Split Affirmative Action Pros and Cons (split from Universities)

[Loren Pechtel]

Neither is what has been going on for ~50 years, discriminating against whites and Asians.

Harvard's present student demographics.
View attachment 43637
I assume white people make up the 40.1% of the remainder.

With that as evidence I find it hard to believe African Americans and Latinos are preferred and that Asian Americans are discriminated against.

Yet another example of assuming a disparate result proves discrimination.

In the absence of discriminatory admissions the Asian American percentage would be even higher.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm an Asian-American and I speak for about 70% of Asian-Americans when I say that we did not ask for this, we did not want this, and it will not help us.

Moreover, Edward Blum, the right-wing gargoyle behind the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act obviously did not do this to benefit Asians.

This was a project of white supremacy and anti-black racism.

The white supremacists think they will benefit. That doesn't mean that's what's going to happen.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Edward Blum's past words and deeds are irrelevant to this case?

Of course they're irrelevant.

His past work is relevant to understanding his motivations in bringing this case forth, as well as the motivations of his benefactors and the movement that he represents.

I'm not engaging in ad hominem. I'm not arguing with Edward Blum, nor am I arguing the case in court. I'm discussing his motivations. These are two separate things that you're conflating.

If a neo-nazi is on trial for defacing a synagogue, it's not ad hominem for observers to consider his swastika tattoo, his past behavior, or his group affiliations in order to ascertain his motivations for doing what he did, or understand the broader movement of which he is a part. It's putting things in context.

The gutting of the Voting Rights Act and the gutting of AA are clearly related, and they are obviously part of the white grievance industrial complex's project to undo what little this country has done to redress the grievous injury it has inflicted upon certain minorities for so much of its history.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I'm an Asian-American and I speak for about 70% of Asian-Americans when I say that we did not ask for this, we did not want this, and it will not help us.

Moreover, Edward Blum, the right-wing gargoyle behind the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act obviously did not do this to benefit Asians.

This was a project of white supremacy and anti-black racism.

The white supremacists think they will benefit. That doesn't mean that's what's going to happen.

Opinion: Affirmative action isn't hurting Asian Americans. Here's why that myth survives

The idea that Asian Americans need higher SAT scores than others to get into Harvard is a fallacy based on a misreading of a study that didn't look at other admissions factors.

www.latimes.com

In California, the ban on affirmative action at public universities imposed more than 25 years ago had little positive impact for Asian Americans. Asian American and white students may have been marginally more likely to get into their first choice of college versus their second choice after the ban, but overall access to the top tier of UC campuses was unchanged, as were economic outcomes. The ban, however, had major negative impacts on Black and Latino students’ enrollment at the most prestigious campuses, drove down their applications to the UC system overall and dramatically decreased earnings over time.

Disadvantaged minorities are hurt more than the dominant group, so members of the dominant group come out ahead relative to those in disadvantage groups.

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Edward Blum's past words and deeds are irrelevant to this case?

Of course they're irrelevant.

His past work is relevant to understanding his motivations in bringing this case forth, as well as the motivations of his benefactors

Well, why are those motivations relevant?

and the movement that he represents.

Which movement is that? You mean the movement of all the people in Western civilization who aren't on board with progressivism's project to classify people into demographic groups and convince governments to apply different rules to different people depending on how progressivism classifies them and on where their classification sits on the progressive stack? Can you remind me when the election was held in which that movement chose Edward Blum as its representative? Blum represents no one but the members of SFFA. You appear to be committing a "guilt by association" fallacy.

I'm not engaging in ad hominem. I'm not arguing with Edward Blum, nor am I arguing the case in court.

So you aren't claiming the SCOTUS ruled wrongly ? What case are you calling a "charade"?

I'm discussing his motivations.

Why? Assuming you can establish his motivations are what you say they are, what conclusions do you intend your readers to draw from that? Are you trying to get readers to conclude that everyone who doesn't appreciate the government deciding the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to her is a white supremacist?

If a neo-nazi is on trial for defacing a synagogue, it's not ad hominem for observers to consider his swastika tattoo, his past behavior, or his group affiliations in order to ascertain his motivations for doing what he did, or understand the broader movement of which he is a part. It's putting things in context.

Blum is not on trial. Affirmative action was on trial before the SCOTUS; it's still on trial before the court of public opinion. If that is not the trial you wish to weigh in on and you mean to put Blum on trial, why are you posting your discussion of his motivations in the "Affirmative Action Pros and Cons" thread? Go start an "Edward Blum Pros and Cons" thread and put him on trial there.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that Edward Blum's past words and deeds are irrelevant to this case?

Of course they're irrelevant.

His past work is relevant to understanding his motivations in bringing this case forth, as well as the motivations of his benefactors

Well, why are those motivations relevant?

Why wouldn't the motivations and actions of those with power be relevant to people who are concerned with where this nation is headed politically?

and the movement that he represents.

Which movement is that? You mean the movement of all the people in Western civilization who aren't on board with progressivism's project to classify people into demographic groups and convince governments to apply different rules to different people depending on how progressivism classifies them and on where their classification sits on the progressive stack?

Yes, yes, it's progressives who are the ones who classify people into different groups and apply different rules to them!

Show

Can you remind me when the election was held in which that movement chose Edward Blum as its representative? Blum represents no one but the members of SFFA. You appear to be committing a "guilt by association" fallacy.

He has a lot of associations.

Edward Blum (activist) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not engaging in ad hominem. I'm not arguing with Edward Blum, nor am I arguing the case in court.

So you aren't claiming the SCOTUS ruled wrongly ?

I disagree with the ruling.

What case are you calling a "charade"?

The charade is the denial by the right that this has anything to with white grievance.

I'm discussing his motivations.

Why? Assuming you can establish his motivations are what you say they are, what conclusions do you intend your readers to draw from that? Are you trying to get readers to conclude that everyone who doesn't appreciate the government deciding the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to her is a white supremacist?

If a neo-nazi is on trial for defacing a synagogue, it's not ad hominem for observers to consider his swastika tattoo, his past behavior, or his group affiliations in order to ascertain his motivations for doing what he did, or understand the broader movement of which he is a part. It's putting things in context.

Blum is not on trial. Affirmative action was on trial before the SCOTUS; it's still on trial before the court of public opinion. If that is not the trial you wish to weigh in on and you mean to put Blum on trial, why are you posting your discussion of his motivations in the "Affirmative Action Pros and Cons" thread? Go start an "Edward Blum Pros and Cons" thread and put him on trial there.

It was just an example, man. Look, if 2016 Trump says a bunch of racist shit, and a reporter publishes an article about some other racist shit that he said or did in the past, that's not ad hominem; it's providing context so that people might know more about his motivations and beliefs so that they'll have a better idea about what he might do if he obtains a bunch of political power. Point being, adding context is not ad hominem.

 

[Bomb#20]

His past work is relevant to understanding his motivations in bringing this case forth, as well as the motivations of his benefactors

Well, why are those motivations relevant?

Why wouldn't the motivations and actions of those with power be relevant to people who are concerned with where this nation is headed politically?

What "power"? Blum has no power beyond the power to make arguments. If that kind of so-called "power" made attacks on the person nonfallacious then every argument could be validly refuted with an ad hominem. If he can come up with an argument the SCOTUS finds convincing and you can't, that doesn't mean his motives are relevant because he has "power"; it means you need better arguments.

In the United States, numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946. Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone once quipped, "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."​

So are you next going to claim the Jehovah's Witnesses are "those with power" and the rest of us need to investigate their motivations and actions in order to decide what our own free speech rights are?

and the movement that he represents.

Which movement is that? You mean the movement of all the people in Western civilization who aren't on board with progressivism's project to classify people into demographic groups and convince governments to apply different rules to different people depending on how progressivism classifies them and on where their classification sits on the progressive stack?

Yes, yes, it's progressives who are the ones who classify people into different groups and apply different rules to them!

Show

What is your point in showing a photo from 1863? Are you anachronistically giving progressivism the credit for abolishing slavery, years before progressivism even existed? Are you libelously insinuating that today anybody who isn't a progressive is in favor of slavery? Are you propagandistically trying to get your readers to forget that all along from its late-19th-century origins until around WWII, progressivism was racist as all hell? Who do you think gave us literacy tests and whites-only labor unions? Progressives have always classified people into different groups and applied different rules to them. Progressivism's whole reason for existing in the first place was to promote the interests of the Northern white working class -- people who needed a political movement to protect their interests because their wages took a hit when their employers started hiring so many newly available ex-slaves.

Can you remind me when the election was held in which that movement chose Edward Blum as its representative? Blum represents no one but the members of SFFA. You appear to be committing a "guilt by association" fallacy.

He has a lot of associations.

No doubt. That doesn't make him the representative of every random white person who isn't volunteering to be racially discriminated against, and it doesn't magically make those white persons guilty of every wrong you feel like laying at Blum's door.

What case are you calling a "charade"?

The charade is the denial by the right that this has anything to with white grievance.

You keep using that phrase. What is it you mean by "white grievance"? If a black person sues because he was racially discriminated against, do you call that "black grievance"? Was the Heart Mountain Fair Play Committee "Asian grievance"? You appear to be implying that when the government treats a white person as a second class citizen and pretends the law saying people can't be discriminated against for their race has a tacit "except for white people" clause, and he feels aggrieved about that, it means there's something wrong with him, like it's a character defect for him to want to be judged by something other than the color of his skin. Is that what you mean to be implying? Are good white people supposed to know their place in your racial hierarchy, and just shut up and go along with it?

Blum is not on trial. Affirmative action was on trial before the SCOTUS; it's still on trial before the court of public opinion. If that is not the trial you wish to weigh in on and you mean to put Blum on trial, why are you posting your discussion of his motivations in the "Affirmative Action Pros and Cons" thread? Go start an "Edward Blum Pros and Cons" thread and put him on trial there.

It was just an example, man. Look, if 2016 Trump says a bunch of racist ..., and a reporter publishes an article about some other..., that's not ad hominem; it's providing context so that people might know more about his motivations and beliefs so that they'll have a better idea about what he might do if he obtains a bunch of political power. Point being, adding context is not ad hominem.

And when Blum runs for President in 2024 and somebody starts a Blum For President Pros and Cons thread and you're posting in it, instead of in this Affirmative Action Pros and Cons thread, that will become a good argument and your added context won't be an ad hominem fallacy. Blum's motivations and beliefs are not an affirmative action pro or an affirmative action con.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The gutting of the Voting Rights Act and the gutting of AA are clearly related, and they are obviously part of the white grievance industrial complex's project to undo what little this country has done to redress the grievous injury it has inflicted upon certain minorities for so much of its history.

Disagree. You are right that gutting the VRA is purely racist.

However, there are those of us who see AA as discriminatory and oppose it without desiring to see white supremacy. You're new here so you won't have seen the fact that I favor blinded approaches to things like college admission--and that's utterly not what a racist would want. To the degree practical the people making the decisions should not know race, gender or any other irrelevant bits. Publish the standards, publish where the cut was made, anyone can see if they were unfairly denied.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm an Asian-American and I speak for about 70% of Asian-Americans when I say that we did not ask for this, we did not want this, and it will not help us.

Moreover, Edward Blum, the right-wing gargoyle behind the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act obviously did not do this to benefit Asians.

This was a project of white supremacy and anti-black racism.

The white supremacists think they will benefit. That doesn't mean that's what's going to happen.

Opinion: Affirmative action isn't hurting Asian Americans. Here's why that myth survives

The idea that Asian Americans need higher SAT scores than others to get into Harvard is a fallacy based on a misreading of a study that didn't look at other admissions factors.

www.latimes.com

In California, the ban on affirmative action at public universities imposed more than 25 years ago had little positive impact for Asian Americans. Asian American and white students may have been marginally more likely to get into their first choice of college versus their second choice after the ban, but overall access to the top tier of UC campuses was unchanged, as were economic outcomes. The ban, however, had major negative impacts on Black and Latino students’ enrollment at the most prestigious campuses, drove down their applications to the UC system overall and dramatically decreased earnings over time.

Disadvantaged minorities are hurt more than the dominant group, so members of the dominant group come out ahead relative to those in disadvantage groups.

That article is very short on honesty. They never showed that the score gap doesn't exist. They just said it was balanced by essays and letters of recommendation. Note that both are subjective and easy to game. They never showed that such things are better predictions than the SAT.

Change around the situation a bit and I could see that article coming from the KKK.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I favor blinded approaches to things like college admission--and that's utterly not what a racist would want.

That's called Laissez-faire racism.

Laissez-faire racism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Allowing racial hierarchy to persist and fester is not conducive to a happy, healthy, content, cohesive society. It is conducive to a very angry, volatile, chaotic, violent one.

 

[Gospel]

Allow me to clarify something. Affirmative action is a move of appeasement, rather than one of assertiveness. Instead of imposing punitive measures as prescribed by law for those exhibiting racist behavior, it instead obligated individuals to suppress their discriminatory instincts. This reflects a recurring theme in American history, notably in the aftermath of the Civil War. The US took a conciliatory approach by allowing Confederate supporters and members to retain their existing wealth and influence. America doesn't combat racism, it looks the other way. America needs to exhibit greater resolve and assert its principles unequivocally. For instance, if a real estate agent is proven to have engaged in discriminatory practices against clients, such an act should be deemed a hate crime with associated mandatory minimum incarceration penalties.

I never liked Affirmative action to be honest. It wasn't at all necessary. Just throw the assholes in jail and call it a day.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I favor blinded approaches to things like college admission--and that's utterly not what a racist would want.

That's called Laissez-faire racism.

Laissez-faire racism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Allowing racial hierarchy to persist and fester is not conducive to a happy, healthy, content, cohesive society. It is conducive to a very angry, volatile, chaotic, violent one.

Except I'm not refusing to acknowledge it. There certainly are some racists out there.

It's just I do not accept the notion that all the problems faced by Hispanics and blacks are due to racism. The fact that immigrants do not suffer the same strongly suggests that there's a cultural component. And Asians used to be discriminated against as badly as the others--yet they're now in the lead.

Blinding the process ensures it's fair. It's not turning a blind eye to it, it's giving it no place to hide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I never liked Affirmative action to be honest. It wasn't at all necessary. Just throw the assholes in jail and call it a day.

The problem is that a lot of them weren't assholes, just people who quite rightly feared not following the party line.

 

[TomC]

I never liked Affirmative action to be honest. It wasn't at all necessary. Just throw the assholes in jail and call it a day.

The problem is that a lot of them weren't assholes, just people who quite rightly feared not following the party line.

It's more than a bit strange hearing a Wokester arguing that the solution to social problems is

Just throw the assholes in jail and call it a day.

Tom

 

[Gospel]

I never liked Affirmative action to be honest. It wasn't at all necessary. Just throw the assholes in jail and call it a day.

The problem is that a lot of them weren't assholes, just people who quite rightly feared not following the party line.

The dichotomy between individuals who passively let circumstances dictate their lives, and those who assertively mold these circumstances, is quite pronounced. If we argue that this contrast is indistinguishable, it essentially challenges the foundation of our legal systems. This perspective implies that culpability is nonexistent, rendering all laws obsolete.

 

[Gospel]

I never liked Affirmative action to be honest. It wasn't at all necessary. Just throw the assholes in jail and call it a day.

The problem is that a lot of them weren't assholes, just people who quite rightly feared not following the party line.

It's more than a bit strange hearing a Wokester arguing that the solution to social problems is

Just throw the assholes in jail and call it a day.

Tom

Given my demonstrated awareness of social and racial justice issues, why would it surprise you that I advocate for the penalization of racist individuals? It seems as though you're attempting to leverage your own interpretation of 'woke' as a form of criticism against me. Could you please elaborate on your perspective?

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

I favor blinded approaches to things like college admission--and that's utterly not what a racist would want.

That's called Laissez-faire racism.

Laissez-faire racism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Allowing racial hierarchy to persist and fester is not conducive to a happy, healthy, content, cohesive society. It is conducive to a very angry, volatile, chaotic, violent one.

Except I'm not refusing to acknowledge it. There certainly are some racists out there.

It's just I do not accept the notion that all the problems faced by Hispanics and blacks are due to racism.

You could maybe make a case for this in the case of Hispanics, but not black people. They've been here just as long as white people. Black America is not comprised of a recently transplanted mass migration. They've been here the whole time.

The fact that immigrants do not suffer the same strongly suggests that there's a cultural component.

Of course there's a cultural component. But where do you think culture comes from? Does it pop into existence out of thin air? No, it's shaped by environment and history. To the extent that black culture differs from the broader American culture, it is because of racism. If you want to tell me that black culture is dysfunctional, fine, but you have to acknowledge that that dysfunction is the direct result American culture's dysfunction: racism.

In my view, it is not only amoral in the extreme, but also counterproductive and short-sighted to expect black America to fix what America broke, with no help from the rest of us.

And Asians used to be discriminated against as badly as the others

No, not even close. The racism that Asians have faced in the US pales in comparison to what black and indigenous people have faced.

I posted this list in another thread a few days ago:

Spoiler

chattel slavery
the violent overthrow of Reconstruction
racist paramilitary organizations like the KKK
Black Codes
Jim Crow
lynching
racist massacres like 1921 Tulsa and numerous others
poll taxes
voter intimidation
racial segregation
sundown towns
racial bias in welfare/entitlements/benefits
redlining
racist exclusionary zoning
racial bias in education
racist policing
racist sentencing
racist banking
racist drug laws
racial bias in hiring
racial bias in unions
racial bias in housing markets
racial gerrymandering
and so on

Most of this was not done to Asians, and what was, was done on a much smaller scale.

--yet they're now in the lead.

The US used to have comically racist anti-Asian immigration laws, most notoriously the Chinese Exclusion Act. During the Civil Rights Era, these were replaced with merit based immigration laws. Combine that with the massive destabilization taking place in Asia caused by the Cold War and the rise of communism, and you end up with a mass influx of skilled, educated Asians into the US. Asian-American prosperity is the product of a historical fluke, not anything in the way of racial or cultural superiority.

The "hard-working Asian" stereotype is a lie. The American right likes to use Asian success as a cudgel with which to denigrate Black-America and pit Blacks and Asians against each other, but it's all based on lies and a lack of historical context. Google the "model minority myth". A lot of articles and books have been written about this topic.

Moreover, there are also a lot of different Asian cultures in the US. Some do really well, and some are worse off than black Americans on average.

You just can't compare the two groups. The Asian-American experience and the Black-American experience have been worlds apart. Black America has had a metaphorical racist jackboot on its neck for four centuries. Asian-Americans have been put through some shit, but not on the same level. Not even close.

Blinding the process ensures it's fair. It's not turning a blind eye to it, it's giving it no place to hide.

What you're turning a blind eye to is all unfairness that already happened before college even comes into the picture.

 

[Gospel]

Of course there's a cultural component. But where do you think culture comes from? Does it pop into existence out of thin air? No, it's shaped by environment and history. To the extent that black culture differs from the broader American culture, it is because of racism. If you want to tell me that black culture is dysfunctional, fine, but you have to acknowledge that that dysfunction is the direct result American culture's dysfunction: racism.

Some individuals, paradoxically, urge us to abandon history, contending that age renders them irrelevant. Yet, they selectively grasp onto their own past, with yearly commemorations serving as a testament to the everlasting importance they attribute to history. This duality emerges as they encourage us to discard our painful past, a history tainted by brutal violence & the destruction of family and community structures. Clearly, their insistence on our need to 'move on' is an evasion tactic to avoid confronting the uncomfortable truth: this brutal past is not only black peoples history, but also their own history.

 

[Toni]

I favor blinded approaches to things like college admission--and that's utterly not what a racist would want.

That's called Laissez-faire racism.

Laissez-faire racism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Allowing racial hierarchy to persist and fester is not conducive to a happy, healthy, content, cohesive society. It is conducive to a very angry, volatile, chaotic, violent one.

Except I'm not refusing to acknowledge it. There certainly are some racists out there.

It's just I do not accept the notion that all the problems faced by Hispanics and blacks are due to racism.

You could maybe make a case for this in the case of Hispanics, but not black people. They've been here just as long as white people. Black America is not comprised of a recently transplanted mass migration. They've been here the whole time.

The fact that immigrants do not suffer the same strongly suggests that there's a cultural component.

Of course there's a cultural component. But where do you think culture comes from? Does it pop into existence out of thin air? No, it's shaped by environment and history. To the extent that black culture differs from the broader American culture, it is because of racism. If you want to tell me that black culture is dysfunctional, fine, but you have to acknowledge that that dysfunction is the direct result American culture's dysfunction: racism.

In my view, it is not only amoral in the extreme, but also counterproductive and short-sighted to expect black America to fix what America broke, with no help from the rest of us.

And Asians used to be discriminated against as badly as the others

No, not even close. The racism that Asians have faced in the US pales in comparison to what black and indigenous people have faced.

I posted this list in another thread a few days ago:

Spoiler

chattel slavery
the violent overthrow of Reconstruction
racist paramilitary organizations like the KKK
Black Codes
Jim Crow
lynching
racist massacres like 1921 Tulsa and numerous others
poll taxes
voter intimidation
racial segregation
sundown towns
racial bias in welfare/entitlements/benefits
redlining
racist exclusionary zoning
racial bias in education
racist policing
racist sentencing
racist banking
racist drug laws
racial bias in hiring
racial bias in unions
racial bias in housing markets
racial gerrymandering
and so on

Most of this was not done to Asians, and what was, was done on a much smaller scale.

--yet they're now in the lead.

The US used to have comically racist anti-Asian immigration laws, most notoriously the Chinese Exclusion Act. During the Civil Rights Era, these were replaced with merit based immigration laws. Combine that with the massive destabilization taking place in Asia caused by the Cold War and the rise of communism, and you end up with a mass influx of skilled, educated Asians into the US. Asian-American prosperity is the product of a historical fluke, not anything in the way of racial or cultural superiority.

The "hard-working Asian" stereotype is a lie. The American right likes to use Asian success as a cudgel with which to denigrate Black-America and pit Blacks and Asians against each other, but it's all based on lies and a lack of historical context. Google the "model minority myth". A lot of articles and books have been written about this topic.

Moreover, there are also a lot of different Asian cultures in the US. Some do really well, and some are worse off than black Americans on average.

You just can't compare the two groups. The Asian-American experience and the Black-American experience have been worlds apart. Black America has had a metaphorical racist jackboot on its neck for four centuries. Asian-Americans have been put through some shit, but not on the same level. Not even close.

Blinding the process ensures it's fair. It's not turning a blind eye to it, it's giving it no place to hide.

What you're turning a blind eye to is all unfairness that already happened before college even comes into the picture.

Mostly good points but Hispanic people have been here since long before the United States was the United States.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

Mostly good points but Hispanic people have been here since long before the United States was the United States.

Of course, but they were largely run out by war. Then later, after the border became more permanent, many came in through immigration. The point being that a wealth disparity between an immigrant population and the broader population may not necessarily be due to racism, but such a disparity between two ethnic groups that have been here for the same amount of time can pretty much only be explained by racism.