Can you outsmart the college admissions fallacy? - Elizabeth Cox
“It’s the 4th century BCE, and Aristotle has just written a critique of arguments that take the truth of their conclusion for granted.”
“It’s still the 4th century BCE, and Aristotle has just advanced a new theory: that because Earth is the center of the universe, humanity is alone in the universe.”
He should listen to himself.
“It’s 1990, and the Federal District Court of Virginia is about to hear a prospective student’s case against a university. She has filed a complaint about Virginia Military Institute’s admissions policy that excludes women.”
“VMI is a publicly-funded university that aims to produce ‘citizen soldiers’ through a unique and rigorous method: all students are subjected to an identical regimen of extreme physical and mental stress and deprivation of privacy.”
Well, I'm certainly not sorry to be excluded.
“VMI is the only single-sex public university in the state of Virginia; there is no equivalent institution for women. Because VMI is a government institution, by law, it cannot practice gender-based exclusion without ‘exceedingly persuasive justification.’ It must prove that its single-sex admissions policy is a necessary step to serving important governmental objectives.”
“The state of Virginia argues that VMI’s educational methods would be compromised by admitting women. The state claims single-sex education is an ‘important governmental objective’ and that the exclusion of women from VMI is essential to that objective.”
Hmm, considering how much they prize rigor, their argument is certainly lacking it. I’ll have to set them straight.
Come now, Your Honor. Surely you can’t let that argument stand. The state of Virginia is essentially saying that single-sex education should be allowed because it serves the imperative of single-sex education. You might as well say that witch hunts should be encouraged because they fulfill the need for witch hunts.
These are examples of circular reasoning, sometimes called “begging the question,” where the reason given for a conclusion assumes the conclusion is true, rather than explaining why it’s true. Take the conclusion that witch hunts should be encouraged. The evidence given is that there is a need for witch hunts.
But both the claim and the so-called evidence for the claim leave the same question unanswered: why are witch hunts necessary? There actually isn't an argument made here at all.
Circular reasoning may sound straightforward, and in a way it is. Even a human can easily spot the circular logic in an argument like “the baby was born because her mother gave birth to her.”
Where you run into trouble is when you assume that an opinion or current state of affairs, because it’s so familiar or long-lasting, is a fact, when really it’s an assumption. Like the generations of astronomers and mathematicians who contorted themselves to explain anomalies in the planets’ orbits, rather than questioning the premise that the planets orbited the Earth.
You modern humans may understand that the planets actually orbit the sun, but you're still susceptible to assumptions of your own. So you may hear “men and women should be treated differently because the law treats them differently” and think, well, yes, that makes sense.
The law has always treated them differently. But that’s merely a statement of fact; it’s not a reasoned argument for why it should to be the case. And just because something is true doesn’t make it proof of what is right.
Not convinced? Well, I’m sure you, as a judge, won’t mind hearing a bit more evidence.
“It’s 1996, and the case has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The court has ruled 7 to 1 that VMI must begin to admit women. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivers the ruling, calling out the state of Virginia for its circular reasoning.”
If I may, I'd like to bring my companion here up to speed on your logic. And while I’m at it, I’ll borrow that. Now, let’s see.
She points out that Virginia’s justification for excluding women from VMI gave the means as an end—that is, it argued that women should be excluded because the school’s mission was single-sex education, when in fact the school’s stated mission was to produce citizen soldiers prepared to take on leadership roles in American society—an aim, Justice Ginsburg asserts, that is surely broad enough to include women.
Alone in my universe at last.