would set it's own criteria to greatly prioritise admission for white men of legacy families.
And the % of blacks admitted only dropped by 2% it amazes me how folks cry about the privileges they received for decades when the shoe is on the other foot.. if the world wad just..there would be no need for affirmative action in the first place. Know the privilege is crying fowl play when the underprivileged by design I might add is giving a hand. godspeed!
Holy moly that discussion between Daniel and Hannah is great.
Wouldn't it be interesting to know how her life unfolded?
Very much so. I would to know how all of them are doing.
@@caulds I've wondered the same about a few of them
She is literally the dumbest there that day. It still wonders me how in the world she got into Harvard. She said: "with regard to affirmative action based on race, I just wanna say that white people have had their own affirmative action in this country for more than 400 years". The US wasn't even founded 400 years ago... It was founded in 1776. She's an idiot 🤡
These discussions are just brilliant, they should be at all lectures since school
TURN TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST BEFORE ITS TOO LATE, GIVE YOUR LIFE TO HIM AND START WALKING IN OBEDIENCE, WITHSTANDING FROM ALL SIN AND WICKEDNESS, JESUS SAID THE PATH TO HEAVEN IS HARD AND NARROW, AND FEW FIND IT. MATTHEW 7:13-14, HEBREWS 5:9, JOHN 14:15, MATTHEW 7:21-26, 1ST CORINTHIANS 6:9-10, JOHN 3:16-21, JOHN 10:7-8, MATTHEW 10:26, AND LUKE 13:5. GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
Michael Sandel is just excellent. He listens, comprehends and replies rationally, and is never prejudiced or discourteous. He's a true gentleman and a scholar. L
💯
I like how he addresses afffirmative action philosophically. There needs to also be a discussion on how affirmative action is employed structurally across universities. Many faculty, admissions officers, and other people responsible for upholding this standard often look for loopholes in a way where the original purpose to alleviate inequity is not upheld. What this means is that affirmative action is effectively scapegoating minorities for the problems that legacy students create.
Yeah--the term "minority" is misleading and "minority" support is often given to white women through that loophole.
Legacy admission is pretty unreasonable.
I just heard about it here and yes, it sounds insanely unjust to me. Maybe they should compromise: just give those legacy positions to minorities, keep admission requirements the same for everybody else.
I still haven't heard one good argument in favour of legacy admissions. On the other hand, I've heard plenty of good reasons for quotas based on factors other than lineage.
@@Durzo1259 If we are strictly addressing the fairness argument, it would be fair to institute a quota to admit as many people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds as people who were admitted throughout the history of Harvard because of legacy.
@@Durzo1259 I know I'm a few months late but I don't think that Legacy admissions are unjust for private institutions, but should not happen with public universities. I shouldn't be paying taxes so that someone whose dad attended my dream college can get in before me. Almost like a company, I think that private institutions should be allowed to pick and choose people if their family has a solid history there. That's just my two cents.
@@warrenbeard4308 Well yes, I 100% agree. I was thinking strictly in public terms at the time.
For the record, I hate the idea of anybody being given preferential treatment based on their race; was just trying to be politically pragmatic.
I love Danielle and Hanna’s exchange a lot of great points.
I love Hanna.
@@Deepbeatu2. You and she are basically advocators of equality of outcomes, aka. communists. Such ideology is perfect in a meta-physical world, but always results in disasters in a physical world.
She is literally the dumbest there that day. It still wonders me how in the world she got into Harvard. She said: "with regard to affirmative action based on race, I just wanna say that white people have had their own affirmative action in this country for more than 400 years". The US wasn't even founded 400 years ago... It was founded in 1776. She's an idiot, and so are you Deepbeatu2 🤡
Wasnt hanna very pro admission?
This man is one of the realest people alive. Being able to sit in this online is next level man. For all those who could never get into Harvard I'm just blessed to witness this legend.
I'm on episode 9 and I just realised that I'm watching Justice with Tywin Lannister.
I can't unsee it!
Man...Now I can't unsee it
I thought about this the first episode.
The legend. Thank you, Michael Sandel, for sharing this knowledge and how you do it! You are the best teacher I've ever had.
amazing how technology reaches lectures we otherwise wont be able access. this is one of the best application of technology. thank you all people who make this available, inventors of technology, lecturers, cameraperson, etc. god bless you all
That is true. I got disappointed at the cost of studying in Harvard but I am happy to be accessing these lessons on TH-cam for free
I have a question for all harvard students watching this video. Are all the professers as good as Sandel or is like one in million?
Most professors are as good if not better. 8 years late lmao
In western europe, teachers like him can be found in public universities. In the US, its for rich kids.
i do have quite a few amazing professors in public university in Italy
@@nay4658 What's your point?
@@iLuvTheMostHigh Not everyone has access to him. I guess this is an utilitarian point.
9:40 "I think that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens today" - How did she get into Harvard?
Leo Gonzalez I get what you mean, but I think her point is more that we should place relatively more weight on the actions/decisions of individuals in their own lives. Our individual behavior is more impactful than our history, especially in America.
Must be one of those legacies 😂
So if your great great grandfather whom you've never met and don't even know the name of committed a horrible crime, would you be willing to suffer his sentence? Would that be just?
It's amazing the ruling that happened today. I think we can take some lessons from this very lecture
10:35 perfect said. We should provide equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Big difference.
Thats a good point but its kinda impossible considering some schools will always be better than others so the opportunity won't be equal
Studies show it doesn’t matter where one attends school. What you do with your time there is most important.
@@AnonymousC-lm6tc citation?
@@AnonymousC-lm6tcI mean naturally if all you do is play soccer, you'll be better, but then there's the aspect of "quality of practice." Also, you need to think about the factors that could enable one to constantly practice or not be able to practice at all. Say for example a 16 year old high school student that can't even play a sport because they have to get a job to help support their family.
@@jabbahut755those hindrances are present and should be addressed in the personal statement/application. No need to invoke race. I’m an immigrant, came here age 9. Knew no English and now I’m a physician. I worked my ass off because my parents knew that in America anything is possible as long as the kids study and work hard. My dad didn’t get accepted to med school in our country due to anti-semitism. Here, a different story.
That's why going to the best school is the right choice. This is the best lecture series of all times👏
I’m so proud of Hannah ❤❤❤
She is literally the dumbest there that day. It still wonders me how in the world she got into Harvard. She said: "with regard to affirmative action based on race, I just wanna say that white people have had their own affirmative action in this country for more than 400 years". The US wasn't even founded 400 years ago... It was founded in 1776. She's an idiot 🤡
Why?
These young people are pretty bright. I think it would be uncomfortable for those who were admitted to this university because of legacy or affirmative action rather than merit. How could they compete or feel they belong among these smart young folks. I don’t think I would.
The affirmative actions action does not just stop at admission. It continues through the course and even in their later career.
If you continue to deny access to this type of learning it only suppresses them more. Allow them a seat at the table and imagine how much more enlightening those conversations would be. There are some very smart/intelligent underrepresented children who aren't given a chance; moreover, don't have the resources to allow them to flourish.
@@talithaalexander2200you must be an idiot as well 🤡
Legacy admissions sound dumb. How can anyone actually support this practice as being moral or fair?
***** I don't think you're following what the lecture is all about....
QUESTION OF THE CENTURY
"when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
Mystery Face X
It's the same reason people support unlimited inheritance wealth which results in aristocracy.
Can anyone point out where the discussion about legacy admission took place in the video?
Thank you Harvard University for giving us this opportunity I'm learning so much from this channel
Love professor's teaching style and command of all concepts.
There is an obvious fallacy committed in affirmative action that demonstrates that the person who misses out has their rights infringed upon - Irronically, the very same logic that is used to suggest affirmative action as a solution in the first place.
The issue:
The issue we want to address is discrimination; particularly in the form of, say, a black person missing out on a placement/scholarship, despite achieving the same or better results as a white counterpart.
The response:
In order to avoid discrimination altogether, let's admit black applicants, even if they have lower scores, and eliminate the very meritocracy that society is founded upon: even if that is a hypocrisy which inflicts the very same injustice on another.
Skin colour does not matter. To argue that it does is racism.
Society functions on a foundation of competence. If people aren't admitted on merit alone, that foundation is corrupted.
To suggest that non-whites can't excel without state interference is the soft bigotry of low expectations.
If you believe that affirmative action is justified, then you believe that two wrongs make a right. Which is a hideous and foolish ideal.
Affirmative action solves none of the problems that lead to inequality. It's no more than a knee-jerk, unwise, and thoughtless reaction to a symptom of the cause.
These lectures has helped me greatly in making my views more consistent.
Simply curious, what are your views on this subject?
I‘m so enjoying this course, thank you for making it available for everyone
The Professor ends the lecture with "Think about that Question..." This is what real education is. The educator wants you to think, and form your thoughts and ideas. These days too many young people do not perform any critical thinking processes and blanketly believe someone else opinion without any due diligence.
Watching this is like reading my favourite book throughout the day....what a lovely lecturer! 😍 i
Legacy status... what's the point? Seems wrong/outdated, upholding stratification...
That may be, but getting rid of rigid power structures should be of more importance than tuition cost. The tuition could be lowered another way. That's just a lie produced by the ideological state apparatus so they can maintain their power and influence.
donations from these wealthy alumni. universities need money to operate.
Or it could be argued wealthy privileged legacy students are another category that should be represented for a fully diverse population. The only reason that one kid gave this argument is because he's (probably) from that group, which is a similar reason others argue that certain races should be admitted.
@Maria Callous How does being the child of a Harvard graduate assure "honor, morality, trustworthiness, etc."? Lil Peep was the child of two Harvard graduates, was he your paragon of virtue? The only thing it assures is privilege.
Right?! Especially with an extremely racist past, it’s almost counterintuitive to AA.
Now that's a teacher
That's not a teacher, that's a professor...
@@kp8129 the meaning of teacher is "one whose occupation is to instruct". Yes, he is a professor but it is his degree. He is actually a teacher and a very good one.
Possibly one of the highest purposes of teaching is to inspire learning. I think he does that in abundance.
@@kp8129That's a teacher he is teaching, what you talking about
Love these lectures, but if I had my chance to throw a glove in the ring, I would provide my own argument. You should not discriminate based on race at all because it does not necessarily help the least well off. Ted made a similar point to this, but I would like to clarify: for affirmative action to actually help the most disadvantaged, they should not discriminate on race, but rather on wealth or quality of school. Affirmative action's purpose is to account for disadvantages in education. These disadvantages occur from a lack of wealth. Wealthy members of a minority race who put their kids in good schools and live in good neighborhoods have no such disadvantage, therefore affirmative action should discriminate only based on wealth since it is the actual cause of disadvantage. Affirmative action is not consistent with its purpose of helping the least well off, since race is not the source of disadvantage.
Now race may influence a family's current wealth, but those families which do not lack for wealth no longer face that same disadvantage in education.
Now the response we commonly heard was that affirmative action's discrimination between races of applicants should be done in the name of diversity. This is getting away from the idea of Rawls' principles of justice. It violates the first principle as suggested by Michael Sandel later in the lecture. Under the veil of ignorance, no one would want a system that discriminated on race if they did not know what race they would be. Not being judged by the color of one's skin alone would indeed fall under the first principle's rights. According to Rawls, this means affirmative action's race based discrimination is unjust.
The diversity response also fails the second principle of inequality only when it benefits the least well off. I have already argued in the first paragraph why race is not a determinant of disadvantage. Race may often be present with that disparity, but it does not cause it. It is Correlation rather than causation. For example, A wealthy African-American family with a child in a top ranked school in a good neighborhood is not disadvantaged. It is clear that wealth disparities, not race is the proximate factor in education quality.
A rebuttal that race caused those initial economic disparities in the first place is reasonable, however, the fact remains that the wealthy African-American family is no longer experiencing that disparity, and they are no longer the least well off. This means affirmative action based on race has no grounds under Rawlsian justice as it cannot satisfy a single principle that would make it just.
I completely agree with you idea of basing it off financial status. It feels like when talking about the African American and Latinx communities people automatically assume that it correlates to poor financial stability. My friend had a really good example when you think of the ghetto or a 'bad neighborhood' like the Bronx or Harlem you're mind will usually picture African Americans and Latinos, however, that is making a generalization about a giant group of people. Not all minorities need your help just as not all majorities are doing fine. It needs to be off of financial class not race. Also literally go join the class cause you win.
The university is promoting the diversity of race; Especially when you take into account the Jim Crow's laws that took place 200years ago, 400 years of nepotism, legacy admission, I could go on and on, but the key factor is diversity of race. And base on the above mentioned, that's why we have more white American's students to African American's students. Instead, I think the argument, when it comes to diversity of race, one should take into consideration the population; there are 60% of white American's population compared to just 12.5% Africa American's population.
The population statistics do not show that the key factor is race. The ratio between total race population and college graduates (or graduates/admissions to top universities) are not near as strong as the correlation with wealth rather than race. For example, the Asian population is as small or smaller than African Americans in the U.S., yet by ratio they outperform even whites. Wealth, on the other hand, is a far stronger indicator. That is because all people are individuals, and every individual family unit will experience their own hardships and fortunes over time regardless of race.
@@publius4009 The university and markets work together, the market is now benefiting from diversity of race ; knowing the important contribution other race brings to the table ; that is why the university has based the admission on diversity of race. Time has evolved; The university makes their decision on what the market is demanding.
@Ronald Reagan I actually agree with you. All I was doing was pointing out an inconsistency in the logic. If the colleges actually wanted to help the least advantaged, they would help those struggling economically rather than a particular race. But yes, merit should determine admissions.
Who is here bc of TikTok
Definitely lol
I guess Ted got into Harvard through Family admission...
More like Hannah did. She is literally the dumbest there that day. It still wonders me how in the world she got into Harvard. She said: "with regard to affirmative action based on race, I just wanna say that white people have had their own affirmative action in this country for more than 400 years". The US wasn't even founded 400 years ago... It was founded in 1776. She's an idiot 🤡
I wonder how Sandel feels about the current attitude of Harvard towards Asian students.
This guy makes me want to transfer to Harvard (like I would be accepted xD), his class looks amazing
Nicholas Taylor hahaha
Nicholas Taylor the Harvard acceptance rate for transfer students is around 0.97%, so it’s definitely possible!
Do it!
Just start identifying as a minority group. Your chances will naturally increase by a lot.
This discourse among university students today wouldn't be so civil. Probably because of social media
I am impressed by his opportunity to remember the students names !!
I like how the white dude opposed Affirmative action even though he support legacy admission.
@juscurious Dang I'd really like to look into those statistics, very interesting
Affirmative action is racist,legacy is not
@@Evili555 however the legacy admission is based on a merit that was not worked. In other words as the previous lecture that person got admitted cause daddy, mommy or grandpa not because they put the entire effort to get in. Common! You should know better.
@@C3yl0 yes but it’s not race based. Affirmative action is race based. Legacy is not. It’s not about merit, it’s about racism.
Probably because he got in on legacy alone. You basically reap the benefits you never sown. He’s saying he wants to keep his advantages and for others not to have theirs.
15:32 This boy seems to get into harvard because his dad went to harvard. At 15:58, Michael seems to try to hold back his 'gotcha' smile.
You have no strong evidence for that though. Probably, your own projection?
@@akashin6385 ofcourse no-one has any idea but.......
the fumbling and stuttering in his voice when he was asked to talk about legacy system and the calming and soothing way he was talking about affirmative actions are quite noticable.
@@akashin6385 that’s why he stated “seems” which means I’m not sure and I’m guessing.
I also believe the same and no I’m not projecting but at my middle age I can identify when young people are arrogant and he is one of those. :)
well, Hannah is the dumbest person in that room without a doubt
Asian Americans, as an minority group, are penalized in Affirmative Actions system. While 1, many of them don't have privileged educational backgrounds, and 2, they have nothing to do with Whites' past wrongs. The only plausible argument would be about diversity, which I don't disagree.
I don't disagree that, in certain field of studies, especially legal or social or art related, diversity itself plays an indispensable role in term of educational outcomes. However, there are tons of fields of studies out there, that have nothing or little to do with diversity. Racial diversity among mathematicians, physicists, computer engineers, physicians, won't create any value to the common good. In these kind of fields of studies, racial background should NOT be considered at all.
I don't disagree= I agree ) make it short
these kids have obviously thought a lot about the issue of affirmative action, as they all were somehow admitted to Harvard U themselves and must have questioned their own and their peers' ability to get into the college. it seems that admission to the uni by privilege vs. talent/effort is a major conflict among harvard students
I would challenge your view about your second point regarding your certainty against certain professions that diversity cannot benefit from - why are you so, so certain?
80% of Affirmative Action recipients are white women and black men have benefited the least according the the US government's own numbers...
How would not having diversity with physicians not lead to better outcomes. It’s clear you’re not in medicine to say something like this. As a first year medical student it is VERY important for our physician workforce to look like the patient population and leads to direct positive patient outcomes
Outstanding professor, he understands each student and makes sure the entire class understands also
Talent is the best policy for admission not by race or social standard.
I think that affirmative action should favor people of poorer socio-economic backgrounds. That would diversify the student body the most and that would help account for those who didn't have all the privileges of the wealthy (SAT classes, piano lessons, tutors, etc.). There are poor white people.
I think race-based affirmative action further supports the assumption that minorities need extra help.
The argument from Harvard sounds a lot like: "We've always considered arbitrary criterions when choosing who to admit, what's one more?"
More like, why do you accept all the arbitrary considerations like legacy admissions different talents, city vs country, different areas, when it promoted diversity amongst white ppl, but u have a problem with including minorities all of a sudden. You can't be ok with one and not the other.
Just like the kid here who argued against affirmative action but was for legacy admissions..he tried to say "there in other ways to do it to promote diversity",but it was just a weak attempt to justify keeping legacy admissions while being against affirmative action.
@@hak2297 To be fair, I doubt many people IRL are fine with any of the other arbitrary considerations. Most of the people I know always wanted them removed, they are just even more pissed now that new ones are coming.
@@allisterblue5523 idk about that, I think everyone is biased to what benefits them..not to sound like a broken record but a prime example is the kid in this video that was attempting to make this argument, but in the end he couldn't say he was for removing legacy admissions..
Besides that, the fact that no one ever had a problem before when stuff like legacy admissions have been a thing for ages, like it was a none issue, but it became an issue after affirmative action speaks volumes..
@@hak2297 Not necessarily. Affirmative action was put in place when we reached a point where social issues became more faint and nuanced, and representation became worth considering. Understanding the impact of suboptimal decision making such as legacy admissions also requires nuance and subtlety, it seems plausible to me that concerns for both these issues would arise together in a non-causal way.
I'm a good example of this, I always was concerned by efficiency, but I happen to also be dysgraphic and dyslexic, so I'm slower at writing and reading than most people. When I applied to university is when I first noticed the presence of irrational discrimination, as they asked me if I had disabilities (I assume to discriminate arbitrarily in my favor). As a consequence, I instinctively said I didn't on the basis of my care for efficiency/vision of fairness. I still was admitted because my actual performance, have no impostor syndrome to speak off, and managed to graduate as an engineer, showing that their assesment of my ability was correct. On the other hand, a friend of mine who used shady means to get in (used a trick to boost their grades on paper) dropped-out after a year. Ultimately, my point is that efficiency often leads to a more capable, active, affluent and healthy society.
hannah has my utmost respect
Me too
She is literally the dumbest there that day. It still wonders me how in the world she got into Harvard. She said: "with regard to affirmative action based on race, I just wanna say that white people have had their own affirmative action in this country for more than 400 years". The US wasn't even founded 400 years ago... It was founded in 1776. She's an idiot just like you are 🤡
I raised the same question in my college class back in 2010, when we were talking about giving surplus scores to minor ethnicities. I don't remember we went into a discussion. Then I figured out the minorities have to deal with more challenges, for instance, they would not talk Mandarin at home or watch all TV programs in Mandarin. Several years later, that comic of equality circles around on the Internet.
Today, I read some book and realized debating doesn't necessarily mean you're open-minded or knowledgeable. Like Hannah pointed out "there are many different types of diversity, there's no reason that racial diversity should be eliminated from that criteria." What's to argue about...
Race has nothing to do with diversity……admission standards should be based upon merit. Furthermore I find it insulting that you think that minorities automatically have a more difficult time in life. Everyone has struggles and your skin color should not give you a leg up. Discrimination cannot be used to solve discrimination.
@@AnonymousC-lm6tc As I described in my comment, I found it discriminating back in 2010 as well. I also thought the society shouldn't help homeless people. They deserve it by not working hard. I discarded that thought later too. We are all privileged to some extent. What's important is how to spend it.
@@YujieDiaoCNif you want to account for financial disadvantages… then account for financial disadvantages…
Don’t put monolithic black, white, Asian, or Hispanic checkboxes on applications
@@jonahp4613 I literally did not mention these races. We don't talk about white, black, Asian, Hispanic in China. That is US.
Finance is only one of the dimensions. There are many more social issues.
@@YujieDiaoCN you literally said racial diversity should not be eliminated from the criteria…. Discrimination is discrimination, even if the cause is honorable
If you debate intellectually, everyone looks right. If you debate impact-fully you are on a much better path. Think about not how to rebute an argument. Think about the impact of your rebuttal. If you do not agree with affirmative action, think of the impact of your disagreement with it.
One of best lecture in justice series ...
Michael Sandel is one of, if not THE, most preeminent mind of the present day!!!!!
I hear so many assumptions with no support. And Harvard students applaud them.
I agree with you. Many students jump to conclusion too quickly without proper arguments, that's what the hight school teachers taught them to be? So strange.
@@luckywomancheng6690 It's amazing they got into Harvard.
The school was right to take race into consideration. The white girl's rights were not violated. She would still have the opportunity to be accepted into another equally good school.
This is just similar to what happen's in India , there it is based on caste rather than race
So could relate with it
In the end, we might still agree to disagree. However, honest communication is the first step!
these kids have obviously thought a lot about the issue of affirmative action, as they all were somehow admitted to Harvard U themselves and must have questioned their own and their peers' ability to get into the college. it seems that admission to the uni by privilege vs. talent/effort is a major conflict among harvard students
Exactly
Michael cornering Ted was actually very entertaining to see
This was such an interesting & insightful lecture.
bank of America lost a class action lawsuit along with several other big banks. They lost a class action lawsuit. In addition to giving blacks higher interest loans, management was caught specifically targeting blacks, hispanics, and women to encourage them to obtain an adjustable rate mortgage instead of a convential loan. You made the statement that there is no institutional racism that negatively affects blacks. I provided a clear recent case. I provided the example you asked for.
I have not once, in life, been racially discriminated against. However, in my view, the problem arises when universities admit people who academically should not be there, mismatching in other words. If a minority is sufficiently qualified, then it is fine for a Private institution to favour admittance. State institutions have no business doing so, however. (In the interest of disclosure I am an International student in a top ranked US University)
I know I'm VERY late. But a private institution, to the point of many in the video, can choose students however they please. Why would it necessarily be a problem that students "who academically should not be there" are admitted to a private institution? It's privately funded, it doesn't affect other students in the institution, and as I believe Sandel stated, the school isn't in any way obliged to prioritize academic performance over factors like race. If a University wants to have 100% white or 100% black students, I believe they are free to do so, but the institution, as well as the students, are the ones who will (and rightly should) suffer the consequences of that choice. Furthermore, the act might not be 'right' but I still wouldn't call it a problem per se. State institutions are another subject altogether.
This is the ultimate undeniable fact and legacy of the racism inflicted by the ancestors of those that now have wealth and power...It is designed to last. They'd be proud.
ขอบคุณอาจารย์และนักศึกษาทุกคน ที่ให้ความรู้และกฎหมาย ในอนาคต
Glad the SCOTUS settled this debate once and for all! All's well that ends well! 🎉
This is what higher education should look like. Teaching you think, but not what to think.
Diversity : there’s more diversity within groups than across
Compensation : there is no reasonable way to compensate , those involved are dead . Any individual today does not bear the responsibility of a past generations behavior . Most whites ( which are not a homogeneous group but very diverse ) did not come here until later as did most blacks ( also not a homogeneous, but very diverse group) .
Individual responsibility, values ( for education which is rooted in the home ) and intellect are far more important to success academically than anything else .
Who gets the best flute ... the best flute player ...
Because the best flute deserves the best player XD
But by Diversity, I think they mean Diversity of groups.
And it’s dumb to assume that more diversity would be useful in an intellectual and capability sense.
Is your idea of compensation being impossible based on a belief that the long term effects of slavery and racial segregation do not have an impact on the current black population in the US?
@@andrewnye6088 compensation is about the moral stand point. Your argument seems to be more a mix of the 2 others. The consequences of worst education need to be compensated for in admission, and that more diversity help mend the continuing damage.
@@renkanestark6945 I disagree strongly about this. Assume you have a way to even measure 'intellect and capability' (which in first accounts is a deeply simplistic view of what a successful or achieving person is). I'd argue that if you have a 2 groups of 4 people, all same 'intellect', one in which they all come from the same cultural/racial background, vs one in which they are all from different ones. Say you are in a music class, ppl from the homogeneous group are way more likely to have their interest match, meaning that their perspectives are likely similar, while bringing a more diverse group will lead to a richer discussion. Another instance, imagine if a mostly black neighborhood would have a white representative, wouldnt you argue that this representative is unlikely to properlty represent the perspectives of this mostly black neighborhood, as the struggles and problems they face are different -- Meaning that in an intellectual discussion about policies or whatever you wanna talk about, they are unlikely to properly represent the neighborhood, due to differences in their culture. And sure everyone is different, but I'd argue that there is something (not essential rather than sociallized) that separates people from different racial backgrounds more than within group. For proof of this you can look into statistics and facts about idk political affiliation, artists they listen to, etc. and compare the stats between different racial groups. Not saying that there are not cases in which individuals between groups are more similar than within the group, im talking about a trend. We are who we hang out with a bit.
Discrimination will only end once there is no talk of things like this. To help the minorities, especially in terms of race, we should focus on giving them equal opportunity rather than forced superiority. The focus should be on better education, as well as on stopping the crime rampant in minority-populated areas. Affirmative action only treats symptoms, not the problems themselves. However, treatment of these symptoms is necessary until such time as a solution has been implemented. If it is a choice between letting minority opportunities disappear or giving them superiority in some cases, the latter is a necessary evil.
What do u mean by giving the superiority? Example?
Affirmative action.... It the whole subject of the video.
What Forced "Superiority" are you talking about?
I guess the problem that some would argue is how do you create equal opportunities without giving them the exact same environment throughout life. At some point you will be intervening along the way at some point.
Isn't a college education part of giving them equal opportunity?
I am with University of Texas (now Harvrd University too) for affirmative action for two reasons. The University of Texas (or for better example in this statement Harvard) has more number of qualified applicants for a class than the class size. So clearly, University of Texas (or Harvard) cannot provide the opportunity to all of the qualified applicants. So what it does is pick individuals that represent the diversity in society, so that with the education that they are provided with, they can go back and lead their societies. Often more students belonging to minority groups have had less opportunities, than those belonging to majority groups. So as an educational institution in the society, I believe that affirmative action embodies the idea as in to empower leaders representing as diverse a group as possible so that they can lead and represent their societies- so that they can bring the same spirit of education that they have received to their communities. So definitely, the more diverse are the leaders the more people the education reaches into the society as led by the students.
The second reason I would support affirmative action in specific to the example of Texas University law school. Texas' lawmakers and hence the law should be able to represent all groups of people proportionately. So the affirmative action in the state's law school embodies the idea of educating and representing as diverse a community of students as possible, so that the state's law can have a proportionate representation of all groups.
I wonder where all these students are today. Shout-out to Harvard Extension School. I am so grateful to be part of this institution.
It's a blatant racism against all the people. Debating diverse ideas brings results, not melanine diverse group which thinks the same - Yay we are multiculti , we rock!
And discrimination based on intelligence or wealth is not? Lol
@@AllAboutJailbreak Yes, discrimination based on intelligence or wealth is, by definition, not racist.
@@pabloramirez217 but not anymore intrinsically justifiable
@@impossiblynice I would say they both have at least some coherent arguments that you can make for them, whether you agree with them or not, e.g., Giving a scholarship to someone because they come from a low-income family, that's discriminating due to wealth, or accepting someone into a university because they have the highest marks. That's something, in my opinion, that you can't say about discriminating because of race or racism, I don't think there's any way to justify it.
@@pabloramirez217 Intresting, I definatly did think that justification was brought to the table. Did you watch the previouse lectures? Tho maybe the argument wasn't made as clear as I fought it was.
edit: The next lecture might also bring some more caveates to your view.
A sense of justice is a common sense.
I'm glad that there's no AA in the UK. A-level grades and personal statement determine almost everything in university admission.
If the government wants more disadvantaged minorities to get into the top universities, put more funding into the public education instead of rigging the system to make it "fair".
It's not that eash as it sounds. Public schools which are predominantly black cannot simply get more funding from the government, they need a more persuasive in incentive. I think AA in schools will make this system more effective in the long run because it will make minorities go to great schools and whites forced to go to less funded schools. That will make funding these schools a priority for everyone, not just blacks. Therefore, everyone is given more or less the same school education and that should reflect in the university demographics.
@@AllenBaby7 you might be right, but what do you do about all the wasted potential of talented majority people who can’t go to a school were they could get an education proportional to their talent?
The only way to not waste the talented majority people is to make a change in the education that everybody gets, not by setting a percentage of minorities to have in the school
@@pasticcinideliziosi1259 what? The "majority talented people" won't be sitting at home doing fuck all...
You clearly weren't paying attention.
Why didn’t any of the kids opposed to affirmative action, not opposed to legacies & nepotism? The student at 13:35 talks about the illegalites of racial discrimination being illegal and one should considered based on MERIT, but they could also make it illegal for legacies to be admitted because they are being admitted only because a parent, grandparent, or because of donations. I also wonder if the bottom 25% of students should’ve EVER been admitted AND why were they admitted in the first place?
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is discrimination itself
My argument would make sense if and only if this episode 09: "ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" is revisited in this age of the internet.
Has the educational system assimilated the major advantages of how computer sciences erases the occupancy constraint to education. Was occupancy the reason for creating a selection process for who merits entrance to universities in the past?
Our current educational system needs to be upgraded. Every person, in this day of the internet, has the right to become a student and benefit from an "ivy-league" education.
Smart devices has made the dream of continuous education, from the best schools in the world, to last a life time, and made available to all of us.
The question now should be; Why isn't everyone receiving an "ivy-league" education today?
Education is now a profit based business. The wealthy also realize they can retain wealth by dumming down the population. Many schools are pipelines to prison. Covid emphasized disparities when many schools lacked the technology. Their students lacked access in their homes. It took 6 months for many schools to get their kids computers and hot spots. Notice our phones aren't dropping calls anymore. They had to put towers in the ghettos and rural neighborhoods.
Before Cpvid you had students getting these same tests cores with books printed in the 60s and no tutors. People were going to the library to type and print papers. This happening after 2015 makes no sense. A lot of people don't have a clue of what the disparity really is when they say affirmative action is the only reason people get these opportunities.
Great lecture, thank you Harvard and thank you Michael Sandel .
Everyone wants whatever is going to benefit them. Throw all forms of discrimination out the window, no alumni, no affirmative action, it's the only way to to advance society in a true quantifiable way.
It's not that simple. That's what the whole series is about.
@@MaghoxFr Basically the forever battle between idealists and empiricists, between obsession with deterministic perfect solutions and admission of non-deterministic probablistic solutions.
The point at the beginning in regard to NYC schools is absolutely false . The schools get xx dollars per day per student . The schools in minority neighborhoods get additional funding for after school programs and food programs . $$$ isn’t the answer , we know that now , culture at home and the valuing of education is the difference .
Totally right. But there are many places that are not fortunate enough to get the same funding.
Money alone won’t fix the problem, but trust me it helps. Operating schools in such communities costs more money...due to bad family structures.
So funding it more is just better than doing nothing. Not the best but ....
You can’t blame the kids either, some of them come school without proper sleep...abused by addict parents...all sorts of problems.
Teachers needs to get paid more!!!
Where does culture at home develop?
Magic and Miracles are Divine Blessings.I express my heartfelt Gratitude.
Attack nepotism and legacy admission with that same fervor because they give the majority advantages and are perfectly legal.
Policy and affirmative Action for the better good of Majority
In india we have caste based discrimination and so in constitution we have caste based reservation for scheduled castes SC, scheduled tribes ST, Other backward classes OBC. Now this has caused a lot of stir for the higher castes like bramhins bania. These guys have centuries of accumulated wealth land property. And they highly oppose the caste based reservation in education and jobs. But until the caste based discrimination and atrocities don't go away the reservation will be there. On a daily basis a lower caste is killed or humiliated by upper castes. Just Google how many atrocities are there.
👍
"You dropped a hundred grand on an education that you could have gotten for $1.50 in late fees at the public library." - Matt Damon ('Good Will Hunting').
The take away being that no one is absolutely limited in their pursuit of education, if they are willing to educate themselves in whatever limited situation that they find themselves.
There's a way to get that book at Half Priced Bookstore or the Library. There's a way to hear intelligent discussions in Harvard, even if all you have is a beat up phone and a TH-cam App.
Your acquisition of knowledge may never be recognized by a diploma, but if it were hard won by a sincere desire to learn and improve, then there should be an inner affirmation that does not require any plaudits to substantiate it.
I'm sorry but this is rubbish.
Proving that an edge case exist, doesn't apply it is true for the whole situation.
I wish more people would learn science and stop using old logic falsies that we KNOW as a specie arent true
@@michelgent7419
Ok
These lectures helped me a lot with my Philosophy course in college. Thanks Harvard❤
Controversial topic. In India, where I am living, there is less debate about the affirmative action policies. But politicians use it for vote bank. Discussions like this are good
If you were put in charge of making a social change so that debates like these would be more common, what would you do?
12:35 Henna didn't even address the point Tinnie made, rather spoke something irrelevant to dodge the argument.
This is a captivating lecture. Great exchanges and great to hear the different perspectives. It does highlight that the subject of affirmative action is more involved than just meeting quotas and that not everyone has a complete understanding of its purpose and how it is implemented.
This discussion went so wrong... They could have used the future results (more diversity among graduates and thus among lawyers, judges and attorneys) as an argument, but they went back to discussing slavery instead.
UPD: ok this point was made by Sandel later 😅
I passed by a farm that had several mules and several race horses. I walked to the fence to pet a mule and he said “You may pet me but don’t call me a mule”. I asked why and he said “It hurts my feelings. It’s a derogatory label and I’m as good as those race horses over there”. You’re right, I said. The mule replied “We are all equal and nobody is better than anyone else”. I said “That’s very true”. Then, the mule said he could prove he was equal by entering a horse race at Louisiana Downs if I would enter him in the race. I had to agree to keep from hurting the mules feelings. The mule lost the race and I lost $1000 betting on the mule. The mule then explained that he only lost because the race didn’t favor mules. The rules were too rigid and the race horses had longer legs. I thought for a minute and said “You’re absolutely right, Mule”.
When I got him back to the farm, the race horses said “That mule thought he could beat us in a race”. “That mule should realize he should plow the field and leave the racing to us”. The mule yelled at the race horses and said “Don’t call me a mule. It hurts my feelings”. The races horses decided to call the mule a cross-breed instead. That worked until the cross-bred mule yelled “Don’t call me a cross breed. It hurts my feelings. Everybody is equal”. After this got around to the race track managers, they decided to allow mules to race in the race track against thoroughbreds so all the other mules wouldn’t refuse to plow the fields. Since they knew the mules would never win, they implemented affirmative action to help the mules find a spot on the track. Eventually, the gambling visitors stop coming to the races and all the race horse owners quit racing their horses. The race track went out of business because it moved the track to another country where there were no mules. Everything went well for years until someone overheard an immigrant mule telling one of the horses “Don’t call me a mule. It hurts my feelings”.
Because when they say diversity they usually mean race and ethnic background. There is no necessary connection or even probable connection between some particular cultural experience and some particular ethnic background. So why use the latter as proxy for the former?
Going back to the lesson from Rawls, starting points of individuals cannot be equal. That's why Rawls said there should be some degree of redistribution of wealth, which means there is duty of those who are better off to help those who are lagged in the competition. Rawls admitted there is unfixable inequality in human life, but he didn't try to fix the inequality itself. This principle could explain the issue of affirmative action
Correcting for the effects of inequality based on immutable traits such as race or gender is a gross oversimplification of past and present circumstances. Each sovereign individual has a unique past and present regardless of what arbitrary and subjective group they get put into.
Perhaps a person who happens to have a darker skin pigment has been raised in an affluent neighborhood and attends a better school. She could be lucky to be the first born and have both parents raise her in a loving and caring environment.
Contrast this individual with a lighter skin tone that society describes as white.
She is mired in poverty not least because she has only one parent who can only afford to live in a poor neighborhood with a poor school.
Perhaps a few of her ancestors died in the Civil War while fighting for freedom including the freedom of darker people.
Is giving up your life enough compensation for the injustices of the past or do you want more?
Today the 'white' girl walks into a public space and is told to check her privilege and give her spot into Harvard to an individual who is seen to be an oppressed minority.
As a society we need to stop viewing the world using the lens of the collective.
It's naive, lazy and ultimately dangerous.
Affirmative action with the individual and his/her unique circumstances in mind is another question with the answer being a tentative 'yes'. We need to stop seeing the group as the ultimate entity where the individual is a mere cell manipulated and discarded as the group sees fit.
The student in this video aptly summarized the correct lens that we should use to see the world through the words of Martin Luther King Jr. 'To be judged not on the color of my skin but on the content of my character.
Lets stop being naive, lazy and dangerous about who belongs to what group and why but instead see through a lens of individuals with unique circumstances. You may have to roll up your sleeves to do some work and find out about the person next to you. It will certainly involve some critical thinking because the devil is always in the details.
Blacks getting jobs because they are black. I absolutely agree with the fact that "No one should be treated differently based on the color of their skin", too bad it was the opposite that happened to black people even after slavery was abolished. There were laws to hold down blacks and quite simply affirmative action was was made to offset policies that prevented black people from progressing for centuries, it's as simple as that. It shouldn't be permanent condition but it's a start.
Personally, affirmative action presents a problem for me: I agree absolutely that diversity is great, it´s what we need to establish in all areas to make sure people become more tolerant and learn to appreciate that diversity widens our horizon. So for all those who have been accepted into a school life is perfect, and it is easy to advocate affirmative action. BUT what bugs me with the philosophical approach is that it loses track of the personal point of view: what about those who have been refused on grounds that they can do nothing about (race, social background, whatever ...): for them, affirmative action must ring false, since they have been denied their right to admission, in fact, they have been discriminated against because of THEIR race, ethnicity, etc. If we put ourselves in their skin, we must admit that this is frustrating, demotivating, devastating. Mind you, I´m not arguing from a personal perspective, I´m just putting myself in the shoes of someone who worked hard and who was refused access on the grounds of race (etc.), a factor that is out of their hands.
Why not invest in education, build more schools, so that we can have diversity, AND offer a great education to all those who would like to get it?
I agree with you. Diversity is important for society, but if our solution to fix discrimination towards minorities is discriminating majories, we are still handling with the same problem, discrimination. If we know how harmful discrimination could be for one side, why should we say to discriminate the other side is a sound solution?
These students are brilliant. I wonder where are they now?
Apparently the average attention span sucks. Just look at all these people in the comments section repeating points students raised, completely disregarding the objections that were made to those points, and thinking they're contributing in some way to the discussion.
+Ian Qualia AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS JUDGING A PERSON ON THE COLOR OF HER SKIN!
+Ian Qualia FUCK YOU! WE NEED DIVERSITY!
+Ian Qualia
What makes you any different by pointing that out to the people you're blasting? They're not contributing neither are you.
***** Yeah, I was expecting that response, it's the obvious sort of predictible but still challenging response. I could reply something like: what are YOU contributing by saying that? And we'd go in a vicious circle.. I think we relax the standards for meta-conversation. Imagine I tell a math student: "that's not a proof of Goldbach's conjecture" and he replies "that sentence isn't a proof either". I claim my critique of a statement isn't subject to the same standards I used for evaluating the statement. Otherwise we're really constrained in saying what people accomplish with their words.
+Ian Qualia
Nah that wouldn't be justifiable because Im not committing a hypocrisy, you are.
Today, it is great to see the AA was finally rejected by the Supreme Court last year. This out-right discrimination against Asian students came to an end. Their ancestors were no slave owners. Instead, Asians have been discriminated against for so long, including today. Even after slavery was abolished, the congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. By the way, given what happened in the Harvard court in 2024, smart and influential Jewish leaders should rethink where this college should go from here.