Scalia makes racist comment/others deny it was racist

[Skeptic Ginger]

ST, do you not notice the irony in your sour grapes whining?

Barack Obama: Affirmative Action's Best Poster Child?

The reason that President Obama has been able "to duck this" is that opponents of affirmative action realize that if he was in fact a beneficiary, he is perhaps the ideal example of the policy gone right. His admission to Harvard Law School demonstrably wasn't tainted by the notion that he didn't belong there: He made sure of that by graduating magna cum laude, his peers selected him editor of the Harvard Law Review, and classmates and professors gush on and on about how impressed they were by the guy. Then there's the institution's perspective. Harvard University is obsessed with training future leaders.

In particular, in case you need it spelled out:

If it's true that Barack Obama couldn't get into college without a boost from affirmative action, then the fact that he later went on to become President of the United States of America would surely go to show that affirmative action is a good idea! The concern that super-talented people were getting locked out of opportunities is exactly the sort of thing affirmative action is supposed to resolve.

By the way, notice the italics.

 

[Fudbucker]

What is it about neutralizing a rigged system don't you get?

I would have no problem with it, but it's a zero-sum game: if X gets points for being a certain race, and Y doesn't, X will have an advantage over Y.

And as others have pointed out, the system can be "rigged" all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with race: being born into a poor family, having incompetent parents, only having one parent, being born with a learning disability, having below average intelligence, etc.

In the end, getting preferential treatment for being a certain race is just going to perpetuate the stereotype that members of that race are inferior and can't succeed without help.

 

[Mumbles]

I would have no problem with it, but it's a zero-sum game: if X gets points for being a certain race, and Y doesn't, X will have an advantage over Y.

And as others have pointed out, the system can be "rigged" all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with race: being born into a poor family, having incompetent parents, only having one parent, being born with a learning disability, having below average intelligence, etc.

In the end, getting preferential treatment for being a certain race is just going to perpetuate the stereotype that members of that race are inferior and can't succeed without help.

And the point is that it *is* rigged in many ways, many of which do vary with race and ethnicity - and many of which necessarily effect black students negatively. Many people would be amazed by the number of black parents of gifted children still end up having to fight tooth and nail to get them into advanced high school classes, as one example. Family wealth and family history with "elite" universities is another. And quite a few are simply entirely unconcerned with such matters, yet are enraged at the idea of any black person getting an advantage at any point due to skin color. And again, this often carries over to where black people are demonstrably actually *disadvantaged*, such as hiring and job evaluations.

And in any case, the end result of Scalia's argument isn't black students going to "lesser" colleges, but rather turning to HCBUs like Howard University rather than PWIs (Predominantly White Institutions).

(Truth told, I'm not a huge fan of AA admission policies, but it's not for any of the reasons here. Rather, I see it as a band-aid used to patch severed limb - nowhere near enough to get to the equal country we're supposedly striving to become)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would have no problem with it, but it's a zero-sum game: if X gets points for being a certain race, and Y doesn't, X will have an advantage over Y.

This starts with the false premise that Y didn't start with an advantage over X in the first place.

 

[Fudbucker]

And the point is that it *is* rigged in many ways, many of which do vary with race and ethnicity - and many of which necessarily effect black students negatively. Many people would be amazed by the number of black parents of gifted children still end up having to fight tooth and nail to get them into advanced high school classes, as one example. Family wealth and family history with "elite" universities is another. And quite a few are simply entirely unconcerned with such matters, yet are enraged at the idea of any black person getting an advantage at any point due to skin color. And again, this often carries over to where black people are demonstrably actually *disadvantaged*, such as hiring and job evaluations.

And in any case, the end result of Scalia's argument isn't black students going to "lesser" colleges, but rather turning to HCBUs like Howard University rather than PWIs (Predominantly White Institutions).

(Truth told, I'm not a huge fan of AA admission policies, but it's not for any of the reasons here. Rather, I see it as a band-aid used to patch severed limb - nowhere near enough to get to the equal country we're supposedly striving to become)

I see this side of it too. I don't know what the answer is.

 

[shuize]

Again, it doesn't matter much here - AA is simply not the issue in the accuser's case, due to her own mediocre achievements, grades, and test scores. She wouldn't have been admitted regardless, so she suffered no loss due to any AA policy. But in any case, the answer appears to be "no".

The bad-mouthing of Ms. Fisher's qualifications is amusing. I'd love to see the SJW's reactions if anyone dared label a minority applicant with a reported 3.59 GPA, 1180 SAT, top 12% in her class, orchestra, math competition and volunteer experience with Habitat for Humanity just ... "mediocre."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see this side of it too. I don't know what the answer is.

Switch from race to points for economic disadvantage if that is the issue. Continue to have points for minorities be it race or gender (in STEM fields need more females, maybe nursing and teaching need more males) to achieve diversity. It does matter.


Another question asked (I believe it was Scalia but it could have been someone else) was how does diversity help in physics class. It was almost too ignorant to take seriously. The benefits of diversity are not limited to knowledge contributions in the field. One might experience different ways of viewing things or benefit from just being exposed to more than all white male colleagues.

 

[shuize]

Switch from race to points for economic disadvantage if that is the issue. Continue to have points for minorities be it race or gender (in STEM fields need more females, maybe nursing and teaching need more males) to achieve diversity. It does matter.


Another question asked (I believe it was Scalia but it could have been someone else) was how does diversity help in physics class. It was almost too ignorant to take seriously. The benefits of diversity are not limited to knowledge contributions in the field. One might experience different ways of viewing things or benefit from just being exposed to more than all white male colleagues.

If the claimed benefit of "diversity" in physics classes is being exposed to "more than all white male colleagues," I think the SJWs can stop crying, since the Asians have it pretty well covered without the need to resort to racial discriminatory admission practices. Of course, I know that our "progressive" friends don't actually count Asains as "real" minorities and are happy to lump them all in with the whites when trying to achieve their idea of correct "diversity."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you misconstrue the definition of diversity, shuize.

 

[332nd]

The bad-mouthing of Ms. Fisher's qualifications is amusing. I'd love to see the SJW's reactions if anyone dared label a minority applicant with a reported 3.59 GPA, 1180 SAT, top 12% in her class, orchestra, math competition and volunteer experience with Habitat for Humanity just ... "mediocre."

Hi! Minority here who had a 3.46 GPA, 1300 SAT, 5th or 6th in my class, Drama, Football, Track, Wrestling, Student government, volunteer for animal rescue & Habitat for Humanity, & I was "Ho-Hummed" by UNC my senior year. If that's all she had I can see it being considered mediocre by a top tier school.

 

[Mumbles]

The bad-mouthing of Ms. Fisher's qualifications is amusing. I'd love to see the SJW's reactions if anyone dared label a minority applicant with a reported 3.59 GPA, 1180 SAT, top 12% in her class, orchestra, math competition and volunteer experience with Habitat for Humanity just ... "mediocre."

I don't know about any of these SJWs, but as a black student with a 1450 SAT (back in the early 1990s), I'd tell anyone with her record to have a backup plan. Her scores simply aren't all that great - is anything, at an elite University she'd be downright subpar.

Which isn't to say she couldn't graduate, but then again, that also undermines Scalia's argument that black or Hispanic students with similar qualifications would be better off going to a "lesser" school while she (and the white students with lower scores that also got admitted, but that nobody is talking about for some unexplained reason) should attend her state's flagship public University.

 

[Mumbles]

Another question asked (I believe it was Scalia but it could have been someone else) was how does diversity help in physics class. It was almost too ignorant to take seriously. The benefits of diversity are not limited to knowledge contributions in the field. One might experience different ways of viewing things or benefit from just being exposed to more than all white male colleagues.

To put it another way, it might help you to anticipate the reaction (whether or not the reaction is *fair* is not the concern here) that you'll get by, say, wearing a shirt with scantily-clad women on it during an international triumph, or tell a joke about how you make women cry.

Because, for real, you do have to watch what you say and wear when you get to that level, and usually far before you get to that level. And whether or not that's a good thing is another issue - that's simply how it is. And the people who don't like that are merely SJWs. pushing their fake outrage agendas.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

forget it.

 

[Fudbucker]

Switch from race to points for economic disadvantage if that is the issue. Continue to have points for minorities be it race or gender (in STEM fields need more females, maybe nursing and teaching need more males) to achieve diversity. It does matter.


Another question asked (I believe it was Scalia but it could have been someone else) was how does diversity help in physics class. It was almost too ignorant to take seriously. The benefits of diversity are not limited to knowledge contributions in the field. One might experience different ways of viewing things or benefit from just being exposed to more than all white male colleagues.

I agree on giving points for economic disadvantage. That doesn't single out any specific race. I still have a problem with points based solely on race.

Suppose you had a wealthy black kid applying to Harward vs. a middle-class white-kid. Academically, both look equal on paper. I have problems making the white kid a sacrificial lamb to the altar of "diversity" or "leveling the playing field".

On the other hand, I watched the YouTube video where a white guy walks along with an AR15 in an open carry state and then a black guy does the same thing (also, in an open carry state): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvW_zBvJlsA

As long as blacks have to deal with crap like that, society can't just ignore the endemic racism that permeates much of society.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To put it another way, it might help you to anticipate the reaction (whether or not the reaction is *fair* is not the concern here) that you'll get by, say, wearing a shirt with scantily-clad women on it during an international triumph, or tell a joke about how you make women cry.

Because, for real, you do have to watch what you say and wear when you get to that level, and usually far before you get to that level. And whether or not that's a good thing is another issue - that's simply how it is. And the people who don't like that are merely SJWs. pushing their fake outrage agendas.

Exactly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree on giving points for economic disadvantage. That doesn't single out any specific race. I still have a problem with points based solely on race.

Suppose you had a wealthy black kid applying to Harward vs. a middle-class white-kid. Academically, both look equal on paper. I have problems making the white kid a sacrificial lamb to the altar of "diversity" or "leveling the playing field".

You miss the point. Read Mumbles post for why it benefits all the students to have a diverse classroom.

As for the wealthy black kid, admissions committees consider more than just race. If two candidates are tied, and diversity is needed, why not consider it? Your assumption is that the candidates are not tied and the black student has an advantage. Given how few rich black students one might encounter, that would be an extremely rare occurrence.

 

[shuize]

As for the wealthy black kid, admissions committees consider more than just race.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Sure they do. That's why they're still fighting tooth and nail to be allowed to discrimate based on race ... because they actually consider more than just race ...

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

If two candidates are tied, and diversity is needed, why not consider it?

Because I'm not a racist.

 

[Modified]

To put it another way, it might help you to anticipate the reaction (whether or not the reaction is *fair* is not the concern here) that you'll get by, say, wearing a shirt with scantily-clad women on it during an international triumph, or tell a joke about how you make women cry.

Because, for real, you do have to watch what you say and wear when you get to that level, and usually far before you get to that level. And whether or not that's a good thing is another issue - that's simply how it is. And the people who don't like that are merely SJWs. pushing their fake outrage agendas.

Most men have plenty of contact with women outside of classes.

The engineering and computer science classes I've attended were majority non-US and non-white, as were the majority of my friends during those years, and as is my wife who I met in grad school. Is it a problem that an engineering class is 5% black and 10% women when it is 10% Korean, 15% Chinese, 10% SE Asian, 30% Indian? Should we be worried that all the liberal science majors don't get to experience such diversity?

 

[Mumbles]

Ha. Ha. Ha. Sure they do. That's why they're still fighting tooth and nail to be allowed to discrimate based on race ... because they actually consider more than just race ...

Uh, Universities across the country have openly stated that they take wealth, extracurriculars, region, sports ability, family, and so forth for pretty much the entire time. There's really no controversy at all to be had here.