AA is a government's social adjustment policy- a method to make the system fairer for people who are less deserving.
AA is a way to promote the fairness of the system provided fairness is not a given right. Does AA promote the fairness of the system? Yes.
Do we agree that there are people with less advantageous background like Quc DO? Certainly.
Do we agree that there are people with superior advantage over other like special privilege? Certainly.
Is that fair? Most people will say no.
But let's think about this question: What is fair?
Is that fair someone grows up in a King's family and inherits endless privilege and fortune, but someone grows up as an orphan?
Is that fair that someone choose computer random pick on lottery ticket and win the lottery but someone does the same thing but not win?
Is that fair that someone is a born genius because of his/her parents' gene, but someone is just ******ed?
Is that fair that someone is handicap so he can park in the handicap space but someone else who is not handicap have to spend 30 mins finding a parking spot?
Question above might provoke different answer for different people. To some question, most people might agree it's fair (lottery one or the handicap one); to some questions, people might think it is not (grow up in a King's family, no need to worry about $hit.)
But let me ask you a question, does the "someone? in any of the above example, have any choice? Did the handicap man break his leg to get a handicap parking permit? Did the guy choose computer random pick not know that, he has very little chance of winning? Did the man who was born orphan or born in palace, decide what family to be born into?
No, we are all given what we got. Extend that, one of you on this thread who keep saying AA is not fair for non-URM, or saying URM deserves AA, will in another time, another space, speak the exactly opposite thing. Two of you are identical in a sense that both are human, both reason with the same logic. It's the mere different backgrounds that make you two speaking/believing different things.
For the welfare of the system, to promote fairness to a certain extend is a must. However to define fairness is extremely hard, therefore it's impossible to obtain absolute fairness.
Let's categorize people in below categories:
A- Above average non-URM who will not be benefited from AA (will get into med school w/o the help from AA)
B- Above average URM who will not be benefited from AA (get into med school without AA)
C- below average non-URM who will not be benefited from AA (who will not get into med school anyway)
D- below average URM who WILL be benefited from AA (who get into med school due to AA. Wouldn't get in otherwise.)
We can clearly see that, AA only makes a difference in D category.
And lots of you from category A and B or even C, complain that it's not fair. Your argument is really referring to the fairness between category C and category D, since A and B are unaffected by AA.
In the absence of AA, both category C and category D will have no hope of getting into med school. After the presence of AA, at least category D can be matriculated.
Therefore we can conclude that, AA only benefit people, but doesn't harm people.
You might argue that, URM take spot in med school otherwise would go to non-URM category A students, thereof increase the percentage of category A and decrease category C. Well, true, but as entire population of applicant pool is considered as a whole, number of matriculants is only increased, never decreased.
Why does the system do that- favor one category for the price of sacrificing the other category? It's the root of this debate, which I will address soon. And another question risen, do non-URM people who are as disadvantaged as an "ideal URM" (ideal URM is defined as population who are less advantageous financially/academically/socialeconomically than other applicant due to their race) have a right to say that, they also deserve special privilege as URM? Do some URM people who are actually wealthy and receiving adequate education deserve special privilege? This is the second question I am going to answer.
First question: Why does the system do that- favor one category for the price of sacrificing the other category?
Our democratic economic structure is the best model to achieve highest benefit for everyone who shares the market. Remember the intro microeconomic book has this pie diagram. While everyone's share of pie is the same, enlarging the pie itself will enlarge everyone's share. A free market force, the force that drives a democratic economic, is the best way to ensure that this pie is at its maximum efficiency. If government take controls or intervene, for example, communist model in which government decide the distribution of goods, the market will be extremely inefficient and therefore the size of the pie will shrink.
However, this free market economic model is not perfect. Extreme and growing difference between the poor and the rich becomes a phenomenon. To ensure maximized profit, company will merge and acquire monopoly to its best interest. This though ensures the enlargement of the pie, but it well loses the fairness of the market. It creates a vicious cycle that basically makes successful people more likely to succeed, disadvantageous people more likely to lose.
(Increase a pie- radius of a circle, will enlarge the slice- each share- by 3.14 time. it means that, a linear increase in pie will result in exponential effect in the difference b/t rich and poor.)
This idea can be understood and extended to area other than financial economic, i.e. social economic. African-American mostly or so called ghetto neighborhood generally have higher rate of underage pregnancy and single mother. In rich neighborhood normally teenager who are pregnant younger before marriage, have greater access to abortion, and greater pressure for choosing abortion. Single mother in less educated neighborhood however, is more likely to choose not to abort her child. (This is confirmed by research that, the less educated the people are, the less likely they will choose abortion. it's not that hard to understand.) Since single teenage mother is more common in this neighborhood, the likelihood of their children to succeed in the society is less likely compares to children in rich neighborhood. Children in ghetto neighborhood become problematic and increase social burden.
This is the vicious cycle similar to the one in economic- richer get richer, poor get poorer.
AA is a mean to intervene, just like government intervenes in business market in order to ensure a social justice and the general welfare.
For example, if government doesn't intervene, company will not care about dumping toxic waste into river, because such act is the result of maximizing its profit. Company will merge without control, monopoly will take place commonly and drive less competitive firm out of market quickly.
AA in medical school application process is the same. The system wants to maximize the benefit of the society. It acknowledges that certain population is disadvantageous to other, without help, these people who are disadvantageous is hard to get into med school. Harder for them to get into med school, this population will have less ambition to attempt/apply, eventually this population will give up the idea of applying, eventually the medical society will lose this population, and very likely this population's socialeconomical status will only go down ever more.
Therefore it's rightful for AA to take place. It's an example of social justice. Social justice is not an absolute justice that applies or even seem "just" to everyone. However it's a justice that promotes the general welfare and domestic tranquility.
Without social justice, one can argue that why do handicap people get to park at a near by spot while I got to find a spot 10 minutes walk away for 30 minutes (in university campus)? They are handicap because they are unlucky, screw them, just because they are handicap, doesn't mean that I didn't work as hard as them to go to school and study and pay my tuition and pay my tax.
We know that this doesn't sound right. It's true that handicap people pay the same amount of tax, and they didn't choose to be handicap, but the society, the system, is justified to provide them with special privilege.
Second question: URM who are just as rich; non-URM who are just as poor, why do they/don't they deserve special privilege?
This comes to an argument that, AA is a privilege, not a right. This world is naturally UNFAIR. Let me repeat myself, unfairness is natural. People are born into different social class, equipped with different lengths, inherent with different trait/skill/talent/gene/title/deed/stigma.
System can only do its best job at pursuing a sense of fairness to the best of its effort. As long it makes a reasonable effort in pursuing social justice, I say that it's a good system. Can the rule be change to perfect the system, so more people who are really in need can be benefited? Yes, but it's the job of those legislatures that we vote to represent us. This world is not perfect, but we have to live with it. Rules are made by us for us to follow. They are there for a purpose. Privilege is given, since it's not a right, it's not up to us to argue it's whether fair or not.
It's just my 2 cents.
