New "Affirmative Action" nonsense

[Loren Pechtel]

Firstly, it isn't discrimination. Whites and Asians are not having their applications tossed in a shredder.

I don't know what to say. I guess you really believe that. The cognitive dissonance must be pretty bad. I've tried to tell people about my first-hand experience as a "disadvantaged" minority applying to college in the United States and how it very clearly was discrimination in favor of me against others because of their race. It always seems to be ignored.

It does seem like a fairly straightforward point. If someone gets moved up the queue because of their race, then it means that someone who was ahead of them got bumped off of the queue so their spot could be taken by the person benefitting from AA. Whether one thinks that's good, bad or neutral is another question, but it's clearly a thing that's happening.

What's this stupidity??

Good proposals do not have bad results. AA is a good proposal. Therefore it can't have bad results.

Why are you claiming otherwise?????

- - - Updated - - -

Discrimination carries a tone of prejudice. This isn't prejudice.

1) Many on your side claim discrimination exists even when there's no prejudice going on. An unequal result is automatically considered discrimination.

2) Remember what the road to hell is paved with. Smell the brimstone yet?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Firstly, it isn't discrimination. Whites and Asians are not having their applications tossed in a shredder.

I don't know what to say. I guess you really believe that. The cognitive dissonance must be pretty bad. I've tried to tell people about my first-hand experience as a "disadvantaged" minority applying to college in the United States and how it very clearly was discrimination in favor of me against others because of their race. It always seems to be ignored.

It does seem like a fairly straightforward point. If someone gets moved up the queue because of their race, then it means that someone who was ahead of them got bumped off of the queue so their spot could be taken by the person benefitting from AA. Whether one thinks that's good, bad or neutral is another question, but it's clearly a thing that's happening.

What's this stupidity??

Good proposals do not have bad results. AA is a good proposal. Therefore it can't have bad results.

Why are you claiming otherwise?????

Huh?

 

[J842P]

Firstly, it isn't discrimination. Whites and Asians are not having their applications tossed in a shredder.

I don't know what to say. I guess you really believe that. The cognitive dissonance must be pretty bad. I've tried to tell people about my first-hand experience as a "disadvantaged" minority applying to college in the United States and how it very clearly was discrimination in favor of me against others because of their race. It always seems to be ignored.

It does seem like a fairly straightforward point. If someone gets moved up the queue because of their race, then it means that someone who was ahead of them got bumped off of the queue so their spot could be taken by the person benefitting from AA. Whether one thinks that's good, bad or neutral is another question, but it's clearly a thing that's happening.

Of course, the point of AA is recognizing that the person was dragged back because of Jim Crow, and AA is attempting to get them backish to their rightful position.

I can assure you I wasn't dragged back by Jim Crowe. It's funny. It's as if people forget they are talking to someone who this has affected first hand.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and it does this by having them take somebody else's place. It's discriminating against one race to compensate for the historical discrimination against another race. It's fine to think that's OK because it's a necessary step to level out an uneven playing field, but it's not fine to say that it's not actually discrimination.

Oh, come one. Discrimination starts today. If criteria are group neutral no group is being advantaged. All that is happening is that the previously preferenced group(s) aren't being advantaged any more.

That falls into the 'tough shit guy' category.

Nonsense. One previously disadvantaged group, African Americans, are being advantaged, along with Hispanics, over whites and Asian-Americans (another disadvantaged group).

- - - Updated - - -

Firstly, it isn't discrimination. Whites and Asians are not having their applications tossed in a shredder.

I don't know what to say. I guess you really believe that. The cognitive dissonance must be pretty bad. I've tried to tell people about my first-hand experience as a "disadvantaged" minority applying to college in the United States and how it very clearly was discrimination in favor of me against others because of their race. It always seems to be ignored.

It does seem like a fairly straightforward point. If someone gets moved up the queue because of their race, then it means that someone who was ahead of them got bumped off of the queue so their spot could be taken by the person benefitting from AA. Whether one thinks that's good, bad or neutral is another question, but it's clearly a thing that's happening.

Of course, the point of AA is recognizing that the person was dragged back because of Jim Crow, and AA is attempting to get them backish to their rightful position.

Which is an absolutely absurd notion which presumes to know exactly what everyone's "rightful" position is that they would be in if history had been different. No one has any idea where any person would be and Jim Crow is a fraction of all the countless historical factors that impact each person of every race.
What we know is that Jim Crow impacted group level averages around which there is massive individual variation. AA and it supporters are blinded by a worldview that has no regard for individual human beings and treats everything as a group level competition as though every white and black person are just prototypes of their racial groups who all would be at the median place in the absence of Jim Crow. It is an objectively false worldview that produces massive errors in "rightful" placement, regularly putting people in front of others that they would not be in front of even without Jim Crow. It ignores these injustices to actual individual humans under the excuse that the group averages of placement will be closer to their "rightful" place thus whiteys who get screwed should just take comfort that their group is on average where it should be (which only whiteys who share the racist worldview of AA proponents would take comfort in).

It is an inherently racist and bigoted worldview that is anti-thetical to any progressive society that values individualism.

Exactly right.

 

[angelo]

People should be picked on their suitability, or their merits for a position, never on racial grounds.

 

[SimpleDon]

So, a pro "affirmative action" group called "By Any Means Necessary" is protesting a black girl with mediocre grades and ACT scores being rejected from University of Michigan.
Rejected Detroit Student Says U-M Didn’t Accept Her Because of Discrimination
The little punk is even claiming that she "has left the plantation". WTF?
Detroit student joins BAMN to lead protest against U-M admissions office

The worst thing is that such blatant playing of the race card might actually work.

U-M officials tell FOX 2 they share students' concerns about diversity on campus and that increasing the number of unrepresented minorities on campus is a major goal of the administration.
On Wednesday, officials said a series of meetings between administrators and the Black Student Union have produced several steps aiming at increasing the percentage of black students.

Just goes to show how morally bankrupt and ridiculous proponents of so-called "affirmative action" are.

But the Left is still enamored by giving preferential treatment to certain races (and women) in college admissions and are trying to bring it back in California. I hope they fail.

I don't understand why you think that this is a condemnation of Affirmative Action? This is an accusation that the admissions people racially discriminated against her, which I would think is a pretty dubious claim.

I don't see where she is accusing the university of failure to follow any affirmative action policy that they might have. Perhaps you have another source of information that she is alleging that.

Many universities have done away with affirmative action based on race. Many have gone to affirmative action based on economic criteria instead. They will accept students with lower scores from lower social economic background. Do you even know if this university uses race as a criteria?

You seem to believe that universities should be limited to accepting students based strictly on scores on tests and GPA. It seems to me that the exact opposite is true, that schools are trying to broaden their student population to better reflect the country. That they are relying less on grades and more on other criteria, including socioeconomic status, motivation, extra activities, leadership, legacies, as well as race.

Do you believe that this wrong? That universities should be limited to the acceptance criteria that you think that they should use? Or should the universities be able to admit the students that they feel that they want?

 

[Underseer]

You guys have allowed the right to muddy up the meaning of the term affirmative action and conflate it with a whole bunch of stuff. If you can prove in a court of law that you didn't get a job or promotion due to demographic-based discrimination, you can sue.

That's it. That's all affirmative action means.

So if you're against affirmative action, that means you think that you should not be allowed to sue if you can prove in a court of law that you were discriminated against. Why on Earth would you want that?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You guys have allowed the right to muddy up the meaning of the term affirmative action and conflate it with a whole bunch of stuff. If you can prove in a court of law that you didn't get a job or promotion due to demographic-based discrimination, you can sue.

That's it. That's all affirmative action means.

So if you're against affirmative action, that means you think that you should not be allowed to sue if you can prove in a court of law that you were discriminated against. Why on Earth would you want that?

So ... you're saying that a university publicly giving additional weight to a student's race in order to increase the number of minority students at their school wasn't an example of affirmative action?

 

[angelo]

That's affirmative action for sure. Would a place like say, Oxford take affirmative action?

 

[SimpleDon]

I have experience with both the medical school and law school admissions process. There is the misconception that the medical schools should accept the applicants with the highest GPA's and the Highest MCAT scores. This is not what they do and it is not even their main concern. They do establish a level of academic achievement that they believe is required to do the work. This is done in a first round by looking at the applications and transcripts. They do have a cut off of test scores but acing the test by scoring higher than the cut off doesn't gain you anything. In other words GPA and test scores can get you excluded but won't get you accepted. The level of academic achievement that they are able to set is so far above the level that the work requires because they get so many highly qualified people apply that this not a consideration for the second round in the process and final acceptance.

The number one thing that the medical schools are looking at is a commitment to medicine. The reason is simple, no matter how much they charge in tuition the medical school will invest much more in your education. A medical education is expensive and your tuition doesn't even dent the expense. . The medical school partially recoups its investment when you work for them at effectively zero wages for years during the internship and residency. What they are trying to avoid at all costs is a medical school student who drops out, doesn't complete their training. And medical school is hard work. Many of the best and brightest who apply to medical school have never had to work hard before. , They are trying to weed out those who believe that they will get rich as a doctor. They want students who want to go into general medicine or under manned specialties like infectious diseases, elder care, rheumatology, etc. They are trying to cut down on suburban students and encouraging rural and city students.

Bottom line is that they don't owe anyone a medical school education. They are allowed to select the students that will be the best doctors and who will be better for the profession.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Discrimination carries a tone of prejudice. This isn't prejudice.

1) Many on your side claim discrimination exists even when there's no prejudice going on. An unequal result is automatically considered discrimination.

My side? I wasn't aware I was on a side.

2) Remember what the road to hell is paved with. Smell the brimstone yet?

No, and these policies have been in effect for decades now.

 

[Derec]

The number one thing that the medical schools are looking at is a commitment to medicine.

And what evidence do you have that this (or any legitimate) is strongly positively correlated with being black or hispanic and stromgly negatively correlated with being white or Asian? Because that's the only way that would explain the data we are seeing other than overt racial discrimination in admissions.

 

[SimpleDon]

You guys have allowed the right to muddy up the meaning of the term affirmative action and conflate it with a whole bunch of stuff. If you can prove in a court of law that you didn't get a job or promotion due to demographic-based discrimination, you can sue.

That's it. That's all affirmative action means.

So if you're against affirmative action, that means you think that you should not be allowed to sue if you can prove in a court of law that you were discriminated against. Why on Earth would you want that?

I agree that this case doesn't seem to have anything to do with affirmative action. It is a claim that the girl was discriminated against because of race and unconventional behavior. She wears distinctive glasses!

And the right is confused about what affirmative action is and what it isn't. This thread is proof of that.

Affirmative action is giving weight to race to increase the minority population on their campus. As Tom pointed out.

It is racial discrimination allowed by the Supreme Court in order to redress 400 years of legal racial discrimination. It is not allowing anyone who applies in just because they are part of a minorial

It is allowing the schools to use race and sex as part of their criteria for admission. To increase the numbers of minorities in the school. Nothing more.

It is not racial discrimination to solve or prevent racial discrimination. That would be silly,

 

[Metaphor]

It is racial discrimination allowed by the Supreme Court in order to redress 400 years of legal racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination cannot redress racial discrimination. Nothing can redress the discrimination of people long since dead. Nothing.

It is allowing the schools to use race and sex as part of their criteria for admission. To increase the numbers of minorities in the school. Nothing more.

You say 'nothing more', as if that sentence explained the moral case.

 

[Metaphor]

The number one thing that the medical schools are looking at is a commitment to medicine.

Isn't it interesting that Asians have the highest grades, followed by Whites, followed by Blacks and Latinos. But when it comes to 'commitment to medicine', if we are to believe admissions statistics reflect that characteristic, Asians are the least committed to medicine, followed by Whites, followed by Blacks and Latinos, who are astronomically more committed to medicine, and are therefore let in at twice or three times or eight times the rate of their GPA and MCAT-matched peers.

 

[SimpleDon]

The number one thing that the medical schools are looking at is a commitment to medicine.

And what evidence do you have that this (or any legitimate) is strongly positively correlated with being black or hispanic and stromgly negatively correlated with being white or Asian? Because that's the only way that would explain the data we are seeing other than overt racial discrimination in admissions.

A silly question. I assume that it is rhetorical.

I am saying that minorities accepted to medical school aren't being accepted ahead of more qualified candidates. All of the candidates who get pass the first round are considered to have the academic qualifications to be in medical school. The final cut if you will depends on other factors, other criteria such as their commitment to medicine, what area of medicine they want to pursue. We have too many surgeons and cardiologists for example. . We also need doctors in rural and urban communities. We know that if we accept students from these areas that they are more likely to set up a practice there. We aren't discriminating against suburban candidates, we just need fewer suburban based doctors. Race is a valid factor, it is reasonable to have doctors of all races.

The medical schools are responsible for providing us with the doctors that are need. That is what they are doing.

Are you still working on my question of what does this lady's claim of racial discrimination have to do with affirmative action?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Firstly, it isn't discrimination. Whites and Asians are not having their applications tossed in a shredder.

I don't know what to say. I guess you really believe that. The cognitive dissonance must be pretty bad. I've tried to tell people about my first-hand experience as a "disadvantaged" minority applying to college in the United States and how it very clearly was discrimination in favor of me against others because of their race. It always seems to be ignored.

It does seem like a fairly straightforward point. If someone gets moved up the queue because of their race, then it means that someone who was ahead of them got bumped off of the queue so their spot could be taken by the person benefitting from AA. Whether one thinks that's good, bad or neutral is another question, but it's clearly a thing that's happening.

What's this stupidity??

Good proposals do not have bad results. AA is a good proposal. Therefore it can't have bad results.

Why are you claiming otherwise?????

Huh?

Unfortunately, a lot of people on both sides don't seem to get the fact that something done with good intentions (AA) can have bad results.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Unfortunately, a lot of people on both sides don't seem to get the fact that something done with good intentions (AA) can have bad results.

Well thank goodness you are here to inform us of the obvious! And while we are at it, your statement seems to suggest that all the results aren't bad, in fact, it would be reasonable to assume from your statement that most of the results are good from AA, just with some unfortunate side effects here and there.

 

[SimpleDon]

The number one thing that the medical schools are looking at is a commitment to medicine.

Isn't it interesting that Asians have the highest grades, followed by Whites, followed by Blacks and Latinos. But when it comes to 'commitment to medicine', if we are to believe admissions statistics reflect that characteristic, Asians are the least committed to medicine, followed by Whites, followed by Blacks and Latinos, who are astronomically more committed to medicine, and are therefore let in at twice or three times or eight times the rate of their GPA and MCAT-matched peers.

No, minorities are be admitted to medical school because it is reasonable to have doctors of all races.

The medical schools want all of their students to be committed to medicine. It is one of many factors that determine who they admit, but the most important to the medical schools. The number of people of a certain race who are accepted doesn't indicate any greater commitment to medicine by race. That is silly.

Perhaps you can answer my question. Why do you think that this woman's claim of racial discrimination has anything to do with affirmative action? Did she claim that the school wasn't following their own policies? Does this university even have a racial affirmative action policy?

 

[Metaphor]

I am saying that minorities accepted to medical school aren't being accepted ahead of more qualified candidates. All of the candidates who get pass the first round are considered to have the academic qualifications to be in medical school.

If it were true that every one who passed the initial round was equally qualified, then you would not see differential admissions rates by GPA and MCAT grouping, or at least as not as dramatic as we actually see -- 95% of people in the highest MCAT/GPA groupings are accepted and the acceptance rate drops with decreasing GPA and MCAT.

But obviously everyone who passes the initial round is not as qualified as each other.

The final cut if you will depends on other factors, other criteria such as their commitment to medicine, what area of medicine they want to pursue. We have too many surgeons and cardiologists for example. . We also need doctors in rural and urban communities. We know that if we accept students from these areas that they are more likely to set up a practice there.

If you want doctors in rural and urban areas, you set up rural or urban-bonded scholarships. You don't just give extra slots to people from the geography that needs servicing and hope that out of the goodness of their heart they'll go where you want, with no guarantee whatsoever.

We aren't discriminating against suburban candidates, we just need fewer suburban based doctors. Race is a valid factor, it is reasonable to have doctors of all races.

Of course you are discriminating against suburban candidates if you pass them over because they're suburban.

If you want doctors in urban areas, you set up urban-bonded scholarships.

And of course it's reasonable to have doctors of all races. It is not reasonable to discriminate against some races to achieve that goal.

 

[Metaphor]

No, minorities are be admitted to medical school because it is reasonable to have doctors of all races.

Of course it's reasonable to have doctor of all races. America does have doctors of all races. It is not reasonable, however, to discriminate against some races to achieve that goal.

The medical schools want all of their students to be committed to medicine. It is one of many factors that determine who they admit, but the most important to the medical schools. The number of people of a certain race who are accepted doesn't indicate any greater commitment to medicine by race. That is silly.

You've lost me. Either you believe medical schools are using 'commitment to medicine' as a criterion or they are not. Which is it?

If that is a third major criterion they are using (in addition to aptitude and achievement), then, when controlling for aptitude and achievement, the admissions acceptance rates show Blacks and Latinos to be the most committed to medicine, followed by Whites, followed by Asians, who are the least committed.

Perhaps you can answer my question. Why do you think that this woman's claim of racial discrimination has anything to do with affirmative action? Did she claim that the school wasn't following their own policies? Does this university even have a racial affirmative action policy?

I don't know if the school has an affirmative action policy.