(split) Affirmative Action discussion

[Jolly_Penguin]

This solution would also apply to any schools that had previously been omitted.

Then that and that is your basis to show it is not racial discrimination. If the reason to go in and make special efforts is that the school had been previously omitted, that is a different reason than doing it because the the students are mostly black and you want more black students. The race of the students should not be relevant. If these are the solutions you seek to apply (and they are sensible) then they need to be applied evenly regardless of the predominant race of the school. Newly opened schools and schools that were overlooked but not black should be on par. If they are, then you are not discriminating efforts based on race, but discriminating efforts based on need and disadvantage and ignorance of your program (which is how it should be).

 

[bigfield]

This solution would also apply to any schools that had previously been omitted.

Then that and that is your basis to show it is not racial discrimination. If the reason to go in and make special efforts is that the school had been previously omitted, that is a different reason than doing it because the the students are mostly black and you want more black students.

That's correct.

The race of the students should not be relevant. If these are the solutions you seek to apply (and they are sensible) then they need to be applied evenly regardless of the predominant race of the school. Newly opened schools and schools that were overlooked but not black should be on par.

Provided the school is big enough, and are within the geographical area of the university, I can see no good reason for omitting a newly opened school from a college's recruiting efforts. And any school were recruiting has never taken place before will require a more intense recruiting drive initially.

 

[George S]

Thoughts on "discrimination."

Sense 1) recognize a distinction; differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"
synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw a distinction, tell the difference, tell apart; perceive or constitute the difference in or between.
"bats can discriminate a difference in echo delay of between 69 and 98 millionths of a second"
Sense 2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
"existing employment policies discriminate against women"
synonyms: be biased against, be prejudiced against...

The ability to discriminate is a good thing. The ability to judge differences is a good thing. Discrimination against people with bad character is a good thing, as MLK noted.

Since I get a bit pedantic about word usage I cringe when an unmodified "discriminate" is used as a pejorative. The synonym list leads to the better "be prejudiced against for reasons not relevant to the issue at hand." Discrimination: good. Racial discrimination: bad.

To prejudge -- be prejudiced -- is wrong whether the judgment is favorable or negative. To believe a white witness because they are white is prejudice. To believe a black witness because they are black is prejudice. Similarly with disbelieve. To discriminate between liars and those telling the truth as they know it (which still may be wrong as to facts) is wise.

It has taken me around three score and ten years to realize that police prejudice is just as awesomely awful as any other. Their prejudgment is that "everybody lies" to the police. Their prejudgment is that "civilians" are going to lie to them every time to try to avoid just punishment. Since "they" always lie it must be right to lie to them in turn. Which our courts have affirmed. It is okay to lie to suspects during police interrogation. The means justify the ends.

Grouping people into racial groups for any reason is discrimination (sense 1) by group. The NAACP is discriminatory. The KKK is discriminatory. Grouping individuals into theist vs. atheist is discrimination.

The thing about discrimination is that it is a human skill that is desirable (sense 1). Oftentimes grouping works as in: That gang with the colors and the guns is dangerous. (Especially if the color is blue, but that's my current prejudice. More due to post-judice, since I was raised to believe that the police are to be trusted.)

My proposed solution is to demilitarize police departments. Allow no one to be a policeman in a neighborhood in which they do not live. They must know (prejudge) the population as individuals before they are called in. Jurors should not be excluded for knowing the defendant. In fact, that is a good thing. It was the original idea of a jury of peers. Peers know each other and can use their prior knowledge of the defendant and witnesses to make sensible discrimination between truth-as-they-know-it and lies.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Thoughts on "discrimination."

Sense 1) recognize a distinction; differentiate.
"babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"
synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw a distinction, tell the difference, tell apart; perceive or constitute the difference in or between.
"bats can discriminate a difference in echo delay of between 69 and 98 millionths of a second"
Sense 2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
"existing employment policies discriminate against women"
synonyms: be biased against, be prejudiced against...

The ability to discriminate is a good thing. The ability to judge differences is a good thing. Discrimination against people with bad character is a good thing, as MLK noted.

Since I get a bit pedantic about word usage I cringe when an unmodified "discriminate" is used as a pejorative. The synonym list leads to the better "be prejudiced against for reasons not relevant to the issue at hand." Discrimination: good. Racial discrimination: bad.

To prejudge -- be prejudiced -- is wrong whether the judgment is favorable or negative. To believe a white witness because they are white is prejudice. To believe a black witness because they are black is prejudice. Similarly with disbelieve. To discriminate between liars and those telling the truth as they know it (which still may be wrong as to facts) is wise.

It has taken me around three score and ten years to realize that police prejudice is just as awesomely awful as any other. Their prejudgment is that "everybody lies" to the police. Their prejudgment is that "civilians" are going to lie to them every time to try to avoid just punishment. Since "they" always lie it must be right to lie to them in turn. Which our courts have affirmed. It is okay to lie to suspects during police interrogation. The means justify the ends.

Grouping people into racial groups for any reason is discrimination (sense 1) by group. The NAACP is discriminatory. The KKK is discriminatory. Grouping individuals into theist vs. atheist is discrimination.

The thing about discrimination is that it is a human skill that is desirable (sense 1). Oftentimes grouping works as in: That gang with the colors and the guns is dangerous. (Especially if the color is blue, but that's my current prejudice. More due to post-judice, since I was raised to believe that the police are to be trusted.)

My proposed solution is to demilitarize police departments. Allow no one to be a policeman in a neighborhood in which they do not live. They must know (prejudge) the population as individuals before they are called in. Jurors should not be excluded for knowing the defendant. In fact, that is a good thing. It was the original idea of a jury of peers. Peers know each other and can use their prior knowledge of the defendant and witnesses to make sensible discrimination between truth-as-they-know-it and lies.

'... will be judged not by color of their skin but by the content of their character" is not the same as saying "Discrimination against people with bad character is a good thing," You probably shouldn't try to quote King. You evidently don't understand him and you will invariably get him wrong.

You probably shouldn't speak of the NAACP. If you think that an organization founded by an interracial committee and consisting of an integrated membership for the purpose of ending segregation is in anyway equal to the KKK or comparable to a terrorist organization organized by white men in order to enforce segregation and instill fear in black people, you evidently don't understand either organization and you will get any commentary on the NAACP wrong.

You probably shouldn't speak on juries either. you don't seem to understand the rules of evidence either.

Although this post does explain quite about your other postings

 

[none]

this is like a repeat of the movie The Sixth Sense :"I SEE WHITE PEOPLE"

 

[laughing dog]

I believe that is an attempt at affirmative action. I am okay with it at this point.

Well now we are finally getting somewhere. You know it is racial discrimination, but you feel it is justified, because you want black doctors in the community and feel that is more important than asian applicants getting fair treatment. Is that accurate?

No.

 

[laughing dog]

There are always schools that are not visited, so I fail to see the relevance. Especially since those schools that are not visited were not going to get a visit anyway - these are in addition to the normal visits. So, those students are not being treated worse. So, this does not meet that criteria.

If the students in the untargeted schools are being treated differently, and not being given the benefit of this additional effort to recruit them, based on the predominant race of the school.... I see that as a disadvantage. I suppose you don't. That is fine. We can disagree. Treating people differently for racial reasons is how I define racial discrimination. Doesn't matter if it is admitting students or making efforts to recruit them.

Your position is illogical. If students at HS X are not going to be visited regardless, then they cannot possibly be reasonably thought of as being disadvantaged by not being visited.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well now we are finally getting somewhere. You know it is racial discrimination, but you feel it is justified, because you want black doctors in the community and feel that is more important than asian applicants getting fair treatment. Is that accurate?

No.

Correct my understanding then. I typed what I did and asked for clarification so not to proceed on a strawman.

 

[George S]

Although this post does explain quite about your other postings

You mean the ones where I have denounced racial discrimination?

 

[laughing dog]

No.

Correct my understanding then. I typed what I did and asked for clarification so not to proceed on a strawman.

I do not know it is racial discrimination/ Nor do I think that I "want black doctors in the community and feel that is more important than asian applicant getting fair treatment".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do you think admitting blacks on lower scores than asians is laudable and I applaudable? Or were you evading answering on that and answering on something else?

 

[Davka]

Do you think admitting blacks on lower scores than asians is laudable and I applaudable? Or were you evading answering on that and answering on something else?

you weren't asking me, but i think it's a necessary evil. Unless and until we can remove the HUGE wage disparity between whites and blacks in the USA, we are going to have to do some unpleasant things. Unless the Congress and Senate act to enforce current anti-discrimination laws.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you think admitting blacks on lower scores than asians is laudable and I applaudable? Or were you evading answering on that and answering on something else?

Expecting someone to answer an unasked question is truly silly. I think affirmative action measures to increase the number of black doctors are laudable and applaudable. If that means some blacks are accepted with lower scores than non-blacks, so be it as long as they are qualified.

Here is one for you. The hiring of Mr.  Jackie Robinson fits your definition of racial discrimination. He was hired because of his race, he was not even the best qualified black player for the job at the time and he did not play a position that the Dodgers needed to fill. So, tell us how unjust that was.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you think admitting blacks on lower scores than asians is laudable and I applaudable? Or were you evading answering on that and answering on something else?

you weren't asking me, but i think it's a necessary evil. Unless and until we can remove the HUGE wage disparity between whites and blacks in the USA, we are going to have to do some unpleasant things. Unless the Congress and Senate act to enforce current anti-discrimination laws.

And until we can get out of this pit we need to keep digging it deeper!



(You're perpetuating the problem. AA will never fix the cultural issues that are really causing it but it will build backlash.)

 

[Davka]

Does the fact that today we have a number of successful black doctors, lawyers, professors, and other white-collar professionals help or harm cultural acceptance of black people?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

you weren't asking me, but i think it's a necessary evil. Unless and until we can remove the HUGE wage disparity between whites and blacks in the USA, we are going to have to do some unpleasant things. Unless the Congress and Senate act to enforce current anti-discrimination laws.

And until we can get out of this pit we need to keep digging it deeper!



(You're perpetuating the problem. AA will never fix the cultural issues that are really causing it but it will build backlash.)

actually AA has changed the culture, making the sight of people of color in positions of authority no longer a scary proposition for an entire generation, possibly even two or three.

 

[EricK]

Does the fact that today we have a number of successful black doctors, lawyers, professors, and other white-collar professionals help or harm cultural acceptance of black people?

It probably helps to a very slight degree. The fact that there are such characters on popular television shows, on the other hand, helps enormously. People see few real doctors every year - and when they do they aren't particularly good at judging which ones are good. They probably see 100s of fictional ones however, most of whom will be shown to be good at their jobs (but with exciting private lives). Lawyers are an even more extreme example of a type which most people encounter rarely in real life compared to tv.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Does the fact that today we have a number of successful black doctors, lawyers, professors, and other white-collar professionals help or harm cultural acceptance of black people?

It probably helps to a very slight degree. The fact that there are such characters on popular television shows, on the other hand, helps enormously. People see few real doctors every year - and when they do they aren't particularly good at judging which ones are good. They probably see 100s of fictional ones however, most of whom will be shown to be good at their jobs (but with exciting private lives). Lawyers are an even more extreme example of a type which most people encounter rarely in real life compared to tv.

But you do see black teachers, principals, store managers, police, fire fighters, city council members, business owners, social workers, nurses, etc. All professions that have at one time or another had or still have AA policies in place.

 

[EricK]

It probably helps to a very slight degree. The fact that there are such characters on popular television shows, on the other hand, helps enormously. People see few real doctors every year - and when they do they aren't particularly good at judging which ones are good. They probably see 100s of fictional ones however, most of whom will be shown to be good at their jobs (but with exciting private lives). Lawyers are an even more extreme example of a type which most people encounter rarely in real life compared to tv.

But you do see black teachers, principals, store managers, police, fire fighters, city council members, business owners, social workers, nurses, etc. All professions that have at one time or another had or still have AA policies in place.

I see more teachers on tv than I see in real life too. So too for policemen (probably - most police I see just in passing, rather than doing anything police-y, so those encounters are not memorable in any way). And firefighters. and social workers. And nurses.

And I don't even watch very much tv. For people who watch more tv than I, the racial mix of the characters they see must be doing more to aid their "cultural acceptance of black people" (if they are the type who lacked that) than the racial mix of the smaller number of people they interact with in real life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And until we can get out of this pit we need to keep digging it deeper!



(You're perpetuating the problem. AA will never fix the cultural issues that are really causing it but it will build backlash.)

actually AA has changed the culture, making the sight of people of color in positions of authority no longer a scary proposition for an entire generation, possibly even two or three.

Agreed, but not a rebuttal.

What you seem to not be able to understand is that AA has good points and bad points.

The benefits of AA are related to the amount of discrimination that actually causes harm.

The harm is related to how hard we push AA.

The former has greatly declined from when AA started, but we push harder and harder because there isn't enough real discrimination to keep the enforcers busy and they need to justify their jobs.

Same program, the harm/benefit ratio has changed greatly.