I think my issue is the same as it is every time this topic comes up somewhere. There's a problem of scope here, and Professor Loury kind of touches on it. That is that individuals and groups are apples and oranges. "Black people" or "white people" are not monolithic groups with infinite continuity, and so treating people based on the group dynamic at an individual level is patently unfair. A poor kid is a poor kid. A kid with a bad home life is a kid with a bad home life. A kid at an underperforming school is a kid at an underperforming school. These factors have far more impact on the potential arc of a child or teen than their racial makeup. Using a secondary or tertiary proxy for disadvantage makes no sense when you can simply use the disadvantage itself as the criteria for public policy. I think that the people who advocate for racially-based policies continue to pretend that race is the best criteria because if you were to straight out ask the average person - of any racial background - if it's a good idea to funnel resources towards a wealthier, more socially connected person than to a poorer, less connected person simply because of the races of the two individuals, they would find the question absurd. It's only by pretending that race-based policies are lifting people out of poverty (instead of providing advantage to the already advantaged) that anyone can be sold on those policies.
I think my issue is the same as it is every time this topic comes up somewhere. There's a problem of scope here, and Professor Loury kind of touches on it. That is that individuals and groups are apples and oranges. "Black people" or "white people" are not monolithic groups with infinite continuity, and so treating people based on the group dynamic at an individual level is patently unfair. A poor kid is a poor kid. A kid with a bad home life is a kid with a bad home life. A kid at an underperforming school is a kid at an underperforming school. These factors have far more impact on the potential arc of a child or teen than their racial makeup. Using a secondary or tertiary proxy for disadvantage makes no sense when you can simply use the disadvantage itself as the criteria for public policy. I think that the people who advocate for racially-based policies continue to pretend that race is the best criteria because if you were to straight out ask the average person - of any racial background - if it's a good idea to funnel resources towards a wealthier, more socially connected person than to a poorer, less connected person simply because of the races of the two individuals, they would find the question absurd. It's only by pretending that race-based policies are lifting people out of poverty (instead of providing advantage to the already advantaged) that anyone can be sold on those policies.