Thoughts? I think that this is a huge win for states rights and for fairness in college admittance practices, at least in that state. Who expects more states to follow?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
I expect most of the education based affirmative action laws to be done away with over the next 5 to 10 years. More minorities are going to college than ever before and having to have a quota of them will not increase diversity in any meaningful way. If a college wants a diverse student body they should make themselves attractive to the students they want to attend their school. I'd like race to be removed from all college applications because ultimately it only adds a prejudicial element to evaluating a student's worthiness for admission. Honestly, there is a bigger class barrier to college admission right now than there is a race barrier. I know so many White people who are either swimming in debt or just didn't go to college because it costs them more to go to college than it does for me, even though they are just as poor as I am. *sigh*
Ive been hearing a lot of that actually. I wonder if the trend will go towards class-based affirmative action, or if removing the race-based one will be beneficial enough to lower-class whites that it won't be as necessary.
EDIT: Any opinions on sotomayor's dissent? I thought it was really more of a personal vent than something a scotus judge should have put forward. I also thought her perspective was significantly behind the times - I agree FAR more than class is the actual issue than race, and her dissent felt like rehashes of things that are scarcely applicable today.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Regardless of one's feelings on the efficacy of race-based affirmative action, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that a SCOTUS justice could see the Michigan law as unconstitutional. That's a pretty high bar.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Regardless of one's feelings on the efficacy of race-based affirmative action, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that a SCOTUS justice could see the Michigan law as unconstitutional. That's a pretty high bar.
The argument that convinced Sotomayor of its unconstitutionality was the "reordering the political process" argument. Essentially saying it's unconstitutional becuase it re-orders the political process in a way that is disadvantageous to minorities. I've only skimmed her dissent and haven't read any of the rest yet, but based on my reading it seems like her mind was set regardless of the arguments and reasoning, and that she was going to make the case fit the desired result, instead of the result fit the case.
Again, thats just an initial impression, and I haven't read all of the decision.
Pretty much exactly what it reads like.
Even early on, many of her comparisons are... very off, at the least. It becomes increasingly apparent that she had an agenda as soon as the case got to the court. As soon as she started bringing up racial history, my eyes kinda glazed over, and it only gets worse from there. I feel that she massively failed to address the majority opinion, and some of the logical leaps she makes really discredit her opinion on the matter.
Oh, she goes on about stare decisis in a way that I am sure Scalia will use to mock her in a future dissent. Called it here first.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
EDIT: Any opinions on sotomayor's dissent? I thought it was really more of a personal vent than something a scotus judge should have put forward. I also thought her perspective was significantly behind the times - I agree FAR more than class is the actual issue than race, and her dissent felt like rehashes of things that are scarcely applicable today.
I felt the same. She says that because it is personal to her and she probably feels that she represents Hispanics in a major way.
But the issue is exactly what you speak in the post that I partially quoted- It's about socioeconomic level, not race. It almost always has been.
Yes, blacks were most certainly discriminated against even after the Civil Rights movement, but to end it required bringing them out of the poverty zone that most of them lived in. But to attempt this with race-based affirmative action wasn't probably the best choice.
It probably would have been more beneficial (though I don't know if anyone actually attempted to do statistics on how beneficial affirmative action was), and less controversial, to have focused on a socioeconomic approach than race.
So help black people but not in a way where you are saying you are helping black people? An example contrary to what espousers of the economic basis for helping people is women in STEM, how do you end discrimination there? You can't use economic status.
So help black people but not in a way where you are saying you are helping black people? An example contrary to what espousers of the economic basis for helping people is women in STEM, how do you end discrimination there? You can't use economic status.
Because effective affirmative action, if such a thing can exist, is not really about helping black people. It's about helping disadvantaged people, many of whom happen to be black.
A black kid with a trust fund and a country club membership does not need affirmative action. A kid (of any race) who grew up in a trailer park and had to start working as a teenager to feed him/her self (and thus didn't have time for studying and extra curriculars) arguably does need affirmative action.
Regarding women in STEM, why do you think that affirmative action will solve this problem? Affirmative action inherently means that some people who are not otherwise qualified will get admitted to the program. STEM fields are hard as hell, and many fully qualified students fail out. Do you think that under-qualified people, once admitted, will magically be able to graduate? My freshman physics class was roughly 100 students, about 60/40 male/female. My graduating class was 20 men, 0 women. That's certainly indicative of a problem, but the problem is not that too few women were admitted to the program. The problem was that, for whatever reason, they couldn't make it through. By all means let's address the way we teach STEM fields in high school, let's address the culture of STEM academia, let's come up with other creative ways to effectively prepare women for STEM fields. But affirmative action won't help anything here.
I agreed with the majority. I especially liked Kennedy's statements about how it is difficult to even determine race. Before many more generations pass, nearly all Americans will have ancestry from a Black American living in the pre-Civil Rights South. How do you judge at that point? Self-identification? Submitting a photo? A few months back I opened a thread here about Brazilian affirmative action policies, where they had the exact problem Kennedy was warning of: (http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/531145-affirmative-action-the-brazilian-model)
It goes hand in hand with the constitutional justification for affirmative action being to redress past wrongs. When two generations have passed since the Civil Rights movement, exactly who has suffered because of institutionalized racism and who is suffering from some other thing is impossible to determine. I agree that there should be a moratorium on this "eye for an eye" type legal principle, and I'm glad Kennedy seems to understand the typical history of a student of any race who is meeting the 25th percentile ACT score of 28. Whatever it is, there is not a lot of room for disadvantage, racial or not.
Sotamayor's dissent, on the other hand, is way out of touch. She seems to have one way of seeing race - "I am the racially persecuted, the rest of you are the racially privileged." She seems to think quite sincerely that not being invited to the A-list parties at Princeton is the beginning and the end of racial persecution. She can even be the first in everyone's mind for the nomination to her chair, based on nothing but her race, ignoring her decison record, and still she's in with the persecuted because all the cheerleaders in college were blonde. It was the 70's. Obviously, there's no possible reconciliation in the present or the future for people who've fit themselves on a fundamental level into race-based categories.
Justice Kennedy began by explaining what “this case is not about.” It is not about whether state universities can voluntarily consider race in their admissions process, nor is it about whether it’s a good idea for them to do so. Instead, Kennedy emphasized, the question before the Court is whether voters can choose to prohibit state universities from considering race. And the answer to that question, we learned yesterday, is yes.
Regardless of one's feelings on the efficacy of race-based affirmative action, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that a SCOTUS justice could see the Michigan law as unconstitutional. That's a pretty high bar.
See, when you said that, because I hadn't read the entire article, my first reaction was, "Was that Sotomayor?" Indeed it was, and to be honest, I'm not surprised.
Sotomayor is a good example of someone who has internalized identity politics and cannot get passed the victim think portion of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
So help black people but not in a way where you are saying you are helping black people?
Correction- Helping poor people, of which incidentally there are many many black people, particularly in the deep South.
Like bitterroot wrote, race-based affirmative action makes no distinction between minorities are rich and thus (supposedly) have all the benefits of the rich, and the minorities who are poor and do not have said benefits.
I realized this while prepping for the LSAT. Black test takers were essentially guaranteed positions in the best schools by having scores of 167-169+ (out of 180) and a mediocre GPA. In comparison, you best have a 173+ and a near ******* perfect GPA if you want even a chance at Harvard.
Not a single one of those black people were poor. Sure, there are obviously poor black people taking the LSAT, but seeing as how these folks talked about taking prep courses that cost THOUSANDS of dollars... No, I don't think they were poor.
And as such the advantage they gain is incredibly unfair.
An example contrary to what espousers of the economic basis for helping people is women in STEM, how do you end discrimination there? You can't use economic status.
Which has nothing to do with why affirmative action based on race became a thing.
Do you mean active discrimination against women working in STEM-related industries, (which has nothing to do with affirmative action as discussed by the Supreme Court), or the fact that there's not a lot of women in STEM-related majors in colleges?
Oh, it's unfair? Who cares! Guess what? If you are a female or a minority trying to get into a physics grad school, you have a really good chance of doing it. It is harder for white males to do it. I didn't complain about that because it isn't that big of a deal. I knew I was good enough to get in somewhere and I did. I didn't get my top 5 choices, but that doesn't matter.
If I didn't get a job because they hired a slightly less qualified black person, I wouldn't complain. I wouldn't care. I am going to get hired somewhere. I had certain advantages growing up, like not having to live in an inner city. A place predominately filled with minorities and notorious for having worse schools. My father wasn't in jail like a lot of minority families have because punishment is unduly put on people of color more than white.
I don't feel guilty for being a white male, but I sure as hell know that I am lucky for being one.
And women are ostracized in STEM fields, hell, a study just came out that showed women in academia ostracize other women in academia. If I was in a position of hiring, I would most certainly try to hire people of color and women even if slightly less qualified. Because even if that person was well off to start with, it gives someone for other people of that race to look up to.
So the average white person in theory has it better then the average minority. You are aware that still means there are plenty of white people who have it pretty bad, just as bad as the average black person right?
And women are ostracized in STEM fields, hell, a study just came out that showed women in academia ostracize other women in academia. If I was in a position of hiring, I would most certainly try to hire people of color and women even if slightly less qualified. Because even if that person was well off to start with, it gives someone for other people of that race to look up to.
So certain people should be discriminated against on the basis of race and/or gender because other people (based on gender/race) are by definition more deserving? Thus we see what this privilege shenaniganry is really about.
As for this tired old line NO women are not according to the VAST majority of studies done on the subject. Those studies however get ignored in favor of the ones that fit the social justice warrior worldview. This subject was studied for over twenty years with dozens upon dozens of different studies produced and yet only two whose results were ummmmm generously interpreted backed up this worldview prior to the expansion of title IX. In fact more studies showed a small pro-female bias.
Ever heard of stereotype threat, because PC trumps facts in modern academia this farce continued for an absurdly long time..."... When comparing published and unpublished articles (excluding the current studies), we find that eight out of 10 (80%) published articles found at least one instance of a stereotype threat effect. Among the published articles, nonsignificant findings were almost always reported in an article along with some significant stereotype threat effects found either at another age (Ambady et al., 2001; Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007), only with certain students (Keller, 2007), on certain items (Keller, 2007; Neuville & Croizet, 2007), or in certain contexts (Huguet & Regner, 2007, Study 2; Picho & Stephens, 2012; Tomasetto et al., 2011). Importantly, none of the three unpublished dissertations showed a stereotype threat effect. This observation suggests the possibility that publication bias is occurring. Publication bias refers to the fact that studies with null results are often not written up for publication or accepted for publication (Begg, 1994). This bias is a serious concern, especially if these results are being used to make recommendations for interventions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
How do you explain that Indians, Iranians, and Nigerians are the three groups with the most upward mobility and highest levels of representation in college admissions and government office for the size of their population in this land of white privilege?
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
I had certain advantages growing up, like not having to live in an inner city. A place predominately filled with minorities and notorious for having worse schools. My father wasn't in jail like a lot of minority families have because punishment is unduly put on people of color more than white.
So does millions of other minorities.
You're making the idiotic assumption that minority=High chance you were born in poverty and grew up in a bad place.
No. That is flat out ******* wrong. The proper assumption would be low socioeconomic level= High chance you were born in poverty (as is the definition!) and grew up in a bad place.
And (I haven't seen statistics on this in a long while so I can be off), also high chance that you are a racial minority.
Still, there is a BIG difference between saying minority=high chance of being poor, and being poor= high chance of being a minority.
I don't feel guilty for being a white male, but I sure as hell know that I am lucky for being one.
And I suppose the millions of white folks who also live in deep poverty have some sort of inherent advantage over those of equal socioeconomic level? And as such they shouldn't receive anything, merely on the basis that they're white?
So the average white person in theory has it better then the average minority. You are aware that still means there are plenty of white people who have it pretty bad, just as bad as the average black person right?
Yes, I understand that. And that is coming from a white guy who was in the lower class, went to the Navy so that I could pay for college and am now in grad school. I get it, there are poor white people, but I would rather be a poor white person than a poor minority in this country. And according to this http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html 25.5% of black people are living in abject poverty in this country compared to only 11% of white people. If that doesn't sound like something endemic to black people in this country, I don't know what to tell you.
So certain people should be discriminated against on the basis of race and/or gender because other people (based on gender/race) are by definition more deserving? Thus we see what this privilege shenaniganry is really about.
What is it really about? I am a white person saying that minorities should get some help due to generational effects of poverty that they were put through due to white people. What privilege shenaniganry are you talking about?
As for this tired old line NO women are not according to the VAST majority of studies done on the subject. Those studies however get ignored in favor of the ones that fit the social justice warrior worldview. This subject was studied for over twenty years with dozens upon dozens of different studies produced and yet only two whose results were ummmmm generously interpreted backed up this worldview prior to the expansion of title IX. In fact more studies showed a small pro-female bias.
I am going to link you to the some articles I found either from Google or wikipedia.
I am pretty sure one of those 2012 papers is doubling up with the news article but why not link both eh?
How do you explain that Indians, Iranians, and Nigerians are the three groups with the most upward mobility and highest levels of representation in college admissions and government office for the size of their population in this land of white privilege?
Well, lets see here. They are newer Americans usually, within the first two generations predominately. They come from wealthy and educated families. They don't live in an inner city area...or wait, did you think that the only discrimination that exists is just active discrimination?
What is it really about? I am a white person saying that minorities should get some help due to generational effects of poverty that they were put through due to white people. What privilege shenaniganry are you talking about?
The morally insane fallacy here is the idea that someone can be reponsible for someone elses actions and someone can be owed a debt for something that happened to someone else. Not to mention helping poor people should cover helping those black people, it's just not a cruel and racist way of going about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Than what was your point other than to say that it was unfair for black people who weren't poor to get a better chance than you at getting into law school?
So does millions of other minorities.
You're making the idiotic assumption that minority=High chance you were born in poverty and grew up in a bad place.
No. That is flat out ******* wrong. The proper assumption would be low socioeconomic level= High chance you were born in poverty (as is the definition!) and grew up in a bad place.
And (I haven't seen statistics on this in a long while so I can be off), also high chance that you are a racial minority.
Still, there is a BIG difference between saying minority=high chance of being poor, and being poor= high chance of being a minority.
If you are born in a black family in the United States, you have a 25% chance of being born to a household that makes $15k a year or less, I posted that in my previous post. The same for white people is 11%. Only 21% of white households make less than $25k a year whereas black households, 40.5%.
Are you going to honestly tell me that you have just a good a chance to be white and poor as you are to be black and poor?
And I suppose the millions of white folks who also live in deep poverty have some sort of inherent advantage over those of equal socioeconomic level? And as such they shouldn't receive anything, merely on the basis that they're white?
Yes, they most absolutely have advantages over minorities of equal socioeconomic status. And you are proposing a strawman, I never said white poor people shouldn't get any help, I am merely saying that it is okay to hire and accept minorities over people who are white and "better qualified."
The morally insane fallacy here is the idea that someone can be reponsible for someone elses actions and someone can be owed a debt for something that happened to someone else. Not to mention helping poor people should cover helping those black people, it's just not a cruel and racist way of going about it.
Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible that you are able to take advantage of the fact, even slightly, even unwittinly, that you were born white in a predominately white country that has had a bad habit of discriminating against minorities? You are going to tell me that?
Than what was your point other than to say that it was unfair for black people who weren't poor to get a better chance than you at getting into law school?
... That race-based affirmative action often doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
Unless you think giving black people an unfair advantage in every sense of the word is what it was meant to do.
If you are born in a black family in the United States, you have a 25% chance of being born to a household that makes $15k a year or less, I posted that in my previous post. The same for white people is 11%. Only 21% of white households make less than $25k a year whereas black households, 40.5%.
Are you going to honestly tell me that you have just a good a chance to be white and poor as you are to be black and poor?
Again, missing the point.
If you instead created a socio-economic based affirmative action, then what would happen given the statistics you presented? Do you think what I described in my earlier post could happen?
Yes, they most absolutely have advantages over minorities of equal socioeconomic status. And you are proposing a strawman, I never said white poor people shouldn't get any help, I am merely saying that it is okay to hire and accept minorities over people who are white and "better qualified."
Fine on the strawman.
What advantages would a white person who lives below the poverty line have over a black person who lives below the poverty line?
What is your reasoning behind " minorities should get some help due to generational effects of poverty that they were put through due to white people.", and are you willing to accept the full extent of the consequences of following through on the general line of thought behind it outside of using it on things that are emotionally relevant to you or other like-minded people?
And you are proposing a strawman, I never said white poor people shouldn't get any help, I am merely saying that it is okay to hire and accept minorities over people who are white and "better qualified."
CRA says hi!!!
Quote from Civil Rights Act of 1964 »
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[40]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b).
I think that even when these laws go away, companies will still hire minorities who are less qualified than their White counterparts. They're already used to patronizing minorities into thinking they're doing them a favor and they can also continue to pay them less than their White peers. I know some people are kicking up their heels and think that now they won't be denied that cushy job at Nasa/Google/Cornell/etc because affirmative action may be on the way out. But it's cheaper to get a minority who it is assumed will need some guidance because their lifetime earnings will cost the company less than to hire a White person whose competence is assumed due to their Whiteness. I don't condone this behavior but it's something that people need to be aware of and hopefully fight against it.
And completely unenforceable in most situations like these. What are you going to do? Target the business that has a racial make-up that is similar to its location for illegal hiring practices?
"Hey now, that business has 10% black employees! The only way that could happen is if they are enforcing an affirmative action program!"
You are assuming that the law is be all end all of morality, or that the law is inherently something that is worth following, or that a law that is unenforceable is a good law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Truth has a liberal bias.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/divided-court-upholds-michigans-ban-on-affirmative-action-in-plain-english/
Thoughts? I think that this is a huge win for states rights and for fairness in college admittance practices, at least in that state. Who expects more states to follow?
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
EDIT: Any opinions on sotomayor's dissent? I thought it was really more of a personal vent than something a scotus judge should have put forward. I also thought her perspective was significantly behind the times - I agree FAR more than class is the actual issue than race, and her dissent felt like rehashes of things that are scarcely applicable today.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The argument that convinced Sotomayor of its unconstitutionality was the "reordering the political process" argument. Essentially saying it's unconstitutional becuase it re-orders the political process in a way that is disadvantageous to minorities. I've only skimmed her dissent and haven't read any of the rest yet, but based on my reading it seems like her mind was set regardless of the arguments and reasoning, and that she was going to make the case fit the desired result, instead of the result fit the case.
Again, thats just an initial impression, and I haven't read all of the decision.
Even early on, many of her comparisons are... very off, at the least. It becomes increasingly apparent that she had an agenda as soon as the case got to the court. As soon as she started bringing up racial history, my eyes kinda glazed over, and it only gets worse from there. I feel that she massively failed to address the majority opinion, and some of the logical leaps she makes really discredit her opinion on the matter.
Oh, she goes on about stare decisis in a way that I am sure Scalia will use to mock her in a future dissent. Called it here first.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
I felt the same. She says that because it is personal to her and she probably feels that she represents Hispanics in a major way.
But the issue is exactly what you speak in the post that I partially quoted- It's about socioeconomic level, not race. It almost always has been.
Yes, blacks were most certainly discriminated against even after the Civil Rights movement, but to end it required bringing them out of the poverty zone that most of them lived in. But to attempt this with race-based affirmative action wasn't probably the best choice.
It probably would have been more beneficial (though I don't know if anyone actually attempted to do statistics on how beneficial affirmative action was), and less controversial, to have focused on a socioeconomic approach than race.
Because effective affirmative action, if such a thing can exist, is not really about helping black people. It's about helping disadvantaged people, many of whom happen to be black.
A black kid with a trust fund and a country club membership does not need affirmative action. A kid (of any race) who grew up in a trailer park and had to start working as a teenager to feed him/her self (and thus didn't have time for studying and extra curriculars) arguably does need affirmative action.
Regarding women in STEM, why do you think that affirmative action will solve this problem? Affirmative action inherently means that some people who are not otherwise qualified will get admitted to the program. STEM fields are hard as hell, and many fully qualified students fail out. Do you think that under-qualified people, once admitted, will magically be able to graduate? My freshman physics class was roughly 100 students, about 60/40 male/female. My graduating class was 20 men, 0 women. That's certainly indicative of a problem, but the problem is not that too few women were admitted to the program. The problem was that, for whatever reason, they couldn't make it through. By all means let's address the way we teach STEM fields in high school, let's address the culture of STEM academia, let's come up with other creative ways to effectively prepare women for STEM fields. But affirmative action won't help anything here.
It goes hand in hand with the constitutional justification for affirmative action being to redress past wrongs. When two generations have passed since the Civil Rights movement, exactly who has suffered because of institutionalized racism and who is suffering from some other thing is impossible to determine. I agree that there should be a moratorium on this "eye for an eye" type legal principle, and I'm glad Kennedy seems to understand the typical history of a student of any race who is meeting the 25th percentile ACT score of 28. Whatever it is, there is not a lot of room for disadvantage, racial or not.
Sotamayor's dissent, on the other hand, is way out of touch. She seems to have one way of seeing race - "I am the racially persecuted, the rest of you are the racially privileged." She seems to think quite sincerely that not being invited to the A-list parties at Princeton is the beginning and the end of racial persecution. She can even be the first in everyone's mind for the nomination to her chair, based on nothing but her race, ignoring her decison record, and still she's in with the persecuted because all the cheerleaders in college were blonde. It was the 70's. Obviously, there's no possible reconciliation in the present or the future for people who've fit themselves on a fundamental level into race-based categories.
See, when you said that, because I hadn't read the entire article, my first reaction was, "Was that Sotomayor?" Indeed it was, and to be honest, I'm not surprised.
Correction- Helping poor people, of which incidentally there are many many black people, particularly in the deep South.
Like bitterroot wrote, race-based affirmative action makes no distinction between minorities are rich and thus (supposedly) have all the benefits of the rich, and the minorities who are poor and do not have said benefits.
I realized this while prepping for the LSAT. Black test takers were essentially guaranteed positions in the best schools by having scores of 167-169+ (out of 180) and a mediocre GPA. In comparison, you best have a 173+ and a near ******* perfect GPA if you want even a chance at Harvard.
Not a single one of those black people were poor. Sure, there are obviously poor black people taking the LSAT, but seeing as how these folks talked about taking prep courses that cost THOUSANDS of dollars... No, I don't think they were poor.
And as such the advantage they gain is incredibly unfair.
Which has nothing to do with why affirmative action based on race became a thing.
Do you mean active discrimination against women working in STEM-related industries, (which has nothing to do with affirmative action as discussed by the Supreme Court), or the fact that there's not a lot of women in STEM-related majors in colleges?
If I didn't get a job because they hired a slightly less qualified black person, I wouldn't complain. I wouldn't care. I am going to get hired somewhere. I had certain advantages growing up, like not having to live in an inner city. A place predominately filled with minorities and notorious for having worse schools. My father wasn't in jail like a lot of minority families have because punishment is unduly put on people of color more than white.
I don't feel guilty for being a white male, but I sure as hell know that I am lucky for being one.
And women are ostracized in STEM fields, hell, a study just came out that showed women in academia ostracize other women in academia. If I was in a position of hiring, I would most certainly try to hire people of color and women even if slightly less qualified. Because even if that person was well off to start with, it gives someone for other people of that race to look up to.
So certain people should be discriminated against on the basis of race and/or gender because other people (based on gender/race) are by definition more deserving? Thus we see what this privilege shenaniganry is really about.
As for this tired old line NO women are not according to the VAST majority of studies done on the subject. Those studies however get ignored in favor of the ones that fit the social justice warrior worldview. This subject was studied for over twenty years with dozens upon dozens of different studies produced and yet only two whose results were ummmmm generously interpreted backed up this worldview prior to the expansion of title IX. In fact more studies showed a small pro-female bias.
Ever heard of stereotype threat, because PC trumps facts in modern academia this farce continued for an absurdly long time..."... When comparing published and unpublished articles (excluding the current studies), we find that eight out of 10 (80%) published articles found at least one instance of a stereotype threat effect. Among the published articles, nonsignificant findings were almost always reported in an article along with some significant stereotype threat effects found either at another age (Ambady et al., 2001; Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007), only with certain students (Keller, 2007), on certain items (Keller, 2007; Neuville & Croizet, 2007), or in certain contexts (Huguet & Regner, 2007, Study 2; Picho & Stephens, 2012; Tomasetto et al., 2011). Importantly, none of the three unpublished dissertations showed a stereotype threat effect. This observation suggests the possibility that publication bias is occurring. Publication bias refers to the fact that studies with null results are often not written up for publication or accepted for publication (Begg, 1994). This bias is a serious concern, especially if these results are being used to make recommendations for interventions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
How do you explain that Indians, Iranians, and Nigerians are the three groups with the most upward mobility and highest levels of representation in college admissions and government office for the size of their population in this land of white privilege?
Wow, you completely missed the point.
So does millions of other minorities.
You're making the idiotic assumption that minority=High chance you were born in poverty and grew up in a bad place.
No. That is flat out ******* wrong. The proper assumption would be low socioeconomic level= High chance you were born in poverty (as is the definition!) and grew up in a bad place.
And (I haven't seen statistics on this in a long while so I can be off), also high chance that you are a racial minority.
Still, there is a BIG difference between saying minority=high chance of being poor, and being poor= high chance of being a minority.
And I suppose the millions of white folks who also live in deep poverty have some sort of inherent advantage over those of equal socioeconomic level? And as such they shouldn't receive anything, merely on the basis that they're white?
Yes, I understand that. And that is coming from a white guy who was in the lower class, went to the Navy so that I could pay for college and am now in grad school. I get it, there are poor white people, but I would rather be a poor white person than a poor minority in this country. And according to this http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html 25.5% of black people are living in abject poverty in this country compared to only 11% of white people. If that doesn't sound like something endemic to black people in this country, I don't know what to tell you.
What is it really about? I am a white person saying that minorities should get some help due to generational effects of poverty that they were put through due to white people. What privilege shenaniganry are you talking about?
I am going to link you to the some articles I found either from Google or wikipedia.
March 26, 2014 http://www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2014/03/26/study-women-heavily-discriminated-against-in-math-hiring
September 23, 2012 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/
Swim, J.; Borgida, E.; Maruyama, G.; Myers, D.G. (1989). "Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?". Psychological Bulletin 105 (3): 409–429.
Milkman, K.L; Akinola, M.; Chugh, D. (2012). "Temporal Distance and Discrimination: An Audit Study in Academia". Psychological Science 23 (7): 710–717.
Moss-Racusin, C.A.; Dovidio, J.F.; Brescoll, V.L.; Graham, M.; Handelsman, J. (2012). "Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 16474–16479.
I am pretty sure one of those 2012 papers is doubling up with the news article but why not link both eh?
Well, lets see here. They are newer Americans usually, within the first two generations predominately. They come from wealthy and educated families. They don't live in an inner city area...or wait, did you think that the only discrimination that exists is just active discrimination?
The morally insane fallacy here is the idea that someone can be reponsible for someone elses actions and someone can be owed a debt for something that happened to someone else. Not to mention helping poor people should cover helping those black people, it's just not a cruel and racist way of going about it.
Than what was your point other than to say that it was unfair for black people who weren't poor to get a better chance than you at getting into law school?
If you are born in a black family in the United States, you have a 25% chance of being born to a household that makes $15k a year or less, I posted that in my previous post. The same for white people is 11%. Only 21% of white households make less than $25k a year whereas black households, 40.5%.
Are you going to honestly tell me that you have just a good a chance to be white and poor as you are to be black and poor?
Yes, they most absolutely have advantages over minorities of equal socioeconomic status. And you are proposing a strawman, I never said white poor people shouldn't get any help, I am merely saying that it is okay to hire and accept minorities over people who are white and "better qualified."
Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible that you are able to take advantage of the fact, even slightly, even unwittinly, that you were born white in a predominately white country that has had a bad habit of discriminating against minorities? You are going to tell me that?
... That race-based affirmative action often doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
Unless you think giving black people an unfair advantage in every sense of the word is what it was meant to do.
Again, missing the point.
If you instead created a socio-economic based affirmative action, then what would happen given the statistics you presented? Do you think what I described in my earlier post could happen?
Fine on the strawman.
What advantages would a white person who lives below the poverty line have over a black person who lives below the poverty line?
What is your reasoning behind " minorities should get some help due to generational effects of poverty that they were put through due to white people.", and are you willing to accept the full extent of the consequences of following through on the general line of thought behind it outside of using it on things that are emotionally relevant to you or other like-minded people?
CRA says hi!!!
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
And completely unenforceable in most situations like these. What are you going to do? Target the business that has a racial make-up that is similar to its location for illegal hiring practices?
"Hey now, that business has 10% black employees! The only way that could happen is if they are enforcing an affirmative action program!"
You: "It's okay to do X."
Billy: "No, according to the law, X violates people's civil rights."
You: "But you can't catch me doing X!"
Do you see the problem yet?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.