Justice Dept. Sues SIU for Affirmative Action [Archive]

Loopydude

11-11-2005, 09:43 PM

And you deserve a diarrheatic pig's excrement for your blind upholding of racial discrimination.

Oh please, fuck yourself, because my conscience is perfectly clear. There are practically none of the target minorities in science grad schools. You get out of grad school, and it's worse. I've worked in three labs (including the present one) where there were none, nada, zero black or hispanics anywhere to be seen except amongst the housecleaning staff.

Nobody can tell me there isn't something seriously fucking wrong with that picture. I've personally been involved in interviewing probably something like 50 candidates for various positions where I work and not a single one of them was black. The applicants just aren't there. We sure as hell aren't interviewing for String Theorists either, these are straightforward biotech jobs that sometimes only require a bachelor's or master's-level degree in some chemistry or biology field. Even if you were a big enough asshat to believe the sort of bullshit you'll find in The Bell Curve (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684824299/002-8538882-5330442?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance), the enormity of the disparity is virtually impossible to explain except if one accepts that there are serious societal pressures that are keeping these minorities away, and limiting their potential.

It's either that or you believe they're predominanty so intellectually inferior to whites they can't make it into even the entry levels of science in anywhere near a representative frequency. I know that's not even remotely true.

I would never argue that "affirmative action" is an imperfect solution, but unless such a program were demonstrably harming someone like me, I think it's a moral imperative for our society to somehow do whatever it can to undo the far greater evil that has been done, and is the legacy of our forefathers we must contend with. What better remedies do those who think setting aside some pitiful amount of cash to help a few-dozen underrepresented minorities pay for grad school is such a "racist" idea?

Color me completely unimpressed with the alternatives offered by so-called "compassionate conservatives" who speciously decry the supposed "soft bigotry of low expectations". At this point I expect precisely nothing from the right in the way of a constructive solution to what is a patently unfair and unjust arrangement. You don't want to pay for public schools, you don't want to pay for social services, you refuse to acknowledge the corrosive effects of poverty, crime, and discrimination on youth, and won't do enough, or anything at all, to help make sure kids get housed, fed, and taught according to some minimal standard before they apply to grad. school, so by the time they're at that age, chances are they're out of the running.

That is obviously the problem. Yeah, sure, you find exceptional minorities all over who beat the odds, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, kids should be like them, they're not trying hard enough, yadda yadda. Bullshit. There's nothing wrong with saying those individual's achievements are doubly remarkable because of the adversity they overcame. I can't fathom the lack of compassion shown by conservatives toward those who aren't quite so spectacular or lucky. I have no difficulty recognizing a lot of white kids work half as hard and get twice as much as some of their minority peers simply because of who they are. This "reverse discrimination" canard is a crock of shit. As the right has been utterly worthless at coming up with a better solution, I say hooray for a measly million bucks that can be used to try to help make our science community representative of the society we live in.

I suppose these (http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/11/11/fighting-discrimination/) folks are a bunch of feces-eating racists too (I read the blog regularly, and it's from them I got the link). I feel like I should be more offended by the accusation, but it's such a fucking joke I realise what a waste of time it is to even worry about it.

mischievous

11-11-2005, 09:52 PM

Bricker

11-11-2005, 09:54 PM

I would never argue that "affirmative action" is an imperfect solution, but unless such a program were demonstrably harming someone like me, I think it's a moral imperative for our society to somehow do whatever it can to undo the far greater evil that has been done, and is the legacy of our forefathers we must contend with. What better remedies do those who think setting aside some pitiful amount of cash to help a few-dozen underrepresented minorities pay for grad school is such a "racist" idea?

Any program that definitively excludes people based on race is unconstitutional.

The Bush administration is enforcing that law.

Your paragraph above argues that such programs should be legal. That's a far different cast on the issue than made in the OP, which castigates the enforcement of the law as arising from the "...most rabid and morally bereft elements of the radicalized right wing..."

See the difference?

The OP posits that such enforcement is per se racist. You now acknowledge that it's an imperfect idea; presumably that means an acknowledgement that reasonable people may disagree, especiallt in light of the fact that the fucking law is not on the side of the program in question.

So now you're not a racist. You're reasonably trying to offer a solution to a problem that people may reasonably differ on. But a person who holds that reasonable view doesn't write an OP like you did.

So are you lying now, or were you being dishonest when you write the OP?

Loopydude

11-11-2005, 09:56 PM

That should have read "I would never argue affirmative action isn't an imperfect solution"...

Loopydude

11-11-2005, 10:12 PM

The OP posits that such enforcement is per se racist. You now acknowledge that it's an imperfect idea; presumably that means an acknowledgement that reasonable people may disagree, especiallt in light of the fact that the fucking law is not on the side of the program in question.

So now you're not a racist. You're reasonably trying to offer a solution to a problem that people may reasonably differ on. But a person who holds that reasonable view doesn't write an OP like you did.

So are you lying now, or were you being dishonest when you write the OP?

Oh, come on. For one, I'm not at all sure these programs are unconstitutional as the Michigan admissions were determined to be. These are not race-based quota systems for limited slots, as far as I can tell, but fellowships to be awarded to (predominantly) students of underrepresented minorities. They have been, however, according to the article, awarded to white women who have dealt with adversity as well. In other words, it might be argued that the basic criterion is societal disadvantage, which I think is blindingly obvious giving grad school demographics, and the programs are not exclusively meant to fund the education of certain races. We'll see how the courts rule, though I'm not optimistic, or even if the University opts to challenges the accusations. I certainly hope this is not found to be unconstitutional, because if all of these programs are eliminated the results will be nothing short of a disaster for higher education, and, I think, a great injustice.

As for imperfection vs. illegality, I see nothing wrong or necessarily contradictory in imperfect-but-legal, especially when the alternatives are so awful.

treis

11-11-2005, 10:31 PM

Affirmative action program such as this discriminate on the basis of race. As such, they should be illegal. It should absolutely be illegal for a publicly-funded school to offer an award that no white male is eligible for. If a similar award were closed to balck or Hispanic males, there would be no question of its illegality and no dearth of outrage from the left.

I guess the left just has this magical ability to discern motivations and take those into account when making judgement calls. These fellowships aren't geared towards minorities to keep those "crackers" out where as a scholarship closed to blacks and hispanics has keeping the "negroes" and "ethnics" as a prima facia motivation.

tomndebb

11-11-2005, 11:37 PM

You basically have two choices: Accept that this gross disparity between representation in these echelons of academia and the population at large is a result of systemic bias, or a result of some inferior trait of those demographics.Fallacy of the excluded middle.

I can think of any number of causes for such discrepancy that range from similar to one of your choices to unrelated to either of your choices:
- Community educational programs serving minority students suffer from financial disparities that are the result of well-intended and universally desired models originating nearly 150 years ago that have become a burden due to changes in demographics and are not imposed by "systemic bias" and do not reflect any inherent inferiority on the part of the students;*
- Cultural biases among the students cause excessive numbers of them to avoid programs that would lead to particular academic disciplines whereby a reduction in applicants from a minority group disproportionately reduces their numbers even further;**
- Simple lack of role models or parental encouragement to pursue particular educational opportunities.***

* Local control (an almost universally desired characteristic) proceeds from local funding which has inadvertantly suffered in the social upheavals of the previous 40 years. While there are certainly biases that have contributed to these problems, it is a gross oversimplification to claim that all such problems are the result of "systemic bias."
** Problems with accusations of "acting white" and similar issues have been documented, (if not yet quantified), and it is a bit of a stretch to claim that such phenomena are the result of "systemic bias" or reflect "inherent inferiority" in the groups affected.
*** A student who knows no one with a career in the sciences or higher academia is unlikely to pursue a career in those fields himself or herself. At the same time, there was a strong pressure within several minority groups from the late 1960s through the early 1980s to enter fields in the Liberal Arts so as to discover more about one's own group's origins and contributions with a resulting lack of emphasis on the theoretical and applied sciences. This has led to a large number of scholars (and lawyers, and to a lesser extent, doctors) among various minority groups who provide inspiration and mentoring for younger individuals within those groups to emulate them, while providing fewer than representative percentages of those groups pursuing education in theoretical or applied (hard) sciences.

Tuckerfan

11-11-2005, 11:42 PM

One of the things that stuck me about the recent riots in France, is that the French government has no affirmative action programs, and has no idea of the number of immigrant youths who are unemployed, since they don't track such things on the basis of ethnicity.

Loopydude

11-11-2005, 11:45 PM

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

- Community educational programs serving minority students suffer from financial disparities....
- Cultural biases among the students cause excessive numbers of them to avoid programs that would lead to particular academic disciplines....
- Simple lack of role models or parental encouragement to pursue particular educational opportunities...

It's not at all clear to me how these all don't amount to systemic bias. What, these other biases, inexplicable habits, or disadvantages just happened by accident, or otherwise can't reasonably be assumed to be the result of entrenched racism? I see no excluded middle here, just a lot of consequences of systemic bias somehow being characterized as something else for some bizarre reason.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 12:07 AM

It's not at all clear to me how these all don't amount to systemic bias.You will have to demonstrate to me, because I haven't figured out where the "systemic bias" enters, just how a practice of funding schools that originated over 150 years ago for the purpose of providing local control to school systems, long before there were the current issues of ethnic bias, and which has been supported by people within those same communities (desiring local control) is an example of systemic bias.

I would really like to know how students rejecting education because it represents "acting white" is the result of outside forces (unless you are arguing that it is an inherent deficiency within the ethnic group).

I do not understand how the steering of college applicants by the minority communities into fields separate from the theoretical and applied sciences is an example of bias. Whose bias? Against what science were they biased?

I am not arguing that bias, discrimination, racism, and general xenophobia have played no role in the general situation of inferior education among minorities. They clearly have.

However, the point under discussion is the extreme lack of representation of minorities within particular fields of study, even when people from the same minority groups have succeeded in entering other fields (Law, Medicine) that require similar capabilities and investments of time, money, and energy.

The point is that within a particular group of technical fields, minority representation is abysmally lower than other fields requiring similar levels of education and commitment. Declaring that it must be due to only one of two possible factors without any evidence to support that conclusion and without demonstrating how that bias affected those disciplines and not (as badly) other disciplines is excluding the middle (and ignoring a lot of evidence).

magellan01

11-12-2005, 12:12 AM

Now, I haven't gotten involved in affirmative action debates, so if this idea has been presented and confirmed or refuted, forgive me.

Arguement: If you accept that (for the most part and in aggregate) persons of different races have similar abilities and intelligence, and you observe that your school accepts enourmously more whites than other races, doesn't it follow that your school is (perhaps unintentionally) biased against certain other races? Wouldn't a program to increase representation of non-white be decreasing your school's racism?

My feeling is that affirmative action [i]doesn't[i] create bias. Rather, it compensates for the factors that lower grades and test scores (poverty, other people's bias, poor inner-city school systems, fewer educational mentors) artificially in non-whites. Ideally, an affirmative action program shouldn't function to accept non-whites who are dumber or less competent than whites accepted, but instead should normalize admissions such that whites and non-whites of equal intelligence and abilities are admitted despite differences in test scores.

mischievous

Schools do not exist in order to display racial balance. They exist to educate. At the higher leveles, to educate people to enter specific professions. And the way they determine who to let in to their programs is based, in large part, on who the best candidates are. And that, in turn is based on previous academic achievement and test scores.

Precisely because any program should be fair is why they look mainly to objective criteria. Regarding you least sentence, how would you decide who was of equally worthy of admission without using test scores?

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 12:15 AM

Interesting article (http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/22/421b2097a3c95) on the subject. Mentions some of the things tomndebb discussed, though, again, I fail to see how the sundry challenges facing black kids aren't the product of systemic bias, if they aren't a blatant manifestation of it. Where on Earth would black kids get the notion that "science isn't available to them" unless, for much of our history, it truly wasn't (barring remarkable exceptions like George Washington Carver).

A rather sadly ironic quote from the article:

The future looks bright for African Americans in science,” Womack said. “The paradox is, although the numbers (of blacks in science) are low, the scholarship and grant opportunities are amazing for African Americans. If you do well in science, you can go through school pretty much free and come out to do something that will excite you.

Not if the tireless defenders of privilege now in Washington have anything to say about it. Not if it's from the Federal coffers, anyway.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 12:26 AM

Schools do not exist in order to display racial balance. They exist to educate.Schools have always served to promote certain cultural values and social engineering--right back to Plato and Aristotle and right up through the European universities and the founding of first the Ivy League and then the Land Grant colleges. The providing of education has been the conduit for those social programs.

One social need in the U.S. at the current time is a method to ensure that no group is excluded from the "American Dream" by being excluded from an education. The method to promote that goal involves various (bitterly fought) attempts to recruit and educate more members of the various minority groups so that the lack of education is no longer a barrier.
Those attempts fall under the general label "Affirmative Action."

Now, there have been attempts to provide Affirmative Action in education that have harmed other people who are not members of the groups targeted for inclusion. Bakke recognized that problem way back in 1978. Quotas seem to be a particularly onerous and unfair practice in education and in employment and housing. However, noting that there are a number of methods that are either/both unfair or unproductive does not invalidate the goal or the need. We simply need to work harder to discover methods that are fair and productive. This is easier in the areas of employment and housing than in education, hence the bitter fights over the methods.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 12:37 AM

I fail to see how the sundry challenges facing black kids aren't the product of systemic bias, if they aren't a blatant manifestation of it. Where on Earth would black kids get the notion that "science isn't available to them" unless, for much of our history, it truly wasn't (barring remarkable exceptions like George Washington Carver).And yet, there does not seem to be any similar barrier to Law and Medicine.

The general failure of the education of black kids involves a lot of bias. The particular issue of a lack of black scientists is much less clear--and the systemic nature of the barriers is suggested, but not established.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 12:37 AM

You will have to demonstrate to me, because I haven't figured out where the "systemic bias" enters, just how a practice of funding schools that originated over 150 years ago for the purpose of providing local control to school systems, long before there were the current issues of ethnic bias, and which has been supported by people within those same communities (desiring local control) is an example of systemic bias.

What, there are no black kids in the suburbs? None in "white" schools? I live in the burbs, and there are enough black kids who aren't living in erstwhile segregated districts for plenty long enough that I can't see how such examples are sufficient to explain anything.

I would really like to know how students rejecting education because it represents "acting white" is the result of outside forces (unless you are arguing that it is an inherent deficiency within the ethnic group).

I do not understand how the steering of college applicants by the minority communities into fields separate from the theoretical and applied sciences is an example of bias. Whose bias? Against what science were they biased?

I can't fathom why they would develop such a strange bias (if it is predominant enough to explain even a portion of the disparity) unless they were rejecting a field from which they had been themselves very actively excluded from.

Take this quote from the article:

“What I find interesting is that, when you look at the back end of the pipeline, those African Americans who have made it to a certain point … still aren’t thriving,” Womack said. He attributes this fact not to black scientists being less skilled, but to the same lack of community that isolates them during their education.

“What does it take for an African American to succeed (in science)? A whole lot of politics,” Womack said. “When you’re at my level, it’s not about how strong your background is; it’s all about who you know — those doors opening for you at those institutions and the kinds of mentorship you need to succeed.” Underrepresented minorities like blacks don’t have a community with a shared cultural background or the numbers needed to compete in the politics of science, he said.

The point is that within a particular group of technical fields, minority representation is abysmally lower than other fields requiring similar levels of education and commitment. Declaring that it must be due to only one of two possible factors without any evidence to support that conclusion and without demonstrating how that bias affected those disciplines and not (as badly) other disciplines is excluding the middle (and ignoring a lot of evidence).

See above.

I dunno. Sometimes in these debates I feel like there's a helluva lot of debating for debating's sake going on, probably because it's me making strong statements. I certainly don't feel hurt, but it's tedious as all get-out sometimes. Seriously, if it isn't racism, what the hell is it, ultimately? Why is throwing a bunch of symptomatic examples around supposed to be an argument against implicating that rather obvious suspect? Fine, there's an example that ought to demonstrate a rather obvious chicken-and-egg problem getting bums in the seats that is a direct consequence of racist tendencies in the halls of academia. I've given you a perspective from a black scientist who thinks there's systemic bias. So, if we follow along, that makes it hard to find role models, which makes black kids think science is too white, ergo, yadda yadda, so on and so forth, like this really needs a lot of explication. Take it up with him, then. Contrarian attrition for debate's sake is exhausting.

magellan01

11-12-2005, 12:39 AM

Schools have always served to promote certain cultural values and social engineering--right back to Plato and Aristotle and right up through the European universities and the founding of first the Ivy League and then the Land Grant colleges. The providing of education has been the conduit for those social programs.

One social need in the U.S. at the current time is a method to ensure that no group is excluded from the "American Dream" by being excluded from an education. The method to promote that goal involves various (bitterly fought) attempts to recruit and educate more members of the various minority groups so that the lack of education is no longer a barrier.
Those attempts fall under the general label "Affirmative Action."

Now, there have been attempts to provide Affirmative Action in education that have harmed other people who are not members of the groups targeted for inclusion. Bakke recognized that problem way back in 1978. Quotas seem to be a particularly onerous and unfair practice in education and in employment and housing. However, noting that there are a number of methods that are either/both unfair or unproductive does not invalidate the goal or the need. We simply need to work harder to discover methods that are fair and productive. This is easier in the areas of employment and housing than in education, hence the bitter fights over the methods.

I agree, I think. I laud any attempt to attract kids from all backgrounds, particularly those who have been economically disadvantaged, to the sciences, law, medicine, etc. They should be made aware of the opportunities and provided with a road map to admission. But at that point I think you simply have to go on merit. Test scores combiined with academic perfomance are by no means perfect, but I can't think of anything better. If you have a better way to have the best candidates accepted, I'm all ears.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 12:57 AM

Seriously, if it isn't racism, what the hell is it, ultimately? Why is throwing a bunch of symptomatic examples around supposed to be an argument against implicating that rather obvious suspect? Because if it is not the result of racism, we're going to waste a lot of energy pursuing solutions that bring no benefit. There have been many "obvious suspects" in history that have not proven to be the culprits.

Note, (again), that I have not argued that racism is not pervasive and/or that racism has not harmed the education of minorities generally. I approve of taking steps to eliminate it. So, if we succeed in eliminating racism in education (I realize that that it an unlikely hypothetical) and we find that blacks are still underrepresented in the sciences, we will have missed the opportunity and time to change that situation and will be that much further behind in getting more black kids into the sciences.

While we work on eliminating racism, it is my suggestion that we work to discover why black kids are willing to become lawyers and doctors and not choosing to become chemists and physicists. Simply declaring "It's racism" is actually counterproductive, because it does not actually address the particular issue we are examining.

I think the thrust of the efforts by SIU are correct. However, the disbursement of public funds that exclude whites is going to run directly into Bakke. Why not consider other options, such as private endowments targeting particular groups? Why jeopardize a program by going directly against both legislation and case law and then try to rationalize it with general remarks that the problem "must" have one of only two sources when that is clearly not the case?

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 01:01 AM

I also have to wonder if blacks and Lationos are actually all that well-represented in Medical schools, for instance. Sure, the situation's better than in the natural sciences, but how could it be much worse?

Take this (http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/2003/031104.htm) article.

A particularly salient concern:

Because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, statistics on minorities underrepresented in medicine are likely to be carefully scrutinized for the next several years. While the total number of black applicants (2,736), rose almost five percent due to a ten percent increase in black women applicants (1,904), the number of blacks who were accepted and then went on to attend medical school (1,056) declined by six percent. The total number of Hispanic applicants (2,483) increased by less than two percent since last year, while Hispanic attendees declined by almost four percent (to 1,089).

"These latest figures contain both good and bad news for the medical profession. The decrease in minorities entering medical school underscores the need for redoubled efforts to attract a critical mass of students from diverse backgrounds in order to enhance the education of all future physicians," said AAMC President, Jordan J. Cohen M.D. "At the same time, the increase in total and first-time applicants is a reaffirming sign that the current generation of young people recognizes the attractiveness of medicine as a profession."

Nothing to jump for joy about.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 01:16 AM

Another interesting article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAS/is_5_33/ai_n6112848) on the subject, and this time mentioning UIC.

An interesting quote:

Of all Chicago-area medical schools, UIC has traditionally had the highest representation of blacks and Latinos. In 2002, 9 percent of its students were African American, and 10 percent were Hispanic, according to data from the Illinois Board of Higher Education.

While Girotti thinks the programs help attract blacks and Latinos, he believes word-of-mouth is a stronger recruitment tool. "The diverse environment at UIC supports itself because minority students encourage other minorities to apply," he said.

By contrast, McDade said the University of Chicago has traditionally had an "unfriendly reputation" among blacks and Latinos. "If you are the only one of anybody in your class, it's very hard to find a group of people with whom you mesh, who understand where you come from and are interested in trying to work with you to become part of a larger group,"

While the percentages at UIC are certainly better in Med school than science grad school, they still fall below representative levels for IL, and I guess it can be inferred from the quote the situation looks worse at other IL schools. According to Dr. McDade, some places are more welcoming than others. It so happens the most welcoming in IL is now getting sued for it, I guess. I have to wonder what this "unfriendly reputation" at UC could be other than at least a perception of bias.

Garfield226

11-12-2005, 01:17 AM

Well it looks like we're in for a ride. Kinda sucks that it broke on a Friday, and a Friday that was a holiday, at that, since the school paper won't come out again until Monday. Still, they've got a breaking news story on the site that has a little more depth. link (http://newshound.de.siu.edu/fall05/stories/storyReader$1316) I'd keep an eye on the DE throughout the next week.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 01:18 AM

Are you at UIC, Garfield?

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 01:30 AM

Because if it is not the result of racism, we're going to waste a lot of energy pursuing solutions that bring no benefit.

I certainly would prefer the bottom-up approach (wouldn't everyone?), but it ain't happening, and never will so long as the Republicans are in power.

Garfield226

11-12-2005, 01:34 AM

Are you at UIC, Garfield?
If this was not a typo and you mean the University of Illinois at Chicago, then no.
If this was a typo and you meant SIUC, then yes.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 01:44 AM

Bleh. Yeh, typo. Sorry.

I'd be terribly interested in hearing about the response on campus, if you don't mind sharing in the future.

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 02:19 AM

I hope this isn't a lawnchair post, but I just wanted to say that Bricker and Tomndebb have both performed excellently and said most of what I would've said.

In specific, I'm neither a right winger nor morally bereft, as far as I can tell, but I don't support affirmative action, and I do think that Bush did the right thing. (Yes, I really did just say that.)

I do support colleges offering money/spots in their school, based on the economic situation of applicants, but not their skin color. It also disturbs me that supporting the law that's applicable in this case means that I'm deserving of scorn.

I'd also say that I could not possibly care less if the people who are in the sciences are black, white, hispanic, asian, or have eight heads, as long as they're good at their jobs. Likewise, I don't care how many blacks, white, hispanics, asians, or eight headed monsters aren't in the sciences as long as qualified candidates aren't being rejected due to their 'race'.

I also fail to see why qualified black science students can't get perfectly good mentors who happen to of another 'race'. As a matter of fact, that idea that blacks need other blacks in order to have a sense of 'community' strikes me either as racist, or as an accusation of racism against a school's faculty/student body.

I'll gnaw on this a bit more, but for now I'll at least toss my hat into the ring.
My rabid, morally bereft hat.

John Mace

11-12-2005, 02:28 AM

Seems like the actual issue at hand is being sidestepped. The SCOTUS ruled that race can be one factor (among many) used in school admissions processes, but we're talking about scholarships here. Not admission to the school, but money to go to the school. Money that is available only to minority students. That's a far cry from even the most aggressive Affirmative Action programs (ie, quota based systems).

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 02:32 AM

I also fail to see why qualified black science students can't get perfectly good mentors who happen to of another 'race'. As a matter of fact, that idea that blacks need other blacks in order to have a sense of 'community' strikes me either as racist, or as an accusation of racism against a school's faculty/student body.

Jesus Christ.

Well, I guess we'll just ignore all the endemic racial bias in society, and all of its impact, since ultimately race shouldn't matter. And we'll ignore the fact the body of scientists is so unrepresentative of society at large it's shameful. We'll ignore that the few scientists of certain minorities who do become scientists apparently don't thrive, and we'll ignore the positive impact a critical mass of minority scientists would have toward ameliorating that problem. Sure, it's blacks discriminating against white scientists. I'm glad we've cleared that up and now know where the blame clearly lies.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 02:38 AM

MaxTheVool

11-12-2005, 02:45 AM

As opposed to the facile treatment offered by the OP?

Ah, yes. His characterization of opposition to affirmative action as coming only from the "...most rabid and morally bereft elements of the radicalized right wing..." is "serious debate." My hyperbole is facile dismissal.

:wally

If that was the entire content of the OP, I might agree with you. One snide and unfair generalization in a larger rant is VERY different from a post consisting of nothing else.

Furthermore, while I don't want to be seen as a defender of the OP, he didn't say "no one could possibly hold this position but a (rabid and morally bereft...)". Rather, he basically claimed that the government, ie, the Bush administration, was taking this action in order to appeal to the (rabid and morally bereft...), which is a less outrageously offensive statement than you're making it out to be.

It's a wonder you can even live with your dishonesty. How do you manage it?

My dishonesty????? Who peed in your wheaties? Where have I ever been dishonest in my SDMB interactions? It's possible I'm wrong about this topic. It's possible I'm wrong and a hypocrite. But what on earth possibly makes me dishonest? Please point out my dishonesty or withdraw the accusation.

And "facile" this: the programs, on their face, violate Supreme Court guidelines. They are illegal.
Which (if you are correct, and you may be, I don't know) doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong. And furthermore, that's not what you said. You didn't say "These programs are illegal, therefore it's appropriate for the government to put a stop to them". Rather, you made a meaningless comparison and attempted to use it to "zing" the liberals.

Yes, I react differently to apparently identical things when the words "black" and "white" are swapped. A "black pride week" and a "white pride week" are NOT equal. And furthermore, you're a smart guy and you know it, so don't plead ignorance and mock surprise.

PS: Also note that in neither this nor my previous post have I claimed that I support AA. It's a difficult topic, and I'm not sure exactly where my precise opinion falls. I'm just saying that I find the "any racial preference ever is wrong period no matter what end of story" argument unconvincing.

treis

11-12-2005, 02:49 AM

Because if it is not the result of racism, we're going to waste a lot of energy pursuing solutions that bring no benefit. There have been many "obvious suspects" in history that have not proven to be the culprits.

Note, (again), that I have not argued that racism is not pervasive and/or that racism has not harmed the education of minorities generally. I approve of taking steps to eliminate it. So, if we succeed in eliminating racism in education (I realize that that it an unlikely hypothetical) and we find that blacks are still underrepresented in the sciences, we will have missed the opportunity and time to change that situation and will be that much further behind in getting more black kids into the sciences.

While we work on eliminating racism, it is my suggestion that we work to discover why black kids are willing to become lawyers and doctors and not choosing to become chemists and physicists. Simply declaring "It's racism" is actually counterproductive, because it does not actually address the particular issue we are examining.

I don't think there is any quesiton that racism is the cause of the income and education disparity in blacks. Blacks were slaves for nearly the first 100 years of the country, faced institutionalized racism for the next 100 and have faced non-institutionalized racism since then. And this leaves us scratching our heads searching for the cause of black poverty why?

Even if you flipped a switch and removed any concept of race from the world and removed any AA programs it would take generations for the distribution of income between races to normalize. We live in a country where generally wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty. Some do break out of poverty and become wealthy and some fall from wealth to poverty but it doesn't happen fast enough to expect change in one generation.

At different levels of family income come different levels of expectations for education and career. A kid that comes from a family that has no one who attended college is going to have pretty low expectations. If he even graduates with a 2 year degree from a community college he is going to be viewed as a huge success. The first in his family to ever graduate from college. Compare that with my family where I was not only expected to go to a good college I am expected to graduate in 4 years. Grades lower than an 'A' were met with hard questions and heaven help me if I got a 'C' or lower. Is it any wonder why someone in my situation will be more likely to graduate with a science degree than with someone in the first situation?

So how do you go about solving the disparity? Well, the best way to do that would to be change the cultural values and expectations that black parents have towards their children. Before we can do that we need to ensure what we are trying to convice these people of is in fact true. If we say stay in school and you will succeed we need to give them good schools, competent teachers and adequate supplies. Anyone that walks into a rich suburban school and a poor urban school will laugh at the claim that they are equal. These people are not stupid and can see that they are getting screwed.

Once we accomplish that we can start trying to change social norms. Needless to say thats quite a task but I think there could be some success in that area. Simply put those people that young blacks look up to need to start emphasizing school. These people need to come out and say that the ethos that if someone tries in school they are selling out or becoming white is junk. I am dubious as to how much effect that has compared with the parents and local community but its better than nothing.

Those things probably would speed up the equalizing the education distribution but it will take time. Slavery, "Jim Crow" laws and racism were a huge input to the system that has knocked it out of whack. The system that is currently in America is set up to favor the status quo and that is slowing down the response. Time cures all wounds though and eventually our income distribution will return to what it would have been without racism.

John Mace

11-12-2005, 02:50 AM

I guess I give up. Really, I've not been this disheartened in a long time. Hooray! Affirmative action: BAD! Ignoring the obvious: GOOD! How will things change? Why, it'll just happen, because race doesn't matter! See how easy!

Woohoo, I'm loving politics tonight.
There are many forms of Affirmative Action-- some good and some bad. Racial quotas and set-asides are bad. This is a set-aside. This is bad.

I don't think most people have a problem with aid offered to people who are economically disadvantaged. What peopel have a problem with is making race a requirement: This money is not for poor people, it's for poor Black/Latino/whatever people. If aid is given to those who need it, and minorities are more likely to be in need, then they will be more likely to get it. It doesn't have to be specifically set aside for them.

treis

11-12-2005, 02:55 AM

Those things probably would speed up the equalizing the education distribution but it will take time. Slavery, "Jim Crow" laws and racism were a huge input to the system that has knocked it out of whack. The system that is currently in America is set up to favor the status quo and that is slowing down the response. Time cures all wounds though and eventually our income distribution will return to what it would have been without racism.

I probably should explain this metaphor a little bit better. When I talk about equalizing and input I am doing so interms of a physical system like a pendulum. If you imagine a pendulum hanging and someone comes along and takes a big swing with a hammer and whacks it. Its going to go flying off to the side and will eventually come back to equilibrium. If you think of the income distribution being the pendulum and the rest state of the pendulum being a equal income distribution in terms of race. Slavery and racism are the big hammer that knocked the system out of whack. Eventually, like the pendulum, the system will be restored by natural forces to equilibrium.

MaxTheVool

11-12-2005, 02:55 AM

But at that point I think you simply have to go on merit. Test scores combiined with academic perfomance are by no means perfect, but I can't think of anything better. If you have a better way to have the best candidates accepted, I'm all ears.

Why is it automatically the case that the best way to pick students to admit is simply by their abilities? Is the goal of a university to admit students such that the standard of intellectual and academic excellence in this particular graduating class is as high as possible, or is it to encourage the flowering of intellect in society as a whole?

I'm not necessarily saying I have a good answer to this question, I'm just saying that it's not automatically prima facie true that the way universities should work is just to come up with as objective a measure of individual student excellence as possible, then sort all the applicants, then accept the first N students on that list.

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 02:59 AM

Jesus Christ.

Siddhartha Gautama.

Well, I guess we'll just ignore all the endemic racial bias in society, and all of its impact, since ultimately race shouldn't matter.

I'm not sure I need to be in this thread, you seem to be able to invent arguments and ascribe them to me quite easily without me taking the time to post.

And we'll ignore the fact the body of scientists is so unrepresentative of society at large it's shameful.

Why? Why is it shameful?
Is it shameful that many professional sports are unrepresentative of society? Or how about that the percentage of female teachers vs than male teachers? How about that more waitresses and secretaries are, in general, female than male? Why are the sciences the holy grail?

Again, I couldn't care less if every facet of the worksphere is statistically representative of the overall population. Show me qualified black candidates being rejected from science programs becasue they're black and I'll be up in arms right next to you. Otherwise, I really don't see a problem. At least, not one to be solved the way SIU went about it.

We'll ignore that the few scientists of certain minorities who do become scientists apparently don't thrive,

Perhaps I missed it, but what actual hard numbers did your cite, erm, cite? I saw very few actual figures, and very many unsubstantiated claims. Having participated in and analyzed a good bit of educational research, I know enough to spot that your author's methodology is, at best, suspect.

Your cite even states that racism is not the entirety of the problem.

“It’s very tough for African American youth to maintain an academic focus, excel in school and maintain their integrity, their identity,” Womack said. “I think it has a lot to do with cultural expectations both from inside and outside the African American community.”

Besides, I have trouble believing that blacks are truly all struggling once they find careers in the sciences. (http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa020600a.htm)

I'd much rather have hard data rather than your author's opinion.

and we'll ignore the positive impact a critical mass of minority scientists would have toward ameliorating that problem.

Erunh?
Being doctors and lawyers won't help, but being scientists will?
I agree that having more educated people within a population will in general help that 'group', I'm all for education. But if they want to be zooligists instead of mathamaticians, or architects instead of theatre majors, or English majors instead of physics majors, I really can't get all that upset.

Again, show me instances of qualified black candidates being discriminated against and I'll join you in whatever protest you'd like to make.

Sure, it's blacks discriminating against white scientists.

Again, maybe I should leave and you should just pretend I said things so you can have easy arguments to pick apart?
-------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think most people have a problem with aid offered to people who are economically disadvantaged. What peopel have a problem with is making race a requirement: This money is not for poor people, it's for poor Black/Latino/whatever people. If aid is given to those who need it, and minorities are more likely to be in need, then they will be more likely to get it. It doesn't have to be specifically set aside for them.

Egggggzactly.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 03:13 AM

There are many forms of Affirmative Action-- some good and some bad. Racial quotas and set-asides are bad. This is a set-aside. This is bad.

As the program's web site (http://www.siu.edu/gradschl/prompt_fellowship.htm) explains, the entire point is to specifically target an underrepresented group and entice them with a financial incentive.

What ought to be clear is that poverty as a criterion isn't cutting it, as that's built into the system of financial aid anyway. If economics is the only metric, then it's effectively no affirmative action.

mischievous

11-12-2005, 03:14 AM

Schools do not exist in order to display racial balance. They exist to educate. At the higher leveles, to educate people to enter specific professions. And the way they determine who to let in to their programs is based, in large part, on who the best candidates are. And that, in turn is based on previous academic achievement and test scores. Well, yeah, that was kind of my point. If you accept my arguement, that test scores and grades are artificially depressed in non-white populations, then affirmative action exists simply to correct that imbalance.

Let me elaborate: if two applicants for a program have identical intelligence and aptitude levels, both should be admitted over any inferior candidates. If one of those students is non-white, his scores could be artificially low due to systematic bias. Based on test scores alone, the school may select an inferior, but higher-scoring, white student for thier program. Ideally affirmative action would compensate for the discrepancy in test scores and result in the school getting only the best candidates. This is totally idfferent from asking schools to take on inferior non-white students.

mischievous

mischievous

11-12-2005, 03:18 AM

Obviously, idfferent=different.

Sorry, it's pretty late here in my (unusually racially diverse) lab.

mischievous

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 03:27 AM

Again, I couldn't care less if every facet of the worksphere is statistically representative of the overall population. Show me qualified black candidates being rejected from science programs becasue they're black and I'll be up in arms right next to you. Otherwise, I really don't see a problem. At least, not one to be solved the way SIU went about it.

Again, Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a pogo stick.

The current problem isn't just black kids getting rejected, it's that hardly any ever even apply! That this is a function of endemic inequities is the entire crux not only of the problem, but everything I've argued about.

Compare your list of patents to the non-minority patent holders for fun, just to get a sense of relative size. Or show me the huge number of black lab chiefs, department heads, and full professors. That's not shameful? You're completely unconcerned? If all blacks in science find the system a pure meritocracy, whats the alternative explanation for the disparities besides bias?

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 03:51 AM

Again, Jesus H. Fucking Christ on a pogo stick.

Odin The Motherfucking Allfather on a crutch.
(I like this game)

The current problem isn't just black kids getting rejected, it's that hardly any ever even apply!

So? Obviously this is upsetting you greatly. Why do you care if they're doctors, or lawyers, or writers, or teachers? Isn't the point to get a higher education, and do whatever you find personally rewarding? If more black students don't want
to go into the sciences, why is that horrible?

Can you answer that question without going berserk? I've asked essentially the same thing before, and so far you're doing little other than flipping out.

That this is a function of endemic inequities is the entire crux not only of the problem, but everything I've argued about.

Saying a thing many times won't make it true.
All you've shown suggests that many black students, of their own free will, do not want to go into the sciences. Why is that due to 'endemic inequities'? Aren't you making a rather racist pronouncement by saying that black students can't know what gives them joy or intellectual fulfilment?

I simply can't find any reason to fault a student who is interested in getting a higher degree for not getting the 'right' degree. Again, why is it bad that there are many new black students in legal and medical programs and not so many in the sciences? Why are the sciences the holy grail?

Compare your list of patents to the non-minority patent holders for fun, just to get a sense of relative size.

My point had nothing to do with the ratio of black to non-black patent holders, merely to the claim that blacks don't advance. I was disagreeing with your quote that:
We'll ignore that the few scientists of certain minorities who do become scientists apparently don't thrive,

That, by the way, is an absolute statement. Saying that out of the few who do becomes scientists, none thrive. Your statement was not qualified in any way, shape, or form. Did you mean to qualify it? Otherwise, being a sucessful inventor would be defined as success and thriving, at least in my book. Any day of the week.

Or show me the huge number of black lab chiefs, department heads, and full professors.

Erunh? I showed you a perfectly acceptable metric for success within the field. By your own cites, there is a tiny percentage of blacks in the sciences. It is intelletually dishonest for you to now demand that I show you a 'huge number' who are lab chiefs, department heads, etc...

That's not shameful? You're completely unconcerned?

No and yes, respectively.
And I'll ask you again to, calmly and rationally, explain to me why you believe I should be.

I am open to rational arguments, but so far I don't feel that you're exactly willing to meet me half way here.

If all blacks in science find the system a pure meritocracy, whats the alternative explanation for the disparities besides bias?

You serious?
A small number of black students choose to go into the sciences. A small percentage of those who go into the sciences rise to positions of power. Thus, a small percentage of the overall population would not be expected to make up any more than a small percentage of the positions of power.

What ought to be clear is that poverty as a criterion isn't cutting it,

For enticing them into a program (which you still haven't demonstrated a need for other than via some bombastic rhetoric)? No.
For allowing poorer children to have a chance to afford an education? Yes.

If economics is the only metric, then it's effectively no affirmative action.

Why? What's wrong with economic affirmative action? Aren't two dirt poor people with no education pretty much in the same boat? Should a wealthy, intelligent, private-schooled black child be included in an affirmative action program?

if two applicants for a program have identical intelligence and aptitude levels, both should be admitted over any inferior candidates. If one of those students is non-white, his scores could be artificially low due to systematic bias.

And if one is from an inner city school which can't afford textbooks, his scores could be artifically low due to economic factors. And I'm simply not convinced that each and every black student in the nation, regardless of where they live or how their school system is funded, is a victim of 'systematic bias'.

As an example, and yes, only an anecdote and not hard data: I went to one of the top high schools in the country. Black students went there and had access to all the educational opportunities that I did. As far as I could tell, there was no 'systematic bias' at work keeping them down. Should it be assumed that even though they were treated just like every other student at the school, they were held back by this 'systematic bias?'

Perhaps you're overstating the case... racism exists and is a problem, but that doesn't mean it's always a problem in everything. It would seem to me that being too quick to call 'racism' is a stumbling block.

Besides, I don't want to use any pendulum analogies; analogies are suspect anyways. I'd rather simply see justice be done, and disadvantaged groups, no matter what the color of their skin, be given an equal chance for getting an education.

Ludovic

11-12-2005, 07:41 AM

I'd support efforts toward equal education of minorities at all levels, and if minorities are under-represented in certain area, more effort toward reaching qualified candidates, who are then admitted and given aid on the basis of economic situation and ability, the same as everyone else.

I don't support institutionalized racism using my tax dollars.

monstro

11-12-2005, 09:12 AM

Two points:

1. I don't agree that it doesn't matter who does science, as long as they are good scientists. We scientists like to pretend that we approach the benchtop completely objectively, leaving all our baggage at the door. Not true. The questions we dream up and our ideas for answering them are both influenced by our cultural upbringing and immediate environments. And these two things are in turn shaped by things like nationality, ethnicity, socioeconomics, and yes sometimes even race.

Any educational institution who churns out engineers and scientists should be aware of this fact.

2. I don't have a problem with a university who wants to increase the diversity of their student body, especially if that institution feels that doing so would benefit the greater community. It was a strange thing to attend grad school in Newark, NJ and see no black professors in my department (one of the largest on campus) and no other black Ph.D students besides myself. Even the black undergrads were underpresented relative to their representation in the city. I had friends among my labmates, but I admit that at times it was a lonely existance, feeling like an outsider, like perhaps I was trespassing on forbidden territory. My school did sponsor regular community outreach activities and received federal funding to support minority-targeted internship programs and fellowships. I benefitted from one such program and I will be forever grateful.

But I disagree, Loopydude, that racism has to be the reason for all the disparities. Perhaps as an ultimate cause, you *might* be able to say it is. But I think the proximate reasons are far more complex.

I always wanted to be a scientist, even when I was ten and dreamed of being both an artist and an astronaut. No one tried to dissuade me from going this route. No one pulled me aside and said: "Look, you have no business going into ecology with your black ass!" Although I was bussed to "white" schools (the "whiteness" stemming mainly from their location on the "white" side of town, since high school was actually 60% black), I found role models in both white and black teachers, male and female alike.

In college, I was buoyed by professors--all white and male--who took special interest me and took me under my wing. Perhaps my "outsider" status appealed to them--maybe they just felt sorry for me. But because of their attention, I went on to grad school and I am now managing a million-dollar project for one of the best ecology labs in the country.

I would say at this point, there isn't a whole lot of "externel" oppression going on to keep minorities from going into the sciences (disregarding the inequality in public schools and the sometimes differential treatment minorities receive in public schools...these are actually major things but I'm not sure how systemic they are). There are some elements of internel oppression--the same shit you find with any lower-class group. But we can't ignore benign cultural differences either.

Do I get heat from my family for choosing ecology as a profession? No. I come from a middle-class family and my parents never pushed their dreams for me on me. However, when I tell other people--particularly black people--what I do for a living, I do sense an inward "eye roll". They sometimes ask how what I do helps people, or why anyone would want to study what I study.

Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not a concept everyone gets or even wants to get. I tried explaining the value of it to my very liberal-minded mother and eventually gave up. But helping others, being a service to the community, is something that people do respect. It seems to me that among black people, if you have any modicum of having your shit together, you're expected to choose a profession that "gives back" to your poor and suffering community. Being a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, or even a politician are all ways of being an uplifting force in the community. Choose these arenas and you will be respected. I believe this is why black people tend to go into the service industries.

However, science has never been seen as being a domain of the community. In fact, traditionally, science has been seen as "anti-community". It is also seen as anti-God. Black people as a group, probably moreso than any other ethnic group in the country, are very spiritual and religious. There is a certain distrust when it comes to science--and one may argue with good reason. Science has been historically used to justify racial policy and has sometimes perpetuated the lies of its practitioners, all claiming to be "objective" and "value-free".

Esoterica is usually not the endeavor of people who come from humble backgrounds. It's hard to give much importance to the flow of neutrinos, the pulse rate of harbor seals, or the calcium content of algae in the Everglades when you do not come from a comfortable life, and everyone you know is struggling. It's also difficult to care about esoterica if you were raised to care more about people and community than knowledge for the sake of knowledge. This is a part of a culture that is neither good or bad--it just "is".

I'm not saying that black people don't nurture their intelligensia. On the contrary, I think we have always respected those who are well-read and well-spoken. But our scholars traditionally have been those who are very active in the community, fighting for civil rights, uplifting the poor, and providing spiritual enlightenment. Where is the role of science in these arenas? There is little.

You see, it's much more complicated than racism. I think by blaming racism for every disparity, you ignore the fact that different cultural groups possess different values, and sometimes these values arise totally independent from the external forces around them. As I said before, I applaud the efforts of institutions to encourage minority enrollment because I think it's important to make science as culturally diverse as possible. But I also think people shouldn't automatically be appalled by underrepresentation. Perhaps underrepresentation in one area (science) is compensated by overrepresentation in an area just as valid and worthy (such as education).

Apologies for the long and rambling post.

John Mace

11-12-2005, 09:13 AM

As the program's web site (http://www.siu.edu/gradschl/prompt_fellowship.htm) explains, the entire point is to specifically target an underrepresented group and entice them with a financial incentive.
Yes, we know that. That is what we call the "end". The problem is the "means", as in "the end does not justify the means". The "means" is racist. It doesn't include, it excludes.

What ought to be clear is that poverty as a criterion isn't cutting it, as that's built into the system of financial aid anyway.
So, let's address the root problem and fix it rather than bribing some people to realize your vision of racial equality. There are minority applicants to medical schools and law schools (both of which are academically challenging), so what's unique about science? What is it about the minority experience that makes science unattractive?

If economics is the only metric, then it's effectively no affirmative action.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Can you explain in more detail?

Bricker

11-12-2005, 10:37 AM

Oh, come on. For one, I'm not at all sure these programs are unconstitutional as the Michigan admissions were determined to be. These are not race-based quota systems for limited slots, as far as I can tell, but fellowships to be awarded to (predominantly) students of underrepresented minorities.

The Web site describing the Bridge program specifically says it is only open to members of underrepresented minority groups. .
.
.
.
White men need not apply, however. "I'll be upfront with you -- no white male will get this award,'' McNeil said.

You may not "be sure" it's illegal.

But if that's true, it's because you lack either reading skills or minimal comprehension of the law on this subject. A publicly-funded program that is per-se completely closed to one race is not permissible. It is legal to use race as one of many factors - possibly. That analysis applies to admissions, not money; it may even fail ehere. But even if it holds, it doesn't authorize this completely-race-dependent scheme.

treis

11-12-2005, 02:06 PM

If you had read the article closer Bricker you would realize that its not completely race dependent.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 02:15 PM

You may not "be sure" it's illegal.

But if that's true, it's because you lack either reading skills or minimal comprehension of the law on this subject. A publicly-funded program that is per-se completely closed to one race is not permissible. It is legal to use race as one of many factors - possibly. That analysis applies to admissions, not money; it may even fail ehere. But even if it holds, it doesn't authorize this completely-race-dependent scheme.

To a public school, admissions is money, for crying out loud. The state subsidizes the entirity of the program to some degree. And again, this is not a facile zero-sums game, like with a limited number of applicant slots. Because one person gets money from this program to go to the school does not mean someone else can't get money from another program to go to the same school. And, once again, the history of the program indicates exceptions have been made for white women. As race, gender, class, and the purpose of the program to combat the negative impact of bias, are inextricably connected, it may not be entirely correct to say race is the only criterion, or gender, or class, in any isolated way. It's clearly not a simple quota system, and while it's perhaps a "set aside", nobody ultimately is being denied funding. Apparrently not a single white male has applied for the grants (unlike the case of admissions, where everyone is applying for the same slots, and those are quite limited in number), so the objection at this point on the part of the Justice Dept. appears to be purely philosophical, at best. I can see no practical evidence of bias against whites that prevents them from attending SIU and getting financial aid. I cannot see how they are truly victims of discrimination because some money has been allocated to a special program targeting underrepresented minorities.

And again, this lovely philosophical debate does absolutely nothing to address the underlying purpose of program, which is the enormous disparities, which I don't think anyone can rationally argue are not a function of a systemic bias against these minorities. As clearly the attitude is nothing else should be done about the problem, either, so long as the money comes from the public trough, and "race" gets mentioned, it's extremely difficult not to be cynical about the character of the debate. In my oppinion, this is then, at best, one of those hopeless "letter-of-the-law" battles that, besides being about a legitimately arguable point, most certainly strips the law of many of its benefits when the language is applied in blind fashion. Really, if this is just another of those debates where reasonable nuance can be teased out in context unless everying conservatives don't like can be assaulted from a likely specious philosphical standpoint, and decried as unoriginalist or something of that sort, we may as well stop now. I've seen it before, I suspect it's a crock of shit, and I'm not going to be persuaded it's all a high-minded argument from benevolent principle if there's no recognition that at some level there's a real injustice that a moral society needs to address. The "two wrongs don't make a right" argument strikes me as overly simplistic, both from a legal and ethical standpoint, when the enormity of the problem being addressed is so evident, and the detriment to others in trying to do something of benefit seems to be practically nil.

Garfield226

11-12-2005, 02:25 PM

Apparrently not a single white male has applied for the grants (unlike the case of admissions, where everyone is applying for the same slots, and those are quite limited in number), so the objection at this point on the part of the Justice Dept. appears to be purely philosophical, at best.

Why should I waste my time?

I'll be upfront with you -- no white male will get this award.

John Mace

11-12-2005, 02:30 PM

And again, this is not a facile zero-sums game, like with a limited number of applicant slots. Because one person gets money from this program to go to the school does not mean someone else can't get money from another program to go to the same school.
Yes it is a zero sum game. The state has only so much money to spend-- it cannot simply increase spending arbitrarily.

I agree with you that there is some serious politicking going on with the timing of this action, and perhaps the location. I mean, why has this suddenly become a hot button for Bush after 5 years of being in office. And there isn't evidence of white guys claiming bias. But that doesn't change the fact that the program violates the ruling in the recent SCOTUS case concening Michigan admission practices.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 02:41 PM

Why should I waste my time?

Well, the typical course of action is to apply, be denied, and then sue. Usually the reason you apply is because you want the money, think you should have it, and find the criteria for selection (or, at least, some individual criterion) in violation of your constitutional rights. Then the courts weigh in. That's been the pattern in the admissions cases.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 03:19 PM

But that doesn't change the fact that the program violates the ruling in the recent SCOTUS case concening Michigan admission practices.

If this is true, it seems any form of affirmative action that takes race into account is potentially dead, as one could always argue race is always, and in every instance, an invalid criterion if it's the deciding factor even in individual circumstances. Really, if you take race out of the equation in this manner, then you've got nothing but the financial aid programs that already exist.

Maybe that's ultimately true. We'll have to see, I guess. I really hope SIU contests this, as, among other reasons, I'd like to see on what basis they contest it, and if my own read of what I think is legitimate nuance has any validity. As this is but one of many such programs throughout the country, I'm sure a win on the part of the JD, or a captitulation on the part of SIU, will send shocks through the world of academia, and create a new wave of troubled debate on Constitutional law. Given the new makeup of the SCOTUS, and Alito's nomination...well, the time is ripe, isn't it. Not so long ago, these practices weren't under similar challenge. I sure believe it when they say the Constitution is "a living document".

Occassionally I wonder how we could possibly function if it lay enshrined in a mausoleum.

John Mace

11-12-2005, 03:31 PM

If this is true, it seems any form of affirmative action that takes race into account is potentially dead, as one could always argue race is always, and in every instance, an invalid criterion if it's the deciding factor even in individual circumstances. Really, if you take race out of the equation in this manner, then you've got nothing but the financial aid programs that already exist.
No, the SCOTUS made it clear (in as much as they make anything "clear") that race can be a factor, it just can't be the only factor, and there can't be a numerical formula used. In this case, a certain amount of money is set aside only for minority students. It's not that minority students are given some extra consideration, this money is 100% guaranteed to go to an "underrepresented group". That's a quota.

I think the problem is that you are assuming that Joe WhiteBoy, if he applied for one of these scholarships, would be given consideration. Now, it's true (at least from the details available in the article) that this has not been tested. But if the guy who runs the program says "no white male will get this award", I think it's safe to say he would not be given consideration. I'm not sure what actoin the justice dept can take if there isn't a plaintiff, but it might come down to holding back federal monies from the university.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 03:49 PM

I think the problem is that you are assuming that Joe WhiteBoy, if he applied for one of these scholarships, would be given consideration. Now, it's true (at least from the details available in the article) that this has not been tested. But if the guy who runs the program says "no white male will get this award", I think it's safe to say he would not be given consideration. I'm not sure what actoin the justice dept can take if there isn't a plaintiff, but it might come down to holding back federal monies from the university.

Well, that's basically it, isn't it? Joe Whitey might have a shot, as Jane Whitey seems to have had on occasion, but only some rather outlandish level of adversity would allow for it, as the money is clearly geared toward addressing bias against groups whose members are at a high risk of being adversely affected by it. That being the entire point of considering race in academics, saying it can only be "one of many" criteria is essentially stealth affirmative action, as far as I can tell. How can I prove, if there are no explicit quotas, that no quotas exist? Seems to me, you either take race out entirely, or you nod and wink and pretend it's just like any other attribute. If only it were.

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 04:04 PM

So, Loopydude, you're not interested in discussing this in a calm and reasonable tone with me? If someone questions your paradigms will you simply shut down any debate with them?

Monstro offered a fairly eloquent and well thought out post. Will you do the same?

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 04:17 PM

And, as an afterthought that should have been a forethought, it seems everyone can agree that one real problem among the population of underrepresented minorities is poverty. So, obviously, these kids could use some extra financial help, and that demographic might get it anyway. It appears the only problem is they've earmarked it, and added puported insult to injury by recruiting underrepresented minorities with the enticement of its availability, which apparently a lot of these kids don't even consider.

To me, this just doesn't seem at all as cut-and-dry as taking two kids, looking at their grades and scores, and giving the one with the worse of both a coveted spot in the freshman class because he's black.

I think this boils down to whether you can, in terms of money, and its allocation, define ethnic background as a "need". The kids still have to have the grades and scores to get in, according to the web site. No standards of academic excellence are being relaxed, apparently. It's just a question of money, and whether you can set aside some of it for an at-risk community that unfortunately is defined by ethnicity. I agree, that sucks eggs, but what can you do if it's the real world? I can only see this as addressing the demographic realities, so if the explicit criterion of race is expunged, it either has to be somehow implicit, or essentially financial aid can only be doled out on a first-come, first-serve basis. Naively, this is fair, but entirely ignores the reality of race and class in America. How a good read of the Constitution could leave us so hobbled troubles me, but such may be the new reality with the new SCOTUS.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 04:24 PM

So, Loopydude, you're not interested in discussing this in a calm and reasonable tone with me?

To be honest, I haven't even seen Monstro's quote, as I've had my hands full just on page two. However, I'm not sure how I could have much of a fruitful dialogue with you, as we can't even agree on some very basic points. If a completely unrepresentative science workforce is something you haven't the slightest concern about, what more is there I can say on the matter that is worth debating?

Anyhow, on to page one...

Garfield226

11-12-2005, 04:25 PM

To me, this just doesn't seem at all as cut-and-dry as taking two kids, looking at their grades and scores, and giving the one with the worse of both a coveted spot in the freshman class because he's black.You're right.

It's taking two kids, looking at their grades and scores, and giving one the equivalent of enough money to buy a house because he's black.

I think this boils down to whether you can, in terms of money, and its allocation, define ethnic background as a "need".
This strikes me as particularly condescending and smacks of "lowering the bar."

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 04:29 PM

You're right.

It's taking two kids, looking at their grades and scores, and giving one the equivalent of enough money to buy a house because he's black.

So, again, no needy white kids are getting any money?

This strikes me as particularly condescending and smacks of "lowering the bar."

I can't see how or why, as academic standards don't appear to be compromised with the allocation.

Garfield226

11-12-2005, 04:32 PM

Not from this program, they're not.

Not "lowering the bar" in an academic sense (which is why I said it only smacks of it), but more of a "You know you can't expect THOSE people to do it on their OWN. . ."

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 04:41 PM

To be honest, I haven't even seen Monstro's quote, as I've had my hands full just on page two. However, I'm not sure how I could have much of a fruitful dialogue with you, as we can't even agree on some very basic points.

If you can't have a debate with someone who doesn't agree with your paradigm, and make a case for it via reason, what does that say about your position?

If a completely unrepresentative science workforce is something you haven't the slightest concern about, what more is there I can say on the matter that is worth debating?

Why it's something I should be concerned about.

If you're right, you should be able to create a logical and compelling post, no? Monstro has suggested that the vitality of science itself depends on having various viewpoints represented among its population. I'm not sure if I can get behind that reasoning, as I'd need some hard data to believe that the vitality of the sciences is impaired if only, say, folks with skin color (X) are conducting science... especially since there's a global community of scientists who represent pretty much every nation and culture as it is. But he/she has at least posited a reason.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 05:17 PM

You see, it's much more complicated than racism. I think by blaming racism for every disparity, you ignore the fact that different cultural groups possess different values, and sometimes these values arise totally independent from the external forces around them. As I said before, I applaud the efforts of institutions to encourage minority enrollment because I think it's important to make science as culturally diverse as possible. But I also think people shouldn't automatically be appalled by underrepresentation. Perhaps underrepresentation in one area (science) is compensated by overrepresentation in an area just as valid and worthy (such as education).

Apologies for the long and rambling post.

OK. Aplogies myself, but it is a long post, and I'm not sure I can do it justice in the time I have. I don't want to leave it lying for two days, and I'm headed out the door in a matter of minutes. Here are a couple of my concerns. I probably won't be able to post much more of substance until maybe Tuesday.

For one, I can't tell if you approve of race as a criterion, or even the criterion, at least in terms of addressing economic disparities, as the SIU program does.

Also, in terms of the proximate causes you cite (I'll simply go with the argument they're not easily attributable to the negative effects of bias) being more important, or even solely important, this seems to at least partially contradict the statements of the folks at SIU, who allude to some of the issues you mention, but also clearly implicate racial bias in a more direct way, even so far as to suggest it has helped breed the perception that black kids don't belong there somehow.

I certainly think it's wonderful you've had the experiences you've had, but it doesn't seem that they're the norm, unless folks like Dr. McNeil are making invalid or outdated points about the applicant pool and their experiences.

At any rate, I highly doubt the people you worked with took pity on you somehow. It's just too hard to succeed in the sciences, I think, if you've nothing to contribute. No amount of charity can ultimately compensate, though conversely I've seen some hardasses who could bring a Laureate to tears. Sounds like you simply lucked out in the nice mentor lottery.

Loopydude

11-12-2005, 05:57 PM

Why it's something I should be concerned about.

Yeah, well, this doesn't make it very easy. I don't think that science is so special that the community of scientists is immune from the concerns of the larger community, and its need for simple fairness. If there's something blatantly unfair going on, there's a moral obligation, I guess, to do something about it, as with anything else of that nature. You know, if there's an injustice, a scientist should be just as concerned as any other citizen. Are there better reasons?

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 05:59 PM

Yes, but, convince me that the fact that many black students, of their own free will, are choosing different career paths represents unfairness. How is letting people choose for themselves, unfair?

That's why I said that if there was discrimination at work, I'd be 100% behind you. But you have yet to convince me or, quite frankly, suggest any logicaly compelling reasons why this situation is truly abhorent.

monstro

11-12-2005, 06:07 PM

If you can't have a debate with someone who doesn't agree with your paradigm, and make a case for it via reason, what does that say about your position?

Why it's something I should be concerned about.

If you're right, you should be able to create a logical and compelling post, no? Monstro has suggested that the vitality of science itself depends on having various viewpoints represented among its population. I'm not sure if I can get behind that reasoning...

Just curious...how come? Don't we encourage diversity of viewpoints in every other endeavor (politics, the humanities, journalism, etc.)? Why should science be any different?

...as I'd need some hard data to believe that the vitality of the sciences is impaired if only, say, folks with skin color (X) are conducting science... especially since there's a global community of scientists who represent pretty much every nation and culture as it is.

Please read what I wrote. I said the science is shaped by culture, environment, socioeconomics, and sometimes race. Not "only skin color".

And I disagree that there's a 1)global community of scientists and 2) that every nation and culture is represented. Not adequetely, at least. Science is composed of a multitude of ivory towers--and rarely are there bridges linking them (although this is changing, hopefully). Physicists don't rub shoulders with ecologists, who don't rub shoulders with chemists, who don't rub shoulders with mathematicians. There is no "scientific community", only a bunch of different communities who hold their own meetings, publish their own journals, and communicate in their own jargon.

And are you really confident in saying that every nation and culture is represented? What counts as representation? Back in August, I attended an international meeting of ecologists, and it wasn't very international. Mostly North Americans and Western Europeans. A handful of Asian guys. Very few speakers of Spanish, even fewer people who were of African descent. About the only thing that was "equal" was the representation of men to females. So it would be hard to convince me that this was a particularly diverse group. It would also be equally hard to convince me that not having a diverse pool of ecologists and environmental scientists is an "okay" thing. Perhaps if I had been at a meeting for quantum physics, I would feel differently. But ecology has very real world implications. It affects policy.

All the potential questions, problems, and solutions in science are not equally accessible. Our ability to "see" certain ideas depends on the cultural lenses we're wearing. We don't pull our ideas out of the same hat, because ideas arise from inspirations found in our environments. And everyone has a different environment--everyone. Are scientists in Kenya thinking about the same things as scientists in Russia or Australia? Is a scientist who's never left the urban landscape thinking about the same thing as a scientist born and raised in a rural area? No. That's why I think there's value in creating a diverse scientific pool. I really don't know why you need hard data in order to accept this. It just seems self-evident.

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 06:29 PM

Would you mind hammering out what influence, exactly, culture, SES levels, etc... have on science? How would history have been different, for example, if Einstein was Christian, Newton was African, or Marie Curie was Asian?

Just curious...how come? Don't we encourage diversity of viewpoints in every other endeavor (politics, the humanities, journalism, etc.)? Why should science be any different?

Well... no. Journalism endevours to be objective and remove personal bias by reporting solely on factual matters, and science deals solely with objective phenomena. Likewise, I don't advocate diversity of political views, necessarily. If that's the result of people applying critical thinking and following their hearts, than so be it... but that's a secondary issue, not primary.

Please read what I wrote. I said the science is shaped by culture, environment, socioeconomics, and sometimes race. Not "only skin color".

Pardon me for conflating the issues. But, by the same token, if culture, enviornment, and socioeconomics are at issue, then it seems that we should be primarily focused on those. Recruit from differeing geographic regions, SES levels, etc... No?

And I disagree that there's a 1)global community of scientists and 2) that every nation and culture is represented. Not adequetely, at least.

Perhaps. I must admit I'm not aware of any nations which don't have scientists, but then again, I'm not aware of the full demographics. Are you, by chance?

Science is composed of a multitude of ivory towers--and rarely are there bridges linking them (although this is changing, hopefully). Physicists don't rub shoulders with ecologists, who don't rub shoulders with chemists, who don't rub shoulders with mathematicians.

That's actually a huge problem I've encountered, and I don't think it's limited to the sciences. For instance, linguistis, cognitive scientists, philosophy of mind students, and education students did virtually no networking. Much of the research I did during grad school required me to knit together highly related fields which had done very little to cooperate. But I'm not sure what role culture, etc... played in that.

There is no "scientific community", only a bunch of different communities who hold their own meetings, publish their own journals, and communicate in their own jargon.

True enough, and I suppose even those "communities" are a reification to a certain degree. But then again, so are various "cultures."

And are you really confident in saying that every nation and culture is represented? What counts as representation? Back in August, I attended an international meeting of ecologists, and it wasn't very international. Mostly North Americans and Western Europeans. A handful of Asian guys. Very few speakers of Spanish, even fewer people who were of African descent. About the only thing that was "equal" was the representation of men to females.

Perhaps we're using different metrics. I don't think that each country needs to put out the same number of scientists in all fields, as long as all have equal access to scientific training and such. I'm also not aware of any industrialized nation on the planet that doesn't have, for instance, at least some engineers.

So it would be hard to convince me that this was a particularly diverse group. It would also be equally hard to convince me that not having a diverse pool of ecologists and environmental scientists is an "okay" thing.

Can you elaborate on that? If, for instance, the only ecologists were American, but they made the global community/UN care about things, wouldn't that still have a profound impact?

Perhaps if I had been at a meeting for quantum physics, I would feel differently. But ecology has very real world implications. It affects policy.

So does quantum physics :D (The Manhattan project springs to mind)
But shouldn't we be more concerned with whether or not we're getting good science out of folks, rather than diverse scientists creating the good science?

All the potential questions, problems, and solutions in science are not equally accessible. Our ability to "see" certain ideas depends on the cultural lenses we're wearing.

Can you give me some examples of this? Because it sort of sounds like you're suggesting that certain 'groups' aren't as able to get at the truth, via science, as other groups. Or that certain groups have advantages in certain areas. Can you elaborate please?

We don't pull our ideas out of the same hat, because ideas arise from inspirations found in our environments. And everyone has a different environment--everyone. Are scientists in Kenya thinking about the same things as scientists in Russia or Australia? Is a scientist who's never left the urban landscape thinking about the same thing as a scientist born and raised in a rural area? No.

Are you sure?
If I find you one scientist who lived his life in Manhattan but worries about, say, wetlands, wouldn't that shatter your model?

Yes, scientists will often focus on problems which affect their own lives, but I fail to see how the current American scientific community isn't doing that for all Americans.

That's why I think there's value in creating a diverse scientific pool. I really don't know why you need hard data in order to accept this. It just seems self-evident.

Come now, you don't know why a Doper who doesn't share your paradigm would need hard evidence?

Just because it is self-evident to you does not mean that it's true. As I said, I'm open to rational dialogue and doing my best to meet folks half way, but with the only proof being that it's self evident to you...
You being certain of something doesn't convince me of anything other than that you're certain of it.

Martin Hyde

11-12-2005, 08:04 PM

Jesus Christ.

Well, I guess we'll just ignore all the endemic racial bias in society, and all of its impact, since ultimately race shouldn't matter. And we'll ignore the fact the body of scientists is so unrepresentative of society at large it's shameful. We'll ignore that the few scientists of certain minorities who do become scientists apparently don't thrive, and we'll ignore the positive impact a critical mass of minority scientists would have toward ameliorating that problem. Sure, it's blacks discriminating against white scientists. I'm glad we've cleared that up and now know where the blame clearly lies.

It's only shameful if you think government's goal should be to insure that in every single field of study and in every single industry the proportion of blacks to whites is equal to that of the population at large.

Which is a pretty fucking stupid position for anyone to take.

Martin Hyde

11-12-2005, 08:12 PM

If this is true, it seems any form of affirmative action that takes race into account is potentially dead, as one could always argue race is always, and in every instance, an invalid criterion if it's the deciding factor even in individual circumstances. Really, if you take race out of the equation in this manner, then you've got nothing but the financial aid programs that already exist.

And that's what we call a good thing. You don't fix racism with more racism.

Set asides for scholarships aren't near as heinous as quota programs for admissions. Because admissions programs like the one that was at Michigan created situations where more qualified white students were being rejected while less qualified black students were being rejected.

I don't care too much about these types of scholarship programs, but since they are specifically closed to white males it's definitely racist and violates the relevant SCOTUS ruling. Just because the equation has multiple parts doesn't mean it is okay if there is an underlying rule that no whites or no blacks or no hispanics or etc can ever receive one of the scholarships.

monstro

11-12-2005, 10:18 PM

Would you mind hammering out what influence, exactly, culture, SES levels, etc... have on science? How would history have been different, for example, if Einstein was Christian, Newton was African, or Marie Curie was Asian?

Imagine discovering all kinds of nifty ideas but not being able to broadcast them to the world because your society says that it's not useful information. I just finished reading Stephen Hawking's Universe: The Cosmos Explained by David Filkin. In the book, Filkin describes how Andre Linde, who is credited with originally coming up with "inflation theory", was severely hampered by the culture of Soviet Russia. I'd say that if he and other Russian physicists hadn't finally gotten the gumption to escape their environment, the field of cosmology would be totally different than it is now.

How do you think history would have turned if the scientists you named had been born in different bodies and circumstances? Do you think Marie Curie would have still discovered radium if she had been born a Muslim girl in Saudi Arabia? Do you think Einstein would have been given an audience if he had been a black man? Do you think Newton would have become the Father of Physics if he had been too poor to attend university? It's obvious I feel that things would have been totally different, just as I feel things would be different if Dubya had been born in New Delhi, son of a street whore. The question is why don't you? Or do you?

Science has historically been the realm of the priviledged. Do you think Darwin was a rich man or a poor man? How about Newton? Einstein grew up in comfortable, middle-class home--blessed with educated parents, books, violin lessons, and private schooling. Would Einstein have still been a genuis if he had grown up in South Boston, in a single-parent home? Maybe. But maybe he would haven't been a genuis in physics. Maybe his gifts would have gone into a different direction, like sociology or psychology. Maybe they wouldn't have developed at all.

I know ecology as an area of study would not be around if it hadn't been for a bunch of rich white guys with tons of free time on their hands, taking pensive strolls through abandoned farm fields, traveling on safaris, and collecting specimens to showcast on their fireplace mantles.

Well... no. Journalism endevours to be objective and remove personal bias by reporting solely on factual matters, and science deals solely with objective phenomena.

Do you think an American journalist has the same perspective on the Iraq War as a journalist in Iraq? Will they interview the same people, highlight the same quotes, and report the same facts? Draw the same conclusions? Which journalist will be said to be capable of being more objective? Wouldn't it be interesting to read what both of them produce, rather than just what the American says happened?

Likewise, I don't advocate diversity of political views, necessarily. If that's the result of people applying critical thinking and following their hearts, than so be it... but that's a secondary issue, not primary.

I agree, but I know I appreciate the StraightDope not because of the liberal Dopers who share my point-of-view, but because of those conservative Dopers who can articulate their mindsets. And I know that I appreciate individuals who have mixed-up politics--favoring some liberal views and favoring some conservative--over those who are more "straight ticket" thinkers.

Pardon me for conflating the issues. But, by the same token, if culture, enviornment, and socioeconomics are at issue, then it seems that we should be primarily focused on those. Recruit from differeing geographic regions, SES levels, etc... No?

I agree with you. And I don't see what's wrong for using race as a proxy for at least some of these things--like culture.

That's actually a huge problem I've encountered, and I don't think it's limited to the sciences. For instance, linguistis, cognitive scientists, philosophy of mind students, and education students did virtually no networking. Much of the research I did during grad school required me to knit together highly related fields which had done very little to cooperate. But I'm not sure what role culture, etc... played in that.

I never said culture had a role to play in that. I was only disagreeing with your use of the phrase "global community of scientists". There is no such thing.

True enough, and I suppose even those "communities" are a reification to a certain degree. But then again, so are various "cultures."

I'm curious...which cultures do you believe are reified?

Can you elaborate on that? If, for instance, the only ecologists were American, but they made the global community/UN care about things, wouldn't that still have a profound impact?

They would have a profound impact, but I can imagine that there focus would tend toward American-centric issues. And they would have a hard time affecting the policy of other governments , since they would most likley be seen as foreigners with ulterior motives (this is already the case).

The US president already doubts that global warming is a real phenomona, and it's American scientists telling him that it is. Imagine if it were a bunch of Middle Eastern or Russian climatologists who were wailing their heads off about it. Do you think things would be different? Do you think Americans would be more or less accepting of the hypothesis's validity?

So does quantum physics :D (The Manhattan project springs to mind)
But shouldn't we be more concerned with whether or not we're getting good science out of folks, rather than diverse scientists creating the good science?

I don't see why we can't do both.

Can you give me some examples of this? Because it sort of sounds like you're suggesting that certain 'groups' aren't as able to get at the truth, via science, as other groups. Or that certain groups have advantages in certain areas. Can you elaborate please?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that there's a big hunk of stuff called Truth, and we all gleam different parts of it. The part we see is determined by our position in time and place and cultural baggage.

If I find you one scientist who lived his life in Manhattan but worries about, say, wetlands, wouldn't that shatter your model?

Uh, no. 'Cause Manhattan has plenty of wetlands, and regardless--there's nothing keeping a Manhattanite from going into New Jersey or Connecticutt and finding a-plenty there. :)

But I would be shocked if an Indian in a tropical rain forest worries about wetlands in the same way that a nomad in Western Sahara does.

One reason I went into ecology/environmental science was because I grew up in big city and experienced a world full of pollution. Every science project I did from middle school up focused on some issue related to pollution. Riding the school bus home every afternoon, I would pass by the nasty factories and get to wondering about the bad smells they were emitting in the air. If I had grown up in surburbia, far from the smog and factories, maybe my life would have turned out differently. I might be a different kind of scientist than I am today. Who knows?

Yes, scientists will often focus on problems which affect their own lives, but I fail to see how the current American scientific community isn't doing that for all Americans.

I notice you said "current". Do you think the scientific community has always done that? If not, what changed? Why are scientists more enlightened now than they were before?

The distrust many black Americans harbor for science stems from one horrible episode in this country's history: the Tuskegee Syphilis study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_study). Yes, people should get over it, it happened a long time ago, blah blah blah, but it's true. That shit scared folks. And the reason it's scary is because the scientists geniuely felt they were being both objective AND doing good science. They were not, on both accounts.

I know this to be true: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study would have not have happened if black scientists had been involved with it and the white scientists had not been carrying with them racist cultural baggage.

So if the current American scientific community is serving everyone equally, this is a fairly recent development. I'd have to ask for a cite that this is in fact the case, that's how doubtful I am.

Come now, you don't know why a Doper who doesn't share your paradigm would need hard evidence?

To me, this isn't about paradigms. This is about something as simple as "the sky is blue". Different people => different experiences => different questions about the world. How do I provide hard evidence of this?

Just because it is self-evident to you does not mean that it's true. As I said, I'm open to rational dialogue and doing my best to meet folks half way, but with the only proof being that it's self evident to you...

Well, the same can be said of you. You are so certain that what I'm saying needs to be proven in "hard data" before you can accept it, but you aren't providing any evidence that I'm wrong. In fact, your questions about Einstein, Newton, and Curie only solidy my feeling that our experiences shape the kinds of questions we ask. I've expressed my reasons for feeling this way. I'd love if you were to do the same for your opinion.

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 11:32 PM

I'm going to start with a quote a bit out of order:

Well, the same can be said of you. You are so certain that what I'm saying needs to be proven in "hard data" before you can accept it, but you aren't providing any evidence that I'm wrong.

You've been on the Dope long enough to know how the burden of proof works. You're making a claim, and a broad generalization. It is not my job to provide evidence that you're wrong, but your job to provide evidence that you're right.

To be fair, you might say the same exact thing to me, to which I'd have to reply "Nyeh nyeh, I said it first, no backsies!"

Imagine discovering all kinds of nifty ideas but not being able to broadcast them to the world because your society says that it's not useful information.

Pre-internet? I can imagine it.
Post-internet? Can't imagine it.

was severely hampered by the culture of Soviet Russia. I'd say that if he and other Russian physicists hadn't finally gotten the gumption to escape their environment, the field of cosmology would be totally different than it is now.

Or if they'd been able to publish under psudonyms over the 'net.

How do you think history would have turned if the scientists you named had been born in different bodies and circumstances? Do you think Marie Curie would have still discovered radium if she had been born a Muslim girl in Saudi Arabia?

Yes.
I do not believe one's ethnicity, culture, etc... counters self determination and autonomy.

Besides, America isn't Saudi Arabia, and regardless of what one's background is, in America, you can go into the sciences.

Do you think Einstein would have been given an audience if he had been a black man?

Yes.
He was a Jew in Germany, for God's sake.

Do you think Newton would have become the Father of Physics if he had been too poor to attend university?

Shifting the goalposts a bit. Obviously one who can't afford college is at a disadvantage. That is why I've said, repeatedly, that economic aid should be given to poor people to be used for their education.

The question is why don't you? Or do you?

"It steam engines when it comes steam engine time."
An idea which has found its time can change the entire world.

And I believe that if we're talking about the scientific community in America, as we've been doing, that as long as someone can receive funding for an education, then their talent can carry them as far as possible.

Science has historically been the realm of the priviledged. Do you think Darwin was a rich man or a poor man? How about Newton? Einstein grew up in comfortable, middle-class home--blessed with educated parents, books, violin lessons, and private schooling. Would Einstein have still been a genuis if he had grown up in South Boston, in a single-parent home? Maybe. But maybe he would haven't been a genuis in physics. Maybe his gifts would have gone into a different direction, like sociology or psychology. Maybe they wouldn't have developed at all.

Possibly, but I've already said I believe education is the best path to success and that we should make sure that even the poor have access to it.

I know ecology as an area of study would not be around if it hadn't been for a bunch of rich white guys with tons of free time on their hands, taking pensive strolls through abandoned farm fields, traveling on safaris, and collecting specimens to showcast on their fireplace mantles.

You don't think that the massive economic pressures of farming would've triggered it sooner or later?

Do you think an American journalist has the same perspective on the Iraq War as a journalist in Iraq?

If they do their jobs well?
Yes.

I agree with you. And I don't see what's wrong for using race as a proxy for at least some of these things--like culture.

Well, for instance, a Jewish man from Georgia might have a totally different life than a Jewish man from Manhattan.

I never said culture had a role to play in that. I was only disagreeing with your use of the phrase "global community of scientists". There is no such thing.

Fair enough. What phrase would be acceptable to use for "all the scientists on the planet."

I'm curious...which cultures do you believe are reified?

All of them. We flatten on what properly runs on a virtually endless continuum, and try to break it up into little boxes.

Perhaps I was a bit unclear, I should've said "so are the various 'cultures.' "

They would have a profound impact, but I can imagine that there focus would tend toward American-centric issues. And they would have a hard time affecting the policy of other governments , since they would most likley be seen as foreigners with ulterior motives (this is already the case).

Perhaps, but I seem to remember more than one western scientist talking about, for instance, desertification, or the rain forest, or the oceans. And in some cases, they've helped create eco-tourism and save endangered patches of land. Am I wrong?

The US president already doubts that global warming is a real phenomona, and it's American scientists telling him that it is.

Yeah, but he also doubts that the light goes out in the fridge when he closes the door and who is proudly outside of the fact-based-community. Maybe he's not a good example ;)

Do you think Americans would be more or less accepting of the hypothesis's validity?

If they were properly educated?
They'd judge it on its scientific merits.

And yes, we've got a long way to go, but the only way I can see to make sure they're properly educated is to educate them.

I don't see why we can't do both.

I suppose my own real worry is that we get good science out of our scientists. I'm simply not convinced that in our country, for example, someone can't publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal and have that stand on its own.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that there's a big hunk of stuff called Truth, and we all gleam different parts of it. The part we see is determined by our position in time and place and cultural baggage.

Possible... but you've given an example of, for instance, Russian scientists who followed the truth even though their culture forbade it.

Uh, no. 'Cause Manhattan has plenty of wetlands, and regardless--there's nothing keeping a Manhattanite from going into New Jersey or Connecticutt and finding a-plenty there. :)

There are wetlands in Manhattan???
Wetlands are swamps, right? I mean... Manhattan has central park, but that's not exactly a swamp. Have I missed something?

But, likewise, what's to prevent someone from anywhere else from logging onto the 'net, or reading a book, and becoming curious about another place?

But I would be shocked if an Indian in a tropical rain forest worries about wetlands in the same way that a nomad in Western Sahara does.

Perhaps, but intellectual curiousity, or as you put it knowledge for the sake of knowledge, can do powerful things.

One reason I went into ecology/environmental science was because I grew up in big city and experienced a world full of pollution. Every science project I did from middle school up focused on some issue related to pollution. Riding the school bus home every afternoon, I would pass by the nasty factories and get to wondering about the bad smells they were emitting in the air. If I had grown up in surburbia, far from the smog and factories, maybe my life would have turned out differently. I might be a different kind of scientist than I am today. Who knows?

Well, that's a good point, but it still seems that has more to do with geography than culture, or SES status, or what have you.

I notice you said "current". Do you think the scientific community has always done that? If not, what changed? Why are scientists more enlightened now than they were before?

The ability to access more information than ever before has allowed people, at least those who take the time, to learn more than ever before. Sometimes the phrase "the world has gotten smaller" is trotted out, and although it's cliche, sometimes it's sorta true.

The distrust many black Americans harbor for science stems from one horrible episode in this country's history: the Tuskegee Syphilis study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_study). Yes, people should get over it, it happened a long time ago, blah blah blah, but it's true. That shit scared folks. And the reason it's scary is because the scientists geniuely felt they were being both objective AND doing good science. They were not, on both accounts.

I'd agree, but as far as I'm aware that shit wouldn't stand in today's day and age, right?

I know this to be true: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study would have not have happened if black scientists had been involved with it and the white scientists had not been carrying with them racist cultural baggage.

Likewise, if the white scientists were properly educated and there were correct professional codes of conduct.

So if the current American scientific community is serving everyone equally, this is a fairly recent development. I'd have to ask for a cite that this is in fact the case, that's how doubtful I am.

Well, before I dig up cites, what would you find acceptable? Would, for instance, medical research on certain genetic problems various bloodlines have be okay? Or enviornmentalists who seek to improve the enviornemnt for everybody? Or engineers who are working on a better mousetrap, or what have you?

To me, this isn't about paradigms. This is about something as simple as "the sky is blue". Different people => different experiences => different questions about the world. How do I provide hard evidence of this?

But, for instance, let's say I'm a white scientist and someone who is, oh, I don't know, Kenyan writes to me and explains a problem that they have. My whiteness shouldn't get in the way of me being able to understand, and perhaps solve their problem.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that through education the limitations of our histories can be overcome to a large degree. To co-opt (mwahaha) an example that you used, even as a white Jewish man, I can take an interest in making sure that things like the Tuskegee study never happen again.

I think that, for instance, a required science course on global issues would be quite useful.

I've expressed my reasons for feeling this way. I'd love if you were to do the same for your opinion.

Have I done so to your satisfaction yet, or should I elaborate further?

Evil Captor

11-12-2005, 11:41 PM

Boy, all this sudden concern about racism from the right sure does a fella's heart good! The power and fury of their anger at racism is truly a thing to behold. Imagine, if they're THAT concerned about the very small barrier -- just a curb, really, nothing more than a four-inch curb -- encountered by some white people, perhaps even merely HYPOTHETICAL white people -- well, one can only IMAGINE the insane, ravening fury that will fill their breasts when they finally notice the twelve-foot high, three-foot-thick concrete wall topped with razor wire, studded with spikes and inset with broken glass that minority students have historically had to deal with in pursuit of higher education. I imagine they will be reduced to frothing, gibbering hordes of insensate fury, if they ever get around to noticing that gigantic wall right next to that curb.

The wailing, the gnashing of teeth, the eyes cast heavenward occasioned by that tiny four inch curb for white males portends great things ... GREAT THINGS, I say! -- when they finally notice that gigantic wall for minorities and respond proportionately to it. I can't hardly wait! But I suspect I will have to wait ... possibly until a certain place freezes over.

tomndebb

11-12-2005, 11:58 PM

Do you think Einstein would have been given an audience if he had been a black man?Yes.
He was a Jew in Germany, for God's sake. Nope.

When Einstein made history in physics, he was a naturalized citizen of Switzerland 25 years prior to the Nazi campaign to marginalize Jews. He later returned to Germany and resumed his German citizenship, but left as soon as Hiler rose to power. When seeking an audience with FDR, he was a noted celebrity and an immigrant to the U.S., not a "Jew in Germany." It should be noted that there was not a universal antipathy to Jews in Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis. Many Jews actually sought out Germany as a good place to live and during the 1920s many prominent Germans were Jews (which made the reversal of fortunes beginning in 1933 all that more bitter).

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 12:11 AM

Nope.
When Einstein made history in physics, he was a naturalized citizen of Switzerland 25 years prior to the Nazi campaign to marginalize Jews.

That doesn't change the fact that he was born a Jew in Germany. His early schooling, for example, was in Munich. When he became a German citizen again in 1914, he didn't just go back to Germany, he was made director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and a professor at the University of Berlin. I'd take it that during that time his influence on quantum mechanics and 'the new physics' didn't exactly wane?

The fact that he was able to gain a different audience actually supports my point. With the ability to get your ideas out to a different population, much easier with the 'net, one can communicate beyond limits of geography.

He later returned to Germany and resumed his German citizenship, but left as soon as Hiler rose to power.

Was he taken seriously during that time?

When seeking an audience with FDR, he was a noted celebrity and an immigrant to the U.S., not a "Jew in Germany."

He was a Jew in Germany, he was, of course, also not a Jew in Germany. The timeframe matters, as always. Perhaps I was unclear, but my point was that a German Jew transcended his 'culture' and place of birth. Perhaps I should've used the phrase "had been" instead of "was".

It should be noted that there was not a universal antipathy to Jews in Germany prior to the rise of the Nazis.

Just as there is not universal antipathy to, say, minorities in America currently.

tomndebb

11-13-2005, 12:19 AM

Perhaps I was unclear, but my point was that a German Jew transcended his 'culture' and place of birth.He didn't have to. Prior to 1933, there was no overwhelming antipathy to Jews in Germany. They were not denied education. They were not denied jobs. They were not even treated as badly as Jews in other parts of Europe (or the U.S.).

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 12:23 AM

He didn't have to. Prior to 1933, there was no overwhelming antipathy to Jews in Germany. They were not denied education. They were not denied jobs. They were not even treated as badly as Jews in other parts of Europe (or the U.S.).

But after 1933 he still wasn't limited by his place of birth.
And I still see an historical parallel, as blacks in America aren't denied jobs, or education.

tomndebb

11-13-2005, 12:31 AM

Well, blacks are not denied an education for those of them who are not stifled by various cultural barriers to them even seeking an education. And for the most part, blacks are less frequently denied jobs than previously.

treis

11-13-2005, 12:42 AM

But after 1933 he still wasn't limited by his place of birth.
And I still see an historical parallel, as blacks in America aren't denied jobs, or education.

Are blacks Denied an education? No, denied is too harsh of a word and black is the wrong description. Poor people, which blacks are overrepresented in, get a much crappier education than the rich, which blacks are underrepresented in. By way of the income distribution I would say that yes, blacks get a much crappier education than whites.

John Mace

11-13-2005, 12:55 AM

Boy, all this sudden concern about racism from the right sure does a fella's heart good! The power and fury of their anger at racism is truly a thing to behold. Imagine, if they're THAT concerned about the very small barrier -- just a curb, really, nothing more than a four-inch curb -- encountered by some white people, perhaps even merely HYPOTHETICAL white people -- well, one can only IMAGINE the insane, ravening fury that will fill their breasts when they finally notice the twelve-foot high, three-foot-thick concrete wall topped with razor wire, studded with spikes and inset with broken glass that minority students have historically had to deal with in pursuit of higher education. I imagine they will be reduced to frothing, gibbering hordes of insensate fury, if they ever get around to noticing that gigantic wall right next to that curb.
Outline for us exactly what this 12 foot wall consists of. Let's look at Joe BlackKid who has an interest in science and the aptitude to match. What specifically is laid in his path to prevent him from pursuing his goal? Compare that to Jim WhiteKid from the same socio-economic background. Tell us all about this 12 foot wall. Is Bill-Bob WhiteMan just waiting at that wall to knock Joe BlackKid back to where he belongs? I want some details.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 12:58 AM

Are blacks Denied an education? No, denied is too harsh of a word and black is the wrong description. Poor people, which blacks are overrepresented in, get a much crappier education than the rich, which blacks are underrepresented in. By way of the income distribution I would say that yes, blacks get a much crappier education than whites.

Which is why I've said, several times in this thread, that we should give money to the poor for education. I'd also agree without hesitation that we need to fix the inner city/poor schools in this country.

monstro

11-13-2005, 11:03 AM

I'm going to start with a quote a bit out of order:

You've been on the Dope long enough to know how the burden of proof works. You're making a claim, and a broad generalization. It is not my job to provide evidence that you're wrong, but your job to provide evidence that you're right.

What claim am I making that is so spectactular, FinnAgain? I love the 'Dope, but the pedantic exercise of digging up "cites" for every picuane thing is not my cup of tea.

Do you accept that different people experience the world differently? Yes or no.

Do you accept that different experiences will affect the way we observe the world? Think about problems? Go about solving problems?

If you say "no", then I feel that it is you who is making a claim of the outrageous. Because I know that a Holocaust survivor feels differently about things than a white supremacists. I know that an obese man on welfare has a different perspective on the world than a world-class athelete. I know the children of priviledge experience a different world than the children of abject poverty. I know these things to be self-evident.

You are a male of Jewish heritage with an interest in cognititive linguistics, yes? Can you think of anything in your past--perhaps your childhood, something you experienced as a young man--that you can say put you on your present course? Did you come out of the womb wanting to be a scholar, or was there someone in your life who encouraged you to pursue academics? Do you think you would be an intelligent person if your household didn't have books? If you had been born a woman, in an ultra-conservative family? If you had been severely abused by your parents? If you had been raised to believe, as the Amish do, that learning beyond the 8th grade is "prideful" and thus sinful?

Why do you think your abilities and interests would transcend your culture and upbringing? That is an incredible argument.

To be fair, you might say the same exact thing to me, to which I'd have to reply "Nyeh nyeh, I said it first, no backsies!"

But this is a cop-out, though. If I say the sky is purple and then you say the sky is brown, why is it incumbent on ME to provide proof but not you? Your claim is just as "wacky". In fact, it is even moreso because one can find see how environment shapes our path in life (George Washington Carver probably wouldn't have been an plant scientist if he hadn't been born in a rural area and hadn't been too handicapped to work as a slave hand...Edward Jenner perhaps would not have discovered the vaccine if he had been a city doctor instead of a country one...environmental science as we know it would probably not exist if Rachel Carson had not worked as an aquatic biologist with the federal government.)

If socioeconomics plays a role in science, as you admit it does, then why is the importance of culture and environment so hard for you to swallow?

Pre-internet? I can imagine it.
Post-internet? Can't imagine it.

Who's moving goal posts now?

If you can't imagine not being able to get your ideas out even now, post-internet, you aren't using your imagination. Do you think the people in People's Republic of China possess the same internet that we do, here in the free world? Do you think Soviet Russia would have allowed a free exchange of ideas via internet, if the country still existed?

I can also imagine being hampered by language. Will a Kenyan physicist who only speaks Swahili receive the same audience as a British physicist? If a Polish chemist only publishes in Polish journals, will she be as well known as the German chemist who only publishes in German journals? I know an German microbiologist who did not get tenure mainly because his papers were all published in European journals, and the tenure committee was comprised of Americans who couldn't read anything other than English.

Or if they'd been able to publish under psudonyms over the 'net.

Will they publish in peer-reviewed online journals? Or create their own websites? Does it matter which route they take? Will they have the same advantage as a scientist who doesn't have to publish under a pen name?

I do not believe one's ethnicity, culture, etc... counters self determination and autonomy.

And this is an outlandish claim.

Does culture shape personality? Yes or no.

Does personality shape self-determination? Yes or no.

Does self-determination shape how one deals with adversity? Yes or no.

Why do you think Jewish folks have done so well in the sciences, FinnAgain? If what you say is true, we should expect the list of the Nobel Prize winners to reflect the population at large, correct? Why doesn't it? Is it all just a coincidence of geography?

Besides, America isn't Saudi Arabia, and regardless of what one's background is, in America, you can go into the sciences.

You're shifting again. You asked me to speculate on Einstein, Newton, and Curie--known of which are Americans. And I don't understand how you can possibly say that Madame Curie would have still discovered radium if she had been born in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you don't know how bad a place Saudi Arabia is for women?

Yes.
He was a Jew in Germany, for God's sake.

But he was a Jew who went to college, correct? He had well-educated parents, correct? No told him that Jews were inherently stupid, correct? His skin color would not have barred him from lecture halls or libraries, right?

Why haven't we seen any black Einsteins, if culture and environment don't play any kind of role in what kind of person we will be? Why haven't we seen any black US presidents? Any female Robert Feynmans?

Shifting the goalposts a bit. Obviously one who can't afford college is at a disadvantage. That is why I've said, repeatedly, that economic aid should be given to poor people to be used for their education.

And as I asked before, if you can buy the argument that socioeconomics play a role in what kind of scientist you will be, why can't you buy the argument that culture and environment are also important?

And I believe that if we're talking about the scientific community in America, as we've been doing, that as long as someone can receive funding for an education, then their talent can carry them as far as possible.

If we were talking about America, why did you mention Einstein, Newton, and Curie? Why talk about a "global community of scientists", if we're only talking about Americans?

Possibly, but I've already said I believe education is the best path to success and that we should make sure that even the poor have access to it.

Great. I agree.

You don't think that the massive economic pressures of farming would've triggered it sooner or later?

I don't think anything is inevitable.

If they do their jobs well?
Yes.

Again, this is a facile statement. First off, "well" is subjective. The reporters at CNN, FOX, and MSNBC all think they are doing "well" and yet their stories are all different (some vastly different).

In the readings of some of the "good" history books, I've noticed that historians will unintentionally interject their perspective into their writings. For instance, in reading about Africa, I have seen sub-Saharan peoples referred collectively as "black Africans" , while Europeans are described as "Europeans", Asians as "Asians", and Pacific Islanders as "Pacific Islanders". Even Jared Diamond does this in GGS. What perspective is revealed in such writing? Is it an objective voice? Did the historian do a "bad" job?

I think it is impossible for humans to be completely objective. We can strive for it as much as we want to--and we should--but there will always been signs of our particular perspective in whatever we produce.

Well, for instance, a Jewish man from Georgia might have a totally different life than a Jewish man from Manhattan.

True, but there would be some commonality between them right? Or the "Jewish" label would be meaningless.

All of them. We flatten on what properly runs on a virtually endless continuum, and try to break it up into little boxes.

Of course it's a spectrum, then again so are a lot of things we categorize. Maybe there isn't much difference between "Jewish" culture and "mainstream American" culture. But does that mean these things don't exist?

Perhaps, but I seem to remember more than one western scientist talking about, for instance, desertification, or the rain forest, or the oceans. And in some cases, they've helped create eco-tourism and save endangered patches of land. Am I wrong?

That one "western" scientist would not have made any headway if local scientists didn't lend a hand. A foreign scientist doesn't change policy. He works with people in the community, who then evoke change. And this is the way it should be.

If they were properly educated?
They'd judge it on its scientific merits.

And yes, we've got a long way to go, but the only way I can see to make sure they're properly educated is to educate them.

I think you avoided the question, but that's okay.

I suppose my own real worry is that we get good science out of our scientists. I'm simply not convinced that in our country, for example, someone can't publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal and have that stand on its own.

Well, I don't think there's a lot of systematic bias going on, but science is rife with politics just like any other human arena. And there have been cases where scientists have had a hard time getting published for reasons other than the validity of their findings. The review process is not a completely objective one, even though people like to proclaim it is.

Possible... but you've given an example of, for instance, Russian scientists who followed the truth even though their culture forbade it.

Yes, but how do you know they aren't the exceptions? How many Russian scientists got so frustrated that they decided to give up on science all together? How many of them fudged their data so that their bosses would pat them on the head and let them publish? How many of them chose to pursue questions they were only half-interested in, simply because their real passion was deemed "unproductive"? How many of them defected to other countries only to discover that their ideas had already been discovered?

We will never know the answers to these questions.

There are wetlands in Manhattan???
Wetlands are swamps, right? I mean... Manhattan has central park, but that's not exactly a swamp. Have I missed something?

A swamp is a wetland, but a wetland isn't a swamp. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetland)

But, likewise, what's to prevent someone from anywhere else from logging onto the 'net, or reading a book, and becoming curious about another place?

Um, are you asking this seriously? Because you just said you understood how important socioeconomics are. If you're too broke to afford a computer, you can't log onto the 'net, right?

If your parents don't believe in newfangled technology, you aren't going to have a computer to log onto the net, right?

If the nearest library is 30 miles away, wouldn't that prevent you from reading a book? At least compared to someone who lives just across the street from one (as I do)?

If your culture discourages travel and curiousity about the outside world (like the Amish), your persective is going to be very different than a sophisticate in Manhattan, who did a stint in Europe during college and visits Israel every summer.

No, there are no signs saying "You Can't Study Science". But that doesn't mean that access is equal, or that every intelligent person has the same chance of becoming a scientist as the next intelligent guy.

I'd agree, but as far as I'm aware that shit wouldn't stand in today's day and age, right?

It wouldn't say today, but what about tomorrow? The TSS ended in 1972 (IIRC). Doesn't that almost count as "today's day and age"?

Likewise, if the white scientists were properly educated and there were correct professional codes of conduct.

Who decides what's proper? Who decides what's correct? Didn't they think they were being good scientists? Were they wrong based on their own standards as well as ours?

Well, before I dig up cites, what would you find acceptable? Would, for instance, medical research on certain genetic problems various bloodlines have be okay? Or enviornmentalists who seek to improve the enviornemnt for everybody? Or engineers who are working on a better mousetrap, or what have you?

Anything showing that there isn't a single population in the US that has been underserved by science.

But, for instance, let's say I'm a white scientist and someone who is, oh, I don't know, Kenyan writes to me and explains a problem that they have. My whiteness shouldn't get in the way of me being able to understand, and perhaps solve their problem.

It might. If I'm a Kenyan dendrologist (tree scientist) and I'm having a problem diagnosing a problem with a tree native to eastern Africa, I might be better off asking a fellow east African dendrologist before asking you, someone who's thousands of miles away and has never seen the tree I'm studying.

If I'm a Kenyan hydrologist and I want to study the effects of Kenyan farming on an adjacent prarie, will I consult a white Jewish hydrologist living in NY for ideas about how to talk to the people? What would the white Jewish hydrologist know about Kenyan farming culture that I, as a rural Kenyan, wouldn't know?

You may very well understand what I'm talking about. You may even have advice. But your perspective is a different one, not necessarily the one that I need.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that through education the limitations of our histories can be overcome to a large degree. To co-opt (mwahaha) an example that you used, even as a white Jewish man, I can take an interest in making sure that things like the Tuskegee study never happen again.

Of course you can. But then again, this hinges on you having been educated "properly". I learned about the TSS not in a science class, but in an English class--an elective. I imagine that there are a lot of scientists who have never heard about the TSS and have never taken a course in ethics (I haven't). How can scientists know that they are doing things "right" when they aren't even taught what is "wrong"?

Even within the US, different schools educate their students in different ways. A biology major coming out of Indiana University will have learned different things than a biology major coming out of Bob Jones University, for instance. Will the science they produce be the same, or will it be different? Inquiring minds want to know.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 12:50 PM

By the way, this quoting-each-other-and-responding thing is getting fucking massive. Maybe we should agree to disagree before we kill the hamsters?

FinnAgain? I love the 'Dope, but the pedantic exercise of digging up "cites" for every picuane thing is not my cup of tea.

If you make a claim, a sweeping massive generalization about 'human nature', it's perfectly legit to ask for a cite.

Do you accept that different people experience the world differently? Yes or no.
Do you accept that different experiences will affect the way we observe the world? Think about problems? Go about solving problems?

Yes, and yes.
But do you accept that influence is not control?

Because I know that a Holocaust survivor feels differently about things than a white supremacists. I know that an obese man on welfare has a different perspective on the world than a world-class athelete. I know the children of priviledge experience a different world than the children of abject poverty. I know these things to be self-evident.

But, for instance, a child born with a silver spoon in his mouth can find out what grinding poverty is like. Our initial limitations, paradigms, and worldviews are not immutable.

You are a male of Jewish heritage with an interest in cognititive linguistics, yes?

Yeepers.

Can you think of anything in your past--perhaps your childhood, something you experienced as a young man--that you can say put you on your present course?

Actually, I could point to a few instances in college, but not childhood. I wanted to be a doctor up until sophmore year of college.

Did you come out of the womb wanting to be a scholar, or was there someone in your life who encouraged you to pursue academics?

Actually, my parents always remarked that most of my pressure and drive was self-generated.

Do you think you would be an intelligent person if your household didn't have books?

Yes, but obviously nurture plays a large role as well. (Which is, of course, to assume I'm an intelligent person now ;) )

If you had been born a woman, in an ultra-conservative family? If you had been severely abused by your parents? If you had been raised to believe, as the Amish do, that learning beyond the 8th grade is "prideful" and thus sinful?

Would it have been more difficult in those cases? Yes. But limitations are not a death sentence, and they can be overcome. Heck, I seem to remember some Amish coke dealers recently :D

Why do you think your abilities and interests would transcend your culture and upbringing? That is an incredible argument.

I guess we're even... I think it's a rather incredible argument that your abilities and interests cannot transcend your enviornment.

Your claim is just as "wacky". In fact, it is even moreso because one can find see how environment shapes our path in life ...

Well, as I said, what has been true of the world, especially in terms of information flow, is no longer true. A city doctor can, indeed, become interested in country issues. And vice versa. And, of course, if someone was interested in the sciences

Enviornment may help shape things, but it is not immutable, and it is not the sole factor.

If socioeconomics plays a role in science, as you admit it does, then why is the importance of culture and environment so hard for you to swallow?

Because one cannot get more money by force of will, but one can reshape their worldview in such a manner.

Who's moving goal posts now?

Not me. I've been pointing out that, as you noted, current scientific trends are different from previous ones. Heck, current social trends are too. Information is the deciding factor, as I see it.

If you can't imagine not being able to get your ideas out even now, post-internet, you aren't using your imagination. Do you think the people in People's Republic of China possess the same internet that we do, here in the free world?

Well, we are talking about American scientists and why they need to be diverse, or Chinese? ;) Besides, no, Chinese dissidents don't have an easy time of it, but there are, indeed, ways for them to circumvent their state's control.

Do you think Soviet Russia would have allowed a free exchange of ideas via internet, if the country still existed?

What is allowed, and what actually goes on, are two different matters.

I can also imagine being hampered by language. Will a Kenyan physicist who only speaks Swahili receive the same audience as a British physicist? If a Polish chemist only publishes in Polish journals, will she be as well known as the German chemist who only publishes in German journals? I know an German microbiologist who did not get tenure mainly because his papers were all published in European journals, and the tenure committee was comprised of Americans who couldn't read anything other than English.

These seem to be different issues. English is the new lingua franca. Yes, speaking/writing in it will give one advantages on the global stage, and there's no real reason that a Kenyan couldn't learn if it he/she wanted a global audience. Just like, if I wanted to convince Kenyans of something, it might behove me to learn their language, or at least find someone who did to translate for me.

Will they publish in peer-reviewed online journals? Or create their own websites? Does it matter which route they take? Will they have the same advantage as a scientist who doesn't have to publish under a pen name?

I seem to remember Bourbaki being rather well received, and he was the Cecil Adams (in more ways than one) of the math community.

And this is an outlandish claim.

Is it? One isn't allowed self determination if they're from a certain culture?
"We shouldn't expect too much out of him, he's just an ?"

Does culture shape personality? Yes or no.
Does personality shape self-determination? Yes or no.
Does self-determination shape how one deals with adversity? Yes or no.

In all cases yes, with qualifications. Those can help shape things, but there are other factors. And even if they shape things, things can be re-shaped. Influence is not control.

Why do you think Jewish folks have done so well in the sciences, FinnAgain? If what you say is true, we should expect the list of the Nobel Prize winners to reflect the population at large, correct? Why doesn't it? Is it all just a coincidence of geography?

Actually, I'm curious as to why you think they've done so well in the sciences. But, even if there is an influence within the "Jewish community", some of the Jew Tang Clan don't become scientists. As you stated, my calling is towards language and its uses. Would that not imply that I'd 'transcended' whatever cultural forces might've influenced me to become a scientist?

You're shifting again. You asked me to speculate on Einstein, Newton, and Curie--known of which are Americans. And I don't understand how you can possibly say that Madame Curie would have still discovered radium if she had been born in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you don't know how bad a place Saudi Arabia is for women?

Not shifting, more saying that I might've used bad examples as the scope of the OP was, I beleieve, dealing with America.
And I do indeed know how bad Saudi Arabia is for women. I also know that those who feel strongly enough have a way of getting around most 'controls'. Some Saudi women leave the country, after all.

But he was a Jew who went to college, correct? He had well-educated parents, correct? No told him that Jews were inherently stupid, correct? His skin color would not have barred him from lecture halls or libraries, right?

I'm not sure about nobody ever telling him anything bad about Jews, but yeah, I'd wager all that is correct.

Why haven't we seen any black Einsteins, if culture and environment don't play any kind of role in what kind of person we will be? Why haven't we seen any black US presidents? Any female Robert Feynmans?

Well, to be fair, we've only seen one 'Einstein', although perhaps Hawking would be up on that level. Still, shall we break them up as "Jewish" and "gentile" or put them together as "white"?

I'd also argue that it's a function of numbers. If there are few blacks who go into the sciences, there's a smaller pool out of which to get potential 'Einsteins'.

And as I asked before, if you can buy the argument that socioeconomics play a role in what kind of scientist you will be, why can't you buy the argument that culture and environment are also important?

I haven't said that they're not important, I've said that they aren't immutable. Poverty, for the most part, is. One cannot simply create money, but one can work on changing one's mind.

If we were talking about America, why did you mention Einstein, Newton, and Curie? Why talk about a "global community of scientists", if we're only talking about Americans?

Well, I think that there are two issues at play.
One, is whether or not the American community of scientists is at peril because of its demographics. The second is whether or not people in whatever culture they're born in, are limited to that culture and have no real self determination. I apologize if I conflated them.

I don't think anything is inevitable.

Perhaps... perhaps not. I do think that when pressure is right, things happen. We often see multiple people discovering the same scientific findings at the same time, totally on their own. But I suppose that may very well get into its own GD territory and seems to be a quite seperate tangent.

Again, this is a facile statement. First off, "well" is subjective. The reporters at CNN, FOX, and MSNBC all think they are doing "well" and yet their stories are all different (some vastly different).

They may think they're doing well, I don't always :D

Did the historian do a "bad" job?

Yep. Or at least, not as good as job as one would like.

I think it is impossible for humans to be completely objective. We can strive for it as much as we want to--and we should--but there will always been signs of our particular perspective in whatever we produce.

But we can also be aware of those influences and attempt to combat them.

True, but there would be some commonality between them right? Or the "Jewish" label would be meaningless.

I've argued elsewhere that, to a large degree, it is. Our fictional Georgian and Gothamite Jews might very well have much, much, much more in common with people who they live with than with each other.

Of course it's a spectrum, then again so are a lot of things we categorize. Maybe there isn't much difference between "Jewish" culture and "mainstream American" culture. But does that mean these things don't exist?

I'd say that yes, it does.
I think that define what 'culture' a 'group' has is essentially a No True Scotsman affair.

That one "western" scientist would not have made any headway if local scientists didn't lend a hand. A foreign scientist doesn't change policy. He works with people in the community, who then evoke change. And this is the way it [i]should be.

But the western scientists still took an interest, did the research, and got in touch with the the "foreign" scientists, no?

I think you avoided the question, but that's okay.

I thought I answered the question, so there! :p

Well, I don't think there's a lot of systematic bias going on, but science is rife with politics just like any other human arena. And there have been cases where scientists have had a hard time getting published for reasons other than the validity of their findings. The review process is not a completely objective one, even though people like to proclaim it is.

Perhaps... I studied under a few editors of some heavy peer reviewed journals, and although there might very well have been politicial/ideological factors at work, I didn't ever get the sense that there were cultural factors at work. Maybe I just didn't see 'em.

Yes, but how do you know they aren't the exceptions? How many Russian scientists got so frustrated that they decided to give up on science all together? How many of them fudged their data so that their bosses would pat them on the head and let them publish? How many of them chose to pursue questions they were only half-interested in, simply because their real passion was deemed "unproductive"? How many of them defected to other countries only to discover that their ideas had already been discovered?
We will never know the answers to these questions.

Indeed, we won't. And I'm sure that there are many who did not transcend their culture's limitations, but there were also some who did.

A swamp is a wetland, but a wetland isn't a swamp. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetland)

Okay, but still, wiki lists wetland types as
* bog or moor or muskeg (peatlands)
* mangrove swamp or mangal
* marsh
* fen
* carr
* swamp
* bayou or slough
* constructed wetland

I'm not aware of any of those being in Manhattan.

Um, are you asking this seriously? Because you just said you understood how important socioeconomics are. If you're too broke to afford a computer, you can't log onto the 'net, right?

When I was in Manhattan and too poor to afford internet access, I used public libraries. When I was in London and too poor to afford internet access, I would sometimes walk onto local college campuses and use their connections.

If your parents don't believe in newfangled technology, you aren't going to have a computer to log onto the net, right?

If you don't leave your house, then yes, right.

If the nearest library is 30 miles away, wouldn't that prevent you from reading a book? At least compared to someone who lives just across the street from one (as I do)?

Would it make it more difficult? Yes. But these limitations can be dealt with.

If your culture discourages travel and curiousity about the outside world (like the Amish), your persective is going to be very different than a sophisticate in Manhattan, who did a stint in Europe during college and visits Israel every summer.

True, to a certain degree. But there are some children born into the Amish world who rebel and leave. Sometimes, as well, perspective can be changed by interacting with the words of someone with a different perspective. Ayn Rand produced many a Randroid.

No, there are no signs saying "You Can't Study Science". But that doesn't mean that access is equal, or that every intelligent person has the same chance of becoming a scientist as the next intelligent guy.

Elaborate on this please.

It wouldn't say today, but what about tomorrow? The TSS ended in 1972 (IIRC). Doesn't that almost count as "today's day and age"?

I don't think so, to be honest. But I wasn't alive then, so I can't really tell you with any authority.

Who decides what's proper? Who decides what's correct? Didn't they think they were being good scientists? Were they wrong based on their own standards as well as ours?

Why, I decide what's proper and correct, of course ;)
Are modern ethical guidelines set up to prevent such things happening again? I had thought that they were. Am I wrong?

Anything showing that there isn't a single population in the US that has been underserved by science.

Well, I could do that simply by pointing to initiatives designed to limit, say, global warming; something which would affect everybody. Or do you have a more specific meaning in mind in this discussion?

It might. If I'm a Kenyan dendrologist (tree scientist) and I'm having a problem diagnosing a problem with a tree native to eastern Africa, I might be better off asking a fellow east African dendrologist before asking you, someone who's thousands of miles away and has never seen the tree I'm studying.

But what if I've read all about those trees? Or I was to go and visit Kenya and look at them myself?

If I'm a Kenyan hydrologist and I want to study the effects of Kenyan farming on an adjacent prarie, will I consult a white Jewish hydrologist living in NY for ideas about how to talk to the people? What would the white Jewish hydrologist know about Kenyan farming culture that I, as a rural Kenyan, wouldn't know?

In terms of talking to them, the Kenyan would know better. But in terms of doing the science, if both had access to all the data I wouldn't see a problem.

You may very well understand what I'm talking about. You may even have advice. But your perspective is a different one, not necessarily the one that I need.

But not necessarily not the one you need, either.

Of course you can. But then again, this hinges on you having been educated "properly". I learned about the TSS not in a science class, but in an English class--an elective. I imagine that there are a lot of scientists who have never heard about the TSS and have never taken a course in ethics (I haven't). How can scientists know that they are doing things "right" when they aren't even taught what is "wrong"?

I'd most likely agree.
Education for all! (tiny American flags for others) ;)

Even within the US, different schools educate their students in different ways. A biology major coming out of Indiana University will have learned different things than a biology major coming out of Bob Jones University, for instance. Will the science they produce be the same, or will it be different? Inquiring minds want to know.

I'd wager that depending on how strongly they cleave to what they were taught, and how willing they are to look into other points of view, their results will vary.

John Mace

11-13-2005, 02:05 PM

Monstro: I'm just finding it too hard to follow the quote/conter-quote debate you and Finn are having, and I can't figure out from your posts what you think about the core debate in this thread. Where do you come down on:

1. Are these types of scholarships, designed speficially to be given to minorities (or underrepresented groups) consistent with the recent SCOTUS ruling on Affirmative Action (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003)?

2. Legality issues aside, do you think it's good public policy in the US in 2005 to have scholarships for which only minorities (or underrepresented groups) are elligible? (Assuming that there would still be publicly funded scholarships targetted at economically disadvantaged students, and that currently legal AA policies geared toward attracting minority students would still be in place. And by saying "public policy", I mean using public funds. I'm not concerned with what private individuals might do with their own money.)

monstro

11-13-2005, 02:20 PM

I don't want to "agree to disagree" because I think you've misunderstood my whole point and I'd like to clarify.

FinnAgain, if this whole time you thought I was arguing that culture, environment, race, etc. "control" rather than simply affect the science people do--then you've been arguing a strawman the whole time. I never once said that we are prisoners of our circumstances and that we can never transcend the obstacles of our environment. George Washington Carver was born into chattel slavery and still did great things. He definitely transcended something. My point is that it is unreasonable to expect that scientist A will have the same ideas as scientist B, especially if the two scientists have very different life experiences. No, influence is not control. Never said it was.

I have never made a massive sweeping generalization about human nature.

Yes, but obviously nurture plays a large role as well.

Isn't nurture a function of culture and environment?

I think it is. And unless you can convince me it isn't, I would say I win our argument. Because that's all I've been saying the whole time.

Actually, I'm curious as to why you think they've done so well in the sciences.

Do you accept that they've done well, or are you questioning me on this point as well? Because if you have to even debate this simple truth, then I don't know if I can convince you about anything.

I think Jews have done well in academia (including the sciences) for the same reason that black Americans have done well in the entertainment sector. Culture. I can't think of any other good explanation. Can you?

I suppose it's kinda hard to think about science being so influenced by culture and what not, but what about engineering? Do you think inventors and designers see the same problems, regardless of their environments and positions within them? Do you think Robert Moses would have had the same impact on Mahattan if he had grown up as a poor Harlem resident, well familiar with urban blight? Would Eli Whitney have invented the cotton gin if hadn't been born the son of a cotton farmer? Would Madame CJ Walter have deigned to invent hair relaxer if she had born with straight hair? Or if she had lived in a culture that prized curly hair over straight? Could she have invented the cotton gin, if she had been born in the right time and place? I don't know, you don't know. But surely you can see how environment and culture presented different ideas to these people.

If I were running an engineering firm, I would desire a diverse pool of engineers to choose from. By extension, then, I would also desire a diverse pool of scientists if I were running a laboratory. The argument in support of diversity works for both realms, IMHO.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 02:39 PM

FinnAgain, if this whole time you thought I was arguing that culture, environment, race, etc. "control" rather than simply affect the science people do--then you've been arguing a strawman the whole time. I never once said that we are prisoners of our circumstances and that we can never transcend the obstacles of our environment.

He definitely transcended something. My point is that it is unreasonable to expect that scientist A will have the same ideas as scientist B, especially if the two scientists have very different life experiences. No, influence is not control. Never said it was.

Well I guess I still can't wrap my mind around your reasoning then. If scientist A and scientist B both can transcend the limitations of their childhood/culture/whatever, why isn't it reasonable to expect that they might have the same ideas? If they both read the same journals and are interested in the same problems, couldn't they be very similar indeed?

I have never made a massive sweeping generalization about human nature.

Well, I still see your statement about scientists A and B as a rather sweeping generalization about human nature, but such is life.

Isn't nurture a function of culture and environment?

Not exclusively, of course.

I think it is. And unless you can convince me it isn't, I would say I win our argument. Because that's all I've been saying the whole time.

Well, I'd hope that me "winning" this argument isn't going to hinge on whether or not I convince you. Maybe we should just use pistols at dawn? :D

Do you accept that they've done well, or are you questioning me on this point as well?

I was questioning why you believe they have.

I think Jews have done well in academia (including the sciences) for the same reason that black Americans have done well in the entertainment sector. Culture. I can't think of any other good explanation. Can you?

Yes, a culture which values eduation will tend to produce more educated people, but those who fourish will most likely do so based on their own talent. I'd also think that we've got too small a sample size to draw many conclusions from.

I suppose it's kinda hard to think about science being so influenced by culture and what not, but what about engineering? Do you think inventors and designers see the same problems, regardless of their environments and positions within them?

Possibly. If they're interested in knowledge for the sake of knowledge or if, for instance there's an economic advantage to tapping a particular market.

Do you think Robert Moses would have had the same impact on Mahattan if he had grown up as a poor Harlem resident, well familiar with urban blight? Would Eli Whitney have invented the cotton gin if hadn't been born the son of a cotton farmer? Would Madame CJ Walter have deigned to invent hair relaxer if she had born with straight hair? Or if she had lived in a culture that prized curly hair over straight? Could she have invented the cotton gin, if she had been born in the right time and place? I don't know, you don't know. But surely you can see how environment and culture presented different ideas to these people.

Yes, but I also don't see that those influences are exclusive to those communities. My mother, for instance, has very curly hair, and even though her mother kept telling her that she looked adorable with it, she wanted nothing more than to have straight hair. By a similar token if there was a demographic study which showed that there were lots of people with curly hair who wanted straight hair, maybe even a straight haired inventor would smell profit. Or, as another example, I am interested in the problems facing the planet's rain forests, but I've never been to one.

If I were running an engineering firm, I would desire a diverse pool of engineers to choose from. By extension, then, I would also desire a diverse pool of scientists if I were running a laboratory. The argument in support of diversity works for both realms, IMHO.

And as I see it, the counter for diversity of backgrounds is a diversity of information to be supplied to those scientists.

I think we're coming at this problem from different angles.

monstro

11-13-2005, 04:40 PM

Oh, here you go, FinnAgain:

Manhattan's Salt Marsh (http://www.panix.com/~vr/park.html)

If scientist A and scientist B both can transcend the limitations of their childhood/culture/whatever, why isn't it reasonable to expect that they might have the same ideas?

For the same reason that my twin sister and I don't have the same ideas, even though we've had similiar life experiences and upbringing. If even my sis and I don't have the same ideas (she has always loved the microscropic scale of things, while I have liked "big picture" concepts, even when we were kids...so it makes sense that she studies diseases now and I study ecosystems), then how can I assume that you--a white Jewish male who lives in the northeast and likes studying language--will have the very same ideas as me--a black woman who lives in the South (questionably) and likes studying bugs and animals? How can I assume that scientist A is just like scientist B? Wouldn't that require an extraordinary degree of coincidence?

Morever, why should we have the same ideas? Isn't it great that you have your point-of-view and I have mine? If we had the very same wealth of knowledge, how would we ever learn anything from each other?

But one thing I don't think you understand: Just because you can transcend a barrier doesn't mean you will, even with self-determination. George Washington Carver transcended his status as a poor, orphaned, handicapped slave. But there may have been hundreds of other guys in a similar circumstance, blessed with the same degree of intelligence, who weren't lucky to have a slave owner like his. There are such things as barriers that are impossible to overcome by sheer determination alone. And that's when "helping hands" become necessary.

Originally Posted by monstro
Isn't nurture a function of culture and environment?

FinnAgain:
Not exclusively, of course.

I'm just curious how one would go about nurturing someone by excluding culture and environment. The moment I pick up a baby and it starts to wail, culture dictates how I will handle the situation. Can you elaborate on how nurture is not the exclusive domain of culture and environment?

Yes, a culture which values eduation will tend to produce more educated people, but those who fourish will most likely do so based on their own talent.

But education is what produces the talent, correct? Einstein would not have been a physicist if no one had ever taught him calculus, correct? The man certainly had innate qualities--I'm not saying he didn't--but the qualities he developed are directly tied to the instruction he received and the environment around him.

I'd also think that we've got too small a sample size to draw many conclusions from.

Why do you think the sample size is too small? We've had, what?, perhaps one hundred years of "modern science"? If 1972 is a long time ago to you (I wasn't alive back then either, but most scientists in the world today were), then surely you think 100 years is enough time to see patterns and trends.

Yes, but I also don't see that those influences are exclusive to those communities.

I never said they were.

By a similar token if there was a demographic study which showed that there were lots of people with curly hair who wanted straight hair, maybe even a straight haired inventor would smell profit.

Sure, but how long would that have taken? CJ Walker developed her products not simply because she smelled profit, but because the "problem" of nappy hair had vexed her for years. According to the legend, she developed the original potion overnight, gradually perfecting it as she used it on herself. I can't assume a straight-haired inventor would have gone the same route. Perhaps their strategy would have been disastrous because it would been more profit-driven and the whole endeavor would have fizzled out before it had caught on.

We can spend a million years speculating on what-ifs. But surely you aren't arguing that a white woman with long flowing hair was just as likely to invent hair relaxer as a black woman fed-up with hot combs and hankerchiefs?

I am interested in the problems facing the planet's rain forests, but I've never been to one.

Do you think your interest in rain forests is the same as an indigenous Brazilian's who's always lived in rain forests? Don't you think your solutions to the problems facing rain forest might be strikingly different?

Am I saying that's impossible for you and the Brazilian to see eye-to-eye? No. But will your ideas be the same? I'm 100% sure they won't be.

And as I see it, the counter for diversity of backgrounds is a diversity of information to be supplied to those scientists.

Where will the diversity of information come from, if all scientists have the same background? Will you benefit more in your inquiry about rain forests from a scientist who's worked in rain forests for over 30 years, or one who's just read a bunch of books about them? Which one will have more information? How do you judge which information is more important, more valid?

1. Are these types of scholarships, designed speficially to be given to minorities (or underrepresented groups) consistent with the recent SCOTUS ruling on Affirmative Action (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003)?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. But if they are breaking the law, then they should be dismantled.

Legality issues aside, do you think it's good public policy in the US in 2005 to have scholarships for which only minorities (or underrepresented groups) are elligible? (Assuming that there would still be publicly funded scholarships targetted at economically disadvantaged students, and that currently legal AA policies geared toward attracting minority students would still be in place. And by saying "public policy", I mean using public funds. I'm not concerned with what private individuals might do with their own money.)

Yes, I do think they are alright within reason. At least when it comes to fields tied strongly to public interest, where it can be shown that the background of the practitioners is an important factor. Public health or law enforcement are areas like this. If the federal government feels that certain minority groups are being underserved and that sponsoring programs targeting this population would also confer benefits to the greater public, then I'm all for it. Even if it means setting aside funds strictly earmarked to a certain population.

Now, if the federal government is setting up scholarships so that more minorities can just get into college, with no greater goal in mind, then I don't think that this is a good way to spend the public's money.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 06:14 PM

I'll be happy to answer your questions in a bit, but probalby not today, and maybe not tomorrow. Right now, this thread just doesn't seem like much fun. I'll get back to you in a bit.

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 01:43 AM

Wow... I had no idea that Manhattan had a marsh. Neat.

For the same reason that my twin sister and I don't have the same ideas, even though we've had similiar life experiences and upbringing.

~evil grins~
Should I rest my case right now? ;)

That you can come from the same enviornment, the same family, heck, the same sperm and ovum and still choose your own ways has been my point. Perhaps you and I've been agreeing more than we know?

then how can I assume that you--a white Jewish male who lives in the northeast and likes studying language--will have the very same ideas as me--a black woman who lives in the South (questionably) and likes studying bugs and animals?

The very same ideas? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, as no two people have the same exact ideas. But, obviously your twin sister doesn't either. So if viewpoints are individual, why do groups matter? And if twins see the world differently, what's to guarantee that people who happen to be part of a 'group' would have any real ideological commonality?

How can I assume that scientist A is just like scientist B? Wouldn't that require an extraordinary degree of coincidence?

Yes, but why does scientist A have to be just like scientist B? Can't we still achieve diversity, wasn't that the point?

Morever, why should we have the same ideas? Isn't it great that you have your point-of-view and I have mine? If we had the very same wealth of knowledge, how would we ever learn anything from each other?

You're confusing me now. (Hey! No jokes. :p)
If everybody has different ideas, then there is no need to have people from different 'groups' because they'll just have different ideas anyways. It still seems as if taking the pool that you have and exposing them to a diverse set of data would work just fine.

Is there something I've missed in your reasoning?

But one thing I don't think you understand: Just because you can transcend a barrier doesn't mean you will, even with self-determination.

No, I do understand that. Which is why I've said that education, including continuing education for professionals, is necessary.

There are such things as barriers that are impossible to overcome by sheer determination alone. And that's when "helping hands" become necessary.

Agreed, which is why I believe that funding for education is necessary.
Are we really disagreeing? It seems that we agree on many points here...

I'm just curious how one would go about nurturing someone by excluding culture and environment.

Sure. Parents who break the mold. Bad mothers who kill their kids. Permissive parents who let anything go. Etc... Although there are commonalities, there is also divergance, and individual parents can indeed buck the established trends.

The moment I pick up a baby and it starts to wail, culture dictates how I will handle the situation. Can you elaborate on how nurture is not the exclusive domain of culture and environment?

Sure, you can decide, or can read a book which makes you decide, that you should let the baby cry to show that it can't control you with its demands. Or you could think that you should rock the baby and try to comfort it. Or a million other things, which may be influenced by your history but may also not be limited by it.

But education is what produces the talent, correct? Einstein would not have been a physicist if no one had ever taught him calculus, correct? The man certainly had innate qualities--I'm not saying he didn't--but the qualities he developed are directly tied to the instruction he received and the environment around him.

Yes and no.
To a degree education matters, but I started my education as a pre-med student and then decided to switch to an English major's degree. Perhaps Einstein's wonderment about how the world worked would have been enough for him to have gone out to the library and taught himself calculus. Newton, after all, invented calculus.

Why do you think the sample size is too small? We've had, what?, perhaps one hundred years of "modern science"? If 1972 is a long time ago to you (I wasn't alive back then either, but most scientists in the world today were), then surely you think 100 years is enough time to see patterns and trends.

What I mean is that we have a small sample size of the total Jewish population who self-select to go into the sciences. And although, certainly, there is pressure in many Jewish families for children to get a higher education, I've seen no convincing studies

Or, in other words, the fact that many of those who do well are Jewish doesn't prove that many Jews have done well. I've seen a study or two which hinted at certain bloodlines' preformance, but nothing which seemed all that definitive to me.

I never said they were.

But if they're not exclusive, then there's no need to look for them only there.

Sure, but how long would that have taken? CJ Walker developed her products not simply because she smelled profit, but because the "problem" of nappy hair had vexed her for years. According to the legend, she developed the original potion overnight, gradually perfecting it as she used it on herself. I can't assume a straight-haired inventor would have gone the same route.

What about a straight haired inventer with a curley haired sister, or girlfriend? Or one who read an article and got really interested?

We can spend a million years speculating on what-ifs. But surely you aren't arguing that a white woman with long flowing hair was just as likely to invent hair relaxer as a black woman fed-up with hot combs and hankerchiefs?

Probably not, no. But then again, the polio vaccine wasn't invented by someone with polio, either.

Do you think your interest in rain forests is the same as an indigenous Brazilian's who's always lived in rain forests? Don't you think your solutions to the problems facing rain forest might be strikingly different?

Depends. If I get interested enough in their specific problems wouldn't it make sense for me to speak with them myself?

Am I saying that's impossible for you and the Brazilian to see eye-to-eye? No. But will your ideas be the same? I'm 100% sure they won't be.

But we've already seen that even twin sisters don't have those 100% similar ideas. So why look for them in other places where they're even less likely? I guess I just don't understand that focus.

Where will the diversity of information come from, if all scientists have the same background?

Education, of course :D

Will you benefit more in your inquiry about rain forests from a scientist who's worked in rain forests for over 30 years, or one who's just read a bunch of books about them?

Maybe both? Maybe one who's read a lot of books about them which were written by people who worked in them for over 30 years.

Which one will have more information? How do you judge which information is more important, more valid?

That's hard to say before you have the information, which is why one should learn as much as possible.

Anyways, I think we're coming close to wrapping up our discussion. If you think there's more to be said feel free to post, and I'll do my best to answer it in a few days. It's just felt like this thread is draggin' like the butt of a 500 pound man running a marathon.

John Mace

11-15-2005, 10:31 AM

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. But if they are breaking the law, then they should be dismantled.

Yes, I do think they are alright within reason. At least when it comes to fields tied strongly to public interest, where it can be shown that the background of the practitioners is an important factor. Public health or law enforcement are areas like this. If the federal government feels that certain minority groups are being underserved and that sponsoring programs targeting this population would also confer benefits to the greater public, then I'm all for it. Even if it means setting aside funds strictly earmarked to a certain population.
Thanks. I wasn't so much interested in extending the debate as just seeing where you stood on the issue.

Now, if the federal government is setting up scholarships so that more minorities can just get into college, with no greater goal in mind, then I don't think that this is a good way to spend the public's money.
Yes, I agree that is an important distinguishing point.

Maeglin

11-15-2005, 01:37 PM

Wow... I had no idea that Manhattan had a marsh. Neat.

Bah, I got here too late. I happen to live on the salt marsh (http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/salt_marsh_in_inwood_hill_park_51.html), so the power of the Allfather compelled me to weigh in about just how cool it really is.

Bill The Cat

11-15-2005, 01:57 PM

Aren't these scholarships for non-science graduate students? As far as I know, all graduate students in the sciences get tuition waivers and stipends (e.g. the award would be useless).

John Mace

11-15-2005, 02:07 PM

Aren't these scholarships for non-science graduate students? As far as I know, all graduate students in the sciences get tuition waivers and stipends (e.g. the award would be useless).

In the hard sciences for PhD programs, yes, that's usually true. It was for me, and I remember we always used to say that if you got accepted but didn't get a tuition waiver, the schools was saying: "Sure! You can come here... as long as you pay!"

But this is not true in a schools where students enter an MS program first, then a PhD program. This is particular true in engineering.

Little Nemo

11-15-2005, 02:44 PM

It's amazing how many people feel that government intervention is needed whenever a white man is the victim of some racial injustice. Black people have a 90% lower life expentancy; women receive 80% of male salaries; hispanics have 40% of the college graduation rate; gays are twice as likely to be the victim of a violent crime* - Hey, what are you gonna do? It's a shame but these things happen. The government shouldn't get involved.

But let a white boy be denied a college scholarship and suddenly principles are involved and it's time for the Justice Department to get in the fight.

*All figures made up for rhetorical purposes. Blacks do have a lower than average life expentancy, women do receive lower than average salaries, hispanics do have a lower college graduation rate than non-hispanics, and gays do have a higher crime victim rate than straights. But I didn't bother looking up the exact figures. I will therefore concede that my figures are probably not the correct ones while stating that the difference between my estimates and the actual figures has no bearing on the main point of my argument.

fessie

11-15-2005, 03:00 PM

It's amazing how many people feel that government intervention is needed whenever a white man is the victim of some racial injustice...But let a white boy be denied a college scholarship and suddenly principles are involved and it's time for the Justice Department to get in the fight.

Yep.

That whole "slavery" thing - it happened yesterday. And the racism bit is still going strong. C'mon - to this day you still see White middle-aged men, executives, making racist jokes. They sure as shit don't want to invite more people into their "club".

I always figured Affirmative Action was a way of accomplishing reparations. Not perfect, but an effort that needs to be made.

I don't know, though, if increasing the goodies at the far end of a long journey is sufficient to entice more people to make the trip - not until you tell everybody about it. I worked for an architectural firm that was chomping at the bit to find Black architects - there just weren't any around. I'm betting there's a paucity of minority undergrads in the hard sciences as well.

kidchameleon

11-15-2005, 03:15 PM

There are practically none of the target minorities in science grad schools. You get out of grad school, and it's worse. I've worked in three labs (including the present one) where there were none, nada, zero black or hispanics anywhere to be seen except amongst the housecleaning staff.

Well, I'll counter your anecdotal evidence with mine. I've worked in three labs with chinese, indians, blacks, whites, greeks and hispanics all with advanced degrees. Maybe you're working for the wrong companies? Heck, most of our houselceaning staff is white while our manufacturing and quality personel are all of a good mix of ethnicities..

fessie

11-15-2005, 06:23 PM

Well, Cecil's basement would be sort of an unusual workplace, no?

kidchameleon

11-15-2005, 06:39 PM

Well, Cecil's basement would be sort of an unusual workplace, no?

You have no idea....

MaxTheVool

11-16-2005, 12:08 PM

So, Bricker, any chance of you ever responding to my post 38?

Bricker

11-16-2005, 04:42 PM

So, Bricker, any chance of you ever responding to my post 38?

Yep. Missed it. Sorry.

If that was the entire content of the OP, I might agree with you. One snide and unfair generalization in a larger rant is VERY different from a post consisting of nothing else.

Furthermore, while I don't want to be seen as a defender of the OP, he didn't say "no one could possibly hold this position but a (rabid and morally bereft...)". Rather, he basically claimed that the government, ie, the Bush administration, was taking this action in order to appeal to the (rabid and morally bereft...), which is a less outrageously offensive statement than you're making it out to be.

That's a very forgiving view of the OP. His point is that the action itself (suing SIU) is morally questionable on its merits. It is with that point that I vigorously disagree.

My dishonesty????? Who peed in your wheaties? Where have I ever been dishonest in my SDMB interactions? It's possible I'm wrong about this topic. It's possible I'm wrong and a hypocrite. But what on earth possibly makes me dishonest? Please point out my dishonesty or withdraw the accusation.

Your dishonesty arose when you characterized the OP's tirade as "an issue that deserves serious debate" and my tirade as an "irrelevant and facile dismissal." You applied markedly different standards to my side of the question, and that is classic intellectual dishonesty.

And furthermore, that's not what you said. You didn't say "These programs are illegal, therefore it's appropriate for the government to put a stop to them". Rather, you made a meaningless comparison and attempted to use it to "zing" the liberals.

My comparsion was not meaningless. In fact, the OP's attack on the government's action fails to acknowledge the illegal nature of the programs under attack, inveighs aginst the motives of anyone failing to support this odious brand of racial discrimination, and completely ignores the gross inequities that the law properly forbids.

Yes, I react differently to apparently identical things when the words "black" and "white" are swapped. A "black pride week" and a "white pride week" are NOT equal. And furthermore, you're a smart guy and you know it, so don't plead ignorance and mock surprise.

We can debate that proposition, if you wish. But here we have a program that is, by its operators' own admission, absolutely closed to any white male. That's a far cry from "pride week".

MaxTheVool

11-16-2005, 07:34 PM

Your dishonesty arose when you characterized the OP's tirade as "an issue that deserves serious debate" and my tirade as an "irrelevant and facile dismissal." You applied markedly different standards to my side of the question, and that is classic intellectual dishonesty.

So I'm not a liar, I'm a non-objective fool?

Well, OK, I'd still like to think you're wrong, but that's an accusation I resent less, as it's almost certainly true at least from time to time (for me as for all of us).

My comparsion was not meaningless.

What, exactly, was the point of "If a similar award were closed to balck or Hispanic males, there would be no question of its illegality and no dearth of outrage from the left."? I mean, that's obviously true, and does not reflect particularly badly on the left, as far as I can tell. It seems to me that it's only point is to try to cheaply win the argument via saying "well, YOUR position is obviously hypocritical, I win, let's move on". One might as well enter a reasoned discussion about the precise limitations of free speech by saying "If a similar person were arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, there would be no question of its illegality and no dearth of outrage from the left/right/freemasons".

In fact, the OP's attack on the government's action fails to acknowledge the illegal nature of the programs under attack,

Two comments:
(a) If someone came in and said "Virginia has suddenly started enforcing their decades-old law against consensual adult sodomy... what an awful thing they are doing to court the religious right", the poster presumably believes two things:
(i) consensual adult sodomy should be legal
(ii) even if it isn't, this law hasn't been enforced for some time, and suddenly was
Thus, saying "ahh, but it's ILLEGAL" is not a particularly meaningful response to that sort of claim.

(b) Whether it's illegal or not is also not particularly obvious to the generic reasonably informed American citizen. Taking myself as an example, I am (as a doper, if nothing else) FAR better informed about rights and laws and so forth than the average American, and if you'd said to me "what defines whether a recruitment program with racially based preferences and/or quotas is legal or not?" I would have had no idea. So while a lawyer like you might be outraged that anyone would defend something that is SO OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL, well, it's not obvious.

inveighs aginst the motives of anyone failing to support this odious brand of racial discrimination,

I've reread the OP again, and I still don't see that. Saying "Bush is doing this to appeal to the most evil people on the right" doesn't imply that only the most people on the right would oppose this program in the first place.

and completely ignores the gross inequities that the law properly forbids.

Yes, the OP isn't saying "I favor affirmative action, here are my reasons". He's not trying to debate the pros or cons of the subject. But it's also FAR from a driveby "here's something that happened... republicans are assholes" type post. Read the first paragraph, and part where he quotes Obama. Now, his claim is hardly couched in the most diplomatic of language, but there actually is a POINT he is trying to make. It is not an Reeder- or Brutus-esque flamefest.

We can debate that proposition, if you wish. But here we have a program that is, by its operators' own admission, absolutely closed to any white male. That's a far cry from "pride week".
Agreed. But
(a) my point is that you can't just automatically win the argument by saying "ahh, but substitute 'white' for 'black' and you liberals would flip flop. Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites I say!", not that this program is necessarily good.
(b) There's a difference between a program which, right in its very rules, has "no white men allowed", and a program which is set up to favor various disadvantaged groups in such a way that it's vanishingly unlikely it would ever end up selecting a white male.

Anyhow, a general comment about the issue: I think racial preferences should only be allowed with very good reason, and then only in strictly constrained contexts. Is trying to increase a racial community's presence within a field in order to provide role models for future children and students, thus hopefully setting up a self-perpetuating cycle in which the current gross numerical inequities (whatever their causes) are overcome, a very good reason? It might be.
Is one small scholarship at one university a strictly constrained context? It might be.