<p>Well, I think that confuses the issue a little. This most recent set of posts is not exactly about the goodness of affirmative action (or whether mootmom or anyone else believes in it) but whether affirmative action means that consideration is "less individualized" in some important respect. The quote above shows that at MIT, it is, at least as of 1999. You only have to be qualified and of a certain color.</p>
<p>We can agree to disagree about the basic normative question of affirmative action -- the question of whether it is, on balance, good. But at least we can put to rest the bizarre Orwellian claim -- a claim reasonably popular on this forum -- that affirmative action brings all the virtues of diversity without paying any cost in the fairness or academic quality of the process. Let's at least be honest about the costs, instead of religiously insisting that it is all good, no bad.</p>
<p>(By the way -- mootmom is more religious than I am, with all due respect. I have often admitted that a pure "academic meritocracy" like Caltech involves real sacrifices -- a bad male/female ratio, few minority students, more general homogeneity -- in exchange for a fairer admissions process that, e.g., pays no attention to color for the sake of color alone. I'm reasonably honest about the minuses on my side. In contrast, my opponents, the true faithful, will never admit that affirmative action involves any sacrifices. Because that's what it means to believe. And if I'm wrong about that, I would be very grateful for evidence to the contrary.)</p>
<p>Warmest regards to all, as always.</p>