Supreme Court allows Popular Vote Disapproval of Affirmative Action

[laughing dog]

[
ii) Wholesale denial that AA 'helps' some people by harming others, even though this is the only way AA can operate.

That is true for any choice mechanism, so I fail to see your point here. For example, if AA is practiced by recruiting qualified minority candidates, those qualified candidates may end up taking slots that others would have received: one set of people get "in" (job, admission, whatever) and the other set does not. Without that active recruitment, one set of people get "in" and the other does not: only the names have changed.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No Whites in the economic elite (or person of any other race in the economic elite, for that matter) needs to lose a wink of sleep that AA will harm them: they and their children will, of course, be immune from its toxic effects.

That is the point that so often gets missed. You are not solving anything or doing any justice to the rich white people by discriminating against the poor white people. And you are definitely not doing any justice to the rich white people by discriminating against Asians and other races who don't fit your special target group.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That's why, for example, many historically black colleges are trying to attract more white students (sometimes even offering white-only scholarships) even though whites are not a historically disadvantaged group.

That is ridiculous. Has a black student with better test scores who was held back for a white student to get in sued these colleges yet?

If the answer is no, what would one conclude? If the answer is yes, what would one conclude?

If the answer is yes, I would hope they were successful. If the answer is no, I would encourage them to do so.

 

[Metaphor]

[
ii) Wholesale denial that AA 'helps' some people by harming others, even though this is the only way AA can operate.

That is true for any choice mechanism, so I fail to see your point here. For example, if AA is practiced by recruiting qualified minority candidates, those qualified candidates may end up taking slots that others would have received: one set of people get "in" (job, admission, whatever) and the other set does not. Without that active recruitment, one set of people get "in" and the other does not: only the names have changed.

Someone less qualified than you taking up a slot that you otherwise would have received harms you. However, someone more qualified than you taking that slot does not 'harm' you. I would find it absurd to say that if I failed to be promoted at work because someone more qualified than me got the job, that I've been 'harmed' by that action.

But if someone less qualified than me got the job, and I would have gotten it but for race-based preferences, then that has harmed me.

It makes a real moral difference whether the person denied the opportunity would have gotten it but for race-based preferences.

 

[Metaphor]

No Whites in the economic elite (or person of any other race in the economic elite, for that matter) needs to lose a wink of sleep that AA will harm them: they and their children will, of course, be immune from its toxic effects.

That is the point that so often gets missed. You are not solving anything or doing any justice to the rich white people by discriminating against the poor white people. And you are definitely not doing any justice to the rich white people by discriminating against Asians and other races who don't fit your special target group.

What's worse, what stings even more, at least to me, is that individual Asians are being actively harmed because Asians as a group do too well. On the old board, I had somebody tell me that any Asian who got the kinds of scores that Blacks did would be evidence she was 'lazy' and didn't deserve a University slot anyway.

 

[fromderinside]

[
ii) Wholesale denial that AA 'helps' some people by harming others, even though this is the only way AA can operate.

That is true for any choice mechanism, so I fail to see your point here. For example, if AA is practiced by recruiting qualified minority candidates, those qualified candidates may end up taking slots that others would have received: one set of people get "in" (job, admission, whatever) and the other set does not. Without that active recruitment, one set of people get "in" and the other does not: only the names have changed.

Someone less qualified than you taking up a slot that you otherwise would have received harms you. However, someone more qualified than you taking that slot does not 'harm' you. I would find it absurd to say that if I failed to be promoted at work because someone more qualified than me got the job, that I've been 'harmed' by that action.

But if someone less qualified than me got the job, and I would have gotten it but for race-based preferences, then that has harmed me.

It makes a real moral difference whether the person denied the opportunity would have gotten it but for race-based preferences.

So how do you know they are less qualified than you since you are only qualified because you look more like the people who preceded you?

What is this qualified? A did something in situation X and B didn't do something in situation X because it was in situation Y? Why the hell did God bother with a particular lump of clay? Obviously it wasn't more qualified. It was probably selected on a whim. Got it yet?

You define qualified.

You're the one who stepped in the shit. So what?

Don't go flopping around justifying your 'values' that your kin devised. Take the thinking of Eric Hoffer, put people in situations where they need to do something and those people will do the job.

Gad. The elitism reeks.

 

[laughing dog]

That's why, for example, many historically black colleges are trying to attract more white students (sometimes even offering white-only scholarships) even though whites are not a historically disadvantaged group.

That is ridiculous. Has a black student with better test scores who was held back for a white student to get in sued these colleges yet?

If the answer is no, what would one conclude? If the answer is yes, what would one conclude?

If the answer is yes, I would hope they were successful. If the answer is no, I would encourage them to do so.

So, if the answer is yes, you conclude that the plaintiff has a good case and if the answer is no, you conclude the plaintiff has a good case but doesn't know it. Seems to me, you have assumed the conclusion regardless of the facts.

 

[doubtingt]

...affirmative action didn't start under Obama. It has been around for decades... we (whites) have survived.

This statement really exemplifies what is very wrong, immoral, and dangerous about AA. AA and it supporters view people only in terms of the racial group they belong to, concerning themselves with how these arbitrary groups are fairing and whether outcomes at the aggregate group level are equal. Groups do not matter. That are figments of mental construction. Individual people matter and they are the only one's with rights. Many individual human beings have been greatly harmed by AA. The fact that other people not involved in any AA decision but who happen to share their skin color were not on average harmed is of zero relevance to any issue of morality or justice. You think that the kid who busted their ass and wound up in a worse college, thus failed to get into grad school and now is earning less money at a job they didn't want gives a shit that people of his racial group are still doing okay? That would require the person to be as much of a racist as the AA proponents. What makes racism immoral has nothing to do with whether it is trying to make group averages more equal or unequal. What makes it immoral and a direct attack on the value of human beings and individual liberty is that it views and treats people by their group membership and cares more about the relative standing of groups than treating people according to their individual merits and "the content of their character" (MLK Jr.). AA is a clear and direct assault on the value of persons as individuals and as your statement shows, it is rooted in a world view that is more concerned with statistical averages of faceless groups and racial categories than actual human beings who are individuals and thus it is harm to individuals not to a manufactured "we" that matters.

The minority in that position has to take the opportunity by the nuts and squeeze success from it, so if they succeed, it is because they earned it. AA put them in the position to have a shot as success.

But someone else earned the opportunity more than they did, and got robbed of that opportunity by racists who decided that the color of their skin matters more than the content of their character.

I find it absurd that people seem to have issues with that.

I find it disgustingly immoral and racist that you don't have a problem with that.

 

[laughing dog]

[
ii) Wholesale denial that AA 'helps' some people by harming others, even though this is the only way AA can operate.

That is true for any choice mechanism, so I fail to see your point here. For example, if AA is practiced by recruiting qualified minority candidates, those qualified candidates may end up taking slots that others would have received: one set of people get "in" (job, admission, whatever) and the other set does not. Without that active recruitment, one set of people get "in" and the other does not: only the names have changed.

Someone less qualified than you taking up a slot that you otherwise would have received harms you. However, someone more qualified than you taking that slot does not 'harm' you. I would find it absurd to say that if I failed to be promoted at work because someone more qualified than me got the job, that I've been 'harmed' by that action.

But if someone less qualified than me got the job, and I would have gotten it but for race-based preferences, then that has harmed me.

It makes a real moral difference whether the person denied the opportunity would have gotten it but for race-based preferences.

You are making lots of assumptions here. If AA drums up qualified candidate via recruitment, they are, by definition, qualified. In many instances, the notion of "more qualified" or "better" is an intangible notion. For example, when we search for new people, we have minimum qualifications. Some candidates greatly exceed those minimums, but after talking with them, it is clear they are not suitable. Other candidate who meet or more modestly surpass those minimums upon more investigation appear more attractive for other reasons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dude... the statement was clearly meant as a build up to the following statement.

It has been around for decades... we (whites) have survived.

Antisemitism has been around for millennia and Jews have 'survived'. What has 'survival' got to do with it?

Ok, not responding to anymore of this. You just seemed to compare the holocaust to a program that is designed to right generational retardation. Seriously!? Is that how awful your argument is, that you have to invoke antisemitism? That is Moore-Coulter turned up to 11.

He's clearly showing that "survived" is not equal to "no major harm done".

 

[Metaphor]

So how do you know they are less qualified than you since you are only qualified because you look more like the people who preceded you?

I'm sorry, what on earth are you talking about? What I'm qualified for depends on what I've accomplished, not what I look like. For example, I have a Master's degree in psychology, so I qualify to be a registered psychologist in Australia.

Or do you think I'm more qualified merely because my parents were immigrant labourers who happened to be White?

What is this qualified? A did something in situation X and B didn't do something in situation X because it was in situation Y? Why the hell did God bother with a particular lump of clay? Obviously it wasn't more qualified. It was probably selected on a whim. Got it yet?

No, frankly, I don't know what you're talking about. God and lumps of clay??

If a medical school uses MCAT as a selection criterion, then people who score higher on the MCAT are more qualified to become a medical student than people who score lower. It isn't that difficult a concept?!?

You define qualified.

It depends on what you're talking about, and how I rank on the criteria devised to measure quality. For example, if I were a 100 metre sprinter, the main way I would qualify for the Olympic team is to be ranked at the top of the qualifying heats.

You're the one who stepped in the shit. So what?

Don't go flopping around justifying your 'values' that your kin devised.

What?!

Take the thinking of Eric Hoffer, put people in situations where they need to do something and those people will do the job.

Gad. The elitism reeks.

I don't understand what you've said, but let me ask: should we shave a few seconds off the running times of American athletes who are Black (ie pretend they're faster than they are), so that they don't need to run as fast to qualify for the Olympic team?

After all, an elite level athlete is clearly qualified to be in the Olympics, and to rank them based on actual running time is just 'elitist', isn't it? It isn't as if the White runners were metaphorically 'tripped' earlier in the race, is it?

 

[Metaphor]

[
ii) Wholesale denial that AA 'helps' some people by harming others, even though this is the only way AA can operate.

That is true for any choice mechanism, so I fail to see your point here. For example, if AA is practiced by recruiting qualified minority candidates, those qualified candidates may end up taking slots that others would have received: one set of people get "in" (job, admission, whatever) and the other set does not. Without that active recruitment, one set of people get "in" and the other does not: only the names have changed.

Someone less qualified than you taking up a slot that you otherwise would have received harms you. However, someone more qualified than you taking that slot does not 'harm' you. I would find it absurd to say that if I failed to be promoted at work because someone more qualified than me got the job, that I've been 'harmed' by that action.

But if someone less qualified than me got the job, and I would have gotten it but for race-based preferences, then that has harmed me.

It makes a real moral difference whether the person denied the opportunity would have gotten it but for race-based preferences.

You are making lots of assumptions here. If AA drums up qualified candidate via recruitment, they are, by definition, qualified. In many instances, the notion of "more qualified" or "better" is an intangible notion. For example, when we search for new people, we have minimum qualifications. Some candidates greatly exceed those minimums, but after talking with them, it is clear they are not suitable. Other candidate who meet or more modestly surpass those minimums upon more investigation appear more attractive for other reasons.

But what makes you think I don't understand that? After all, medical schools reject 5% of candidates who are in the highest MCAT tier and the highest GPA rating. These 5% cannot get more elite in terms of their academic potential, but the medical schools have interviewed them or seen something else that disqualifies them. That's fine. That's how selection works.

But, given the acceptance rates differ by race lower down the academic tier, and for this not to be clearly race-based preferences, you'd have to imagine some mechanism, some quality, where Black and Latino candidates are somehow astronomically more qualified than their grade and MCAT-matched White and Asian peers, and therefore deserve to be let in at twice or three times the rate than Whites and Asians.

In any case, are you proposing that someone's race is a quality worth considering? That, when controlling for academic achievement and aptitude, Asians are less qualified than Blacks?

 

[laughing dog]

But what makes you think I don't understand that? After all, medical schools reject 5% of candidates who are in the highest MCAT tier and the highest GPA rating. These 5% cannot get more elite in terms of their academic potential, but the medical schools have interviewed them or seen something else that disqualifies them. That's fine. That's how selection works.

I don't think you necessarily misunderstand that. But I believe your passion on this issue sometimes permits rhetorical over-reach.

But, given the acceptance rates differ by race lower down the academic tier, and for this not to be clearly race-based preferences, you'd have to imagine some mechanism, some quality, where Black and Latino candidates are somehow astronomically more qualified than their grade and MCAT-matched White and Asian peers, and therefore deserve to be let in at twice or three times the rate than Whites and Asians.

"Deserve"? Perhaps it is simply a desire to have more physicians who resemble their likely patients.

In any case, are you proposing that someone's race is a quality worth considering? That, when controlling for academic achievement and aptitude, Asians are less qualified than Blacks?

I don't see how one can necessarily draw the conclusion that person A is less qualified than person B if person B is chosen over person A. Both may be qualified but other factors may come into play that influence the choice.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't think you necessarily misunderstand that. But I believe your passion on this issue sometimes permits rhetorical over-reach.

But, given the acceptance rates differ by race lower down the academic tier, and for this not to be clearly race-based preferences, you'd have to imagine some mechanism, some quality, where Black and Latino candidates are somehow astronomically more qualified than their grade and MCAT-matched White and Asian peers, and therefore deserve to be let in at twice or three times the rate than Whites and Asians.

"Deserve"? Perhaps it is simply a desire to have more physicians who resemble their likely patients.

In any case, are you proposing that someone's race is a quality worth considering? That, when controlling for academic achievement and aptitude, Asians are less qualified than Blacks?

I don't see how one can necessarily draw the conclusion that person A is less qualified than person B if person B is chosen over person A. Both may be qualified but other factors may come into play that influence the choice.

I don't consider a person's race to be a factor that is moral to consider, not for 'diversity' and not so that people can 'look like' their clients, and especially not because one group is doing too well and is thus overrepresented at the high end of achievement. To take away opportunities from individuals because their group is doing too well is morally contemptible. It is blood libel.

There's no doubt in my mind that many women would prefer having a female obstetrician/gynecologist, but not every woman will be able to exercise her choice because that's not the reality of the ob/gyn gender distribution. But people should be horrified if standards were relaxed to allow more women to qualify. For the avoidance of doubt, allowing more women to get in than men at a given level of academic achievement is a relaxed standard. That simply sends the message that your gender is more important than your accomplishments. If I had children, that is not a message I would ever want sent to them.

As for 'resembling their likely patients': there's no good reason for standards of excellence to be relaxed so that cultural and ethnic and gender chauvinists can have their prejudices indulged. I've had male GPs, female GPs, White, Indian, Chinese, and African GPs. The White, male GP was not more qualified to see me just because he matched my demographics to a certain extent.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The White, male GP was not more qualified to see me just because he matched my demographics to a certain extent.

Exactly. He was more qualified because he was a white male, not because his patient was a white male.