Scalia makes racist comment/others deny it was racist

[Beerina]

There are now rumblings that diversity might be having the opposite of its nominal effect -- to benefit everybody by increasing the number of viewpoints and experiences. The PC climate on campi, where non-PC (not just old school harassment) sentiments can lead to investigations and suspensions or expulsions.

This suggests the opposite effect, if increasing the diversity of viewpoints is the goal. It is not surprising, given human nature and now that the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[ThunderChunky]

How do your referenced non-races compare to your referenced races? You figure it out; the distinction makes no sense.

Because the only thing referenced are ethnic groups, not (biological) races.

But if you are looking at how culture/background might affect performance, then you are in domain of argument of AA proponents, and should be asking for the effects of asymmetric experience and social expectations on performance.

The most interesting question about AA is its potential to also do the same harm it is intended to avoid:

What I am asking is if students who benefit from AA perform on par with the students that don't. Should be a simple question to answer without deflection.

 

[shuize]

And a quick glance at US history shows that they would have first found an absolutely ideal candidate to be rejected before making any sort of major push. As examples, compare Rosa Parks to Claudette Colvin.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Unless one is an "absolutely ideal candidate" one cannot challenge racial discrimination? If so, that sure is a retreat from "the harm is the discrimination, regardless of the result" standard advocated until now.

In any event, I'll be sure to keep this "perfect victim" test in mind for future reference. As with my suspicions about how "progressives" would actually react if black and Latino applications were thrown in a non-preferential pile because of their race and publicly labeled "mediocre," I suspect this "perfect victim" test is also only meant to be applied in one direction.

 

[Fudbucker]

Reading this thread, I've come to this way of thinking:

Racism towards blacks seems to be endemic in this country. Perhaps this is a holdover from slavery, which affected blacks far more than any other minority. As long as systemic racism exists, blacks can claim overcoming racism on their admissions as a factor in their achievement, and colleges should give corresponding credit (or, if I'm being blunt, blacks should get "points" for being black).

Colleges should not adopt this as a blanket policy though. A white climbing out of poverty should also be awarded "points" (or a similar struggle overcoming a learning disability).

I'm still concerned that a system of awarded preferential treatment based on race is a stop-gap solution. Something that moves us beyond race needs to be found.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would be nice if you read what text I actually submitted in post rather than imply I believe X or Y about a given race or intelligence.

For the record:
1) I don't believe that blacks (or any racial group) are stupider than others
2) I think it might be theoretically plausible (if we can find other statistical differences between groups why not intelligence?) but I don't BELIEVE it to be true because I'm not aware of any evidence supporting such a position. Even if true I imagine the difference would be incredibly small.


Fair enough

So why is it then that you think race can't be an approximation of disadvantages that SAT scores and GPAs misrepresent when used to measure blacks' abilities?

Why are SAT score and GPAs such perfect measurements of ability? Don't you think it's possible there is an inherent disadvantage to certain cultural groups using measures like SATs and GPAs? And that while not perfect, adding some points back for being a disadvantaged minority might just compensate for the inherent problems with those measures?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If there is no link between skin color and physics ability, what is the purpose of diversity in the lab?

Life.

If you don't get it this far into the thread, no amount of evidence I post is going to change your ingrained beliefs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do your referenced non-races compare to your referenced races? You figure it out; the distinction makes no sense. But if you are looking at how culture/background might affect performance, then you are in domain of argument of AA proponents, and should be asking for the effects of asymmetric experience and social expectations on performance.

The most interesting question about AA is its potential to also do the same harm it is intended to avoid:

I fail to see how this is relevant to AA. These attitudes exist with and without it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
What I am asking is if students who benefit from AA perform on par with the students that don't. Should be a simple question to answer without deflection.

It was addressed up stream. Initial claims were made that AA resulted in a mismatch with underperforming black students not doing well in the more competitive colleges. But that hypothesis and initial data were debunked. Students that get in because of AA are well qualified students. They aren't markedly worse students.

A lot of qualified students don't get into the best schools. It's not like horrible black students are getting some huge advantage. It's a very small advantage. The black students still have to be high achievers to get in these schools.

 

[theprestige]

If you don't get it this far into the thread, no amount of evidence I post is going to change your ingrained beliefs.

John 20:29: Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Alrighty then.

 

[Mumbles]

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Unless one is an "absolutely ideal candidate" one cannot challenge racial discrimination? If so, that sure is a retreat from "the harm is the discrimination, regardless of the result" standard advocated until now.

Advocated by whom, and for what reason? Discrimination in the US has tended to become immensely harmful - and by and large people *still* end up going for more or less ideal victims - a preteen in a park, a guy walking home from the store, a girl in a bikini.

In any event, I'll be sure to keep this "perfect victim" test in mind for future reference. As with my suspicions about how "progressives" would actually react if black and Latino applications were thrown in a non-preferential pile because of their race and publicly labeled "mediocre," I suspect this "perfect victim" test is also only meant to be applied in one direction.

Black and hispanic applicants get thrown into such piles all the time - because they can't play a certain instrument, or a certain sport, or they don't have certain parents, or certain connections, and on and on. Same as with people of every race. Fischer isn't being called "mediocre" because of her skin color, she's being called "mediocre" because, despite having nearly every possible advantage, she simply wasn't as good academically as the vast majority of people who made it into her top choice University.

Find me a white Texan valedictorian with a 1400 SAT score who wasn't accepted, and we'll talk. That's when you're discussing serious, actually damaging discrimination. The girl from the wealthy suburb, with the politically connected family, who couldn't manage top 10% of her HS class, and refused to attend another campus for a year, get a 3.2 GPA, and reapply? Is there *any* reason to think that she simply didn't apply herself?

 

[Suddenly]

Colleges should not adopt this as a blanket policy though. A white climbing out of poverty should also be awarded "points" (or a similar struggle overcoming a learning disability).

They generally are.

I'm from a modest working class Appalachian background. There is little doubt that because of this I was treated more favorably by admissions and scholarship boards than those with similar academic credentials but more privileged backgrounds.

I am, however, white, and even though my hillbilly heritage is about as unprivileged as it gets, I still often am treated more favorably than a black person, even one from a far more wealthy upbringing. Its impossible to separate these things out on a case by case basis, so using race as one of many holistic factors to consider doesn't strike me as that big of a deal.

Find me a white Texan valedictorian with a 1400 SAT score who wasn't accepted, and we'll talk. That's when you're discussing serious, actually damaging discrimination. The girl from the wealthy suburb, with the politically connected family, who couldn't manage top 10% of her HS class, and refused to attend another campus for a year, get a 3.2 GPA, and reapply? Is there *any* reason to think that she simply didn't apply herself?

This, except our hypothetical student needs to be like one place out of the top 10% of her class. As a valedictorian she'd get in to UT under current rules. This is their test case? A sub 1200 SAT? I can't say what her GPA says as grade inflation makes comparisons meaningless.... but I remember a 1200 SAT (out of 1600) being close to being a floor for consideration for an elite scholarship or admissions...

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I fail to see how this is relevant to AA. These attitudes exist with and without it.

The link describes a possible impact on teacher and admin opinion that could insidiously act to make acceptance at school via AA a source of questioning the ability of the candidate. But I wasn't criticizing AA, just recognizing a possible effect.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The link describes a possible impact on teacher and admin opinion that could insidiously act to make acceptance at school via AA a source of questioning the ability of the candidate. But I wasn't criticizing AA, just recognizing a possible effect.

Emphasis on someone's personal opinion. Nothing more.

I don't share it. You, of course, are welcome to.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Emphasis on someone's personal opinion. Nothing more.

I don't share it. You, of course, are welcome to.

All theories and practices have their downside, not to say they are not valid nonetheless. The research on this speaks directly to the issue of why AA is needed, as there are systemic factors beyond the student's real abilities/potential that determine educational outcomes. One relates to teacher expectations.

 

[Wolrab]

Oh for pity's sake. Did you miss the memo, skin color doesn't mean you are smarter or stupider?

I have noticed that really really pale people or people with bluish lips can be pretty stupid. They don't even know they are stupid. I am sure you can vouch for that.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What is often missed in this argument (and you alluded to it answering Skeptic Tank: "you can bet your hairy buttocks that they had plenty of their own 'Affirmative Action' moments in their lives too") is that the supposed advantage being given to 'race' is miniscule. It's being singled out as if it were a huge advantage, and, it's being singled out among dozens of advantages in the admission process afforded to whites, and sometimes also to males.

People forget that it wasn't that long ago a picture of the candidate revealing they were black would get them crossed off the list completely. Women were also not allowed in many fields of study.

Grades and SAT scores are not the only things admissions committees consider. And SAT scores have been shown to have a racial bias, I'm not sure has been eliminated. It has to do with the questions having cultural influences.

Only recently were legacy admissions ended (and you can bet for big donor alumni the practice still goes on).

And criminal background checks can mean blacks have a disadvantage, not because they are criminals, but because they are more likely to be charged with minor crimes that white kids are not criminally charged for such as a school yard fight.

And if you look at examples of what colleges are looking for, there are many subjective measures, it's not strictly test scores and grades.

Harvard admissions considerations

Is it fair that athletes with bad grades take up classroom space? Why not a lawsuit against sports scholarships?

I guess my objection is that it just seems like a blunt tool when you are making discrimations between individuals based on differences in averages across populations.

I'm sure there are plenty of disadvantaged people of all races who could do with a leg up at times.

As for sports scholarships, I kinda think the whole college sports thing is daft anyway but I don't think anyone would support dishing out basketball scholarships to short fat white guys in the name of diversity or cancelling out disadvantage.

I'm a bit of a diversity skeptic mind you as it seems to simply equate skin colour and genitalia with actual diversity. Some of it at times seems a bit gratuitous also. A former employer had supplier diversity programmes where apparently it mattered that a black person owned the company that supplied widgets to us. That seemed a bit forced to say the least.

 

[marplots]

I'm a bit of a diversity skeptic mind you as it seems to simply equate skin colour and genitalia with actual diversity. Some of it at times seems a bit gratuitous also. A former employer had supplier diversity programmes where apparently it mattered that a black person owned the company that supplied widgets to us. That seemed a bit forced to say the least.

The never ending battle between equality of process and equality of outcome. Pick one and use it to judge the other as fair or foul.

 

[phiwum]

When Fisher took the SAT, a perfect score was 1600. 1180 was a solid, though not stellar, college-qualifying score.

https://www.propublica.org/article/...-abigail-fishers-affirmative-action-case-is-r

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All theories and practices have their downside, not to say they are not valid nonetheless. The research on this speaks directly to the issue of why AA is needed, as there are systemic factors beyond the student's real abilities/potential that determine educational outcomes. One relates to teacher expectations.

You seem to be confusing actual potential with how well a person's abilities have been developed to date and how good the measurements of said abilities are.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess my objection is that it just seems like a blunt tool when you are making discrimations between individuals based on differences in averages across populations. ...

There are indeed inefficient measurements involved. SATs and GPAs may be a tad more specific than race, but the addition of a slight advantage for race is by no means that much less perfect measuring the potential of a college entrant.