(split) Affirmative Action discussion

[Jolly_Penguin]

Are we sure that Athena uses the socratic method? She just looks like she is being inane to me. She gets in the habit of asking completely tangental questions, and ignoring the answers people give.

That you think her questions are tangential shows how very obtuse you are being.

Yes, Davka. We all know that you think me obtuse, and dense, and incapable of "adult conversation" and that I don't "try to learn" what you oh so wise people think you have to teach me. That does not help your arguments at all though. It just establishes you as a prick.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm guessing what you are trying to do is convince people that affirmative action is as harmless as the above, i.e. promotional campaigns targeted at groups who aren't applying as often as the university thinks they should be. It's a red herring argument: not only no-one has raised any complaint about affirmative action in the form of targeted marketing, but your continued insistence on bringing it into the discussion is a distraction from the different AA policy that is the subject of the OP.

Jolly_Penguin has said it's discriminatory. Whether he considers it a problem or not is unclear.


(I consider it in a sense discriminatory but not an issue so long as they do not avoid promoting themselves to other groups.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I wouldn't consider targeted marketing of schools much of a problem in most cases, no. But it is discrimination, whether you are discriminating for or against a particular race.

You dont need to cause harm to discriminate. If a restaurant decided no black customers were allowed and refused to hire black employees, would it cease being racial discrimination if there was another, better, restaurant right next door that welcomed everyone and hired based on merit?

 

[laughing dog]

Are we sure that Athena uses the socratic method? She just looks like she is being inane to me. She gets in the habit of asking completely tangental questions, and ignoring the answers people give.

Still waiting on your rational explanation on how making extra trips to predominantly black high schools by recruiters discriminates against white students.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Historically the worst AA in history (IMHO) was at a school where I was an instructor. The administration (in their wisdom) added .5 to certain ethnic groups' GPA. (I recall an applicant with a 4.5 GPA on a 4-point scale (very good student)). At the time we had a waiting list to get into computer science. As it happened GPA was one of the important criteria at the time. We had one year in which our dropout rate among those with inflated GPAs was astonishing. We changed to using GRE (the highest correlation with success in Comp Sci was Verbal, not Mathematical GRE scores). Eventually the university removed the policy. It was eliminating qualified people and enabling unqualified people. Our Asian students did quite well. I have a print on the wall given me by an Asian student when she got her degree.

I'm not surprised one bit, other than verbal rather than math mattering for Comp Sci.

The closest I have come to this was an on-campus job, I was a lab assistant in the computer labs. We had this one group of Hispanic students in there with their own instructor--and they were a mess. We spent more time on that group than the rest of the lab (despite them being no more than 1/5 of the lab at the most) despite the fact that we shouldn't have had to spend any time on them.

There was also a really ugly trap in the word processor. One disk would load (this was in the floppy era) and it would then come up and ask for the driver disk, or esc if no drivers. We had messed with the disks, the correct response was to simply leave the disk in and press enter. Pressing esc would seem to work but would write corrupted files. Occasionally someone would make the mistake and it would eat a file--but nobody would ever make that mistake again. That is, other than this group.

We got our hands on a disk editor and during some idle time I took a look at the corrupted files to see if I could work out a fix--and I figured out one. It would recover the file but with 4 lines of blank space at the top. I taught a couple of the other people in there how to do it but not most of them as it was quite cryptic and one wrong key could render the entire disk unreadable. Once again the instructor trashes a big document this way and brings me the disk. I repair it--oops, the file was absolutely as big as it could be. The 4 blank lines at the top resulted in 4 lines falling off the bottom. She tried to get me fired for that. (Never mind that what I was doing was light-years beyond my job description.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Are we sure that Athena uses the socratic method? She just looks like she is being inane to me. She gets in the habit of asking completely tangental questions, and ignoring the answers people give.

Still waiting on your rational explanation on how making extra trips to predominantly black high schools by recruiters discriminates against white students.

You refuse to read. That is not my problem. And as I wrote above, it isnt just discrimination against white students at other schools, it is discrimination against all students at other schools, including black ones, based on the racial motive of this effort.

Now, will you finally give your alternative explanation for the data Metaphor posted? You said you do not agree racial discrimination in admissions is the reason. Why do you say that cant be it? Do you have any basis besides wanting and needing it not to be?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Athena, the answer to that question depends on why they go to that school (and why they excluded it in the past). If they go there because they want black students, then yes that effort is discrimination against nonblack students who go elsewhere. They were excluded from the effort specifically and purposefully because of their race. It is also an example of racism working against some people of the race it actually prefers (black students at nonblack schools), like when they hold a white guy down because he married a black woman.

So there were no efforts to recruit white students as well while recruiting black students, and the only students accepted where the ones that went through the recruiter who went to the black schools? Otherwise, are you saying that simply sending recruiters to black schools is discriminatory in and of itself?

If they go there because they want to widen their their search and find qualified students, and this school happens to have a lot of black students, then no, that effort is not racial discrimination. In many cases I would think that going to this school would be a ceasing of racial discrimination against its students, who I am guessing were excluded before because the school was predominantly black.

I believe the school in question is predominately white and rural/small town, and they were looking in urban areas to expand the potential student pool.

As for your question about advertising beer, if they target it based on race, then yes, that is racial discrimination. It probably isn't something anybody is really hurt by though, and i wouldn't object to it.

But I didn't use the word racial. Yet you seem stuck on it. Was it generically discriminatory to do extra work to attract a customer base that you have not had access to in the past? This is not a hard question.

Oh, and thank you for your armchair psychological report,

You're welcome, but psychology wasn't required. Nothing deep or new about it. But there is a book about it

 Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts

but I am actually perfectly comfortable applying reason to this discussion instead of faith.

Of course you do. Which is why you spend so much time trying to convince a black woman living in America that she doesn't know as much as you do about black people living in America.

I am also open to argument and be would be happy to be convinced that the data Metaphor presented isn't due to racial discrimination. Got anything? Or do you agree that it is?

You are already debating other posters on that data and you aren't understanding them and they are white. Surely I can add nothing to the debate as I have been talking to you for years now, and you haven't heard a bloody word.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Otherwise, are you saying that simply sending recruiters to black schools is discriminatory in and of itself?

Yes, if they do so for race instead of merit reasons. As Loren said, whether that is objectionable in a particular case is another question. But it is discrimination, yes.

As for your question about advertising beer, if they target it based on race, then yes, that is racial discrimination. It probably isn't something anybody is really hurt by though, and i wouldn't object to it.

But I didn't use the word racial. Yet you seem stuck on it. Was it generically discriminatory to do extra work to attract a customer base that you have not had access to in the past? This is not a hard question.

Why do you think I am talking about race in a thread that is about race? You brought up what looks like a irrelevant tangent, and I was trying to grasp why. I assumed you were making some sort of analogy. You weren't? Why were you asking this then? To answer it, yes, that would be discriminatory based on gearing towards whatever demographic or base you are gearing towards, at the exclusion of whoever you are not making that extra effort to advertise to. I have difficulty seeing why it would be wrong, but it would be discrimination, yes.

I am also open to argument and be would be happy to be convinced that the data Metaphor presented isn't due to racial discrimination. Got anything? Or do you agree that it is?

You are already debating other posters on that data and you aren't understanding them and they are white.

It is ok to admit you've got nothing, Athena. Nobody will think less of you for it. It would actually be refreshingly honest. An no, others are not debating on that. They are evading that debate. The only two who made any effort were Toni (who seemed confused about statistics) and Metaphor (who was playing devil's advocate against his own position) both who are no longer making their cases. I give those two credit for trying, and they have my respect. The others are just continually pretending to have reasons they don't actually have.

Which is why you spend so much time trying to convince a black woman living in America that she doesn't know as much as you do about black people living in America.

Citation needed.

Do you think you have a more objective view, as a black woman obviously pent up about racism in America, while living there, than an outsider like myself? You don't think you may have a pretty overwhelming and self serving bias on these matters?

 

[Davka]

That you think her questions are tangential shows how very obtuse you are being.

Yes, Davka. We all know that you think me obtuse, and dense, and incapable of "adult conversation" and that I don't "try to learn" what you oh so wise people think you have to teach me. That does not help your arguments at all though. It just establishes you as a prick.

I am a prick only to those whose bubbles need popping.

 

[laughing dog]

Still waiting on your rational explanation on how making extra trips to predominantly black high schools by recruiters discriminates against white students.

You refuse to read. That is not my problem.

If I refuse to read, these discussions would not exist. So please stop that silliness. I read with comprehension.

And as I wrote above, it isnt just discrimination against white students at other schools, it is discrimination against all students at other schools, including black ones, based on the racial motive of this effort.

It is not  Discrimination by any definition of which I am aware. No one was denied anything nor was anyone's rights violated.

Now, will you finally give your alternative explanation for the data Metaphor posted? You said you do not agree racial discrimination in admissions is the reason. Why do you say that cant be it? Do you have any basis besides wanting and needing it not to be?

No, I did not say anything of the sort. I said I would like to see the data of failures by school. There are relatively few black students in the sample (I think it was about 130). It is possible that the bulk of the failures came from a subset of the schools which would skew the results for blacks for the rest of the schools.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is not  Discrimination by any definition of which I am aware. No one was denied anything nor was anyone's rights violated.

From the wiki you linked to

Moral philosophers have defined discrimination as disadvantageous treatment or consideration. This is a comparative definition. An individual need not be actually harmed in order to be discriminated against. They just need to be treated worse than others for some arbitrary reason.

An effort to recruit students at one school is a disadvantage to students at another school on which that effort is not spent. These outreach effots are likely to lead to some applicants applying that wouldn't have otherwise known about the program, right? Well such students will exist in more than just one school, and in more than just at predominantly black schools. If the recruitment effort is being spent for some arbitrary reason, like the school being predominantly black, rather than for a merit reason, that fits this definition of discrimination. It isn't a very damning case of it. But it does fit the definition. Some students at other schools will not receive this particular outreach effort, because their school isn't predominantly of the race the recruiters are targeting. Now, if predominantly black schools are being excluded for whatever reason (probably racial discrimination), then you may have a good merit reason to go in there, to find students that were unreached before, and are just as likely to be qualified, many of whom just happen to be black. Can you see the difference?

I said I would like to see the data of failures by school. There are relatively few black students in the sample (I think it was about 130). It is possible that the bulk of the failures came from a subset of the schools which would skew the results for blacks for the rest of the schools.

I was asking about the admittance data. What is your alternative explanation for it? Perhaps there is one. As I said before, I would like to think that American medical schools are not this blatantly racist as it appears they are.

 

[arkirk]

MY BEEF WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:

When it comes to higher education...it should be freely available to all who seek it. It should not be something that is portioned out as a rare commodity. A black person should not need affirmative action. There then ends up being a split in society between those with access to higher learning and those to whom it is denied. Our problem is that we value money way too much and when it becomes costly to educate our citizenry, we go on the cheap and ration it as if it were gold. We have no business doing this to any sector of our society. We don't value the right kinds of things and do not make sufficient effort to produce what is truly valuable to society. We do this over and over in almost every quarter of human activity. If we do not value society, we choose to value things and status unreservedly, we lose track of where we are going.

The medical school thing is ugly. Millions of Americans go without healthcare because they cannot afford it. More doctors are needed. If you look at those we do have, they have shabby practices because they are forced to take too many cases and do not do their best work hurrying from one profit activity to the next, from one emergency to the next. Our medical care system is so broken we cannot even regard it as a system. MD's die young from overwork. Instead of making weapons of war, why not make doctors?...so many doctors none of them have to hurry their patients and their patients don't have to be so patient in the waiting room watching videos of drug companies.

Seriously I don't oppose affirmative action. I just think it should be very heavily funded and areas where it is being applied be truly open to all who desire to better themselves.

 

[laughing dog]

From the wiki you linked to

Moral philosophers have defined discrimination as disadvantageous treatment or consideration. This is a comparative definition. An individual need not be actually harmed in order to be discriminated against. They just need to be treated worse than others for some arbitrary reason.

An effort to recruit students at one school is a disadvantage to students at another school on which that effort is not spent.

There are always schools that are not visited, so I fail to see the relevance. Especially since those schools that are not visited were not going to get a visit anyway - these are in addition to the normal visits. So, those students are not being treated worse. So, this does not meet that criteria.

These outreach effots are likely to lead to some applicants applying that wouldn't have otherwise known about the program, right? Well such students will exist in more than just one school, and in more than just at predominantly black schools. If the recruitment effort is being spent for some arbitrary reason, like the school being predominantly black, rather than for a merit reason, that fits this definition of discrimination.

Schools are visited to get qualified students interested in applying. There are no "merit" reasons other than to get students interested.

It isn't a very damning case of it. But it does fit the definition. Some students at other schools will not receive this particular outreach effort, because their school isn't predominantly of the race the recruiters are targeting. Now, if predominantly black schools are being excluded for whatever reason (probably racial discrimination), then you may have a good merit reason to go in there, to find students that were unreached before, and are just as likely to be qualified, many of whom just happen to be black. Can you see the difference?

It does not fit the definition and there is no difference to see.

I was asking about the admittance data. What is your alternative explanation for it? Perhaps there is one. As I said before, I would like to think that American medical schools are not this blatantly racist as it appears they are.

I have no alternative explanation for it because I don't believe there is one. I think there is an effort to get more black doctors. I think that effort is laudable and applaudable.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Otherwise, are you saying that simply sending recruiters to black schools is discriminatory in and of itself?

Yes, if they do so for race instead of merit reasons. As Loren said, whether that is objectionable in a particular case is another question. But it is discrimination, yes.

I'm not sure about that one. It's fine to try and recruit amongst underrepresented groups but only becomes discrimination when you go beyond that and make the selection process itself unfair.

If somewhere feels that it doesn't have enough blacks/women/gays/etc represented in it, making an effort to get members of those groups interested in it and more likely to apply to it isn't any kind of issue. If a school takes the top 500 applicants as freshmen out of the 10,000 applicants or if it takes the top 500 out of 11,000 applicants because the administrators went around to majority black high schools in order to sell their institution to the students there then nobody is discriminated against even if some of those 1000 black students get in who wouldn't have even applied there without the targeted recruitment campaign. So long as the actual selection itself is based on merit and not race, then efforts to expand the number of people from underrepresented groups in the applicant pool aren't discriminatory.

If they give more weight to someone's race during the selection process or find that they only ended up with 50 black students, so they dump 10 non-blacks who made it in to take 10 black students who didn't, then that's discrimination. So long as everyone has an equal shot regardless of their race, however, there's no discrimination in trying to get underrepresented groups to take a fair shot.

It's like tech companies trying to get women interested in STEM careers. That's not discriminating against men even though they're actively targeting women. If they have ten open spots and they want to hire five women even though the top eight applicants end up being men, so they don't hire three of them and give the spots to women, then they're discriminating. Getting more women to apply for those spots, however, isn't a problem so long as they don't give the gender of the applicants extra weight.

 

[Metaphor]

I have no alternative explanation for it because I don't believe there is one. I think there is an effort to get more black doctors. I think that effort is laudable and applaudable.

Can I clarify? Is it that you do believe there to be racial discrimination by the medical schools, and you're okay with it?

 

[laughing dog]

I have no alternative explanation for it because I don't believe there is one. I think there is an effort to get more black doctors. I think that effort is laudable and applaudable.

Can I clarify? Is it that you do believe there to be racial discrimination by the medical schools, and you're okay with it?

I believe that is an attempt at affirmative action. I am okay with it at this point.

 

[Metaphor]

Can I clarify? Is it that you do believe there to be racial discrimination by the medical schools, and you're okay with it?

I believe that is an attempt at affirmative action. I am okay with it at this point.

That isn't what I asked.

i) Do you believe that there is racial discrimination in the selection/admission criteria by medical schools? 'I don't know' is a legitimate answer.

ii) Regardless of what you believe to be the case, if there were (notice the subjunctive) racial discrimination by medical schools in selection/admission, would you be okay with it?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Can I clarify? Is it that you do believe there to be racial discrimination by the medical schools, and you're okay with it?

I believe that is an attempt at affirmative action. I am okay with it at this point.

Well now we are finally getting somewhere. You know it is racial discrimination, but you feel it is justified, because you want black doctors in the community and feel that is more important than asian applicants getting fair treatment. Is that accurate?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are always schools that are not visited, so I fail to see the relevance. Especially since those schools that are not visited were not going to get a visit anyway - these are in addition to the normal visits. So, those students are not being treated worse. So, this does not meet that criteria.

If the students in the untargeted schools are being treated differently, and not being given the benefit of this additional effort to recruit them, based on the predominant race of the school.... I see that as a disadvantage. I suppose you don't. That is fine. We can disagree. Treating people differently for racial reasons is how I define racial discrimination. Doesn't matter if it is admitting students or making efforts to recruit them.

 

[bigfield]

I wouldn't consider targeted marketing of schools much of a problem in most cases, no. But it is discrimination, whether you are discriminating for or against a particular race.

You dont need to cause harm to discriminate. If a restaurant decided no black customers were allowed and refused to hire black employees, would it cease being racial discrimination if there was another, better, restaurant right next door that welcomed everyone and hired based on merit?

Here is Athena's hypothetical question:

'it is 1965, and let's say this same college has never sent recruiters to black schools before. Would it be discrimination then to do so?'

I made some additional assumptions in answering the question. I assumed that the college already sends recruiters out to white schools. I also assumed that within the area to which the college sends recruiters, there are also some black schools.

If the university has been sending recruiters to the white schools, but not sending recruiters to the white schools, then their existing policy is racially discriminatory.

I have also assumed that this discrimination has caused a disproportionately low number of black students to apply to the college, since no-one has been promoting at the black schools.

Therefore the college has two problems:
1. They are currently engaging in discrimination.
2. They are not getting as many applicants as they should be.

We know that #1 is bad because it is discrimination. Number #2 is bad because it lowers the marginal cutoff for admissions, therefore lowering the overall aptitude of the student body.

The college has to fix two things:
1. Stop forgoing schools that the college should reasonably be sending recruiters to.
2. Increase the number of applicants from the formerly omitted schools until the college is receiving until the number of applicants is reflective of the school's size, location, and the academic performance of its students.

The first is straightforward. The second requires that the college spend extra effort on the previously omitted schools, until those schools become established feeder schools, just like the rest of the schools the college recruits from.

This solution would also apply to any schools that had previously been omitted.

In response to your statement that 'it is discrimination, whether you are discriminating for or against a particular race': The targeting that was discriminatory was the decision to target some schools but not others. If the university changes their policy to target all schools within a reasonable scope, then that is the cessation of discrimination. That the newly included schools are black schools is not discrimination on the part of the new policy, but on the historical one.

You dont need to cause harm to discriminate. If a restaurant decided no black customers were allowed and refused to hire black employees, would it cease being racial discrimination if there was another, better, restaurant right next door that welcomed everyone and hired based on merit?

It would be discrimination no matter what the circumstances, and it would be harmful to the community, not just to the minority whose members was refused employment, but to the entire community.

Davka argued the opposite with his 'Joe the Barkeep' example, but his distinction between harmful and non-harmful discrimination is not supported as anything but arbitrary.