Affirmative Action and Similiar Programs Must End NOW

[hitssquad]

Ohsu

The top two schools in terms of students getting their first choice of residency, are the University of Washington and the University of Oregon (and they are ranked 1 and 2 in US and World News because of it).

There hasn't been a University of Oregon Medical School since 1981. Oregon now has an http://www.ohsu.edu/about/history.html, which previous to 2001 was called Oregon Health Sciences University.

 

[London Kngiths]

Race and social status should have no bearing on how things are done. The problem is that you can't make everyone happy anymore.

Take away affirmative action and all the racial activists will start spouting off about the disadvantages of growing up black (or any other race I may use black most often as it is the most commonly referred to minority, but I am in no way trying to imply anything specifically against blacks) and how everything is so much harder.

Put it in and then people will complain that it is unfair that people are getting an unfair advantage.

Personally I lie in the category of thinking affirmative action served its purpose when there was more of a need to "make up" for previous injustices but now I think that the program is obsolete. To play up the racial card on getting a post secondary education this removed from the major difficulties with race to me is in itself a form of racism. To give people an advantage based on their skin colour changes the competition for education. You are separating the requirements for people to get in based on their skin colour or their nationality which is in itself a form of racial profilling.

 

[loseyourname]

There hasn't been a University of Oregon Medical School since 1981. Oregon now has an http://www.ohsu.edu/about/history.html, which previous to 2001 was called Oregon Health Sciences University.

I know. It's still the same university, still part of U of O.

 

[Loren Booda]

A reasonable compromise to a large part of the "affirmative action" debate may be realized through "academic action," the consideration of the college bound (or secondary school graduates in general) for their past public educational opportunities. Concerning this, the major measurable educational determinant under government influence and responsibility is academic history - in particular, those benefits local public school districts provide from varying qualities of education. Whatever the demographics, it should be clear to both sides of the affirmative action debate that redress for opportunities lost in education can most effectively and immediately be accounted for by considering the student's past educational opportunities, or lack thereof, promised equal under the law.

In my sophomore year at Yale I was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia (thus joining one of our nation's more exclusive and reviled minorities), effectively encouraged never to return. Ours is a problem rarely addressed by affirmative action, but I believe that everyone can benefit from retroactively resolving the differing advantages that government bestows upon individuals, particularly by assessing the inequities in their public education. This will have the effect of making fair education everyone's concern, and eliminating the need for affirmative action.

Education is the major indicator of one's vocational future. It is the responsibility of our democracy to protect and ensure the rights of all individuals, including facilitating access to similar public institutions, especially education, from birth onward. All else being the same, how would most of us have thrived in a school system like those of city slums, rather than where we did graduate?

 

[Moonbear]

Loren, very well stated! I very much agree with your ideas of addressing inequalities of educational experience at the root of the problem rather than with blanket categorizations that often times miss the mark.

The college I attended had what I thought was a pretty good way of making admissions decisions. They had certain criteria of GPA and SAT scores that if you were above that, you got a definite acceptance, and then scores that if you fell below it, the application was rejected, and then a range in between where the scores alone indicated there was a weakness, but not so bad that they had no chance of succeeding at that college, so then they considered each of those individually, reading the essays and letters of recommendation and any other supporting material to determine if there was an explanation for those borderline scores, something adverse the student had to overcome, or if there was something that demonstrated a better likelihood of success. For example, if someone had bounced around foster homes half their life, that could be considered as mitigating the low grades, or if the student was involved in tons of extracurricular activities or was working a part-time job through high school, that might help explain that they didn't have as much time to devote to studying, or an exceptional essay might suggest those grades aren't fully reflecting the student's abilities. On the other end, if nothing stood out about the student, or they had every privilege growing up, then those borderline scores may reflect the best that student is able to do, or lack of effort in achieving their full potential.

 

[krzywicki]

LBJ once said " you cannot take the chains off a black man who had been enslaved for hundreds of year, and put him on the starting line with all the others, and say "GO" and expect this to be fair." The fact of the matter is, nothing is fair in grading kids, SAT's, and GPA's are favorable to the rich community b/c they can afford the better classes and prep courses. Affirmative action is a Must! and sadly, some people cannot see it.

 

[BlackVision]

LBJ once said " you cannot take the chains off a black man who had been enslaved for hundreds of year, and put him on the starting line with all the others, and say "GO" and expect this to be fair."

So it's a slavery issue now? So why do Hispanics get affirmative action? Why do Pacific Islanders? Why does every single race except Whites and Asians get affirmative action?

And there's quite a number of black immigrants today from countries that never had slavery. You agree then that they shouldn't get affirmative action? Even though blacks who do not have any slavery in their ancestry do not perform any better than blacks who do have slavery in their ancestry.

Greeks were enslaved by the Romans. Should White Greeks also get affirmative action?

The fact of the matter is, nothing is fair in grading kids, SAT's, and GPA's are favorable to the rich community b/c they can afford the better classes and prep courses.

Studying for the SAT will only marginally raise your SAT score. College board reports that studying over 50+ hours for the SAT, will raise your SAT score by less than 40 points. And after 50+ hours there is no increase at all. Average increase of 13 points for verbal. And 18 points for math. Only 5% of people who took the SAT multiple times, raised their score by over 100 points.

Affirmative action is a Must! and sadly, some people cannot see it.

Sadly there are a lot of racists out there wanting to give special racial preference points. All you have to be is be born the right race correct?

 

[franznietzsche]

Ah. I see the problem. I live in the USA. You must live in Germany. I can see how it must be confusing for someonemoving from Germany to deal with afirmative action in the US.

Ah so Germany has affirmative action for Jews? When did this happen?

lmao


THAT made me laugh.

I'd like to chime in here and point out that I have many Armenian friends, most of whom are recent immigrants with very little money who experience a great deal of discrimination, and they receive absolutely nothing. Any system that treats these people as part of a privileged majority is a flawed system.

HINT: Liberal politicians don't care about equality. They care about votes. By giving immoral benefits to "disadvantaged minorities" (read: People lacking a culture of integrity, hard work, and self-improvement through one's own abilities) they can help gaurantee their place in political power. Thats all affirmative action really is. Power politics.

Take away affirmative action and all the racial activists will start spouting off about the disadvantages of growing up black (or any other race I may use black most often as it is the most commonly referred to minority, but I am in no way trying to imply anything specifically against blacks) and how everything is so much harder.

Ineptitude makes life harder too. We should give affirmative action to the inept...oh wait, that's why they wanted to legalize marijuana, nevermind then.

LBJ once said " you cannot take the chains off a black man who had been enslaved for hundreds of year, and put him on the starting line with all the others, and say "GO" and expect this to be fair." The fact of the matter is, nothing is fair in grading kids, SAT's, and GPA's are favorable to the rich community b/c they can afford the better classes and prep courses. Affirmative action is a Must! and sadly, some people cannot see it.

Favorable to the rich community...So let's help blacks and hispanics!

Its a rather non-sequitur conclusion. Helping the poor and disadvantaged...ok...helping racial subdivisions just because they are in those racial subdivisions irrelevant of the real circumstances...no. Read the post on the Armenian immigrants. If you're going to help the disadvantaged, you can't say well give all the blacks aid. Not all of them are disadvantaged. not all whites are privileged. Picking based on raced is a political fad that helps certain politicians get elected. It has nothing to do with fairness. Picking based on actual social disadvantage, you can make an actual case for, but for picking based on race, you cannot.

 

[FZ+]

So it's a slavery issue now? So why do Hispanics get affirmative action? Why do Pacific Islanders? Why does every single race except Whites and Asians get affirmative action?

No it is not. The issue is white discrimination towards black minorities, which is still prevalent. In fact, the presence of this post, and several similar ones is evidence of its prevalence. If we still see by black and white, clearly we still need help.

 

[shonagon53]

Frankly it absolutely sickens me that lower qualified candidates are always selected over higher qualified candidates simply on the premise of race. I will use UCLA Medical School as an example.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?[/color]

There's nothing wrong.

Affirmative action was invented by society's most brilliant minds.

They know it's in the interest of all people (that includes you, a genius, no doubt), to integrate people who've had fewer chances.

The integration of the weaker into society benefits the stronger. It benefits them more than when the weak are excluded. Think about why this would be so.

Intelligent people understand the deep reasons behind affirmative action.

 

[BlackVision]

So you honestly believe someone that scores academically worst should still have over 3 times the chance to get accepted to a university simply on the premise of race?

 

[shonagon53]

Yes indeed.


But you know what, I'm a bit tired of your racist rant. It's simply too infantile. You must urgently try to get a life. Or get an education of some sort. Oops! What am I saying, as I understand it, you didn't make it through the selection process. Thank God they put some disempowered black person first.

Anyway, I'm going to ignore most of your posts. You're a senseless individual with only one chord on your piano.

 

[FZ+]

So you honestly believe someone that scores academically worst should still have over 3 times the chance to get accepted to a university simply on the premise of race?

If it is suggested that this is not due to ability, then yes. Academic scores are not the most reliable factors out there. Once we achieve more equality of opportunity, then affirmative action may be phased out.

Shonagon, being so automatically hostile is not very helpful.

 

[hitssquad]

Predicting academic achievement

So you honestly believe someone that scores academically worst should still have over 3 times the chance to get accepted to a university simply on the premise of race?

If it is suggested that this is not due to ability, then yes.

So public universities should base acceptance on IQ?

Academic scores are not the most reliable factors out there.

This statement is missing information. What is it you might be trying to reliably predict?

• SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT[/size]
  
  The purpose of the first "intelligence" test, devised by Binet and Simon in 1905, was to assess elementary school children and identify those most likely to fail in the regular instructional program. These children would learn better with more specialized and individualized instruction suited to their belowaverage level of cognitive development. Since Binet's invention, there have been countless studies of the validity of mental tests for predicting children's scholastic performance. The Psychological Abstracts contains some 11,000 citations of studies on the relation of educational achievement to "IQ." If there is any unquestioned fact in applied psychometrics, it is that IQ tests have a high degree of predictive validity for many educational criteria, such as scores on scholastic achievement tests, school and college grades, retention in grade, school dropout, number of years of schooling, probability of entering college, and, after entering, probability of receiving a bachelor's degree. With equality of educational opportunity for the whole population increasing in recent decades, IQ has become even more predictive of educational outcomes than it was before the second half of this century.
  
  The evidence for the validity of IQ in predicting educational variables is so vast and has been reviewed so extensively elsewhere [11] that there is no need to review it in detail here. The median validity coefficient of IQ for educational variables is about +.50, but the spread of validity coefficients is considerable, ranging from close to zero up to about .85. Most of the variability in validity coefficients is due to differences in the range of ability in the particular groups being tested. The less the variability of IQ in a given group, of course, the lower is the correlation ceiling that the IQ is likely to have with any criterion variable. Hence we see an appreciable decrease in the average validity coefficient for each rung of the educational ladder from kindergarten to graduate or professional school. Several rungs on the educational ladder are the main junctures for either dropping out or continuing in school.
  
  The correlation of IQ with grades and achievement test scores is highest (.60 to .70) in elementary school, which includes virtually the entire child population and hence the full range of mental ability. At each more advanced educational level, more and more pupils from the lower end of the IQ distribution drop out, thereby restricting the range of IQs. The average validity coefficients decrease accordingly: high school (.50 to .60), college (.40 to .50), graduate school (.30 to .40). All of these are quite high, as validity coefficients go, but they permit far less than accurate prediction of a specific individual. (The standard error of estimate is quite large for validity coefficients in this range.)
  
  Achievement test scores are more highly correlated with IQ than are grades, probably because grades are more influenced by the teacher's idiosyncratic perceptions of the child's apparent effort, personality, docility, deportment, gender, and the like. For example, teachers tend, on average, to give higher course grades to girls than to boys, although the boys and the girls scarcely differ on objective achievement tests.
  
  Even when pupils' school grades are averaged over a number of years, so that different teachers' idiosyncratic variability in grading is averaged out, the correlation between grades and IQ is still far from perfect. A strong test of the overall relationship between IQ and course grades was provided in a study [12] based on longitudinal data from the Berkeley Growth Study. A general factor (and individual factor scores) was obtained from pupils' teacher-assigned grades in arithmetic, English, and social studies in grades one through ten. Also, the general factor (and factor scores) was extracted from the matrix of intercorrelations of Stanford-Binet IQs obtained from the same pupils on six occasions at one- to two-year intervals between grades one and ten. Thus we have here highly stable measures of both school grades and IQs, with each individual's year-toyear fluctuations in IQ and teachers' grades averaged out in the general factor scores for IQ and for grades.
  
  The correlation between the general factor for grades and the general factor for Stanford-Binet IQ was +.69. Corrected for attenuation, the correlation is +.75. This corrected correlation indicates that pupils' grades in academic subjects, although highly correlated with IQ, also reflect consistent sources of variance that are independent of IQ. The difficulty in studying or measuring the sources of variance in school grades that are not accounted for by IQ is that they seem to consist of a great many small (but relatively stable) sources of variance (personality traits, idiosyncratic traits, study habits, interests, drive, etc.) rather than just a few large, measurable traits. This is probably why attempts to improve the prediction of scholastic performance by including personality scales along with cognitive tests have shown little promise of raising predictive validity appreciably above that attributable to IQ alone. In the noncognitive realm, no general factor, or any combination of broad group factors, has been discovered that appreciably increases the predictive validity over and above the prediction from IQ alone.
  
  Although IQ tests are highly g loaded, they also measure other factors in addition to g, such as verbal and numerical abilities. It is of interest, then, to ask how much the reported validity of IQ for predicting scholastic success can be attributed to g and how much to other factors independent of g.
  
  The psychometrician Robert L. Thorndike [13] analyzed data specifically to answer this question. He concluded that 80 to 90 percent of the predictable variance in scholastic performance is accounted for by g, with 10 to 20 percent of the variance predicted by other factors measured by the IQ or other tests. This should not be surprising, since highly g-loaded tests that contain no verbal or numerical factors or information content that resembles anything taught in school (the Raven matrices is a good example) are only slightly less correlated with various measures of scholastic performance than are the standard IQ and scholastic aptitude tests, which typically include some scholastic content. Clearly the predictive validity of g does not depend on the test's containing material that children are taught in school or at home. Pupils' grades in different academic subjects share a substantial common factor that is largely g. 14
  
  The reason that IQ tests predict academic achievement better than any other measurable variable is that school learning itself is g-demanding. Pupils must continually grasp "relations and correlates" as new material is introduced, and they must transfer previously learned knowledge and skills to the learning of new material. These cognitive activities, when specifically investigated, are found to be heavily g loaded. It has also been found that various school subjects differ in their g demands. Mathematics and written composition, for example, are more g-demanding than arithmetic computation and spelling. Reading comprehension is so g loaded and also so crucial in the educational process as to warrant a separate section (p. 280 ).
  
  The number of years of formal education that a person acquires is a relatively crude measure of educational attainment. It is quite highly correlated with IQ, typically between +.60 and +70. 15 This correlation cannot be explained as entirely the result of more education causing higher IQ. A substantial correlation exists even if the IQ is measured at an age when all persons have had the same number of years of schooling. Validity coefficients in the range of .40 to .50 are found between IQ at age seven and amount of education completed by age 40. [16]

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. pp277-279.)



In other words, not everyone who has the same amount of schooling, and even attains the same grades, has learned the same amount; and the amount that a person both has learned, and will learn in the future, is most highly correlated with g. Since the academic records of students applying for college are largely based on the whims of their teachers, g remains a better predictor of college-level educational-attainment than pre-college academic record.

 

[BlackVision]

"So you honestly believe someone that scores academically worst should still have over 3 times the chance to get accepted to a university simply on the premise of race?"

Yes indeed.

Wait who's the racist here again?

You must urgently try to get a life.

Ah you mean like the one where someone constantly rants about the "white man" keeping one down? That kind of life? Please describe this wonderful "life" that you are experiencing.

Oops! What am I saying, as I understand it, you didn't make it through the selection process. Thank God they put some disempowered black person first.

I attend UCLA currently. Which is certainly one of the more prominent universities in the US. Although if I simply marked the "black" box, I most certainly would have been accepted to Harvard. But it's well assuring to know that the average black student in Harvard is as smart as the average white student in a lesser university.

We'll lower the bar for you and your "people" since blacks couldn't get into universities any other way correct?

Anyway, I'm going to ignore most of your posts.

Well of course since I debunked your off the wall statements so easily and you never have any ability to refute whatsoever. It isn't a surprise that you will run and hide.

 

[BlackVision]

If it is suggested that this is not due to ability, then yes. Academic scores are not the most reliable factors out there. Once we achieve more equality of opportunity, then affirmative action may be phased out.

Actually academic scores such as SAT have consistently been considered the most reliable in every study done next to IQ scores. If you have a more accurate measure please share it among us. What exactly do you mean by more equality of opportunity. It is already equal at this point. I take that back. Blacks, hispanics have a much larger advantage and more of an opportunity than whites and asians. Nonetheless the numbers for both in the university level is staggering low. But to somehow blame this on the "white man" or on the "system" is counterfactual and is equivalent to blaming the "black man" and the "system" for the extraordinary lack of white and asian basketball players in the NBA.

Shonagon, being so automatically hostile is not very helpful.

Shonagon is a black who is a racist. Certainly all of his comments stated on this board if directed toward any other race other than "white" would have caused an uproar.

 

[BlackVision]

• SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT[/size]
  
  The purpose of the first "intelligence" test, devised by Binet and Simon in 1905, was to assess elementary school children and identify those most likely to fail in the regular instructional program. These children would learn better with more specialized and individualized instruction suited to their belowaverage level of cognitive development. Since Binet's invention, there have been countless studies of the validity of mental tests for predicting children's scholastic performance. The Psychological Abstracts contains some 11,000 citations of studies on the relation of educational achievement to "IQ." If there is any unquestioned fact in applied psychometrics, it is that IQ tests have a high degree of predictive validity for many educational criteria, such as scores on scholastic achievement tests, school and college grades, retention in grade, school dropout, number of years of schooling, probability of entering college, and, after entering, probability of receiving a bachelor's degree. With equality of educational opportunity for the whole population increasing in recent decades, IQ has become even more predictive of educational outcomes than it was before the second half of this century.
  
  The evidence for the validity of IQ in predicting educational variables is so vast and has been reviewed so extensively elsewhere [11] that there is no need to review it in detail here. The median validity coefficient of IQ for educational variables is about +.50, but the spread of validity coefficients is considerable, ranging from close to zero up to about .85. Most of the variability in validity coefficients is due to differences in the range of ability in the particular groups being tested. The less the variability of IQ in a given group, of course, the lower is the correlation ceiling that the IQ is likely to have with any criterion variable. Hence we see an appreciable decrease in the average validity coefficient for each rung of the educational ladder from kindergarten to graduate or professional school. Several rungs on the educational ladder are the main junctures for either dropping out or continuing in school.
  
  The correlation of IQ with grades and achievement test scores is highest (.60 to .70) in elementary school, which includes virtually the entire child population and hence the full range of mental ability. At each more advanced educational level, more and more pupils from the lower end of the IQ distribution drop out, thereby restricting the range of IQs. The average validity coefficients decrease accordingly: high school (.50 to .60), college (.40 to .50), graduate school (.30 to .40). All of these are quite high, as validity coefficients go, but they permit far less than accurate prediction of a specific individual. (The standard error of estimate is quite large for validity coefficients in this range.)
  
  Achievement test scores are more highly correlated with IQ than are grades, probably because grades are more influenced by the teacher's idiosyncratic perceptions of the child's apparent effort, personality, docility, deportment, gender, and the like. For example, teachers tend, on average, to give higher course grades to girls than to boys, although the boys and the girls scarcely differ on objective achievement tests.
  
  Even when pupils' school grades are averaged over a number of years, so that different teachers' idiosyncratic variability in grading is averaged out, the correlation between grades and IQ is still far from perfect. A strong test of the overall relationship between IQ and course grades was provided in a study [12] based on longitudinal data from the Berkeley Growth Study. A general factor (and individual factor scores) was obtained from pupils' teacher-assigned grades in arithmetic, English, and social studies in grades one through ten. Also, the general factor (and factor scores) was extracted from the matrix of intercorrelations of Stanford-Binet IQs obtained from the same pupils on six occasions at one- to two-year intervals between grades one and ten. Thus we have here highly stable measures of both school grades and IQs, with each individual's year-toyear fluctuations in IQ and teachers' grades averaged out in the general factor scores for IQ and for grades.
  
  The correlation between the general factor for grades and the general factor for Stanford-Binet IQ was +.69. Corrected for attenuation, the correlation is +.75. This corrected correlation indicates that pupils' grades in academic subjects, although highly correlated with IQ, also reflect consistent sources of variance that are independent of IQ. The difficulty in studying or measuring the sources of variance in school grades that are not accounted for by IQ is that they seem to consist of a great many small (but relatively stable) sources of variance (personality traits, idiosyncratic traits, study habits, interests, drive, etc.) rather than just a few large, measurable traits. This is probably why attempts to improve the prediction of scholastic performance by including personality scales along with cognitive tests have shown little promise of raising predictive validity appreciably above that attributable to IQ alone. In the noncognitive realm, no general factor, or any combination of broad group factors, has been discovered that appreciably increases the predictive validity over and above the prediction from IQ alone.
  
  Although IQ tests are highly g loaded, they also measure other factors in addition to g, such as verbal and numerical abilities. It is of interest, then, to ask how much the reported validity of IQ for predicting scholastic success can be attributed to g and how much to other factors independent of g.
  
  The psychometrician Robert L. Thorndike [13] analyzed data specifically to answer this question. He concluded that 80 to 90 percent of the predictable variance in scholastic performance is accounted for by g, with 10 to 20 percent of the variance predicted by other factors measured by the IQ or other tests. This should not be surprising, since highly g-loaded tests that contain no verbal or numerical factors or information content that resembles anything taught in school (the Raven matrices is a good example) are only slightly less correlated with various measures of scholastic performance than are the standard IQ and scholastic aptitude tests, which typically include some scholastic content. Clearly the predictive validity of g does not depend on the test's containing material that children are taught in school or at home. Pupils' grades in different academic subjects share a substantial common factor that is largely g. 14
  
  The reason that IQ tests predict academic achievement better than any other measurable variable is that school learning itself is g-demanding. Pupils must continually grasp "relations and correlates" as new material is introduced, and they must transfer previously learned knowledge and skills to the learning of new material. These cognitive activities, when specifically investigated, are found to be heavily g loaded. It has also been found that various school subjects differ in their g demands. Mathematics and written composition, for example, are more g-demanding than arithmetic computation and spelling. Reading comprehension is so g loaded and also so crucial in the educational process as to warrant a separate section (p. 280 ).
  
  The number of years of formal education that a person acquires is a relatively crude measure of educational attainment. It is quite highly correlated with IQ, typically between +.60 and +70. 15 This correlation cannot be explained as entirely the result of more education causing higher IQ. A substantial correlation exists even if the IQ is measured at an age when all persons have had the same number of years of schooling. Validity coefficients in the range of .40 to .50 are found between IQ at age seven and amount of education completed by age 40. [16]

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. pp277-279.)



In other words, not everyone who has the same amount of schooling, and even attains the same grades, has learned the same amount; and the amount that a person both has learned, and will learn in the future, is most highly correlated with g. Since the academic records of students applying for college are largely based on the whims of their teachers, g remains a better predictor of college-level educational-attainment than pre-college academic record.

I agree that IQ scores should have considerable weight in college admissions. IQ have been shown to have enormous correlation to one's ability and has a better correlation than either SAT score or GPA. But since IQ is prevented from being used in admission, we go with the next best thing which is SAT and GPA.

 

[BlackVision]

Good news! For people for racial equality and that are against affirmative action. Michigan, the state where that whole controversy started that went all the way to the US Supreme Court, is placing a proposition on the November ballot to ban affirmative action throughout the state.

Latest poll in Michigan show that 52% support an affirmative action ban while 39% opposes it. Several states have already banned affirmative action. Such as Washington, Florida, Texas. And no doubt even more states will soon also.

How ironic it would be for University of Michigan to spend millions of dollars on lawyers and legal fees and go all the way to the US Supreme Court to try and keep affirmative action, only for it to be banned a year later by the voters of Michigan.

Links:
http://www.freep.com/news/education/affirm13_20040113.htm
http://www.legaled.com/michiganvote.htm
http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0312/14/d01-7369.htm

 

[shonagon53]

Again, blackvision, have you ever thought about the initial reasons behind affirmative action? I have no problem with you being against it, but I really doubt it whether you understand what it's all about.

It can be in the interest of an entire community to include the weaker and even promote them, at the expense of an extremely small minority within that same community.

You can even approach this from an economic, utilitarian point of view: in total and in the long run, more people will benefit from affirmative action than when you would have a simple exclusivist model.

Again, affirmative action was an idea launched by the brighter minds in American society.

 

[BlackVision]

Again, blackvision, have you ever thought about the initial reasons behind affirmative action?

If you studied affirmative action at all, you would know that the initial goal of affirmative action was to eliminate "racial preference" not practice it. Affirmative action was introduced by President Johnson as a way for race, gender, to be a non issue. The current definition of affirmative action is certainly completely the opposite of the original definition and use.

It can be in the interest of an entire community to include the weaker and even promote them, at the expense of an extremely small minority within that same community.

In that case, please allow weaker shorter asian players in the NBA. Let's see some affirmative action here.

Again, affirmative action was an idea launched by the brighter minds in American society.

If you are referring to the initial and original affirmative action policy, you are correct.

"Affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

 

[shonagon53]

In that case, please allow weaker shorter asian players in the NBA. Let's see some affirmative action here.
[/b]"

Lol, that's funny. You should read George Perec's famous little novel about sport as a metaphor for society. It all ends rather tragicomically... Sieg Heil!

W, ou Le Souvenir d'Enfance. In it, he writes about his childhood years but, typically for him, that narrative is interspersed with chapters about a wholly different subject: the description of a Dystopian island, named "W", where life is equated to one gigantic Spartan sports competition.

It's in French, but that shouldn't be a problem for you.

 

[FZ+]

This statement is missing information. What is it you might be trying to reliably predict?

To put it cynically, return on investment.

Blacks, hispanics have a much larger advantage and more of an opportunity than whites and asians.

Really? I remember plenty of crime and wealth related statistics which contradict this.

 

[Loren Booda]

BlackVision,

I believe that overachievers, such as Jews in general (to whom you seemingly have given your support), are less intimidated than you in seeking social recompense for those apportioned either inferior government services (e. g., public education) or disparate treatment under the law (e. g., segregation).

Also, are you against reparation to those Japanese interred by the U.S. during WWII?

 

[BlackVision]

Also, are you against reparation to those Japanese interred by the U.S. during WWII?

I would be for the reparation toward the actual Japanese people that did get imprisoned in the US during WWII. However I would not support reparation for their sons and daughters or grandsons and grand daughters that did not experience that horror. And I certainly will not support a system that isn't meant for reparation but solely meant for the preference of one race over another.

 

[plus]

To put it cynically, return on investment.


Really? I remember plenty of crime and wealth related statistics which contradict this.

Simply if at age 50 I had more wealth than someone else at that age does not necessarily mean that I had more opportunities. I may have worked incredibly hard, been more skilful, or maybe I just won the lottery.

I did not know that in order to be classified as disadvantaged I had to murder people.

 

[FZ+]

Simply if at age 50 I had more wealth than someone else at that age does not necessarily mean that I had more opportunities. I may have worked incredibly hard, been more skilful, or maybe I just won the lottery.

Er, so black people have less chance of winning the lottery?

We are talking about averages here. The average child of an ethnic minority is likely to be brought up in greater poverty than a member of the current majority.

I did not know that in order to be classified as disadvantaged I had to murder people.

Aha. Victim of classic misrepresentation of statistics. Parallel to the figures that show blacks as disporportionately represented as criminals, are statistics showing blacks to be disporportionately represented as victims of crime. (In fact, this probably leads to the former. Crime begets crime.)

 

[BlackVision]

Parallel to the figures that show blacks as disporportionately represented as criminals, are statistics showing blacks to be disporportionately represented as victims of crime. (In fact, this probably leads to the former. Crime begets crime.)

All races commit most of their murders within their own race. Meaning most victims of whites are killed by whites, most victims of blacks are killed by blacks, etc etc. However a black person is far more likely to commit an interracial crime than a white person is.

 

[Loren Booda]

Of all races, which has been delegated by the others to occupy the bottom of the pecking order, the figurative whipping-boy? All roads lead to Africa, as much random a choice as it is purposeful.

BlackVision, have you ever known a black person you could call friend?

Again,

I believe that overachievers, such as Jews in general (to whom you seemingly have given your support), are less intimidated than you in seeking social recompense for those apportioned either inferior government services (e. g., public education) or disparate treatment under the law (e. g., segregation).

Jews have succeeded through adversity, and by risking their lives for the civil rights of all minorities, they show me a belief that racist policies of our country can be overcome by social, if not necessarily economic, effort.

 

[Tasthius]

Jews have succeeded through adversity, and by risking their lives for the civil rights of all minorities, they show me a belief that racist policies of our country can be overcome by social, if not necessarily economic, effort.

In other words, through mendacious brainwashing. The big lie, indeed.

 

[plus]

Er, so black people have less chance of winning the lottery?

We are talking about averages here. The average child of an ethnic minority is likely to be brought up in greater poverty than a member of the current majority.

So a jew is likely to be brought up in greater poverty than the whites? I think that if this is a reason given to bring in quotas then it should be changed to a more efficient method of giving advantages solely to those brought up in poverty. An easy example would be to set quotas for those people who have parents with low incomes.

Aha. Victim of classic misrepresentation of statistics. Parallel to the figures that show blacks as disporportionately represented as criminals, are statistics showing blacks to be disporportionately represented as victims of crime. (In fact, this probably leads to the former. Crime begets crime.)

I think there is certainly a link between the two, but one leads to the other in both directions especially when combined with the knowledge that blacks often live in areas where there are other blacks.