Aren't those about equal outcome rather than equal opportunity?
No. Note that I'm not suggesting these things are "solved" through quotas or prescription. I see them as symptoms of wider inequality.
Taking the Russell Group example, obviously there are reasons (such as wealth) why a white kid is more likely to make it, but it's not discrimination based on race.
Although the universities themselves may not be selective based on race, there are much wider societal reasons why BAME students either don't apply or aren't accepted — this is what I mean why I say that equality of opportunity is a myth. It may well be true "in the eyes of the law" but in the real world, inequality makes it practically impossible.
Under/over-representation has a similarity to the gender pay gap in that there's an implied 'correct' representation, usually it's to be representative of the population. Use of the word 'problem' confirms the speaker's viewpoint.
Why are certain representations a problem? A man doesn't want to give his salary to a woman because of gender, he wants to command the largest salary he can. A white student doesn't want to give up their place to a BAME student because of race, they want the best education. Their race and gender shouldn't come into it, that's the whole point of equality.
I absolutely agree, so what we need to do is look at the underlying reasons why BAME students aren't getting the best education. Hint, it's not because they are lazy, stupid or entitled.
Regarding prisons, doesn't that just mean they commit more crime? Maybe if they stopped committing crime and started studying they'd get a better outcome? No doubt someone will read this and think it's extremely racist, but to me it's just logical.
I don't think it's racist but I do think it misses the point. The question should be "why are they committing more crime and what can be done to reduce it?" Again, it's not because black people are fundamentally more violent or predisposed to a life of crime (unless you're a proponent of eugenics). It's far more likely to do with the fact that
BAME people are more likely to be unemployed and more likely to live in poverty (among other things).
So no, I'm not for a second suggesting the outcomes have to be identical, and I'm certainly not advocating laws that prescribe quotas. What I'm suggesting is, there are fundamental societal issues that need to be addressed before certain sections of society can get anywhere near equality of opportunity.
Note: I have bias on education because I come from a very poor family, but I worked hard and got myself a scholarship to private school, from there it's the same outcome as anyone else who could have afforded that school.
What I'm about to say next may sound condescending but I really don't mean it to be: It's great that you were able to work hard and pull yourself out of poverty, but the fact that you got a scholarship to a private school makes you an outlier. I'm not suggesting you wouldn't have been successful without it, but you got an opportunity [sic] that many others won't have done, even if they were as bright as you and worked just as hard. Equally, I’m not saying that those people won’t be successful without a scholarship but evidence suggests social mobility has decreased since the 70s.
For this to work out, it takes the parents to want the kid to excel, to make them work for it. Blaming it on race or someone else's privilege just isn't going to get the kid anywhere in life, because life is competitive.
You're absolutely right about the parents making a huge impact on a child's life and that's part of the problem as well. For instance, it's well documented that exposing children to a wide vocabulary at a very young age aids in cognitive development that can be seen throughout the child's educational career. Reading to children helps but also just being surrounded by conversing adults (the kind of behaviour you expect from well educated, middle-class families, probably but not exclusively with both parents around).
These fundamentals are often missed or greatly reduced when you fall below the poverty line, especially for single working parents. Before a child has even reached school age they may be a way behind their more fortunate peers in terms of learning and ability. This affects their results and behaviour in school, which impacts their potential for higher education or a decent job. It makes them more likely to fall into crime and drugs. They then have children of their own and so it continues. There's a cycle of poor outcomes for one generation leading to poor (or worse) outcomes for the next.
It may sound like a stereotype and it's obviously a generalisation, but the stats speak for themselves. Opportunity under the law may be equal but opportunity in life definitely isn’t — that’s what I believe is the root cause of most of the issues other advocates are campaigning against.
