(split) Affirmative Action discussion

[Toni]

Then you would be discriminating against individuals of Group B, by giving special targeting to people of Group A who don't need it, but not doing the same for those of Group B. Whether this is unfair or just wasted effort would depend on if that special targeting benefited those who don't really need it. Why not just dump the proxy and simply target those who need it? If poverty is the issue, why not address the poor, instead of a proxy for it?

Here is an example. A small university in Minnesota has a traditionally overwhelming white student population mostly from small towns. In an attempt to broaden its student body diversity, the university does extra high school visits to high schools in Milwaukee and Chicago with high ratios of black students in an attempt to publicize and attract the university to black students. Just how is that discriminating against white students?

Out of curiosity, do they also recruit in Minneapolis/St.Paul? If not, why?

 

[Toni]

Here is an example. A small university in Minnesota has a traditionally overwhelming white student population mostly from small towns. In an attempt to broaden its student body diversity, the university does extra high school visits to high schools in Milwaukee and Chicago with high ratios of black students in an attempt to publicize and attract the university to black students. Just how is that discriminating against white students?

If it is specifically done as an effort to attract black students, how is this effort not discrimination against non-black students?

Is it more apparent to you if the school were to reach out to small poor communities in an attempt to attract more isolated or less wealthy students, and explicitly avoided doing so in areas with a lot of black people, in an effort to avoid inviting black people to the school? That too would be racial discrimination.

Why is it discrimination to market to/recruit from a group which may not be aware of a particular option, in this case, a particular university? I didn't read ld writing that X number of spots at the aforementioned university are reserved for black students from Milwaukee or Chicago.

Why is it wrong to present options in career, education, training which they may never have considered before or considered to be out of reach to people? Are people supposed to only follow only the same well worn, already established treads their parents and grandparents followed? Or is stepping out of those lanes only for those who are so original and daring that they want to be the first, with the idea springing fully formed, a result of divine intervention? Or only for white males?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

@Jolly Pengiun,
"white push" has occurred for how long?
and in comparison you want me to judge affirmative action now?

Googling for "White push" I waded through 10 pages of white colored things you push or that push and a few red herrings without finding anything relevant. Somehow I don't think it's a big deal.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you would be discriminating against individuals of Group B, by giving special targeting to people of Group A who don't need it, but not doing the same for those of Group B. Whether this is unfair or just wasted effort would depend on if that special targeting benefited those who don't really need it. Why not just dump the proxy and simply target those who need it? If poverty is the issue, why not address the poor, instead of a proxy for it?

Here is an example. A small university in Minnesota has a traditionally overwhelming white student population mostly from small towns. In an attempt to broaden its student body diversity, the university does extra high school visits to high schools in Milwaukee and Chicago with high ratios of black students in an attempt to publicize and attract the university to black students. Just how is that discriminating against white students?

While I have no problem with that it's not what real-world AA translates to.

 

[Metaphor]

The criminals are dead, too.



That's true. Except that it's a false analogy. I don't have stolen goods. I have less and inferior quality goods because of what some people did in the past.

That being said, I didn't ask you about undoing the past, I asked you about increasing the slots, a present day problem in search of a present day solution.

Not everyone can be a doctor. I couldn't be, for example. It's really hard and you have to be really smart. You can increase the slots but that has nothing to do with being racially discriminatory about your admissions policy.

Excuse me, why are you limiting the increase to Law and Med schools?

I'm not doing anything like that: but that appears to me where the most racial discrimination is.

The history of medical education says different. And what about law school? Now you have limited the discussion to just med school. Why the limitations?

The history of medical education did not allow all and sundry in. Not everyone can be a doctor. I want the best, the smartest, to be doctors. I don't want 'C' students to be doctors.

I don't want George W. Bush to be a doctor. Can you imagine what it would be like to have him, hovering above you, ready to make the cut?

Tell, if you and I live in the same neighborhood and a new family moves in, And i take them a potato pie to welcome them to neighborhood, and over the next few weeks, I take them around town, I introduce them to the local schools' principals, show them the best restaurants, where the movie theaters are, etc. I don't do this for you or any of the other people in the neighborhood who have been living there for years. Would you think me discriminating against you by not doing the same for you? is that the first thought you would have if you saw me doing these things?

And when the Asian family moved in, and you said 'fuck them, they are already well represented in the neighbourhood' what would you expect me to say about that?

Damn, you run from the actual questions asked faster than a wolf going after a pork chop. I didn't racialize the family, so all you know they are Asians, or Panamanians. If you don't have answer just say so. If you have never thought about things in a certain way, just say so.

My answer is to STOP DISCRIMINATING BY RACE.

- - - Updated - - -

^Seriously tell us what you really think.
there appears to be a "white push" to the top in commerce, and we have affirmative action in place.
are you saying the "white push" is acceptable to the point where you will sell out just like mentioned in AthenaAwakened's other thread about whiteness..

I don't understand the question slash accusation.

What's the "white push", and what does it have to do with discriminating against Asians in medical school?

And your answer doesn't address the question, ergo it is WRONG

I disagree: the solution to discrimination by race is to stop discriminating by race.

A question for you, Athena.

Would you be happy to see George W. Bush holding the scalpel, as you go under the anaesthetic?

Is it discrimination to show around a new family and not show around an established family or NOT?

That's the question on deck.

You don't want to answer. I understand, because you and I both know the answer. What I don't know is if you are scare of being wrong, scared of losing an argument, scared of embarrassment, or scared of facing a part of you that isn't necessarily on the side of the angels.

I'm not scared of answering your scenario. It's not 'discrimination' to show around a newly arrived family versus an established family.

Now, is the above an analogy for something? If so, what?

 

[Metaphor]

@ Jolly Penguin, Metaphor..
yeah, affirmative action ain't perfect to you but it is better than your alternative that you have offered.

It's not a case of it being 'perfect'. It's a case of it being morally wrong.

You can't fight a disease with more of the disease.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why is it discrimination to market to/recruit from a group which may not be aware of a particular option, in this case, a particular university?

It is discrimination to select one group over another. That is what discriminating is. How wrong particular discrimination is in a particular case is another question. Here is seems not very, but you are still targeting one group based on race and excluding others based on race. I gave the reversed example above. If a school makes an outreach to students who may not otherwise find them, and specifically and explicitly avoids including areas where there are a lot of black people, to avoid inviting black people, is that objectionable? I would say yes.

Why is it wrong to present options in career, education, training which they may never have considered before or considered to be out of reach to people? Are people supposed to only follow only the same well worn, already established treads their parents and grandparents followed? Or is stepping out of those lanes only for those who are so original and daring that they want to be the first, with the idea springing fully formed, a result of divine intervention? Or only for white males?

This is another one of your straw men, and I can't really answer it since I didn't write what you seem to think I did.

 

[Toni]

It is discrimination to select one group over another. That is what discriminating is. How wrong particular discrimination is in a particular case is another question. Here is seems not very, but you are still targeting one group based on race and excluding others based on race. I gave the reversed example above. If a school makes an outreach to students who may not otherwise find them, and specifically and explicitly avoids including areas where there are a lot of black people, to avoid inviting black people, is that objectionable? I would say yes.

Go back and re-read laughing dog's post. I don't see anything about excluding whites or any other race.

Would you be happier if the same university just recruited from small towns in Minnesota? Because, let me tell you, there you would definitely be targeting one racial group, very heavily. Much, much more heavily than recruiting in Chicago or Milwaukee.

There was nothing, not one single word, that suggested that blacks were given preferential admissions over whites. In fact, most state schools give preferential admissions to residents of the state. Looking at Minnesota demographics, recruiting solely from that state or even if you expanded into Wisconsin, Iowa, ND and SD, you'd be recruiting from an overwhelmingly white pool of applicants. Overwhelmingly.

Why is it wrong to present options in career, education, training which they may never have considered before or considered to be out of reach to people? Are people supposed to only follow only the same well worn, already established treads their parents and grandparents followed? Or is stepping out of those lanes only for those who are so original and daring that they want to be the first, with the idea springing fully formed, a result of divine intervention? Or only for white males?

This is another one of your straw men, and I can't really answer it since I didn't write what you seem to think I did.

It's hardly a straw man. It's a straight out question: How should one go about encouraging students to explore careers they might not have otherwise considered?

I grew up in a time when girls were not encouraged to pursue careers in math or science. I was fortunate enough that most of my teachers recognized my abilities in those areas and encouraged me to pursue my interests in science (the teachers who tried to encourage me to pursue higher math failed as it did not much interest me despite the fact that I consistently scored the highest scores in my school and indeed, was always in the top 2 or 3 percent or higher nationally, for either gender, on standardized tests in math) instead of just writing me off as a girl who was good in English, foreign language and art (which I also was). The fact that some teachers encouraged me to take a less obvious path for girls was extremely important. My parents wanted us to do well in school and not only encouraged that but rather insisted. Still, my mother in particular had very traditional ideas about what careers were suitable for girls. Not all teachers were so encouraging. One made her disdain quite obvious and told me outright that I was 'lucky' when I got a high score. Not that I worked hard or was smart: I got lucky.

Did encouraging me discourage any of the boys? Not at all. Nor did the fact that I consistently out performed them in class, on tests, etc.

Were my teachers wrong for taking an interest in a student who showed obvious talent and interest? What if this student was from a group who would not normally consider such a career path?

Were any of the colleges who actively recruited me, at least one I am certain because of my gender since they had a very tiny number of female students in their student body, wrong to recruit me?

 

[laughing dog]

Here is an example. A small university in Minnesota has a traditionally overwhelming white student population mostly from small towns. In an attempt to broaden its student body diversity, the university does extra high school visits to high schools in Milwaukee and Chicago with high ratios of black students in an attempt to publicize and attract the university to black students. Just how is that discriminating against white students?

If it is specifically done as an effort to attract black students, how is this effort not discrimination against non-black students?

The university has not stopped visiting high schools with non-black students. So, please answer my question - how is it discriminating against white students?

Is it more apparent to you if the school were to reach out to small poor communities in an attempt to attract more isolated or less wealthy students, and explicitly avoided doing so in areas with a lot of black people, in an effort to avoid inviting black people to the school? That too would be racial discrimination.

Yes, but that is not analogous to my example.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is an example. A small university in Minnesota has a traditionally overwhelming white student population mostly from small towns. In an attempt to broaden its student body diversity, the university does extra high school visits to high schools in Milwaukee and Chicago with high ratios of black students in an attempt to publicize and attract the university to black students. Just how is that discriminating against white students?

Out of curiosity, do they also recruit in Minneapolis/St.Paul? If not, why?

Yes, they do.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here is an example. A small university in Minnesota has a traditionally overwhelming white student population mostly from small towns. In an attempt to broaden its student body diversity, the university does extra high school visits to high schools in Milwaukee and Chicago with high ratios of black students in an attempt to publicize and attract the university to black students. Just how is that discriminating against white students?

If it is specifically done as an effort to attract black students, how is this effort not discrimination against non-black students?

Have they stopped recruiting at predominately white schools in small towns? Did anyone demand that they stop recruiting at predominately white schools in small towns? In these small towns, wouldn't this university already have name recognition and legacy admissions, two things they don't have in urban neighborhoods in the big cities?

There was a time in the US when you could not buy Coors beer east of the Mississippi. When the east opened up to the Coors market, Coors did special promotions in that new market. When they did a promotion in New Jersey, were they discriminating against Nevada?

Is it more apparent to you if the school were to reach out to small poor communities in an attempt to attract more isolated or less wealthy students, and explicitly avoided doing so in areas with a lot of black people, in an effort to avoid inviting black people to the school? That too would be racial discrimination.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

the problems of slots is first and foremost a problem of scarcity. Seldom if ever will the opponents of Affirmative Action bring this up because that isn't problem with AA. Their problem with AA is a fear that their side is losing something, having something stolen from them, and the big bad (blacks, Latinos, Vietnamese, etc.), those funny looking people who are (lazier, dumber, sneakier, etc) are the culprits in this scheme.

I think of it like this. On my days off back when my kid was a kid, I would have him and would sometimes babysit four of his little cousins. At lunch time I would prepare five sandwiches, but sometimes I would have seven or eight kids for lunch because the first five would invite the kids from across the street and down the road. I didn't set up any kind of system to feed only the deserving five. I did something radical. I made more sandwiches.

 

[Metaphor]

the problems of slots is first and foremost a problem of scarcity. Seldom if ever will the opponents of Affirmative Action bring this up because that isn't problem with AA. Their problem with AA is a fear that their side is losing something, having something stolen from them, and the big bad (blacks, Latinos, Vietnamese, etc.), those funny looking people who are (lazier, dumber, sneakier, etc) are the culprits in this scheme.

I think of it like this. On my days off back when my kid was a kid, I would have him and would sometimes babysit four of his little cousins. At lunch time I would prepare five sandwiches, but sometimes I would have seven or eight kids for lunch because the first five would invite the kids from across the street and down the road. I didn't set up any kind of system to feed only the deserving five. I did something radical. I made more sandwiches.

This response sidesteps the issue. Either there is something wrong with discriminating by race or there isn't. In a round-about way, you do appear to be acknowledging it's wrong, because if the slots were infinite no-one could discriminate by race in admissions.

But that isn't reality and it's never been reality. When you compete for a specific job, one person is getting that job and other people won't. This was true even when hiring practices excluded entire groups of people by default.

Schools and universities don't have an infinite number of slots. Even if they had unlimited resources, it would still be prudent to exclude some people if it was very likely those individuals would be unable to finish the course.

And of course, some schools and universities restrict their incoming populations out of prestige, to guard their brand. But it's still morally wrong to use race in admissions policy, whether you're guarding a brand or not.

 

[laughing dog]

@ Jolly Penguin, Metaphor..
yeah, affirmative action ain't perfect to you but it is better than your alternative that you have offered.

It's not a case of it being 'perfect'. It's a case of it being morally wrong.

Unfortunately, it is not universally viewed as morally wrong. Probably because AA takes on many forms, some of which are not even close to being morally wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

Schools and universities don't have an infinite number of slots. Even if they had unlimited resources, it would still be prudent to exclude some people if it was very likely those individuals would be unable to finish the course.

Why?

And of course, some schools and universities restrict their incoming populations out of prestige, to guard their brand. But it's still morally wrong to use race in admissions policy, whether you're guarding a brand or not.

And some institutions practiced a form of AA for decades (and still do). Its called geographic diversity. Funny how no one seems to mind that. Hmmm.

 

[none]

Googling for "White push" I waded through 10 pages of white colored things you push or that push and a few red herrings without finding anything relevant. Somehow I don't think it's a big deal.

some people call it white privilege.
It is kinda of like Muslimity, the practice of saying criticism of Islam is racist.
I defined Muslimity, and discussed it.
I did the same with "white push" I defined it and discussed it.
if you want to dismiss it and not have a conversation about it that is fine but to say it doesn't exist is stupid.

 

[Metaphor]

It's not a case of it being 'perfect'. It's a case of it being morally wrong.

Unfortunately, it is not universally viewed as morally wrong. Probably because AA takes on many forms, some of which are not even close to being morally wrong.

Allowing race (or gender, or any other arbitrary and immutable variable unrelated to performance) to influence a selection decision is morally wrong. Individuals are hurt by it and society suffers for it.

I agree that even the racially discriminatory forms of affirmative action are not ubiquitously viewed of as morally wrong; otherwise there wouldn't be those forms. But it doesn't change the fact that it is morally wrong. Slavery in the antebellum South was still morally wrong and it didn't matter that there was widespread support for it.

 

[Metaphor]

Why?

If you start a university course but are unable to finish it, everyone's time has been wasted. If you don't pass a course, you haven't learned the course content. Presumably, learning and understanding the course content is what makes education valuable, unless you think going to lectures and not understanding anything and not learning any skills and not doing any work would lead to the same outcomes as someone who graduated first class honours?

And some institutions practiced a form of AA for decades (and still do). Its called geographic diversity. Funny how no one seems to mind that. Hmmm.

Whether 'geographic diversity' is a laudable goal is debatable (although I don't really know what it is, so it could be clearly right or clearly wrong). Whether it is achieved, or attempted to be achieved, in a way that is laudable depends on specifics.

So I can't respond to whether 'geographic diversity' is affirmative action or not and whether it's unjust or not.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

the problems of slots is first and foremost a problem of scarcity. Seldom if ever will the opponents of Affirmative Action bring this up because that isn't problem with AA. Their problem with AA is a fear that their side is losing something, having something stolen from them, and the big bad (blacks, Latinos, Vietnamese, etc.), those funny looking people who are (lazier, dumber, sneakier, etc) are the culprits in this scheme.

I think of it like this. On my days off back when my kid was a kid, I would have him and would sometimes babysit four of his little cousins. At lunch time I would prepare five sandwiches, but sometimes I would have seven or eight kids for lunch because the first five would invite the kids from across the street and down the road. I didn't set up any kind of system to feed only the deserving five. I did something radical. I made more sandwiches.

This response sidesteps the issue. Either there is something wrong with discriminating by race or there isn't. In a round-about way, you do appear to be acknowledging it's wrong, because if the slots were infinite no-one could discriminate by race in admissions.

But that isn't reality and it's never been reality. When you compete for a specific job, one person is getting that job and other people won't. This was true even when hiring practices excluded entire groups of people by default.

Schools and universities don't have an infinite number of slots. Even if they had unlimited resources, it would still be prudent to exclude some people if it was very likely those individuals would be unable to finish the course.

And of course, some schools and universities restrict their incoming populations out of prestige, to guard their brand. But it's still morally wrong to use race in admissions policy, whether you're guarding a brand or not.

I am not side stepping the issue, I am making the issue no longer an issue. If the slots increase, it cuts competition and more people get the education they want and fewer people have to fear being shut out just because someone else got in.

And what is and is the reality is what we decide to make or not make the reality. Ya gotta start somewhere and why not here and why not now?

Schools and universities don't need infinite slots. most people in a given society don't want to be doctors or lawyers or engineers. what most people want is to make living, support themselves and their families, and have enough time and good fortune to enjoy their lives. We have sold college as a goal to people who don't necessarily need college to have the lives they want. Most jobs that require a four year degree could easily be competently done some one with a two year degree and an apprenticeship. Jobs now advertising for two year graduates, could be done by people with a two year apprenticeship. what is necessary is a bolder and broader approach to training and employment, not better tools of divination to determine who is worthy of what job.

It is morally wrong to use legacy, donation/bribery, biased testing, and unequal primary and secondary education systems to determine who gets to go to college and who does not. And all of those things have a bigger impact on keeping white kids with merit out of school than AA ever has. When your side start kicking up a fuss about those things with all the vigor and passion you do about race, then you can make an honest case for fairness.

 

[Metaphor]

This response sidesteps the issue. Either there is something wrong with discriminating by race or there isn't. In a round-about way, you do appear to be acknowledging it's wrong, because if the slots were infinite no-one could discriminate by race in admissions.

But that isn't reality and it's never been reality. When you compete for a specific job, one person is getting that job and other people won't. This was true even when hiring practices excluded entire groups of people by default.

Schools and universities don't have an infinite number of slots. Even if they had unlimited resources, it would still be prudent to exclude some people if it was very likely those individuals would be unable to finish the course.

And of course, some schools and universities restrict their incoming populations out of prestige, to guard their brand. But it's still morally wrong to use race in admissions policy, whether you're guarding a brand or not.

I am not side stepping the issue, I am making the issue no longer an issue. If the slots increase, it cuts competition and more people get the education they want and fewer people have to fear being shut out just because someone else got in.

And what is and is the reality is what we decide to make or not make the reality. Ya gotta start somewhere and why not here and why not now?

Schools and universities don't need infinite slots. most people in a given society don't want to be doctors or lawyers or engineers. what most people want is to make living, support themselves and their families, and have enough time and good fortune to enjoy their lives. We have sold college as a goal to people who don't necessarily need college to have the lives they want. Most jobs that require a four year degree could easily be competently done some one with a two year degree and an apprenticeship. Jobs now advertising for two year graduates, could be done by people with a two year apprenticeship. what is necessary is a bolder and broader approach to training and employment, not better tools of divination to determine who is worthy of what job.

It is morally wrong to use legacy, donation/bribery, biased testing, and unequal primary and secondary education systems to determine who gets to go to college and who does not. And all of those things have a bigger impact on keeping white kids with merit out of school than AA ever has. When your side start kicking up a fuss about those things with all the vigor and passion you do about race, then you can make an honest case for fairness.

I have never defended legacy admissions nor do I believe them to be fair.

I've seen you defend athletic admissions though -- as if they were somehow fair, as if being able to throw a ball really hard means you merit your way into an institution of higher learning.

My concern is not for "White kids". My concern is that smart kids of certain races (Asian and White) are penalised and discriminated against because someone believes racist selection policies are not just not morally wrong, but morally laudable.

But all that I could take, if people were honest that the selection policies really did discriminate by race. But the defenders don't even admit to that, even when presented with incontrovertible evidence, and even when they think it would be a-okay to discriminate by race anyway.

If the defenders could at least be honest with themselves that affirmative action discriminates, by race, against Asians and Whites and that they're okay with this racial discrimination, that'd be a start.

 

[Toni]

If you start a university course but are unable to finish it, everyone's time has been wasted. If you don't pass a course, you haven't learned the course content. Presumably, learning and understanding the course content is what makes education valuable, unless you think going to lectures and not understanding anything and not learning any skills and not doing any work would lead to the same outcomes as someone who graduated first class honours?

And some institutions practiced a form of AA for decades (and still do). Its called geographic diversity. Funny how no one seems to mind that. Hmmm.

Whether 'geographic diversity' is a laudable goal is debatable (although I don't really know what it is, so it could be clearly right or clearly wrong). Whether it is achieved, or attempted to be achieved, in a way that is laudable depends on specifics.

So I can't respond to whether 'geographic diversity' is affirmative action or not and whether it's unjust or not.

Why do you assume that students recruited from Chicago and Milwaukee schools are unable to complete their course work? Why do you believe that the admissions standards are different for students from Chicago and Milwaukee? In fact, mist state universities have HIGHER admissions standards for students from other states.

The truth is that you really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Metaphor]

If you start a university course but are unable to finish it, everyone's time has been wasted. If you don't pass a course, you haven't learned the course content. Presumably, learning and understanding the course content is what makes education valuable, unless you think going to lectures and not understanding anything and not learning any skills and not doing any work would lead to the same outcomes as someone who graduated first class honours?



Whether 'geographic diversity' is a laudable goal is debatable (although I don't really know what it is, so it could be clearly right or clearly wrong). Whether it is achieved, or attempted to be achieved, in a way that is laudable depends on specifics.

So I can't respond to whether 'geographic diversity' is affirmative action or not and whether it's unjust or not.

Why do you assume that students recruited from Chicago and Milwaukee schools are unable to complete their course work? Why do you believe that the admissions standards are different for students from Chicago and Milwaukee? In fact, mist state universities have HIGHER admissions standards for students from other states.

The truth is that you really don't know what you are talking about.

What on earth are you talking about? Did I mention Chicago or Milwaukee? I don't even know where Milwaukee is. Where on earth did I say admission standards were different for these students?