<p>I postulate that reactions to the article depend on the reader’s view of equality. Is ethical equality primarily concerned with equal opportunity or with equal outcomes? The majority of Americans conceptualize equality in terms of opportunity: oppressed groups like minorities are treated equally so long as the system is meritocratic and they, if they work really hard, can succeed with determination. </p>
<p>The dominant mode of thinking (equal opportunity) of course, advantages the dominant class since they have greater opportunities to begin with. In politics, for example, we believe in “liberty and justice for all” because all theoretically have an equal opportunity to vouch for their interests. However, in practice, women, the poor, and minorities are often underrepresented in political decisionmaking due to a lack of political and economic capital. In other words, equal opportunity tends to advantage dominant groups (i.e. white anglosaxon protestant upper class males). Hence, many who are critical of “the system” believe that equal outcomes are a preferable method of viewing equality. In this example, historically oppressed groups may have the opportunity to achieve equally to dominant groups, but only if they jump through a series of rather difficult hoops that are relatively easy for dominant groups. The article mentions many of these hoops: SAT scores, test dates, expensive extracurriculars, cost of early decision, etc. In other words, this view would say “yes there are indeed some minorities/women/poor people who were accepted, but as a whole their admission was discouraged due to unjust practices”. </p>
<p>It may be the case that the article is overreacting to the college system, but those who call him a quack are also equally overreacting in the opposite direction. He just holds a different way of viewing equality than the majority on this site do - one it wouldn’t hurt to consider.</p>