• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Diversity"

Actually that article is talking about imaginary fears of what might happen if AA is struck down...without admitting that many AA programs are set up to reduce the chances of Hispanics getting in.

AA may have been sold to some in the Hispanic community, but for others it is a bill of goods.
 
Actually that article is talking about imaginary fears of what might happen if AA is struck down...without admitting that many AA programs are set up to reduce the chances of Hispanics getting in.

OK, but why don't you forget for a moment what's "good" for this or that privileged group and think about the ethicality of it? Is it "good" to give one group privileges over another? Do such programs cast doubt in the future about the real achievements of the beneficiary? Surely you see that all this raises antagonism between the races and groups, that it's divisive?
 
I'd be upset, too, if I were denied admission after scoring 100 points higher than someone who was accepted, considering the test scores are 120 minimum and 180 maximum.

I stand corrected on that. Instead, let's look at it this way:

"Affirmative Action III was applied to plaintiff Barbara Grutter, whose application to the University of Michigan Law School was rejected. She's white, and had a 3.81 GPA and an LSAT score of 161, placing her in the 86th percentile nationally. At the University of Michigan, white students with those qualifications have an admission rate of only 8.6 percent. But 100 percent of black law school applicants with exactly the same qualifications are admitted."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30745

Is that good enough?
 
Not everything that is ethical is painless, or fair, nor will it make everyone happy.

Attempting to address old inequities by tilting the playing field has, as shown, the potential to cause friction between different minorities...but leaving things exactly as they are and waiting for a more ethical system to evolve on its own is likely to take until the next Ice Age...
:p

The inertia inherent in the relationsip between superordinates and subordinates is substantial, and just waving a Constitutional Amendment around and chanting 'everybody is equal' won't get it.

Without a system along the lines of AA, how long do weu think it would have taken for there to be minority alumni at Harvard, so that their children could start to enjoy the perks of being a 'legacy'?
Some of the vestiges of the old system had to be dismanteld, and unfortunatley it got 'fixed' in a clumsy and imperfect manner.

One of the negative consequences was when African Americans adapted to a power vacuum, and started discriminating against other minorities...AA is not the only place where this happened, but it created a double set of gate-keepers...one white, and one black, making it harder for other minorities to move up in society though access to higher education, jobs, etc.
 
It's not about race. Europeans came over and took over America, taking it from the people who were there. The people who were there might've had some European ancestry, but that's kind of irrelevant. European colonists took the land of the Native Americans. That's a given. The exact color of each group is irrelevant.

It's exactly about race - it's endlessly about race. Also the indians immigrated from asia in long successions of waves, each one trying to take the land of the previous "Native Americans" (a rdiculous term). The euros were simply the last wave. The "native americans" they took the land from took it from the previous occupants.
 
Until said company bribed enough libertarian legislators to get some protectionist laws and regulations passed.

You have fundamental misconceptions about libertarianism and need to read up on it (as presented by libertarians themselves) before commenting on it. It is only in a democratic society that protectionist laws and regulations are passed - government is explicitly precluded from such actions in a free (libertarian) society.
 
"We all know"?! That is a BS argument. You have no evidence to back up your assertion that diversity equates to preferential treatment. When I see the word "diversity", it tells me that the company is an equal opportunity employer.

"Earth to thai-boy .... Earth to thai-boy .... call home ... get newspaper and read it ..... over and out."
 
I hear this a lot and thought maybe you could help me understand how it works.

Let's say a manufacturer of bolts, selected for use in GM cars due to their low cost, has been ruthlessly discriminating in their hiring practices. Tell me how market forces will cause the bolts manufacturer to go out of business?

(An aside: in our current society, we don't have to just "say" this, GM is one of the biggest "diversity" anti-white discriminators on the planet - they DO it.)

The answer to your question is that your premise is false. In a free society, a supplier could discriminate or hire on merit. If he hires on merit, his products will be lower cost and speced quality. If he discriminates, he is not hiring on merit - in that case he will get lower quality workers, whose relative inefficiency will raise costs and lower quality. All those factors will be even worse for a company that "ruthlessly discriminates", he will have ruthlessly lower quality and higher costs. In a free society, where companies don't benefit from special favors handed out by political friends in the statehouse as with a democracy, competition is intense, and companies with strong disadvantages (discriminatory employment policies) will go under quickly.
 
Patrick said:
Until said company bribed enough libertarian legislators to get some protectionist laws and regulations passed.

You have fundamental misconceptions about libertarianism and need to read up on it (as presented by libertarians themselves) before commenting on it. It is only in a democratic society that protectionist laws and regulations are passed - government is explicitly precluded from such actions in a free (libertarian) society.
Click to expand...

Actually, you have no data on which to base an accurate assessment of my familiarity with libertarian writings... and my comment wasn't about them.

It was about *politicians* in the LP, which as has been discussed many times, can veer wildly away from actual libertarianism, and is just as likely to follow the realities of politics as any other roomful of politicians, to include getting cozy with private corporations.
 
So, suzi's slavemade sarongs (name chosen purely for alliteration), who makes the most comfortable, cheapest underwear (yes, I know sarongs aren't underwear), using slave labor in a fourth-world country, will go out of business HOW, by market forces operating HOW? (Note, I'm NOT trying to point to any one ethnic here, I know there's no "4th world"...)

Libertarian societies certainly prohibit slavery.
 
The problem is that Boeing does business with the Gvt. and therefore has to subscribe to certain policies for that privlidge.

The government doesn't have the right to violate the constitution with the implenetation of such policies in the first place,
 
However, WTF does that have to do with the fact the Native Americans were here and driven almost to extinction by European people?!

As I pointed out else where, there's no homogeneous "Native Americans", but many waves of immigration over thousands of years, each one trying to plunder the last wave - euros were just the last.
 
Patrick said:
Instead, let's look at it this way:

"Affirmative Action III was applied to plaintiff Barbara Grutter, whose application to the University of Michigan Law School was rejected. She's white, and had a 3.81 GPA and an LSAT score of 161, placing her in the 86th percentile nationally. At the University of Michigan, white students with those qualifications have an admission rate of only 8.6 percent. But 100 percent of black law school applicants with exactly the same qualifications are admitted."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30745

Is that good enough?
Click to expand...


No because there is a bigger picture.

What follows is a hypothetical, but probable senario I will use to demonstrate how a quota is not unreasonable.

Let's say that 10,000 applicants are over qualified to get into a university--these would be the top applicant hopefuls. Some are minorities.

The university can only accept 2,000 new students.

The university wants to give minorities a shot at attending so from those 10,000 qualified applicants, it chooses to accept a percentage of minorities.

Since there are only 2,000 possible openings, someone has to get rejected.
 
Patrick said:
I'd be upset, too, if I were denied admission after scoring 100 points higher than someone who was accepted, considering the test scores are 120 minimum and 180 maximum.

I stand corrected on that. Instead, let's look at it this way:

"Affirmative Action III was applied to plaintiff Barbara Grutter, whose application to the University of Michigan Law School was rejected. She's white, and had a 3.81 GPA and an LSAT score of 161, placing her in the 86th percentile nationally. At the University of Michigan, white students with those qualifications have an admission rate of only 8.6 percent. But 100 percent of black law school applicants with exactly the same qualifications are admitted."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30745

Is that good enough?
Click to expand...

Very interesting indeed. I scored 163 and 3.42 gpa (thanks to a D and F in my irresponsible years :o) which, according to this source would mean I'd have very little chance to get into Michigan. Had I tried, got rejected, and later learned that 100% of a group got in with the same scores but different skin color, I'd be disappointed. I doubt I'd have sued, but obviously it's a difficult issue.

Are LSAT tests caucasion-biased?
Do we have the responsibility of righting certain wrongs that have given test-takers like myself an advantage?

Rhetorical...I guess I don't mind a few getting in to a law school at my expense, but 100%? Hmm....

edited darn-near Freudian typo
 
c0rbin said:
The university wants to give minorities a shot at attending so from those 10,000 qualified applicants, it chooses to accept a percentage of minorities.

Since there are only 2,000 possible openings, someone has to get rejected.
Click to expand...

But the applicants in the pool of ten thousand now must compete with each other. Another issue: are the percentages firmly fixed? If 500 openings are reserved for minorities, and 1000 minority applicants are in the pool of 10000, do the extra 500 then join the remaining 9000 nonminority applicants in competing for the remaining 1500 openings? Or are the "extra" minority applications thrown out?

The pool of 10000 may all be qualified, but you are still competing with minority status given the advantage of competing in an unlevel playing field.
 
TragicMonkey said:
But the applicants in the pool of ten thousand now must compete with each other. Another issue: are the percentages firmly fixed? If 500 openings are reserved for minorities, and 1000 minority applicants are in the pool of 10000, do the extra 500 then join the remaining 9000 nonminority applicants in competing for the remaining 1500 openings? Or are the "extra" minority applications thrown out?

The pool of 10000 may all be qualified, but you are still competing with minority status given the advantage of competing in an unlevel playing field.
Click to expand...

Your competeing with all kinds of stats that are not empirical.

At A&M, as with many others, if your parents went, you get a bump...

The interview, the extra-curricular stuff, your essay, scholarships.

Ethnicity is just one factor taken into account beyond your scores and GPA.
 
TragicMonkey said:
But the applicants in the pool of ten thousand now must compete with each other. Another issue: are the percentages firmly fixed? If 500 openings are reserved for minorities, and 1000 minority applicants are in the pool of 10000, do the extra 500 then join the remaining 9000 nonminority applicants in competing for the remaining 1500 openings? Or are the "extra" minority applications thrown out?

The pool of 10000 may all be qualified, but you are still competing with minority status given the advantage of competing in an unlevel playing field.
Click to expand...
I think the different results in the two suits are because of the same nature as your hypothetical. They can't clearly define their rules; but they can have a general goal of intentionally including minorities in spite of possible lower scores. In other words, in the USSC's decision, regarding your questions about the numbers, "don't ask; don't tell."
 
c0rbin said:
Your competeing with all kinds of stats that are not empirical.

At A&M, as with many others, if your parents went, you get a bump...

The interview, the extra-curricular stuff, your essay, scholarships.

Ethnicity is just one factor taken into account beyond your scores and GPA.
Click to expand...

To be fair, only factors that you can control should be considered. Essay, interview, extra-curricular activities, and scholarships do testify to ability, or at least activity. Ethnicity and your parents' education are factors utterly outside of your control--how is it fair to use them to judge you?

It's only fair if you're willing to assign value to inherited characteristics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom