Why would we? Olympics are based on country-based quotas. Can’t have more than N competitors in one sport from same country. It’s quite open. Inside that country’s quota, people compete on merit.
No, it is country-quota-based. Always was. If it wasn’t, THEN it would be to rank people in their sports based only on performance.
So - from your Olympics example, are you pro-race-quotas as Affirmative Action? I thought those were a no-no.
My question about the Olympics is not about who can compete, it’s about the competition itself - should we give countries with disadvantages a leg up in each competition? Should runners from Haiti get to start an extra second before skiers from the U.S.? After all, runners from Haiti are victims of past and present disadvantage.
You clearly think that the “AA works for women” line is a slam dunk, but it’s not. The situation that women faced in 1970 is very different from the situation blacks face today. First of all, the article by Sally Kohn you linked to focuses on affirmative action in corporate hiring and how that affected women, not on college admissions.
But even if we focused on college admissions, the gender and race questions would be quite different. Women and men seeking admission to college have generally similar qualifications in SAT and ACT scores, GPAs, class rank and so forth. But members of different races seeking admission to college do not all have similar qualifications in these areas.
So an affirmative action program that seeks equality between genders in admissions will not lead to members of one gender being admitted when they’re vastly more or less qualified by scores, grades, &c… But an affirmative action program that seeks equality between genders does do exactly that. We’ve already seen the clear evidence in that regard.
This is the point of the essay by Tanner Colby that I linked to in the OP. By the time they graduate from high school, members of different racial groups are already separated by academic performance. Trying to correct the problem by requiring that black and Hispanic students with lower performance attend the same universities as white and Asian students with higher performance is guaranteed to fail. If students attend a school that is more rigorous than what they’re prepared for, they’re likely to drop out. That’s why affirmative action has been harmful to black and Hispanic students, though not to women.
Anyone who truly wants to help blacks achieve equality with other races should focus on helping black students as early as possible, not on leaving them out to dry for 18 years and then requiring that equal numbers of blacks be admitted to top universities. My new governor in Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, supports affirmative action. Meanwhile he sends his own children to Powhatan School, which has a total of 6 black and 1 Hispanic students. (I doubt it’s terribly diverse in socioeconomic measures either.) Why not instead focus on voucher programs that would allow the disadvantaged to attend school with McAuliffe’s kids and other good private schools?
Hiring and admission decisions are arbitrary and subjective. Attractive people get a leg up, for example. Many factors are involved, conscious and unconscious. It’s really not a big deal to say “let’s try harder to find a way to increase the diversity of the institution by getting more blacks/Asians/Hispanics/Native Americans/whites/poor/rural/whatever.” This is true whether we had a history of slavery and racism or not. It’s a legitimate goal and not “racism” to consider race.
Actually genius, the Olympics are based on quotas. Do you have no understanding of the terms you use? The IOC literally placed limitations on the number of people in each event from each country.
[Lance Strongarm analogy fail #17]. The analogue to what you are purposing would be like giving Blacks a grade boost once they get into college. For example, it would be counting a B for a Black kid at Harvard as an A, or giving them more time to complete assignments. That doesn’t happen.
The IOC quotas are ENTRANCE GUIDELINES. College admissions relate to ENTRANCE as well. Neither governs the rules after admission. That’s why your analogy is spectacularly poor.
At the Olympics, it isn’t ONLY based on time. I guarantee the highest ranked Jamaican 100m runner that didn’t make it to the Olympics is faster than the majority of the field that made it. Why isn’t he there? Quotas pure and simple. Do you think he would have a moral case to sue the IOC because he is faster than some guy from Canada who made it?
Because Harvard’s mission is not solely to educate the people with the highest score on an exam. I couldn’t even imagine the apoplectic fits you see if Harvard’s class was 95% foreign-born Indians and Chinese students.
So now you have devolved into going internet tough guy on me? Point out in this thread where you have argued against discrimination of ANY kind, and a means for how that is possible.
Why not race, but gender, geography, diction of the applicant, etc. etc. Why is race so bad a standard to use given that we can see how much of effect it has on the less-subjective metrics?
That your research skills are as poor as your logical analysis and debate.
Here is the quota list from Sochi. Note that it is literally called a quota list. To quote the relevant portion:
You honestly make this too easy.
Okay, so your objection AA quotas are based on transparency? Because you have just otherwise reiterated what I said. Surprisingly, the Olympics functions in a similar fashion to selective college admissions. There is usually a minimum standard that is set, then soft quotas used to diversify the participants. How is that much different and less abhorrent than what colleges do? In fact, most colleges don’t even use formal soft or hard quotas.
It wasn’t my Olympics example. I was pointing out how bad of an example it was to justify a stance against quotas. I am not necessarily for hard race quotas because I don’t think they are necessary to level the paying field or to achieve diversity. And yes, for the most part they are against the law.
No, and we don’t with AA either. How about this, when you come back, look up how to structure a proper analogy. Then re-read everything you spew on to this messageboard for clarity and logic. Nobody has time to wade through your nonsense or to address the same concern over and over again. I will do this as succinctly as possible one again.
No, it doesn’t. If selective college admissions were in “similar fashion”, the college would say: we’re accepting 100 black freshmen and 800 white freshmen. The top 100 blacks that apply get in. The to 800 whites that apply get in. But that would be too honest, wouldn’t it? So they try to hid it in every way possible.
Cuz that would be racist, right? But doing other stuff, that is basically equivalent, isn’t against the law. But just as racist.
That’s not the issue. Should those from disadvantaged nations have special advantages in competition? Such as having a second or two advantage added in races?
Why not? Shouldn’t it? What’s the difference? You’re basically giving them an A for B work in high school when you consider them for college.
Well, no, it’s not if you are actualloy talking about the topic and the principles at hand instead of semantics.
What is it’s mission?
Do not play this game with me.
I haven’t seen you condemn the killing of puppies, but I’m not going to accuse you of approving of killing puppies for that. Don’t even try this nonsense. I don’t have time.
You’re assuming I approve of using gender, geography, etc. Don’t assume.
Is it based on race or disadvantaged status though? Should it be?
No, they’re based on an opposition to racism.
But diversifying participants is NOT the same thing as trying to remedy past discrimination to correct disadvantages.
Gosh, really? Can I call you all the stupid names you’ve been calling me then? Can I say your commitment to this issue isn’t strong enough, or that you want to preserve white privilege?
Talk is cheap. I know you think you’re smarter than me. You’re not. Drop the attitude and just discuss this.
Bullshit. It’s completely on target.
Sure. Basing discrimination on race is not reasonable. And no, results are not the only issue. Harming people in the process is not justified just to get to desired results (ends don’t justify means).
Of course you do.
But if you disagree, now you’re the one who must explain why we don’t, and more important, why we SHOULDN’T.
I dare you to explain why we should NOT give Olympians from disadvantaged backgrounds a leg up in competition, such as a few extra seconds. You’re the one who thinks you’re so smart, that should be easy. Why would that be wrong, or undesirable, exactly?
Also, I’m still waiting for an answer about AA in congressional elections. Should black candidates get a few free votes added to their total? Or just automatically elected? What?
Please find me two respected people in a relevant field who have conducted peer-reviewed research on the topic who suggest that AA was bad for women.
In way important ways do you think they are different?
Isn’t this thread called: “Let’s Debate Affirmative Action”. So I guess you now only want to talk about AA in the form of quotas (which are generally illegal) at colleges for Black people? Besides, it is your contention that women have not been helped by AA in college admissions?
Now they might, but they didn’t when the program was started. In fact, gender speaking, the pendulum often shifts in the other direction. Men routinely receive preference in admissions. More importantly, those qualifications are affected by the number of obstacles one faces. The disparate “qualifications” are more a result of differing levels of discrimination rather than a difference in ability.
No we haven’t. More importantly, you are assuming those scores are unbiased when they are not.
Did I miss where attending a certain school became a requirement? Or where success in school was primarily a result of being smarter or more capable rather than a host of factors, intrinsic and extrinsic?
This is not borne out by the evidence. The overwhelming reason Black in particular drop out of college is money, not because it was harder than they thought.
So why is your thread about AA and not things that help Black kids as early as possible?
Geez. You really need to bring up this old chestnut. Hasn’t the stupidity of this point been explained several times?
Because vouchers won’t allow kids to attend Powharan School, or Sidwell, or WIS, or any other school like that.
Women are the majority in college today, I believe.
Prove THAT.
If it’s not that important, why argue for these policies in the first place?
I don’t think any of those schools discriminate against blacks. They do, however, require tuition. Seems that if money is the main obstacle to black success, as you said it was for college, you’d support vouchers.
Similar doesn’t mean exactly the same. The Olympics has a hard cap based on country, colleges have “soft caps” based on things like HS, geography, major, race, gender, etc. Once again, if a college did have a hard cap on any of those things, you wouldn’t have a problem with it? And you only would have a problem if one of those things was race? Is this a transparency issue in your mind?
The Olympics are racist now?
You missed the part about understanding what an analogy is huh?
Not really. Most schools evaluate applicants holistically. More directly, those resume things that happen before you get to a school are always subjectively given weight based on a number of factors. An “A” in one place for one student is rarely the same as an “A” for another student in another place. As such, the basis for your complaint is based on a misunderstanding of the system. Admissions people don’t think about it as “A work” and “B work”. Most importantly however, admission is never based solely on those things anyway. Your complaint is like saying applying to Princeton as a Black person is like being from Idaho, if Princeton gets fewer applicants from Idaho.
As to why Blacks aren’t given a leg up once in school, it’s because to do so makes no sense. Admissions preferences are used primarily for 2 reasons: diversity and to correct biased data (eg. scores). Both of those things are less of an issue, and more in the control of a university on their campus rather than off it.
The whole point being that a university generally doesn’t accept anyone who they believe cannot succeed at the school. The corrective measures used in admission wrt race have more to do with more accurately gauging ability, not promoting unqualified people. As such, there is no need to give Blacks an advantage in classes.
Spoken like someone who is careless with words and willfully ignorant to their meanings. Again, please look up analogy.
Depends on the school, but few have, “to educate the highest scoring kids worldwide” in their statement.
The tough guy is back! CAPITAL LETTERS! RESPECT MY AUTHORITY! SMASH!
Do you? And if you don’t, why do you think race gets a disproportionate amount of coverage given that it has less of an affect than many of those other things?
No. Probably not as it is not a relevant criteria in their estimation.
Funny how two things can exist AT THE SAME TIME! :eek::eek::eek:
…and I’m done. Not worth my time debating with someone who just doesn’t understand the issue, how to use analogies, or how to use the English language effectively.
Last post to you…
Hence the reason men are given preference in limited circumstances.
I didn’t say AA wasn’t important. I said no one was REQUIRED to attend a certain school.
I didn’t claim they discriminate against Blacks. Sidwell in particular is pretty good about not doing that. The point was that a voucher will never cover the tuition of a school like that. All it will do is subsidize rich kids and hurt public schools with kids whose parents don’t give a shit.
I just wanted to point out the irony of all these people implying we don’t need things like AA when this thread is right next to another titled:
The many benefits of keeping Muslims out of Europe
Classic!
how about we let voters decide to rate their race as a plus when deciding who to vote for?
“Soft caps” so that they can hide the racism. I mean, the goal is to admit more people based on race.
Of course. The admission policies are racist, but the colleges try to hide that.
No, they are country-ist. Blatantly. And they don’t hide it. Colleges’ affirmative action admission policies are racist. But they try to hide it.
Would you? Why or why not?
I understand just fine.
So they need help to get in, but once they do, they don’t need help not to flunk out? Why?
LOL. You say that with a straight face? No, by definition it’s NOT.
Look, I’m just like you. I’m intelligent, well-educated and experienced. I’m also like you in that I think I’m right and your’ wrong. In fact, I think you’re desperately wrong and I’m stunned I have to even explain my views to you.
But I manage not to insult you or insinuate things or cop an attitude, most of the time. Please try to do the same.
No, it’s not being a tough guy. It’s that I won’t let you get away with such a blatant, craven logical fallacy that’s incredibly unfair too. I’ll call you on it every time. I can’t stop you from embarassing yourself here, but I’m not going to let it go unnoticed.
Gee, thanks for asking instead of assuming.
I don’t approve of those either. And I don’t know the answer to that - you tell me.
Should it be relevant?
Funny how you have to stay on topic. Don’t use one to justify the other.
You’re just too damn smart for me.
But what if they only elect white males? Then the stated goal of electing more blacks and women has failed. So what else should we do? We can’t stop until we have results! Results are all that matters!
Well, there can hardly be a hard cap given that none of the numbers they deal with are hard numbers including total admissions and enrollments. But okay, let’s say I accept that part.
So if the University of Michigan Law School, for example, basically came out and said here is our point system, and here is why how we justify using that, you would not have a problem with it?
How are the two even remotely related?
Do you understand the difference between not discriminating by race (or religion) and discriminating by race (or religion) in an effort to remedy the past effects of discrimination?
Do you understand that AA is NOT the same thing as opposing racism? That one can oppose AA or other race-based policies while strongly opposing racial discrimination? Do you even see who silly it sounds to have to explain that?
Remember, you’re the smart one here, so you should know the difference.
Should we have AA for Muslims in Europe? Admit a certain quota to make up for past discrimination against Muslims in immigration admissions?