[W:148] Affirmative Action promotes systemic racial discrimination.

[LessBiased?]

there you have it-Agent J cannot even admit the underlying issue with affirmative action

I don't think it has been demonstrated that AA makes things worse overall, just that it does some harm along with whatever good it does. The net effect of AA over time is difficult to gauge because society is a complex system and there are a lot of interacting factors which influence outcomes.

I think that intention of AA is good, and there's probably a need for it because there is some racial discrimination, so the trick is to figure how to effectively implement AA. IMO, preferential college admissions is a very bad way to do it.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think it has been demonstrated that AA makes things worse overall, just that it does some harm along with whatever good it does. The net effect of AA over time is difficult to gauge because society is a complex system and there are a lot of interacting factors which influence outcomes.

I think that intention of AA is good, and there's probably a need for it because there is some racial discrimination, so the trick is to figure how to effectively implement AA. IMO, preferential college admissions is a very bad way to do it.

There is a legitimate form of affirmative action that I have discussed in the past. I will find my old post and put it here rather than rewrite it. Giving blacks 20% bump on their SAT scores is blatantly wrong

 

[Irredentist]

do you think someone has a right to produce children that others are forced to pay for?

Having children is not a right at all. It's an ability; you either have it or you don't.

 

[Rexedgar]

well said but lots of those who play for the black vote, find that they get more votes by excusing things with claims of racism than telling those who are engaged in deleterious social behavior to stop those actions

How do you propose to enforce this?

 

[AGENT J]

your refusal to admit the obvious destroys your silly arguments

<reads posts> + <see it contains ZERO facts and or proof the posted lies and just another triggered delicious meltodown> = Your post fails and gets the shit kicked out of it again LMAO

the topic at hand is your destroyed posted lie below, in your next post, please
A.) back it up and prove it to be true
B.) feel free to make a post based on honesty and integrity and admit its a lie /factually wrong
C.) the most entertaining option for me and those reading. . . .dodge it again making your failed retarded posts and look even more stupid!

your posts are a good argument against affirmative action. You constantly lie while ignoring obvious facts.

 

[TurtleDude]

How do you propose to enforce this?

that's the real issue of course

 

[TurtleDude]

Having children is not a right at all. It's an ability; you either have it or you don't.

true-but why should others be forced to fund it?

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think it has been demonstrated that AA makes things worse overall, just that it does some harm along with whatever good it does. The net effect of AA over time is difficult to gauge because society is a complex system and there are a lot of interacting factors which influence outcomes.

I think that intention of AA is good, and there's probably a need for it because there is some racial discrimination, so the trick is to figure how to effectively implement AA. IMO, preferential college admissions is a very bad way to do it.

This is essentially a post I made over 15 years ago-it's archived so I repeat some of it

Let me use an example

say you are the tennis coach at stanford and your job is to get the best team possible. You have one more scholarship to give with two candidates

candidate A is the son of a wealthy man who was once a top tennis player. His son has his own indoor court and a full time coach. He is ranked #3 in the country for his age group

Candidate B is from a middle class background. He plays at a public court and sometimes has private lessons. He is ranked 15th in the country in his age group.

Now on pure merit, candidate A is better but you can make a very good argument that B might be the better athlete. A might not get any better since he has every possible training advantage now.

when someone first explained affirmative action to me they did it this way.
they used say a rich white kid who went to the best prep school in the country who got a 1500 SAT versus a poor black kid who went to a crappy public school who made 1450.

However, in practice (and I saw this as a college student at one of the top schools and then as a law student at another top school) this isn't what happens' rather I saw Black kids from Exeter or Andover get into Yale with lower scores than middle class white guys from decent public schools

I saw wealthy black kids at Yale College with 3.4-700 LSAT scores routinely admitted to Harvard Law while white kids with no more income with 3.7 and 750 were usually Turned down.

One year at Yale Law-over 500 white males who were turned down had a higher GPA/LSAT score than most if not all of the top 10 ranking blacks admitted

black became "disadvantaged" and white became "advantaged".

theoretically I don't oppose affirmative action if you truly get the person who has performed the best given the circumstances

in reality its racism and needs to be stamped out

 

[weaver2]

Women make less because they dont work near as many hours as men. They call off and take time off way more often too. Ive been in management for years and see it first-hand.

You are right. Women are almost always the responsible party for children and elderly parents, so they take time to deal with other people's needs. They take time off to give birth. Their time off is almost never frivolous. Our society has knowingly given women those responsibilities and simultaneously denied working women; paid maternity leave, family leave, adequate sick leave, personal days, almost no vacation time and then kept promotions and wages low because they don't work as many hours.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are right. Women are almost always the responsible party for children and elderly parents, so they take time to deal with other people's needs. They take time off to give birth. Their time off is almost never frivolous. Our society has knowingly given women those responsibilities and simultaneously denied working women; paid maternity leave, family leave, adequate sick leave, personal days, almost no vacation time and then kept promotions and wages low because they don't work as many hours.

what is a salary other than payment for the commodity known as labor? if you provide less labor, why should you be paid as much as someone who does provide more of that commodity?

 

[Rexedgar]

that's the real issue of course

This is essentially a post I made over 15 years ago-it's archived so I repeat some of it

Let me use an example

say you are the tennis coach at stanford and your job is to get the best team possible. You have one more scholarship to give with two candidates

candidate A is the son of a wealthy man who was once a top tennis player. His son has his own indoor court and a full time coach. He is ranked #3 in the country for his age group

Candidate B is from a middle class background. He plays at a public court and sometimes has private lessons. He is ranked 15th in the country in his age group.

Now on pure merit, candidate A is better but you can make a very good argument that B might be the better athlete. A might not get any better since he has every possible training advantage now.

when someone first explained affirmative action to me they did it this way.
they used say a rich white kid who went to the best prep school in the country who got a 1500 SAT versus a poor black kid who went to a crappy public school who made 1450.

However, in practice (and I saw this as a college student at one of the top schools and then as a law student at another top school) this isn't what happens' rather I saw Black kids from Exeter or Andover get into Yale with lower scores than middle class white guys from decent public schools

I saw wealthy black kids at Yale College with 3.4-700 LSAT scores routinely admitted to Harvard Law while white kids with no more income with 3.7 and 750 were usually Turned down.

One year at Yale Law-over 500 white males who were turned down had a higher GPA/LSAT score than most if not all of the top 10 ranking blacks admitted

black became "disadvantaged" and white became "advantaged".

theoretically I don't oppose affirmative action if you truly get the person who has performed the best given the circumstances

in reality its racism and needs to be stamped out

Do you consider legacy admission to be a form of affirmative action?

 

[TurtleDude]

Do you consider legacy admission to be a form of affirmative action?

IN a sense but it is not violative of title VII and it clearly benefits the university. The late great Robert Dahl-Yale's highly decorated political Scientist and a European styled socialist, noted that "legacy" admissions is why he worked at yale rather than making far more at the RAND corporation and other entities that wanted to hire him. He noted that the average scores -both entrance tests and GPAs at the college, for legacies were higher than the average students'

 

[jaeger19]

The argument doesn’t really make sense to me either. But one possible explanation would be that, at the elite school, he’s intimidated by his peers, loses self-confidence, and therefore learns and performs more poorly.

I would guess that his peers treat him badly and ostracize him, and or for him to 'fit in".. he has to conform to their expectations.. i.e low expectation.
I saw this sort of thing in my medical training. A blonde woman struggled in gross anatomy on her first test.. (weekly tests). She got labeled as "she doesn;t deserve to be here".
And no one would have her in study group. they avoided her in dissection labs as a partner.. etc. I am the only one that worked with her because teaching people helps me learn. I realized very quickly that she was extremely smart.. it was just that when she was an undergrad.. she didn;t take human anatomy since her school didn;t offer it. She took comparative anatomy (which was acceptable and actually harder).
So she was a bit behind going in.
She got through that through gross anatomy with basically my help, otherwise the rest of the class wanted nothing to do with her as they felt she was a drag on their resources.
Interestingly.. she ended up graduating 2nd in the class behind me. Because once she was out of Gross anatomy.. she rocked every other subject..

That school interaction and study group etc.. is very important for success.

 

[Logician Man]

I would drastically cut back on programs that enable such activity.

Yes. You're on DP record as advocating to "starve certain Americans/"tit sucklers" . My guess is many of those you advocate to torture ( which is universally renounced by civilized human beings ) via starvation are Blacks and Hispanics.

 

[LessBiased?]

You are right. Women are almost always the responsible party for children and elderly parents, so they take time to deal with other people's needs. They take time off to give birth. Their time off is almost never frivolous. Our society has knowingly given women those responsibilities and simultaneously denied working women; paid maternity leave, family leave, adequate sick leave, personal days, almost no vacation time and then kept promotions and wages low because they don't work as many hours.

But does this not strengthen the argument that women shouldn't put themselves in the position of being single parents unless they have unusually good resources to make it work? I understand the appeal of sex and the tendency, especially among younger people, to get caught up in the heat of the moment and not really think about consequences, but it's still a preventable bad decision to take the risk of getting unintentionally knocked up, and I fee that the people who make those decisions should bear responsibility for it.

 

[GummyVitamins]

You'd have to ask them.

One of my closest friends is a social worker in an inner city. She has her MSW and works with families. She tells me that some women she has been working with for years keep getting pregnant. She was initially shocked because it didn't make sense to her. When the shock phase wore off she realized that life gets easier the more children you have from a financial standpoint. The more children you have the more benefits you receive from government/potential fathers and it actually makes it easier financially, despite being more challenging from a home life perspective. Single data point and anecdotal. But, this is what she has learned from working with hundreds of single parents on government assistance. I think there's a different mentality for people who believe the government assistance will only be temporary versus people who have decided not to re-enter the workforce until their children are grown.

 

[GummyVitamins]

This is essentially a post I made over 15 years ago-it's archived so I repeat some of it

Let me use an example

say you are the tennis coach at stanford and your job is to get the best team possible. You have one more scholarship to give with two candidates

candidate A is the son of a wealthy man who was once a top tennis player. His son has his own indoor court and a full time coach. He is ranked #3 in the country for his age group

Candidate B is from a middle class background. He plays at a public court and sometimes has private lessons. He is ranked 15th in the country in his age group.

Now on pure merit, candidate A is better but you can make a very good argument that B might be the better athlete. A might not get any better since he has every possible training advantage now.

when someone first explained affirmative action to me they did it this way.
they used say a rich white kid who went to the best prep school in the country who got a 1500 SAT versus a poor black kid who went to a crappy public school who made 1450.

However, in practice (and I saw this as a college student at one of the top schools and then as a law student at another top school) this isn't what happens' rather I saw Black kids from Exeter or Andover get into Yale with lower scores than middle class white guys from decent public schools

I saw wealthy black kids at Yale College with 3.4-700 LSAT scores routinely admitted to Harvard Law while white kids with no more income with 3.7 and 750 were usually Turned down.

One year at Yale Law-over 500 white males who were turned down had a higher GPA/LSAT score than most if not all of the top 10 ranking blacks admitted

black became "disadvantaged" and white became "advantaged".

theoretically I don't oppose affirmative action if you truly get the person who has performed the best given the circumstances

in reality its racism and needs to be stamped out

The problem with affirmative action at Ivy Leagues is that they like to make it sound like they want a "diverse student body." The impression is that they are taking high scoring black kids from the ghetto who overachieved. But, that is rarely the case. Instead, they take minoroties from donating alumni families and upper class wealthy kids. They want a mix of skin color, but they still care about their public image and don't want people who are actually culturally disadvantaged in any meaningful way. So they largely end up with a bunch of kids who mostly think alike and have similar backgrounds, but different skin colors. Then they use grade inflation to hand out degrees like candy.

There are other ways of handling affirmative action by taking people from certain zip codes/regions and it would result in a more diverse student body. But, they don't do this because they don't want "undesirables" getting degrees from their university. The hardest part of graduating from many Ivy League schools in modern America is getting in.

 

[jaeger19]

So racism is a cure for racism. Two wrongs make a right? This lacks logic.

Not at all. In fact it makes sense. If being black is seen as a detriment... the solution is it being seen as an asset.

Racism, even the kind you champion.

Yeo.. so.

Wow, just wow....


Of course it does. What a stupid question. The problem with your logic is that you support racism against a group while pretending to be naive about the effects on the individual.

Please explain in detail. I support I guess racism that does little harm but breaks through years of racism that has been detrimental to a huge group of people.
I don't know what you mean by pretending to be naive about the effects on the individual.

 

[jaeger19]

I don't care in the context of it being justified to discriminate NOW everyone can go back in history and find that their ancestors were discriminated against. Native Americans under Lord Jeffrey Amherst and many more. Protestants under Bloody Mary and De Richeleau, Papists under Henry VIII, German Lutheran princes. King Adolphus Gustavus and Cromwell, Irish under the English, Germans under the HRE, Chinese and Koreans under Imperial Japan, Most of South African blacks under Shaka Zulu. All South African blacks under the Nationalist Party, RSA. Jews under numerous regimes and groups. etc etc etc etc etc

none of that justifies current racial discrimination under affirmative action

Sure you can. Which is why, we have special programs for native americans.. because the generational discrimination they faced continues to have consequences The same for African americans.

And of course is justified. It corrects a wrong.. without doing any real harm to you or white people in general.

You may have a hard time realizing this.. but white people STILL hold the majority of CEO positions, majority of political positions, judge positions.. etc.
And thats after DECADES of the so called "racism"..under affirmative action.

I can point to examples of institutional racism against african americans and draw a clear line to the fact that african americans are more likely to be poor, etc.. and less represented in power etc.

CAn you show me how Affirmative action.. which you claim is racist. Has done the same to white people and now white people are not the dominant race with more rich, more power etc?

If not.. then it would be hard to argue that the racism that african americans experience is the SAME as white people experience under affirmative action.

 

[jaeger19]

The problem with affirmative action at Ivy Leagues is that they like to make it sound like they want a "diverse student body." The impression is that they are taking high scoring black kids from the ghetto who overachieved. But, that is rarely the case. Instead, they take minoroties from donating alumni families and upper class wealthy kids. They want a mix of skin color, but they still care about their public image and don't want people who are actually culturally disadvantaged in any meaningful way. So they largely end up with a bunch of kids who mostly think alike and have similar backgrounds, but different skin colors. Then they use grade inflation to hand out degrees like candy.

There are other ways of handling affirmative action by taking people from certain zip codes/regions and it would result in a more diverse student body. But, they don't do this because they don't want "undesirables" getting degrees from their university. The hardest part of graduating from many Ivy League schools in modern America is getting in.

I agree with this.
I think that this is very much done. And what it does in some cases is give a bump to an african american child that doesn't really need one instead of a african american child or poor hispanic or even a poor white kid etc that does need a bump.

If you say did admissions by poverty level.. then african americans would still be well represented because they are over represented in poverty. BUT the african americans you had.. would be actually those that need the help.

 

[jaeger19]

I cannot help it if you don't research the issue The concept of academic mismatch is well documented. I also suspect you weren't experienced at top level schools where this is obvious. I have yet to see a good argument why the very top schools should pass over smarter or higher performing students, based purely on race-which is exactly what affirmative racism does

How Affirmative Action at Colleges Hurts Minority Students

On Dec. 9, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case involving the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in admissions. Though the Court has long accepted the practice of state-run schools factoring race and ethnicity into their decisions about whether to admit...

www.heritage.org

Well yes..I understand your concept..
I also point out that it's illogical.
The bar exam is a standardized test.
Regardless of school attended you have to have knowledge of a certain amount of material to pass it.
Presumably a higher level of school would present the material to pass the bar and then some. And may require a higher level of understanding for a passing grade.
The lower level of school would still present the material to pass the bar but be less rigorous in knowledge for passing.

But...in either case.. the material to pass the bar would have to be presented in either school.

If the black kid could absorb what he needed to know to pass the bar from the lesser school.
Why? With the same brains. Drive etc..
Would he NOT be able to learn THE SAME MATERIAL at the higher school when presented to him.?

There really is only two good hypothesis.
Either the teaching methods in the " Elite" school are inferior to the lesser school.

Or the socio cultural issues at the " elite " school make learning the material difficult for the minority at the elite school.
For example being ostracized from study groups.
By the way. I have taught at elite schools as well as gone there. My experience is far more than yours I expect. In fact I have been on the admissions committee.

 

[jaeger19]

People who think that welfare encourages single parenthood most likely have no idea how expensive and exhausting raising children alone actually is.

Welfare does encourage some to be parents..that is a fact. And the timing of the kids is around maximal welfare.
We are talking a small minority but an expensive one because it's generational welfare.

 

[Maidenrules29]

You are right. Women are almost always the responsible party for children and elderly parents, so they take time to deal with other people's needs. They take time off to give birth. Their time off is almost never frivolous. Our society has knowingly given women those responsibilities and simultaneously denied working women; paid maternity leave, family leave, adequate sick leave, personal days, almost no vacation time and then kept promotions and wages low because they don't work as many hours.

You are absolutely correct. The better question is this. WHO should subsidize/fund sick leave and family leave for anyone except the sick leave your employer gives you that you accrue, and these women who need to perform these altruistic tasks? Having a child or not is a womans OWN decision. My tax dollars should NOT go to that. That's why the gubmint goes after sperm donors for child support. Elderly parents? The elderly have social security and medicare and usually as a bonus, family to help take care of them. I took 2 months off from my job and used all of my PTO and the rest NO pay to help care for my mother who was in hospice and dying from cancer. I know what its like to have to sacrifice for a loved one. There is only so much we can ask our employers or the government ( read: taxpayers ) to pay for.

 

[jaeger19]

I'm interested in improving outcomes by fixing the problem at the root, which is women and men making choices which result in single parent homes (unwed mothers). These poor choices are obviously most acute in black communities. If black people make better choices on par with whites and Asians, the problem will be mostly gone in about a generation. If instead, they perpetuate these poor choices, the problem will never go away, and it's not the responsibility of the rest of society to try to indefinitely compensate for those poor choices.

I'll be blunt: black people need to spend less time complaining about discrimination and acting like victims, and instead make better choices and do the work needed to be successful. Lots of black people are doing that, and I applaud and celebrate it. But too many black people aren't doing it, and not only are they harming themselves, but they're also making black people look bad in general, which does a real disservice to the black people who have their act together and are wrongly stigmatized because they're black. I have previously and currently employ black people. The ones who lacked motivation and/or acted like victims underperformed. The ones who were confident and worked hard were successful.

Just so you know..the whole ..single parent. Out of wedlock ..poor choice thing is complete bs.
It's a right wing talking point that has no basis in fact.

 

[jaeger19]

true-but why should others be forced to fund it?

Because you need workers to mow your lawn..draw your bath and have your slippers ready?