Opinions on Affirmative Action

[AthenaAwakened]

Poll to follow

Feel free to elaborate on your choice

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A negative if applied by race, but a positive if applied by socioeconomic status. It's good to take measures to make the competition fair, but only by the things which make it unfair.

 

[ronburgundy]

I recommend that your poll specify the type and context of the AA policies you want to poll opinions about, otherwise its different people thinking about apples or oranges but all arguing about "fruit". For example, in its most abstract meaning AA could refer to income-based head start programs seeking to prevent lack of academic preparation among kids due to economic disadvantage.
The ethics and consequences of that would likely be viewed differently by most reasonable people than race-based college admissions seeking to increase representation of particular groups at particular colleges, despite over-representation at other colleges, and full representation among college enrollees more generally.

As the thread on the "incapacitated rape" research shows, failure to define terms for survey respondents produces meaningless uninterpretable data.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I recommend that your poll specify the type and context of the AA policies you want to poll opinions about, otherwise its different people thinking about apples or oranges but all arguing about "fruit". For example, in its most abstract meaning AA could refer to income-based head start programs seeking to prevent lack of academic preparation among kids due to economic disadvantage.
The ethics and consequences of that would likely be viewed differently by most reasonable people than race-based college admissions seeking to increase representation of particular groups at particular colleges, despite over-representation at other colleges, and full representation among college enrollees more generally.

As the thread on the "incapacitated rape" research shows, failure to define terms for survey respondents produces meaningless uninterpretable data.

Ron,

Do you think that currently disadvantaged and historically segregated communities should be reached to and actively recruited by institutions of higher learning and places of business?
Do you think that current government programs and policies do a good job of fostering outreach and recruitment?
Is the failure or success of the programs and policies across the board or do some work and other's don't? Which are which?

This is not difficult, you are not my Sociology 305 professor, and I am not getting a grade.

Ya follow?

 

[funinspace]

I recommend that your poll specify the type and context of the AA policies you want to poll opinions about, otherwise its different people thinking about apples or oranges but all arguing about "fruit".

It's all Greek to me

 

[arkirk]

A negative if applied by race, but a positive if applied by socioeconomic status. It's good to take measures to make the competition fair, but only by the things which make it unfair.

Wouldn't you also agree that we should also take measures to make the un-elite educational paths of higher quality and lessen the effect of being bumped by affirmative action.

 

[fromderinside]

If intent means affirmative outreach for disadvantaged persons and implementation means its a law with some substance and teeth then its fine now.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A negative if applied by race, but a positive if applied by socioeconomic status. It's good to take measures to make the competition fair, but only by the things which make it unfair.

Wouldn't you also agree that we should also take measures to make the un-elite educational paths of higher quality and lessen the effect of being bumped by affirmative action.

If you take away the red text, I'd agree that this should also be done.

 

[fromderinside]

take measures to make the un-elite educational paths of higher quality and lessen the effect of being bumped by affirmative action.

There you go. But that's not the intent and implementation we're talking about in this thread.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There you go. But that's not the intent and implementation we're talking about in this thread.

It's part of the same conversation. The topic of AA is centered around whether or not the admissions process into university is a fair one. One of the main reasons for being in favour of it is the position that the process is biased against certain races and they need a leg up in order to make it a fair competition. Universities using other unfair practices as part of this process isn't something which can be taken out of that discussion.

 

[fromderinside]

There you go. But that's not the intent and implementation we're talking about in this thread.

It's part of the same conversation. The topic of AA is centered around whether or not the admissions process into university is a fair one. One of the main reasons for being in favour of it is the position that the process is biased against certain races and they need a leg up in order to make it a fair competition. Universities using other unfair practices as part of this process isn't something which can be taken out of that discussion.

I don't think so Tom Sawyer. If one makes universities un-elite,makes then open to all, then there is no call for any affirmative action at the university level. Then we would have to do something really difficult and significant like actually equalizing communities in terms of opportunity ass targets for affirmative action.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The answer to scarcity is abundancy.

We do not have an AA problem in this country, we have a shortage and distribution problem in this country. We don't have enough classrooms for the number of people wanting to go to college and classrooms we have are not distributed enough to the schools we say we want our children to attend.

This is an infrastructure problem that can be solved by a series of public investments in building more classrooms, making more schools attractive to more potential students, training and retaining more instructors, and providing an actual preparatory education to the generations of students who will use these new classrooms. These things would be "affirmative actions."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's part of the same conversation. The topic of AA is centered around whether or not the admissions process into university is a fair one. One of the main reasons for being in favour of it is the position that the process is biased against certain races and they need a leg up in order to make it a fair competition. Universities using other unfair practices as part of this process isn't something which can be taken out of that discussion.

I don't think so Tom Sawyer. If one makes universities un-elite,makes then open to all, then there is no call for any affirmative action at the university level. Then we would have to do something really difficult and significant like actually equalizing communities in terms of opportunity ass targets for affirmative action.

OK, I took it to him talking about legacy admissions and things like that at elite universities. Re-reading the sentence, I don't know what he means.

 

[untermensche]

Things can be asked in different ways.

Would you support the government providing funds to universities to expand classes to specifically include those who have been historically excluded?

This could apply to any race, and then the arguments could be made as to the validity and severity and nearness of the exclusion.

 

[ronburgundy]

I recommend that your poll specify the type and context of the AA policies you want to poll opinions about, otherwise its different people thinking about apples or oranges but all arguing about "fruit". For example, in its most abstract meaning AA could refer to income-based head start programs seeking to prevent lack of academic preparation among kids due to economic disadvantage.
The ethics and consequences of that would likely be viewed differently by most reasonable people than race-based college admissions seeking to increase representation of particular groups at particular colleges, despite over-representation at other colleges, and full representation among college enrollees more generally.

As the thread on the "incapacitated rape" research shows, failure to define terms for survey respondents produces meaningless uninterpretable data.

Ron,

Do you think that currently disadvantaged and historically segregated communities should be reached to and actively recruited by institutions of higher learning and places of business?
Do you think that current government programs and policies do a good job of fostering outreach and recruitment?
Is the failure or success of the programs and policies across the board or do some work and other's don't? Which are which?

This is not difficult, you are not my Sociology 305 professor, and I am not getting a grade.

Ya follow?

You're right about one thing (sound the alarm). It isn't difficult. It isn't difficult to create empirical measures that produce data that can be interpreted. Yet, you still failed to do it. Incidentally, no need to wait until Sociology 305, this would be covered is Sociology 101, but really would be painfully obvious to anyone who applied any thought to discussions of Affirmative Action. For example, the details you gave in this post have little relation to the actual AA practices being discussed in any of the threads or by SCOTUS. Those policies are not about recruiting or reaching out, but about selecting among those who choose to apply.

Also, the three questions you asked in this post could be answered yes or no in many combinations to support any of the options in your survey. Thus, the survey responses tell us nothing about anyone's views on those questions, which in turn don't actually relate to objections in any of the threads to AA admissions policies or to what Scalia said about it.

The survey isn't even a useful jumping off point, because it prompts people to present viewpoints on unrelated or tangentially related topics, undermining the establishment of common ground needed to make the discussion more useful than a discussion over whether God exists, when God is interpreted as anything "higher" by some, and as a personal, sentient, immaterial mind that created the Universe by others.

 

[ronburgundy]

take measures to make the un-elite educational paths of higher quality and lessen the effect of being bumped by affirmative action.

There you go. But that's not the intent and implementation we're talking about in this thread.

We aren't talking about any particular implementation or intent in this thread. Both mean whatever you want them to mean.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Ron,

Do you think that currently disadvantaged and historically segregated communities should be reached to and actively recruited by institutions of higher learning and places of business?
Do you think that current government programs and policies do a good job of fostering outreach and recruitment?
Is the failure or success of the programs and policies across the board or do some work and other's don't? Which are which?

This is not difficult, you are not my Sociology 305 professor, and I am not getting a grade.

Ya follow?

You're right about one thing (sound the alarm). It isn't difficult. It isn't difficult to create empirical measures that produce data that can be interpreted. Yet, you still failed to do it.

I failed at nothing. To fail would mean I had some goal i did not achieve. I did not have such a goal. Not doing what YOU want me to do is not a failure for me.

Incidentally, no need to wait until Sociology 305, this would be covered is Sociology 101, but really would be painfully obvious to anyone who applied any thought to discussions of Affirmative Action. For example, the details you gave in this post have little relation to the actual AA

Wrong but don't let that stop you.

practices being discussed in any of the threads or by SCOTUS.

So?

Those policies are not about recruiting or reaching out, but about selecting among those who choose to apply.

Also, the three questions you asked in this post could be answered yes or no in many combinations to support any of the options in your survey. Thus, the survey responses tell us nothing about anyone's views on those questions, which in turn don't actually relate to objections in any of the threads to AA admissions policies or to what Scalia said about it.

Again, so? other people seem to be getting along fine with the poll. They understand that this a discussion on message board, not arguments in the World Court.

The survey isn't even a useful jumping off point, because it prompts people to present viewpoints on unrelated or tangentially related topics, undermining the establishment of common ground needed to make the discussion more useful than a discussion over whether God exists, when God is interpreted as anything "higher" by some, and as a personal, sentient, immaterial mind that created the Universe by others.

If it is so horrible, please to do not feel compelled to participate.

 

[ronburgundy]

If intent means affirmative outreach for disadvantaged persons and implementation means its a law with some substance and teeth then its fine now.

What do you mean by "outreach"? Does that include replacing otherwise accepted students at a particular school with students who are less prepared for the requirements at that school by every empirical indicator, but who are categorized as a part of a less represented group at that school?

Or is "outreach" limited to trying to increase their preparation and improve their decision making prior to the point where decisions are made that do not themselves consider group membership.

Also, what criteria do you support being used as the basis to determine who is "disadvantaged" and/or which of the disadvantaged get assistance and which do not?

 

[ronburgundy]

You're right about one thing (sound the alarm). It isn't difficult. It isn't difficult to create empirical measures that produce data that can be interpreted. Yet, you still failed to do it.

I failed at nothing. To fail would mean I had some goal i did not achieve. I did not have such a goal. Not doing what YOU want me to do is not a failure for me.

Incidentally, no need to wait until Sociology 305, this would be covered is Sociology 101, but really would be painfully obvious to anyone who applied any thought to discussions of Affirmative Action. For example, the details you gave in this post have little relation to the actual AA

Wrong but don't let that stop you.

practices being discussed in any of the threads or by SCOTUS.

So?

Those policies are not about recruiting or reaching out, but about selecting among those who choose to apply.

Also, the three questions you asked in this post could be answered yes or no in many combinations to support any of the options in your survey. Thus, the survey responses tell us nothing about anyone's views on those questions, which in turn don't actually relate to objections in any of the threads to AA admissions policies or to what Scalia said about it.

Again, so? other people seem to be getting along fine with the poll. They understand that this a discussion on message board, not arguments in the World Court.

The survey isn't even a useful jumping off point, because it prompts people to present viewpoints on unrelated or tangentially related topics, undermining the establishment of common ground needed to make the discussion more useful than a discussion over whether God exists, when God is interpreted as anything "higher" by some, and as a personal, sentient, immaterial mind that created the Universe by others.

If it is so horrible, please to do not feel compelled to participate.

6 posters. 6 replies to 6 different interpretations of 1 vacuous question.

It isn't a useless thread though. I'll use it as an example to my intro survey methods course of how some types of "data" are worse than no data at all. Its also a useful example of why political discussions that rely upon vague abstractions produce disagreements where none really exist, hide disagreements that do exist, and make progress on resolving those differences unlikely.

 

[fromderinside]

If intent means affirmative outreach for disadvantaged persons and implementation means its a law with some substance and teeth then its fine now.

What do you mean by "outreach"? Does that include replacing otherwise accepted students at a particular school with students who are less prepared for the requirements at that school by every empirical indicator, but who are categorized as a part of a less represented group at that school?

Or is "outreach" limited to trying to increase their preparation and improve their decision making prior to the point where decisions are made that do not themselves consider group membership.

Also, what criteria do you support being used as the basis to determine who is "disadvantaged" and/or which of the disadvantaged get assistance and which do not?

My originating position is quite simple. Education should be treated as a right. Consequently no one is excluded. So outreach means going after those who would benefit from a college education to meet their life desires. Any law that benefits those who otherwise would not enter college I consider an outreach tool. In this case I mean those who are excluded because the right isn't recognized, individuals are not aware they have this right, individuals who don't normally consider college for other reasons should be sought, reached out to.

From my view it is not necessary to 'exclude' other students so that is a nonstarter. Increasing awareness and preparation are outreach tools. Disadvantaged are those who historically or socially been excluded and those who by economic or social condition are not 'prepared. Affirmative action tools are probably necessary in all these areas, particularly where education is not considered a right causing some to be excluded because they don't 'qualify'.

Obviously affirmative action is not complete given my viewpoint. My ideas is to actually consider everyone equal and to affirm that status with tools in place to assure they, if they desire, can be made 'eligible'. social initiatives, economic initiatives, legal initiatives all need to be used as affirmative tools to put equality in place.

I don't consider anyone disadvantaged. I do consider society needs to get behind its coda and put tools in place where everyone desiring a pathway to their desire (happiness) is enabled. Its life, liberty, pursuit of happiness after all.