One possible way to end Affirmative Action?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JAR
Anyone hear about that case just won in court that said a university can use affirmative action or something?

Looks like the "Michael Moore" crowd wins this one.

Lookes like it's a draw between the "Michael Moore"s and "Ann Coulters"; the ruling states that the principle of affirmative action is upheld and universities can continue to use it, but specific implementations of AA programmes which look like a quota system are illegal, such as the University of Michigan's points system: Mixed ruling on US affirmative action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3013784.stm). Which is a sense that's not.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by DavidJames


"Data from The College Board shows that 52 percent of white students who take the SAT are ranked in the top 20 percent of their high school class. This compares to 32 percent of black test takers. Some 46 percent of white students who take the SAT report that their high school grade point average is in the A range. This compares to only 22 percent of black test takers. These figures alone can explain the large racial scoring gap on the SAT. "

Lol, he didn't ignore or spin the facts -- now he's playing dumb! The "possible answer" you gave to refute hammegk's SAT data confirms his assertions! Of course you would expect people with substantially lower IQs to not fare as well grade-wise in school.

DavidJames, you've got to be kidding me. You are not going to slide by with flawed arguments and half-ass logic here. It's better to admit when you are wrong.

[c0rbin]

Whoa, fell out of the conversation for a little bit there.

JJ, thanks for sharing your expirience. That's a tough break for you. It seems like you were able to pull together something for yourself and seem to have a healthy outlook.

Well done, man.

I am still not convinced that "whites" in general are harmed by AA. Quite the contrary, exposing "pwhites" to different cultures beyond what they see on COPs is a great boon.

kerfer:

Please read the anti-descrimination laws that are posted on this thread, the ones that are Affirmative Action and tell me if they are racist.

Remeber, quotas are illegal and have been struck down. This is not the case for AA, as has recently been shown in the supreme court.

[DavidJames]

"DavidJames, you've got to be kidding me. You are not going to slide by with flawed arguments and half-ass logic here. It's better to admit when you are wrong."

Believe me, when I'm wrong, I admit it.

I believe the flawed arguments are in the Bell Curve

http://www.skeptic.com/04.3.siano-bellcurve.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2416/
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-15point.htm

I expect you will dismiss these rebuttals.

I understand the desire to accept the simple answer, that whites are inherently smarter than blacks, much like one would accept other simple answers in life. Of course this one has the added bonus of making us white folk superior simply by being born, no need to actually achieve anything. I think this answer, however, is much to convenient. You are welcome to accept it, I choose to continue looking. If it turns out that I, by accident of birth, have a 15 point advantage, BFD, although It might make my feelings about AA even stronger. You know, concern about humanity and all that liberal rubbish.

[Tmy]

Studies show that tall men are more succsessful in the workplace.

It must be because they are born smarter. Of course blacks on average are taller than whites.. So it must be that blacks are smarter than whites. Can't refute science.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yeah, real-life Beverly Hilly-billys count too. :D

Wayll, thank ye kindly for that, Hammy! I'll just let the folks back in Philippi know how gen'rous y'all are.:eek:

[jj]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Whoa, fell out of the conversation for a little bit there.

JJ, thanks for sharing your expirience. That's a tough break for you. It seems like you were able to pull together something for yourself and seem to have a healthy outlook.


Beats living in Youngstown. (Yes, I have the necessary understanding to state that as an informed personal preference.)

[kerfer]

Originally posted by c0rbin
kerfer:

Please read the anti-descrimination laws that are posted on this thread, the ones that are Affirmative Action and tell me if they are racist.

I honestly don't remember seeing any.

I do remember someone stating that to be the case (that the antidiscrimination laws surrounding Race Based Admissions preclude selection by race :confused: ), but I don't remember seeing any evidence to support that claim.

But I also remember someone arguing that Race Based Admissions were not about race :rolleyes:. That makes no sense to me.


Remeber, quotas are illegal and have been struck down. This is not the case for AA, as has recently been shown in the supreme court.

I guess it depends which part of the decision you reference. They found that Race Based Admissions programs as implemented by the Law school at UMich were not unconstitutional, but the Race Based Admissions policies as implemented by the undergrad admissions process at UMich were unconstitutional. (anyone for another serving of Appeal to Authority?) (In any event, the USSC does not decide that which is moral/ethical. They decide only on that which is or is not in accordance with the US Constitution.)

It's all irrelevant to my point: that Race Based Admissions policies are (by definition) racist, and therefore wrong.

This is the only thing that I'm saying in this thread, and there are folks that keep wanting to add a whole bunch of baggage to it. I have my suspicions on why that is the case, but that's also outside of my point.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tmy
Studies show that tall men are more succsessful in the workplace.
[snip]
Is this true? I really don't know whether or not you're joking.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by kerfer
It's all irrelevant to my point: that Race Based Admissions policies are (by definition) racist, and therefore wrong.
Just for clarification, what's the definition of racism you're using here?

[kerfer]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Just for clarification, what's the definition of racism you're using here?

racism: Discrimination on the basis of race.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by JAR

Is this true? I really don't know whether or not you're joking.

I heard about the "tall" study on the radio. Im sure a google search would pull up somthing.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by kerfer


racism: Discrimination on the basis of race.
Thank you. And discrimination: to observe differences between one thing and another, or to treat unfavourably treatment based on prejudice? (source Oxford American Dictionary of Current English) Just to clarify, as English English is slightly but subtley different in the definition.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Thank you. And discrimination: to observe differences between one thing and another, or to treat unfavourably treatment based on prejudice? (source Oxford American Dictionary of Current English) Just to clarify, as English English is slightly but subtley different in the definition.

Hmm...the observe differences def is closer to what I mean, but doesn't really go far enough...but it's really a combination of those two...to notice the differences between one thing and another, and use those differences in a selection process. So yes, the two things are treated differently, based on the observed differences.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by kerfer


Hmm...the observe differences def is closer to what I mean, but doesn't really go far enough...but it's really a combination of those two...to notice the differences between one thing and another, and use those differences in a selection process. So yes, the two things are treated differently, based on the observed differences.

Kerfer, thanks for your attention and patience so far. What I'm trying to get at is whether you consider unfavourable treatment is the issue (which implies the observed differences aspect) or whether, more fundamentally it's the observation of difference which you object to, regardless of how that observation is used? Apologies for dragging this out, but I want to be sure we're singing from the same hymn book! ;)

[kerfer]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Kerfer, thanks for your attention and patience so far. What I'm trying to get at is whether you consider unfavourable treatment is the issue (which implies the observed differences aspect) or whether, more fundamentally it's the observation of difference which you object to, regardless of how that observation is used? Apologies for dragging this out, but I want to be sure we're singing from the same hymn book! ;)

I think unfavorable is a bit of an awkward word, and twists my view somewhat, or could. That fact that unit A is treated differently than unit B is enough, I think.

And I agree about getting our definitions in sync. Else we are possibly discussing different things.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by kerfer


I think unfavorable is a bit of an awkward word, and twists my view somewhat, or could. That fact that unit A is treated differently than unit B is enough, I think.

And I agree about getting our definitions in sync. Else we are possibly discussing different things.

I agree Kerfer, and thanks again for your patience. Just to clarify a little further, is there an issue of who gives the treatment, or it's simply the difference in treatment itself that's the issue?

Btw, I'm off now for the weekend, so I won't be able to check your response until Monday. Have a good one!

[kerfer]

Originally posted by BillyTK


I agree Kerfer, and thanks again for your patience. Just to clarify a little further, is there an issue of who gives the treatment, or it's simply the difference in treatment itself that's the issue?
No, I don't think it matters (for the sake of definitions) who gives the treatment. And the entity giving the treatment is the entity that deserves the label.

But...

When you or I do it, it's at least boorish...when the gummit does it, it seems particularly nefarious. :(

So yes, I guess that it's the treatment itself that's the main issue, but I suppose that there is a bit of 'who does it' that comes into the degree of transgression. I'm not sure how or why that matters, though.

Btw, I'm off now for the weekend, so I won't be able to check your response until Monday. Have a good one!

Have a nice weekend.

(edited to fix HTML tags)

[Dr. Popalot]

Wouldn't it be more just to simply remove the Race question from the applicaation all together. How can one discriminate if the race is unknown. It seems the ones shouting "Discrimitation" are the ones wanting to treated special because of their race!:eek: