- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,484
- Reaction score
- 47,501
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That would be incorrect.
I'm not dodging. Tet said AA has nothing to do with quotas. You said it does by implying quotas are used to determine under-representation. I let you know that quotas are not used to determine under-representation. Debate solved. Unless you have proof that quotas are used to determine under-representation then we have nothing more to discuss. I'm not interested in whatever new tangent you're on.
Excuse me, if you're implying that certain races are behind in education because of "nature", then you need to read a book.It is not the symptom, it is the problem. No amount of affirmative action can undo what nature has done. Not all people are truly born equal, except in law. This I believe is accepted by all. Given all then AA in the world cannot 'correct' a certain order of things mandated by nature. Races have evolved with certain strengths to allow them to flourish in specific environments, not unlike Darwin's observations of the Galapagos Islands.
In order to allow groups to flourish, the natural environment needs to be changed, not the society in which they live. If over 40 years of affirmative action has made nary a dent in this inequality, perhaps a rational-based rethink without PC absurdities may not be out of line.
then you acknowledge bias remains at play and yet you advocate for the end of a program intended to eliminate that unfair bias
I acknowledge some biases do exist in some places and do not think affirmative action is the correct solution for those problems any more.
then how are the biases overcome
Affirmative action was always just treating the symptom of the larger problem of poverty and underfunded school systems in minority neighborhoods.
Part of the answer is here in the thread:
Working to eliminate the causes of the biases, primarily by improving poor schools and working to encourage people to actually attend those schools.
That is what I said, there is no matter of implication.Excuse me, if you're implying that certain races are behind in education because of "nature", then you need to read a book.
Exactly, I've explained that quotas do not determine under representation. Quotas are what people illegally enact AFTER they have calculated under-representation. For example, a college might illegally decide that Asians are required make up 10% of our college population. In other words, quotas are requirements.so far you have only said how we don't calculate under-representation.
now explain how we do it, since you are positive I have it wrong.
how do we calculate that a group is underrepresented. explain this to me
Okay, just so you know, there isn't any scientific validity to that claim.That is what I said, there is no matter of implication.
you propose to end the bias by not doing anything to prohibit the ability to exhibit bias
interesting, again
and still wrong
Excuse me, if you're implying that certain races are behind in education because of "nature", then you need to read a book.
There is a lot.Okay, just so you know, there isn't any scientific validity to that claim.
Yes, you are right, that is wrong. That is not at all what I have said. Read my words. Don't try and stick your spin into them, but read what they actually say. Then actually address what I say.
Exactly, I've explained that quotas do not determine under representation. Quotas are what people illegally enact AFTER they have calculated under-representation. For example, a college might illegally decide that Asians are required make up 10% of our college population. In other words, quotas are requirements.
Under-representation is determined by looking at the percentage of a population in the workforce or education system and then evaluating whether or not your college or workplace accurate represents that percentage. If your college/workplace has a smaller percentage, then that population is under-represented. You can handle this under-representation is several ways. You can do nothing, you can increase recruitment, consider race as a secondary factor in admissions or you can illegally set quotas among other things.
As you can see, quotas come after determining under-representation - illegally.
you acknowledge bias still exists yet you want to end the actions which are intended to eliminate such bias
i understand you
appears to be too well
There is a lot.
Race and intelligence - Psychology Wiki
Saying that one action is not the solution to the problem is not the same thing as saying take no action. Why is this confusing to you?
Quota systems are illegal. Feel good about that.quota based systems will never be a part of the solution, that is just feel good nonsense.
you are so keen to argue about hiring quotas not being used, you fail to acknowledge that the term quota is exactly how we determine representation.
what you just described is a quota. In order to even figure out which groups are underrepresented, we calculate the quota
Quota | Define Quota at Dictionary.com
No, you don't understand what quota systems are when they are referred to in college admissions and employment decisions. A quota is a requirement set by a college or a workplace. Those are illegal. Moreover, if used, they can only be set AFTER under-representation is determined. This is not difficult. And you didn't need to link to the definition, I've already explained the definition several times to you. It's a REQUIREMENT. Determining under-representation has nothing to do with requirements, it has to do with what actually exists.you are so keen to argue about hiring quotas not being used, you fail to acknowledge that the term quota is exactly how we determine representation.
what you just described is a quota. In order to even figure out which groups are underrepresented, we calculate the quota
Quota | Define Quota at Dictionary.com
Quotas are illegal. The court specifically ruled there cannot be a quota system.
No, you don't understand what quota systems are when they are referred to in college admissions and employment decisions. A quota is a requirement set by a college or a workplace. Those are illegal. Moreover, if used, they can only be set AFTER under-representation is determined. This is not difficult. And you didn't need to link to the definition, I've already explained the definition several times to you. It's a REQUIREMENT. Determining under-representation has nothing to do with requirements, it has to do with what actually exists.
It means nothing more than it says. It is not just this link but a standard which whose findings are repressed because of their nature. The publication of research like this is a sacrifice at the alter of political correctness. It is none-the-less true.Your link expresses more doubt than you do. However, for clarity, lets say there is a bases for it. What do you think that means in the real world?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?