That’s data related to a different issue, but data nonetheless, and this sort of academic mismatching is a real thing and a problem.
No one’s asking Yale or Princeton to fix these problems. Rather, they are asking for them to fix the related problems that crop up on campus.
But the issue is that almost no one actually believes that. That logic would lead almost every elite university being almost all Chinese and Indian students. Not only based on scores, but also just by sheer numbers. There is zero chance White people and/or conservatives would be okay if Harvard’s incoming class were 80% foreign-born students.
Furthermore, you would have students in large regions of entire states almost entirely excluded from even attending an elite university. Of the Americans that would get into these schools, it would be predominately rich kids, and those from elite private high schools. No one actually wants that. What you are saying is just complete bullshit to have some pretense against using criteria that might result in more minorities being admitted to a school.
No, the argument is that given our history in this country as it pertains to URMs of doing things like constitutionally protecting ownership of slaves, Jim Crow laws, segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, disenfranchisement, redlining, forced busing, lynching, forced sterilization, resident segregation ordinances, sunset towns, poll taxes and literacy laws, disparate drug laws and destructive community policing, etc. etc., the continued disparate results we see can in large part be explained by the persistent attitudes and ideals which spawned many of the behaviors and policies listed above. The point is that most logical people who look at large aggregate disparate racial outcomes tend to think it might have something to do with that fact that one guy’s ancestors five or so generations back was literally a piece of property, and whose closer kin were denied the right to vote, hanged from trees, segregated, denied the ability to improve their lives, and generally treated like garbage. And it’s important to note that this was NOT that long ago. I am 33 and my uncle went to segregated schools. Black people didn’t reliably have the ability to vote until about 50 years ago. The Negro Motorist Green Book, which basically helped Blacks avoid being brutalized for simply entering the wrong area, was published until 1966. Even today, rarely does a week go by where a young Black male isn’t murdered by a cop.
So, no, it’s not people looking at numbers deciding that disparate outcomes must be race based. Rather, it’s people appreciating the history and landscape of the US where such disparate outcomes were explicitly sought and openly acknowledged to be motivated by race until the very recent past. They further note that even despite even the best intentions, inertia alone allows many of these things to continue. So please stop making it seem like this is just a matter of bleeding hearts looking at a spreadsheet and determining Blacks, women, and other URMs must all succeed in percentages equal to their population in every areas just as every dog should have cat to marry and every kid should get a gift from Santa. We are not ignorant idealists, we are just paying attention.
Lack of interest, role models, and mentors most likely. This is just a straw man though as the protesters are generally not asking universities to hire people that don’t exist, or real people for jobs they are not qualified for.
Yes, it does. I have provided numerous cites to demonstrate this fact.
Probably because there is no evidence that some are inherently less apt to succeed certain academic areas. So yes, if a professor floated an idea that lacks any merit, and also has the additional disadvantage of having been used to deny rights and to victimize a minority group, I would imagine people would have an issue with that.
The mismatch theory has largely been debunked, and is not widely accepted in academia.
Of course they can help fix the problem. No one is arguing Yale and Yale alone is going to fix racism, but they can make large inroads, and help lots of individuals. Had the idea and spirit of inclusion (including things like affirmative action) at elite institutions not existed, we would not have had Black and Hispanic Supreme Court justices, we wouldn’t have a Black president, we wouldn’t have thousands of minority doctors and other professionals, and we wouldn’t have as many minority in the arts and entertainment field. Places like Yale have had a small part in that progress despite they themselves being imperfect. No one is asking them to fix they world, just to make a sincere effort to make affirmative steps in the right direction.
You already are! Nearly every selective university gives advantages to underrepresented geographic areas. How many conservatives do you hear bitching about that? Hell, how many conservatives do you hear bitching about women, THE PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, getting a leg up? Almost none. The fact that you seemingly didn’t know that people in Appalachia ARE given preference speaks volumes about your ignorance on the issue.
You analogy is problematic as few minorities take every critique of them or their work as an assault on their background. What some infer is that the background is an issue when the context, situation, and information available to them makes a strong case that it is.
Context, experience, and often explicit comments and behaviors. Again, given our collective history, do you really think wholly imagined racism towards Black people is more common than actual racism towards Black people? Do you honestly think that, and if not, why do you doubt these people’s ability to correctly assess a given situation in aggregate?
But that stuff DOESN’T happen to everyone. Yes, it has happened to many people, but part of what makes these people think it might have to do with race is that it’s not happening to their peers.
Why are you so intent on completely unrelated people continuing to call a building by a certain name? Doubly so when the person is a piece of shit even by the standards of their time? Should things just be called one thing forever? Why should we continue to honor terrible people by keeping their name on things?
Do you honestly think racism doesn’t even exist on college campuses?
Cite for those statements? :dubious:
What I hold is that there are genetically-based average skillset differences among self-identified race groups because (using the example of our US black population and our US eurasian population) those self-identifications reflect an evolutionary separation of about 70,000 years for the the source population pools which are reflected in them. Something like 80% of the genetic makeup (on average) of slave-descended US blacks is recent west african in origin; only a few percent of the genetic makeup of eurasian-descended US whites is from recent west african ancestry. Those two broad populations have been separated by an excess of 70,000 years or so, roughly speaking.
I consider it unlikely that evolution would not have diverged those gene pools.
I note that, for academic skillsets like standardized exams, blacks from privileged backgrounds (wealthy and/or educated parents) as an average, score barely on par with whites and asians from underprivileged (poverty-stricken; uneducated parents), and coupled with the known separation of gene pools I hold that the likeliest explanation for this and other race-based outcome differences is genetic. I am aware of alternate contentions that factors such as “institutional racism” cause the measured differences, although I am confused why whites and asians won’t jump when really good jumping would get them really good jobs. 
Does “institutional racism” only diminish race-specific skills, and differentially so by race?
I rather suspect these musings would brand me a racist by many, , independent of how I actually treat any given individual.
I would personally take great umbrage at the implication that I extend a group average as an assumption for any individual. I consider it rather stupid to do so.
Well, that sort of scientific-minded (though scientifically unverified) belief will brand you a racist, nearly by definition.
It may well be true, however. That’s the kicker. The lack of a concrete “intelligence gene” makes it harder to prove or disprove its veracity. But the notion that physical traits, which have clearly been selectively chosen over millenia, are the only traits that have diverged among humans, is hard to swallow from the standpoint of logic. Maybe Ashkenazi Jews really are just smarter, on average. Maybe the circumstance of their heritage put them in that position. To discredit the idea wholesale is foolish, in my opinion. Though certainly far more amenable to modern political sensibilities.
brickbacon’s ill-conceived name-drop aside, may I suggest that not every thread on racism in a particular context ought to devolve into a discussion of a particular racist ideology? This thread isn’t about Chief Pedant’s brand of racism, but if we’re not careful, it soon will be.
The subject is racism at Ivy League schools. I gently encourage folks to return to our regularly scheduled bickering :).
Dude, are you new here? What Chief Pedant is is pretty clear if you have ever read his posts.
Or both physical and mental traits have diverged among humans, but not along racial lines which are largely defined based on superficial phenotypic traits and not the underlying genes. That’s a big difference which is largely ignored by people of your ilk. Few argue that all humans are equally smart, but rather that black skin is likely not related to intelligence anymore than height, weight, or hair color is.
Or it’s a mix of rigorous religious standards and the fact that it’s a self-selecting group. Lazy Jewish people who don’t value the scholarship and study the religion might require stop being Jewish.
You’re right. Bringing him up is just going to derail the thread and give credence to his beliefs.
This thread isn’t about Chief Pedant’s brand of racism, but if we’re not careful, it soon will be.
The subject is racism at Ivy League schools. I gently encourage folks to return to our regularly scheduled bickering :).
[/QUOTE]
[Quote=brickbacon]
But the issue is that almost no one actually believes that. That logic would lead almost every elite university being almost all Chinese and Indian students. Not only based on scores, but also just by sheer numbers. There is zero chance White people and/or conservatives would be okay if Harvard’s incoming class were 80% foreign-born students.
[/quote]
Harvey Mudd College is one of the few top institutions that has refused to have any sort of affirmative action. The percentage of Asians total is 21%, and for foreign students total is 8%.
Plainly your fear of top colleges being swamped by a tidal wave of Chinese and Indians, if they don’t do something to stop it, is slightly exaggerated.
[Quote=brickbacon]
You already are! Nearly every selective university gives advantages to underrepresented geographic areas. … The fact that you seemingly didn’t know that people in Appalachia ARE given preference speaks volumes about your ignorance on the issue.
[/quote]
I’ve never heard of this before. You may be correct, but I’d like to see a cite.
Wouldn’t mind a cite for that either. The article I linked to by Richard Sander is decently up-to-date; it was written five days ago. It contains links to a great deal of high-quality, peer reviewed research. It concludes, “All this impressive research—and much more in a similar vein—has had little impact upon educational institutions. Even though many educational leaders will admit in private that the research is compelling, they believe that any public admission that racial preferences are counterproductive would be met with the sort of campus reaction that routinely drives college presidents from office.”
The commentary you linked to is indeed recent. Congratulations; you’ve cited the fact that some people still mistakenly believe the mismatch theory. And by “some people,” I mean, “the libertarians at the Pope Center who have participated in a successful ideological takeover of the UNC system,” some of the worst miscreants in modern American universities.
Aheam. You wanted a cite. Here. I got it by Googling “mismatch theory” and following the first relevant link.
Do you need a cite for specific claims about them wanting money for diversity? Here’s one that is more recent - I doubt if it is the first they made.
I can’t find any reference to what they were specifically demanding from the earlier hoax crime.
I don’t see any cite, from you or anyone else, that contradicts the claim that they demanded more money for diversity stuff when the vandalism turned out to be a hoax.
Regards,
Shodan
His claim, specifically, was that “only possible way to respond” was to throw money. If they responded in other ways, his claim was false.
This is important because he’s characterizing it as a shakedown. It was nothing of the sort.
Throw money, “and so forth”. I think you are making too much of this.
The point was that the black students at Claremont went into spasms of righteous indignation, and presented something as characteristic of a racist campus, that turned out to be a hoax.
I don’t doubt they demanded money for diversity when they shut down the campus six or seven years back, just as they have done more recently. That’s what they do.
Regards,
Shodan
No, that wasn’t the point. Go back and reread. You, and ITR, and others, were specifically characterizing it as a shakedown. That’s an inaccurate characterization. If at this point you’re backing away from that characterization, fine. If you’re agreeing that this example ITR offered in support of that characterization is a terrible example, fine. But if you’re doubling down on that characterization, you’re doubling down on something inaccurate.
What did the students do at Claremont that wasn’t either a demand for more diversity spending, or in furtherance of the demand for more diversity spending? I am talking about six years ago - I think we can agree that their later demands included such a demand.
You seem to be asserting that ITR Champion’s “and so forth” does not refer to anything else, but you believe there were other demands. What were they?
IOW if if wasn’t a shakedown, then the students must have be demanding something other than money. What was it?
Regards,
Shodan
I believe the insult was directed to Justice Antonin “Tony” Scalia, who is quoted in the article in the link, not at a poster.
Please cite that they use zero affirmative action? Not just race based affirmative action, but rather that there are ZERO elements considered besides grades?
This is widely known. Here is an article that discusses it.
Not knowing something that basic pretty much disqualifies your opinion.
This cite says Harvey Mudd uses affirmative action in their hiring policies.
https://www.hmc.edu/dean-of-faculty/available-faculty-positions/
They seem pretty proud of it too. What makes you think they ONLY look at academics for admissions? They have interviews, which have nothing to do with academics largely, so that claim alone is a bit dubious already.
I’ve already answered this:
(FTR, the incident was 11 years ago–are you talking about a different incident, or just confused on the timeline? If it’s a simple error, no big, not trying to win on nitpickery–I just want to be completely sure we’re both talking about the same thing.)