CC writes: >>"Fairness" has no objective content; << To paraphrase some old fellow, ideas of "fairness" become "a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." That is, if large numbers of members of the working class and other dominated groups are organized in the name of "fairness" (as they define it) and other ideals, then it has "objective content."
In the meantime, I see no reason why we can't talk about fairness, since the "masses" can learn from our discussion. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > We again come up against the difficulties created by mixing ethics & > politics. "Fairness" has no objective content; it ignores the tautology > that > a capitalist economy is a capitalist economy. > > Carrol > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of raghu > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:43 PM > > To: Progressive Economics > > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Slate: "In College Admissions, Affirmative Action > and > Its > > Critics Both Have The Same Problem" > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Joseph Catron <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Your thoughts? > > > > "If the powers-that-be think it's useful to ability-rank 18 > year-olds for > > pedagogical purposes, then perhaps that's correct. But the second stage > of > > the college sorting process where more resources are expended on a UC > > Berkeley student than a community college student doesn't have any > > justification. That unfairness permeates the entire system. And because > the > > system is unfair, there's no way to incorporate race (or not incorporate > it) or > > to replace race with class or geography or anything else that will > produce > a > > fair outcome." > > > > http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/05/affirmative_act > > ion_and_its_critics.html > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this is factually correct. The assertion about "more > resources are > > expended on a UC Berkeley student than a community college student" is > > confusing. Elite institutions *by definition* have more resources than > non- > > elite ones. What has that to do with fairness? Unless you want to argue > (like > > some PEN-Lers seem to do) that the very existence of elite institutions > is > > undesirable. > > > > > > A better question may be to ask if elite institutions are > disproportionate > > beneficiaries of public subsidies. This is not at all clear to me. It is > true that > > elite institutions benefit from various tax-exemptions from their > non-profit > > status and it may make public policy sense to limit some of that. > > > > > > But it seems to me more generally, that public subsidies, to the extent > they > > still exist, are progressive in their effect i.e. benefit non-elite and > less > > selective institutions more than elite ones. I may be incorrect about > this, but > > I'd like to see some evidence. > > > > > > The real problem as I see it is that public subsidies are disappearing > which > > effectively weakens non-elite institutions that do not have vast private > > resources and endowments. > > > > > > -raghu. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
